It's not the straight up 'if the QB's there, do you take him' question, it's this let everything fall apart, don't worry about the rest of the team, tear everything to shreds and lose out because a top QB will fix everything.
First off, an elite QB is a gamble, but that's not the point. It's a point, but not THE point.
Even when the gamble pays off, an elite QB still needs a good team around him. As many franchise QBs went bust because the rest of the team sucked [see, Carr] as the ones who did because the QB was a plain bust.
Even the best of them [Elway, Manning] toiled in desperation until all the pieces were in place.
An elite QB can be the key to ultimate success, but none of them are worth shit until a complete team, with a running game, O-line, and Defense to free them up to work their magic.
You can say, get the QB, then build the team, but that runs the risk of the QB being irreparably broken before the team is even assembled [Carr, Leaf, Croyle, Palmer, George, etc.].

That's not a very strong list to make your case.

1. George was a headcase. The talent around him had nothing to do with his failings. When he wanted to put forth the effort, he was a VERY good QB.
2. I'd be happy to take Palmer from the Beagles. Right now. In fact, I'll throw in Herm as a "trade."
3. The rest of those guys were frauds. Sometimes there are busts.
4. You just didn't list ****ing Croyle, did you? No, couldn't have been. That ****er's name should NEVER EVER come up in a discussion of franchise QB's.

No one is saying seek a QB and ignore the rest of the team. This would be as stupid as not trying everything to get the QB in the first place.

I'm not saying Croyle was or wasn't, or was or wasn't going to be, elite, he's a recent and close example of a guy who was broken before we found out shit.

And yes, there are a number of people who don't give a shit about the rest of the team, whether they win, whether they learn how to win, whether they stick around, whether they're all completely replaced, so long as we lose every game and get whomever is the top prospect at QB.

Croyle was broken before he was ever drafted by the Chiefs, so we were never going to learn anything else. This wasn't the supporting cast's fault.

Those people want us to lose to have a crack at a top QB. You're talking about something completely different. If we draft a QB with the #2 overall pick, I can't imagine there will be a dumbass in all of Chiefs fandom NOT wanting to give this player every possible resource so that he can be successful.

I should also add, that the continued existence of Dick Curl weighs heavily in my calculus at this point in time.

Yeah, I'm not opposing the 'if he's there and he measures up, pull the trigger' crowd, I'm opposing the 'the elite QB is the only thing we need to focus on' crowd.

"bust-proof QB"

that is a true fan coinage

how on earth can someone have actually watched Stafford play and call him "very inconsistent?"

if he is "very inconsistent" than no QB is good enough...that is almost as good as the poster who claimed Stafford "hadn't done a single impressive thing"....man....

"POS like Sanchez"? WTF?

After reading through the thread starter's post, I believe have met the number one sufferer of TFS...................Herman Edwards.

That.

No the 100th power, and NO again after that.

Do you find self-appointed "Professors" of Chiefs Football who make symptom lists with at least half of the items on said list being perfectly reasonable for a football team, to be a combination of annoying douchebag, know-it all who clearly DOESN'T know it all, and a prime candidate for State Sterilization?
:Poke:

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/n...rr/say-yes.jpg

Do you suffer from MSMLS (Matthew Stafford Man-Love Syndrome)?

If so, I can't help.

I love the fact that you have to invent an argument for it to gain any traction. No one who is the proponent of a franchise QB has said that you don't need anything else. Rather, they've said that it is the most important part of a team that is a consistent winner.

Why is it that the Bucs and Ravens defenses, even at their peak, were basically on one year, off the next, and yet teams like the Colts and Pats, have been SB contenders every year?

People forget that the 86 Bears D was even better than the 85 Bears D, but they got much worse performance out of their O, and thus were bounced rather than being a dominant team.

Everyone I've seen on this board who advocates the importance of a franchise QB has also stated that Left Tackle, RDE, MLB, WR, and DT are all positions of paramount importance, so for you to claim that they haven't is just a flat out ****ing lie.

#1 rule of the draft: If you don't have a franchise QB and one is there in the draft, you take him every time.

How, in any way does that equate to "Draft nothing but franchise QBs or pay attention to nothing else"?

sadly many people on this board do.

So who is a better QB this year? You keep saying its not Stafford so who is.

Is Stafford the only QBOTF in this years draft?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IhJQp-q1Y1s&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IhJQp-q1Y1s&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I don't know what this itches I have... here, look at it for me, it's just below my sig line...

What do you see, anything strange?

