Well I see this point as a penetrating glance into the obvious. You could say the same thing about runningbacks. And probably Wrs too. It may even apply to OLinemen. Come to think about it, it could apply to every single position in the NFL!
My point is that when selecting a QB, there are far more important things than mindless statistics and where the guy was selected. Brady (definitely not to be confused with that fraud from Notre Dame) is the best Qb to have ever played. Better than Joe, Dan, Terry, John or Peyton. He was drafted in the sixth, and although it certainly was a surprise to many, no one can argue with the fact that he was selected in the sixth. It's a fact.
You appear to be suggesting that we draft a Qb in the first because our odds will be better that we will aqcuire a superstar Qb than if we were to take someone else in a later round. I am sugegsting that the odds are very low for any Qb to succeed in the NFL, and that there are enough examples out there to show that draft position has shown to be a poor indicator of success when it comes to QBs, and moreover, if we can draft a position where draft positionis a better indicator of success, then we should do so.
Said differently: Don't waste a ninth pick on a bum (profanity?:hide: ) like Brady (definitely not to be confused with that star in NE).