WSJ: Trading for a Quarterback Doesn't Really Help
 

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/i...0403222105.jpg

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...?mod=djemITP_h

I should start reading this paper. They make a lot of sense.

It's not like drafting QBs is always some great success either.

Chiefs would be a great poster child for that article though.

Yeah, trading for a QB can be a fix. It shouldn't be a trend spanning multiple decades.

Green Bay traded FOR Favre.

And, 16 years later, Green Bay traded Favre.

heh, love this line

It's the true-fan portion of the article.

To be fair, using their methodology, drafting a QB in the first round really doesn't help either. Only 7 out of 48 QBs drafted in the first round since 1994 lead their teams to the playoffs in their first year. Two of those were last year, Luck and RG3, which everyone is saying are once in a generation QBs. Otherwise, '08 is the only other standout year when both Ryan and Flacco led their teams to the playoffs.

Before folks start their bitchfest and give themselves an aneurysm, understand I am only using the apparent methodology used by the article. I'm not saying that first round QBs don't develop into franchise QBs (ie the Mannings); I'm just using the same criteria as the article when they say that trading for a QB doesn't really help. Using their criteria, drafting a QB in the first round doesn't really help either.

How many of those 48 QBs drafted in the 1st round started at least 8 games for their teams during their rookie season?

lets revolutionize the game and play without a QB

trade for tebow?

We've tried that the past 7 years. Doesn't work.

Wow. Water is wet. The QB lottery is part luck, part coaching, part talent, part skill, part intelligence, part having a good defense, etc.............Thanks Wall Street Journal.

WSJ: Trading for a Quarterback Doesn't Really Help
 

Chiefs fans of the last 30 years: Duh

Most of them.

So basically it boils down to the fact that real life is not like Madden?

Shocking...:eek:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Kk-rZsZnrQs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

after four plus seasons of no QB, I'm a firm believer you are an idiot

Since 1994, there have been 25 trades involving quarterbacks who started at least eight games for their new team the following season. Only two led their new teams to the postseason in the first year—Brad Johnson (1999 Redskins) and Steve McNair (2006 Ravens).

LMAO
Go Chiefs.

This is great info and all but the deals been done for a while now so what's the point?

I have not claimed this trade will result in a championship, but instead I believe the Chiefs have been so far removed from pro football reality, this move at least pulls them back into orbit.

I was listening to local radio this morning. They were discussing the Royals and Parkins said the team needs to "put the ball in play" offensively -- to "play small ball" and "get something going".

Imo, that is very much the problem with both franchises in KC.

Billy Martin's Yanks were classic small ballers that got it going, then got the big guns cleaning it up (Reggie J). Same with the Reds. Same with the Curt Flood Cards...

In football, Montana and his WR's would chew you up underneath with quick outs & slants. Eventually, they got your defense so crossed up, they hit some big ones and you were toast.

I don't understand why these franchises don't know how to win, but to me the lacking value in starting small is at the center of it.

So is better trade for a Guard? How about a LB deal? Or CB? (how many Super Bowls have Denver won since they traded for Champ anyway?)

But guys, Eli Manning was traded

also, imo wins this season depend more on the core players of this chiefs team. DJ, Hali, Flowers, Berry, Bowe, Jamaal -- these players need to bring a lunch to work.

Montana didn't get it done here.

Yeah because those guys all sucked last year.

when it comes to QBs, be it draft or FA, the Chiefs have proven over and over and over, to be completely reeruned in their evaluation.

The days of tossing in a scrub QB/game manager and thinking you have any chance at the Super Bowl are gone. A team is just spinning its wheels otherwise.

Defense doesn't win championships; offense does.

Teams win Super Bowls. Not QBs..
Just ask Tom Brady (and Gisele)

These guys say hi.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...Ei8LXfteOA9gcg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-86dvaeHl8S...1600/image.jpg

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...dmIscdkrwBYYhQ

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tcu9uirAvM...John+Elway.jpg

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images...jpg?1273154694

And these QB's were traded from the teams that drafted them originally and then went on to have success.

http://www.profootballhof.com/assets...on_180-220.jpg

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images...jpg?1285405559

And there are other QB's like Fran Tarkenton and Bobby Lane who were also traded and had success, not to mention Phillip Rivers, even though he hasn't won a SB, but I'm just too lazy to put them up.