I don't know what the deal is, but I get these feelings. I guess you would say it isn't bad, but it definitely isn't good, it's just kind of, well, ok I guess.

And can someone tell me why, when I eat a bratwurst, my hand instinctively raises up below the bun in a cupping-like fashion?

Can one be both a sufferer and a host cause?

Who the **** said that?!:#

That Buster Hymen dude....

This thread turned funny we got 1 guy calling Sanchez a POS and another guy lumping Carson Palmer in with busts and Brodie Croyle, what in the blue hell is going on here?

Who in the merry, happy hell on THIS board( myself included )is qualified to call; "Sure Thing"?!?

If you want to look at a QB and say, "I like the system he works in, his( insert plethora of QB traits here )works for me, and I think he'd be a great fit for the Chiefs", that's fine.

But pimp your QB all day and night if it makes you happy, the bottom line is; YOU DON'T KNOW.

The odds based on data may be greater for one guy than another, but make no mistake; YOU...ARE...GAMBLING.

These are obvious and practical points, but sometimes the basics need to be heard and remembered now and then.

That said, if Stafford is available; you take him. You take him because he has the skill-set necessary to adapt to anything Gailey want's to throw at him.
But if he's not, you let it the **** go, because unless Mark Sanchez declares; there's no one else in this Class worth consideration.
If the Chiefs draft another Spread-Monkey, the person making that call deserves to have a football crammed so far up his ass that he'll never walk upright again.

Yeah, well **** 'Buster Hymen' because he/she/it doesn't do their homework and it shows.

Hey "Hymen"; **** YOU!:cuss:

I think most of this board suffers from a case of "We don't want the top rated QB, or any QB in the first round, for that matter."

I wish I was around when Palmer and Manning were drafted so that I could have seen all the people bash those selections about what epic busts they were going to be and how much those franchises overvalued their QBs.

DCS is silly and he's ignorant, but he's got guts and guts is enough.

FYP.

Remember; though you may know a lot, you don't know everything. No one here( myself included )does.

It's a move quote, son. If you knew everything, you'd know that.

What movie?

Full Metal Jacket.

No wonder; it's been yeeeeeears since I've seen that.

Figured you would after you assembled that army of strawmen in the topic header.

I have a better question, why are you lumping Carson Palmer with busts and Brodie Croyle?

Because there's no difference between just short of the SB and 0-16.
All that is short of SB victory is fungible failure.

palmer left college with a less than 60% completion percentage, and a 1.5/1 td/int ratio for his career...

and his QB rating his junior year is worse than Staffords....


the same true fan idiots would have torn him apart and claimed that he "regularly" made mistakes and we can't draft him....

What happened to "watch the games, and don't rely on the box score?"

DID YOU EVEN SEE PALMER PLAY!!??!111one!!!

You're a goddamn walking contradiction.

yeah, i watched him play

it was obvious he was a pro QB, just like it is with Stafford

but according to the standard set by you true fans, and articulated on this board, Palmer wasn't good enough....

Just to correct something - OTW58 has been on record for saying he should draft Sanchez, that isnt true fanish. Feel free to carry on.

Nah, he's ignoring it.

Two different posts by two different people claiming exactly that, but no response.

****ing coward.

Once again, completely unable to offer any semblance of a refutation.

I'll put my 'distortion' of how much you are willing to ignore, shortchange or destroy in the quest for a franchise QB up against the litany of BS you attribute to true fans [praying for 8-8, living for a wild card game, ache for a stellar kicking game, etc.] all day long.

FFS, even you are aware of FOS you are, arguing that TFs want 'guards or right tackles' as top 5ers, when you know the longstanding argument is about the importance of a left tackle.

Nobody wants lower picks to save the owner money, no one thinks all the talent is in the Big XII, no one advocates building through FA even a lot, let alone mostly or exclusively. And on and on.

Apparently, you've never even read this board. There have been numerous posters, just this year, who have said that we can draft a RT with a top five pick.

There have also been posters who have argued that we should always trade out of the top five due to the cap, and you see posters every day saying

"Chiefs should sign Peppers, Suggs, and Dansby to fix the D".

We'll further augment that with the litany of people who've said that Chase Daniel should be picked in the second round by the Chiefs, that Graham Harrell and Colt McCoy will be great pro quarterbacks, that Phil Loadholt is a can't miss tackle, and yeah, we never hear that.

Obviously you were absent the day that satire was discussed, so we'll just continue with your Donger-esque reading of the OP, completely ignorant of the fact that although TIC and somewhat over the top, that within any satire are contained several grains of truth.

