You’ve all seen it: “we shouldn’t draft a qb because that wouldn’t immediately fix our offense and that guy still wouldn’t have a wr to throw to or tackle to protect him”

There are two points on this argument that I hope will stop this nonsense once and for all:

1. If your standard for your first round pick is that he has to fix everything right away then you have only one option at draft day: don’t pick any player at all and just give up. No team that is as bad as the Pats right now will ever fix their team with one single rookie, no matter how high you draft him. This would also mean no MHJ and no Joe Alt because they would not fix everything either.

2. You can make the second part of the argument above about literally any position …

“Oh you want to draft a wr? But who is going to throw him the ball?? And who is gonna protect that guy??”

Or “oh you want to draft a tackle? But who is gonna throw the ball and to whom??” … etc. etc.

It really shouldn’t be hard to understand that fixing one of the three major holes on offense inevitably leaves the other two open. But you obviously have to start somewhere, so why not with the one position that’s usually hardest to get and most valuable (if you happen to have such a high pick)?

So does that mean that it’s qb or bust? No, there are (potentially) legitimate arguments for not taking a qb. For example, if you think that the qbs in this class are overrated and MHJ is sure-fire generational then that’s a good reason to go with the latter. Or if you believe that there is not such a huge gap between maye and qbs available later then let’s for one of those later qbs. But pleeeeease for the love of god, don’t use the annoyingly irrational argument described above. Thank you.