Yes lets find a way too keep defending the regurgitation of traded QB's to KC!/dumbass true fan
Posted via Mobile Device

At least we know where "RunKC" is running: to the desert. To bury his head.

"since 1994"....

mods should change his name to "Trusting The Process".
Posted via Mobile Device

it must be cool to live in a on/off conditional world. not.

LOL, an article gets debunked and the skeptics are are the dumbasses....

Those guys have all played pretty well for the duration of their careers.

Alex Smith has not.

If this team sucks it will be because of Alex Smith.

The difference is that Kolb, Palmer and Flynn were acquired for very little consideration surrendered. So, even if they prove to be useless, it cost the team nothing but salary.

With the Chiefs, we gave up the equivalent of a low first round pick. So, Alex failure will have double the sting (as well as a triple sting in passing up drafting a good QB as well potentially).

Idk how you can speak to people when Geno's sweet dick is rammed down your throat at all times.

How is a 2nd round pick equivalent of a low 1st round pick? By it's very definition it is a pick in the 2nd round not the first. High second rounder does not equal 1st rounder.

Bowe had 3 TD's last year. Hali was mediocre at best. I could go on but I keep in mind what a ****ing homer you are. shut it.

Keep doubting Matt Flynn!

And neither of them were the reason we went 2-14.

You are obtuse, and probably trolling.

I stopped reading at Jay Cutler and Schaub being "upper echelon" QBs. Both suck.

you ****ing idiot. this is the ultimate team sport. sport.

Those bad trades say a lot more about the teams than they do about the strategy of trading for a QB.

So you are saying to use Tebow?

Colin Kline will do.

People who keep saying this must have the "equivalent" of a high school education.

Brad Johnson was traded to the Buccs right? Well there you go! TO DA SHIP

Well the whole idea of trading for a VET is that they are supposed to be already developed and allow you to win NOW. Rookies always need to be developed to one extent or another.

Most of those guys were traded before any significant playing time. Gannon is the only QB I can think of (in modern times) to have significant success after losing his job elsewhere. Alex Smith has years of mediocre play on his resume and lost his job. It is incredibly unlikely that he will all-of-a-sudden become the franchise QB that we all want.

Drew Brees...

I guess we would have to define "significant playing time". IIRC, Brees played only a few seasons in San Diego and then got hurt. Brees didn't bust, the Chargers gave up on him too early and I'm guessing they would do that differently if they had the chance.

Yeah - but your point is still valid. Brees, like Gannon, is the exception.

I guess a question could be when was the last time a QB was benched and then traded when he was leading the league in QB rating? When was the last time a QB who had put up a 97 rating in his last 30 games traded period?

I'm not in love with Alex Smith but this situation is a little unusual. I don't hate Alex either it's not his fault he was traded but at this point I'm going to root for the guy.

Logic Fail by the article.

If trading for a qb has more failures than successes then teams shouldn't trade for QBs.

Let's follow the logic to drafting.

If drafting for a qb has more failures than successes then teams shouldn't draft QBs.

Yeah...that works.


By the way, Brett Farve wasn't drafted by Green Bay...and Steve Young was with the Bucs before the 9ers. You don't do these things because they always work...you do it because there's a chance.

This.

Wasn't traded. Therefore isn't a part of this discussion.

Did Brett Favre play 7-8 seasons with the Falcons before being traded? No.

How about Steve Young with the Bucs? Oh....he didn't?

I don't believe that was the criteria.

The one huge difference here is the ability of a HC/GM to EVALUATE TALENT.

The guy that traded for Young also drafted well.

The guy that traded for Favre also drafted well.

IT ALL FALLS ON THE ABILITY OF THE FRANCHISE TO EVALUATE TALNET...

Nhu-u you have to take a shot and play the odds so you can at least say you tried!

I'm guilty of that...fair 'nuff...

I eally didn't mean you. I thought the bolded part of waht you posted was dead on. It's all about getting the evaluations right and getting those players or player/QB in this case.

I'm sick of peole posting the logic for us to draft a QB. It's beyond redundant and besides that posting about here is like singing to the choir.

We do it because guys like Black Bob happen.

And this guy:

You are gay.

FYI - Rich Gannon was brought up. Therefore it became part of the discussion. Capisce?

I just hope this regime is quick to cut ties when this turd proves his stink. Outside of that what's done is done. Well that and draft one one later this month. ;)