How did you forget Haynesworth?

Dammit.

Clearly, I"ve overreacting to the desire of some fans to sign any and every FA.

LMAO

Honestly, I'm shocked I didn't see you post in that abortion of a thread.

I fully expected at least a DIAF.

OIC, the perpetual pissed off motherf@cker was just joking around.

LAWL...no, I'm not joking around, I'm satirizing the True Fan, because there is an element of truth in every one of those statements in the OP.

Again, spin, spin away. By the way, hell of a game by your desired QB last night. He managed the **** out of that game. Meanwhile, the Colts' LVP tossed for 360 yards and 3 "Tubs".

I also love the fact that I'm the one who's perpetually pissed off. ROFL, as though you don't call UP or Mecca "cvnts" every time you get in a disagreement with them

LMAO

You have the sandiest vag of anyone on this board.

I loved that game last night, the only way the Colts were going to cover was a pick 6, and it happened!

Well, other than facts.

I love you like a brother, Hamas. Like Corky's big sister on that "Life Goes On" show loved Corky. I want you to learn and thrive and become a productive member of society, and I'm here to help you.

Yeah, Sanders' block on the int return really saved their bacon. ;)

And FTR, I've never said Garrard is my 'desired' QB. They had something really working last year, now they don't. Haven't paid enough attention to them to dissect what.

Also, FTR, there's not a scintilla of truth in 90% of those in the topic header

Do you lie awake at nights dreaming of 8-8, or 9-7? - No, next

Do you judge a season as a success by a Wild Card birth? - No, next

Do you believe that defenses and running games are more important than franchise QBs? - Yes overall, franchise QBs without a defense or running game are failed franchise QBs, stout defenses and running games have infinately more options [a QB who grows into a franchise role, a FA QB who puts them over the top, the solid mistake free but not otustanding QB, etc]

Do you hate wide receivers? - No, unless you turn into a must have WR franchise like the Vikes in the 90s and the Raiders and Lions of late

Do you love coaches with a complete inability to spot talent at the running back position? - No, next

Do you think that 3-13 is better for the long term future of the franchise than 2-14? - I think in each case it's more important that the team grow, if they're strong enough to shrug off a loss and have it harden them against losing in the future great, if losing busts their confidence, not so good

Do you think the 2002 Bucs and 2000 Ravens are model NFL teams to aspire to? - one should never model onself after SB champions, particularly ones that to perform at a high level before and after the SB

Do you find playoff records to be irrelevant? - No, next

Do you believe that guards and right tackles should be taken with top five picks? - I'm not even replying to this

Do you believe that a quarterback is best served as a game manager? - the best QBs, elite, franchise, or otherwise, are the ones who are students of the game and understand better than everyone else what's going on. From Phil Simms to Peyton Manning to Troy Aikman, all were game managers, some were more able than others when it came to execution

Do you believe that every 3rd Down play should either be a screen or a draw? - No, next

Do you believe kicker is the most important position on the offense? - No, next

Do you believe that all of the best prospects reside in the Big XII? - No, next

Do you believe in trading down in any situation during the draft? - sure there are situations, their merits vary as widely as there are situations

Do you believe that a team is better served picking 20 rather than 5 because they don't have to pay the player as much? - No, next

Do you believe that the only way to be a winning team is to throw money at the most expensive Free Agents every year, regardless of need? - No, next

Do you judge QBOTF by their box scores? - No, next

Do you think that risk is scary, and therefore, wish to draft last in every round to avoid the perception of failure? - No, next

Do you think that Marty and Bill Cowher are the only two coaches left on the planet? - No, next

Do you think that Gunther was once a great coordinator? - Gun once had the right approach to the great talent he had. He presently doesn't have that talent, or the best approach for what talent he has. Further, I strongly believe that the coaches on defenses have failed badly in preparing our talent to compete, no way Dorsey's as bad as he looks right now and that's just one of the more glaring examples

Do you think that reaction is safer than action? - Hell No, next

Do you think every other team that actually drafted a QBOTF just 'got lucky' and that it could never happen to us? - I think those who drafted a QBOTF because they recognized greatness were the ones who panned out, and those who drafted a QBOTF because that's what they had to do to get better usually ended up regretting it.
In return, do you think the braintrust in Indy would've [or should've, based on their assessment at the time] drafted Leaf if they hadn't been in position to get Manning?

