ShareThis Page

Deep QB class proves tempting to NFL general managers

| Thursday, May 1, 2014, 9:57 p.m.

Is this the greatest quarterback draft class since 2004? Or a class that might get a half-dozen general managers fired within a few years?

Draft analysts Mike Mayock of NFL Network and Mel Kiper Jr. of ESPN believe there might be a dozen quarterbacks in this draft who could start in the league.

But unlike the '04 trio of Eli Manning, Philip Rivers and Ben Roethlisberger, this class led by Johnny Manziel, Blake Bortles and Teddy Bridgewater is causing as much trepidation as anticipation.

Each has a major upside — Manziel with his intangibles, Bortles with his classic QB stature, Bridgewater with his strong arm. Each seems likely to go in the first round — unlike a year ago, when EJ Manuel of Buffalo was the only QB chosen on Day 1.

But each has major risks, the kind that can sink a career.

There's such quality depth that even the fourth and fifth rounds will yield possible starters, Kiper said. But given that nine of the 14 GMs who took a QB in the first round since 2009 no longer have their jobs, the thosewho take Manziel, Bortles and Bridgewater might go to sleep that night nervous.

Alan Robinson is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. Reach him at or via Twitter @arobinson_Trib.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.