The Rams are obligated, per due diligence, to posture as long as possible about the uncertainty of the first overall pick. The odds of someone wanting to trade for it are low, but the odds are there anyway. The Rams have nothing to gain if they do not posture and just say who they want to take. Bradford brings several elements outside of his ability/production as a player. He offers hope for the franchise ( Much in the way Matt Ryan did for the wayward Falcons) Bradford can buy Devaney and Spags a couple of years to develop. Taking Suh might not give them those few years. Again, people should look at the Cam Cameron situation and take serious note. People criticize the 49ers for taking Alex Smith and Raiders for taking Doughboy Russell, except Cam Cameron actually took the player he thought was the best available impact draftee. That took guts. And maybe it cost him a year as a head coach ( If he took Brady Quinn, he could sell hope as a consolation prize, that the kid needed a few years to get his legs under him, without a sense of hope at QB, he was dead in the water as a head coach) I'm not saying it's the only reason he got canned, but I think it made a difference. Look at Josh McDaniel. What made him a hot coaching candidate? That he served under a Super Bowl winner with Angry Bill? That he helped to helm one of the most prolific offenses in NFL history? Or was it that he did more than just make something out of something with Brady ( which was expected, which was the baseline demand on him) and gave the appearance that he helped to make something out of nothing ( Matt Cassell, career backup, 7th rounder, didn't start since high school)? What he did with Brady got McDaniel exposure, what he did with Cassell got him respect. You are more likely to take BPA or the best long term prospect if you have a stable franchise, a hands off owner, a good relationship between GM and coach, a system in place, a philosophy of how to run a franchise and win, a long term plan at work. The reason teams get the first pick in the first place is that they probably don't have these things, so what makes you think they will do any better making the right selection for the first pick? As for incremental differences in elite talent, something to consider is the NFL only has 16 games a season. While MLB and the NBA can sort of average things out across the long haul in terms of talent and performance, the NFL does not have that luxury. Games are decided by inches and seconds and one or two plays. The Patriots lost Tom Brady for a year ( arguably lost a full year plus time in the second year to get his groove back) based on one play. Baseball and basketball do not sustain injuries in the same manner, also their players have more time to heal during a season. Colt McCoy might be 1 second slower and throws the ball 10 percent weaker and is worth 200 less yards a season, that's a lot in the NFL. Taking Bradford is as much an internal political decision as it is a talent one. This is why veteran coaches with a ring can demand so much money, they can bring instant credibility to handle a franchise as they see fit without full regard to politics or perception. In the NFL, democracy is wasteful, dictatorship efficient.
Good post that explains the politics of picking. It seems like politics and public relations shouldn't play a factor, but when you consider that a new HC has only one or two years to secure his job and get the team in the playoffs if he wants to keep his job, then you realize that it must be a factor. And I think you are right that having a young, highly touted QB to "develop" buys you an extra year because everyone knows you will be bad that first year and if the young QB shows improvement the second year it isn't hard for fans and the Owner to imagine that the QB and team will take the next step in year 3.