Is your name [alias of claythan and hootie]? - No, next

Do you prefer tailgating to Championships? - No, next

Do you fear the unknown? - No, next

Do you believe that 'being close in the 4th quarter' is the objective of an offense? - No, being close in the 4th is the concern of the defense, if necessary

Do you believe that the run sets up the pass? - both can set the other, though the run is the more reliable way to set things up

Do you believe that Stafford "has done nothing worth mentioning" in college? - No, next

Do you think QBs don't need to know how to play from under the center, and that learning 5 and 7 step drops is irrelevant because once Thigpen completed a 7 yard pass to a hall of fame tight end in quadruple coverage? - that's just stupid

So, despite the fact that Marty is your coaching infatuation, you find years with wild card births to be failures, you overlook the fact that he has no ability to spot RB talent, that playoff success is relevant.

That's hilariously ironic.

I also enjoy the fact that none of the teams who drafted QBs because they needed them worked out. Hate to point this out to you, but that's precisely why the Petyon and Eli Mannings and Elways of the world were drafted by those teams, and precisely why teams like the Giants gave up two firsts, a third, and a fifth for Eli.

I'd also like to point out that the 2002 Bucs and 2000 Ravens have been to exactly 0 Super Bowls since their victories, 0 Conference Championships since their victories, the Bucs have had losing seasons in 3/6 years despite fielding a great defense near that entire time.

Tampa's record in the playoffs since 2002: 0-2
Baltimore's record in the playoffs since 2000: 1-2

Awesome franchises to model oneself after.

Sorry, I go for the Colts and Pats, or the 9ers and Cowboys of yesteryear...the teams that you know, had threats at the quarterback position.

Funny how once the 9ers lost Young and the Cowboys lost Aikman that neither team has done anything of note since, eh?

I'd also like to know why people claim they don't consider Wild Card berths a success yet they clamor for the 1990's.

I must admit that I'm confused about the debate now. Back when the debate began, it was "do you want to lose as many games as possible to get a higher draft pick?" and "do you trade all of your players with value to stockpile draft picks"? Now it seems to be about the value of quarterbacks. I think we all agree that a franchise quarterback is a valuable thing. At least I think we all do, so that's a boring topic.

The first topic above is somewhat interesting, if only in the fact that there's disagreement. The second question has already been answered, and statistics say the answer is no.

By the time they were rid of Aikman, the 'boys hadn't done anything of note for 5 years WITH him, and Harper and Irvin had been replaced by Galloway and Ismael, and the O-line had aged and retired [like a certain KC team of the mid 00s].

The 49ers fell apart from stem to stern when Young left, Debartolo was in criminal trouble, they were in cap hell, their D was giving up 40 points a game and they were starting a rookie QB. Their problems post-Young are far beyond a reflection of the importance of a QB.

Seriously, if you're gonna throw out 'the root of the 49ers problem is the loss of their Franchise QB,' you lost your license to dozens anyone for their FB takes.

FWIW, Alvin Harper left after 92 to go to Tampa, so he really wasn't a factor in that dynasty at all. Joey Galloway was a much better WR than Alvin Harper ever was.

Those 9er teams were still competitive even into the late 90's with Young, to the point of going 12-4 and winning a playoff game the year before, with the 23rd ranked D. The "rookie" QB they were starting the next year was a 29 year old who had played for several years in the CFL. He wasn't straight out of SJST.

Again, you are conflating QBs with all the reason. It's not that QB is the entire reason for a team's success or failure, but it is the primary differentiating factor between continued competitiveness at the SB level, and the one and done's of so many others.

Marty's Chief teams were always paper tigers. They were far better in the Standings than they were in the playoffs. It happened time and time again. One of the main reasons is that although the teams were coached very well, and they consistently beat the trash of the league, they never had the quarterback to make plays when it had to be done in the playoffs.

A franchise QB leads them to a win in '97 against Denver and doesn't forget what down it is or how much time there is on the clock. A franchise QB doesn't throw three picks and get pulled and make them have to settle for a 40+ yard field goal in 0 degree weather with a bitch of a wind.

And yet, after all this time, people still think that the game manager mold and copying the 1990's is the path to success. It didn't work then and it definitely won't work now.

And you're conflating their lack of success after losing a long term franchise QB with said loss of QB, teams generally blow everything up when a long time leader leaves, the 9ers spectacularly so with their cap and legal problems on the heels of the ascendency of the Rams, and later Seahawks, in their division.
And Harper was on BOTH of their SB teams, and they haven't won a playoff game since he left. Further, it still stands, they didn't win a playoff game for 5 years WITH Aikman and without Harper, not that he's the lynchpin, but that Aikman's not the lynchpin you think he is.

