The quarterback logic has gone around and around so many times that it's making me dizzy.  Some people are on board with a first-round quarterback; some have no interest.  Some people like Ponder; others prefer Kaepernick.  One thing has been established, though, and that's that first-round quarterbacks have a much better track record than quarterbacks taken in any other round.  Or has it?

I understand the logic behind quarterbacks with first-round talent being drafted in the first round.  A player like Blaine Gabbert belongs in the first round, and should follow the same probability pattern as the historical first-round quarterback pattern.  However, what of guys like Andy Dalton and Colin Kaepernick?  I've seen logic used that taking a quarterback in the first round makes that player more likely to succeed than taking him in the second round.  That is a logical fallacy.  It's still the same guy.  If Andy Dalton is a second-round player, taking him in the first round doesn't increase his chances at success.  As my signature says, correlation does not imply causation.

Anyway, my point is that if your objective is to get a first-round quarterback to increase your chances of success, you don't accomplish that in any way by taking a second or lower-round quarterback in the first round; you have to take a quarterback that BELONGS in the first round.  The draft slot has nothing to do with the man; the player does not change based on where he has been selected.  Anyway, something to keep in mind as the draft rolls around.