ON A COUPLE of different occasions this offseason, Howie Roseman has said that a looming spike in demand for quarterbacks factored into the Eagles' conversations as they decided whether to pay the price the Browns were asking in exchange for the No. 2 pick, which the Eagles needed to draft the quarterback they desired.
The line of argument goes something like this: In addition to the usual uncertainty that a handful of teams face at quarterback, a slew of longtime fixtures at the position are in the stage of their careers where any season could be their last. Tom Brady, Drew Brees and Tony Romo are battling age and/or injury, while Eli Manning and Philip Rivers are entering their 35-year-old seasons and Ben Roethlisberger will play at 34. For 12 years, none of those teams has had a thought of looking for a franchise quarterback. With all of them potentially looking in the near future, it made sense for the Eagles to pull the trigger now, rather than try to compete in a saturated marketplace two or three years down the road.
Roseman never has said the future marketplace was a primary factor, but he cited it more than once, including Monday, in an interview with 97.5-FM, when he said that the Eagles "looked at the landscape of our division, this league, and said, how many teams are we going to be competing against for a quarterback if we don't get one this year, if we don't get one next year? I mean, you guys can do it, take the time to just look at it. Look at our division. Eli Manning is 35, Romo is 36. Kirk Cousins is on a one-year deal.
"Look at the final four teams last year. (Denver) went and drafted (Paxton) Lynch. Carson Palmer (will be) 37. Brady (will be) 39. We're just picking eight teams right there. When we looked at this, we said, holy cow, there might be 15 or 16 teams over the next two years that need a quarterback. As we look at it now, a lot will change, where are they getting them from? For us, it made too much sense for us to not do this."
The question I was curious about: Is he correct?
Not with regard to his conclusion, though I'm skeptical there, too. (Think about it: most drafts are lucky to have one or two guys who pan out . . . is it really any harder to be one of 15 teams vying for that commodity instead of one of 10?). I was more curious about the premise. Do the next three or four years really figure to be any different from any other time teams have attempted to find a franchise quarterback?
The line of argument goes something like this: In addition to the usual uncertainty that a handful of teams face at quarterback, a slew of longtime fixtures at the position are in the stage of their careers where any season could be their last. Tom Brady, Drew Brees and Tony Romo are battling age and/or injury, while Eli Manning and Philip Rivers are entering their 35-year-old seasons and Ben Roethlisberger will play at 34. For 12 years, none of those teams has had a thought of looking for a franchise quarterback. With all of them potentially looking in the near future, it made sense for the Eagles to pull the trigger now, rather than try to compete in a saturated marketplace two or three years down the road.
Roseman never has said the future marketplace was a primary factor, but he cited it more than once, including Monday, in an interview with 97.5-FM, when he said that the Eagles "looked at the landscape of our division, this league, and said, how many teams are we going to be competing against for a quarterback if we don't get one this year, if we don't get one next year? I mean, you guys can do it, take the time to just look at it. Look at our division. Eli Manning is 35, Romo is 36. Kirk Cousins is on a one-year deal.
"Look at the final four teams last year. (Denver) went and drafted (Paxton) Lynch. Carson Palmer (will be) 37. Brady (will be) 39. We're just picking eight teams right there. When we looked at this, we said, holy cow, there might be 15 or 16 teams over the next two years that need a quarterback. As we look at it now, a lot will change, where are they getting them from? For us, it made too much sense for us to not do this."
The question I was curious about: Is he correct?
Not with regard to his conclusion, though I'm skeptical there, too. (Think about it: most drafts are lucky to have one or two guys who pan out . . . is it really any harder to be one of 15 teams vying for that commodity instead of one of 10?). I was more curious about the premise. Do the next three or four years really figure to be any different from any other time teams have attempted to find a franchise quarterback?