If anything, Aikman is a very successful version of the manager QB you deride, stay cool, ride the running game, stick to the script and don't take a ton of sacks or make a ton of INTs, a formula that was perfected by Simms.

Did you really just place more value on a number 2 WR who just ran fly patterns than on the teams HOF QB....that's bright.

There were 3 SB teams. The Cowboys won in 1996 with Irvin and Kevin Williams at WR and Aikman at QB for all 3.

Harper did leave after the 2nd SB win in 94 though.

That's pretty much NOT what I did, pretty explicitly.
Starting to understand why you are the way you are.

You are doing exactly what I talked about in another thread. You think Aikman was a game manager because of his stats, when he clearly wasn't.

If fantasy football had been prevalent in those days people would have constantly bitched about how Aikman doesn't put up big stats.

I think that because I watched the games. Great lines, great run game production. And QB play marked by execution and lack of mistakes, rather than gunslinging and cockiness. See, you hate the term game manager, because you think it's enexorably a bad thing. I'm not dissing him, I'm putting him in his proper perspective, an effective part of a great TEAM, doing his job.

Only on Chiefsplanet is there someone who believes Troy Aikman wasn't a franchise player.

I never understood the Aikman love. Aikman was a fine quarterback, but as a fan were you scared of Aikman? I sure wasn't. I was scared of Marino. I was scared of Montana. I was scared of Randall Cunningham. Aikman handed off really well behind a stellar offensive line and was a good quarterback in the passing game. Not a great quarterback.

Don't confuse that with saying I wouldn't have wanted him on our team. There's nothing wrong with Troy Aikman. But he was the driver of a pretty fast car in Dallas.

Aikman was so much much more than a game manager, and part of their decline was attributed to the continual concussions that he received and the debut of the Troy Aikman face.

If you put Troy Aikman on the '97 Chiefs they win the Super Bowl, and the '95 Chiefs would get to the Super Bowl. They had the quintessential game manager QBs and we saw what it got them.

Faites vous parlez l'anglais?

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with a game manager, and he was great at that. I view a "game manager" in the same way. They don't make mistakes, and they help their team win. Nothing wrong with that. They just need a better team around them than a franchise quarterback does.

He seemed to do a pretty good job whipping our ass on Thanksgiving in 1995. Meanwhile, and I remember this from tape, while NBC (perhaps Bob Trumpy) was pimping Marty talking about how the Chiefs were deeper 1-53 than Dallas, the playmakers on the Cowboys absolutely eviscerated the "depth" of the Chiefs.

See now, you must realize how much you're flailing, espousing two SHITTY SHITTY game managers as the quintessential game managing QB.


That's about like saying that American cars suck because the Pinto was the best car they ever made and it sucked.

If Troy Aikman was a game manager that did nothing but hand off his #1 WR wouldn't be in the HOF now would he...

A 24-12 road loss is an ass whupping?

I'd love to know why some still devalue the most important position on the field.

America's team and some Super Bowl rings will get you a long way. Pretty much any quarterback with a couple of Super Bowl rings will get in, especially if he's a Cowboy.

Again, Aikman was a fine quarterback. I personally don't think he's a Hall of Famer, but he's better than what most of the league puts out there.

It's hard to value something you've never had I guess.

Perhaps NONE can value it as much as you and Hamas the Jokeman Jenkins.


http://i.xanga.com/Forever_Lord_of_t...the%20Ring.jpg

You are sitting here trying to tell us Troy Aikman really wasn't all that, you lumped him in with Alvin Harper for christ sake.

While this debate shouldn't center on one game, I'll note that the Cowboys had 175 net passing yards (192 gross), and the Chiefs had 11 penalties. Aikman had a good completion percentage, but one-third of his yards came on two plays. Dallas ran more than they passed.

http://www.pro-football-reference.co...9511230dal.htm

Sadly, maybe so. But I think neither of us has had one.

Jesus, just STOP!! Go back, read slowly and carefully. Sound it out if you have to, have someone read it for you. Something!!!

Absolute evisceration!!!!

Well them's the stakes when failball meets The Precious.

Has anyone here seen 2 QB's, 1 cup? I'm surprised that the director got Stafford and Bradford to do this.

Well, if you'd stop dreaming of 8-8, beating your kicker's meat, and drawing up sweet third down draw plays . . .