CMU QB Dan LeFevour says he has had in-depth talks w/ Chiefs

[tooge]

Dane, I actually agree that having a franchise QB is very important. I also agree that it is the most important position on the field. I was simply taking your own argument back to you. If you are gonna use numbers, then your argument that QB in the firt round is a good risk is flawed. The percentages bare it out. I mean cmon, Montana and Brady have accounted for What 6 out of the last 30 superbowls. Thats 20 percent of superbowls by guys drafted in the third round or later. I was simply supporting the guy you bashed earlier with your "stats" which are flawed. Unless you change the NFL record books, you aing gonna win this one.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Gimme a break.

The bottom line is that if you want to win a Super Bowl in this day and age, you're far more likely to do so with a QB taken in the first round of the NFL Draft.

This isn't the 50's. Or the 60's. Or the 70's. Or even the 90's.

There are dozens of scouting websites and services. NFL teams employee five to eight or more scouts to cover the country (making that number at about 200 or so). Games are broadcast every single week in every market. The likelihood of teams missing on true, first rate, franchise QB's is minimal.

Hell, look at this year for example. Mark Sanchez took his team to the AFC Championship and was leading at one point in that game over Peyton Manning!

It's extremely unlikely that a player of that caliber slips because everyone in the NFL knows that the QB position is the most important position today.

Bar none.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by tooge

Dane, I actually agree that having a franchise QB is very important. I also agree that it is the most important position on the field. I was simply taking your own argument back to you. If you are gonna use numbers, then your argument that QB in the firt round is a good risk is flawed. The percentages bare it out. I mean cmon, Montana and Brady have accounted for What 6 out of the last 30 superbowls. Thats 20 percent of superbowls by guys drafted in the third round or later. I was simply supporting the guy you bashed earlier with your "stats" which are flawed. Unless you change the NFL record books, you aing gonna win this one.

Nearly every team missed on Tom Brady six times but the Patriots. Go back and look at pictures and film of him at the Combines. He looks like a doughy little boy, not a franchise QB. You're talking about a once in a generation miss, not something that happens each and every year.

Rothlisberger and Manning were taken in 2004 and both have won Super Bowls. Rivers and Sanchez have both been to the AFC Championship game, as has Flacco. These guys aren't fifth or sixth rounders, they're first rounders.

THAT'S what it takes in today's NFL.

As for Montana, that was more than 30 years ago and everyone knows that if there was a do over draft in any year, Brady & Montana would go number one overall in their respective years.

[aturnis]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Nearly every team missed on Tom Brady six times but the Patriots. Go back and look at pictures and film of him at the Combines. He looks like a doughy little boy, not a franchise QB. You're talking about a once in a generation miss, not something that happens each and every year.

Rothlisberger and Manning were taken in 2004 and both have won Super Bowls. Rivers and Sanchez have both been to the AFC Championship game, as has Flacco. These guys aren't fifth or sixth rounders, they're first rounders.

THAT'S what it takes in today's NFL.

As for Montana, that was more than 30 years ago and everyone knows that if there was a do over draft in any year, Brady & Montana would go number one overall in their respective years.

Most all of those teams had a healthy base built around the team and the QB was one of the later pieces added to the puzzle. Why waste valuable years of a QB's play with a mediocre team that will go nowhere? Get your team competitive first then add the positions that add an immediate impact.

Everyone wants a playmaker, and criticized the organization for taking d-lineman. The guys who take about 3 yrs. to develop. If you didn't have these guys, and the need for them was the only thing holding your team back, you'd draft one and have to wait. Wasting players prime years, contracts(both length and money) and health. A lot can happen over 3 yrs.

If a well rounded, 1st round QB can make a difference in yr. 1, get him when your team is on the cusp. Build your base first. The guys who take time to develop. I know it takes time for the QB to be developed, but a recent trend shows that if you get a good one, maybe not. The guy may not be a world beater at QB, but as long as he can at least be a yr. 1 game manager, he can learn on the fly and you have years of productivity ahead of you. Otherwise you could do like all the shitty teams at the top of the draft over the years have done. Draft a guy with unlimited potential, and drown him in a pool of talentless teammates like the Lions.

A playmaker would make this team better now, and everyone would love it, but it won't really mean anything at all until there's a good base in place. Can't build on a shotty foundation. That is why the experts and coaches prefer to build from the front to back. A lot of guys don't like the unsexy picks in the trenches, but a team ain't shit without 'em. Not saying a o-lineman in the first round. You can get 'em in the 5th round if they can play, just get 'em first. Worry about the accessories later.




That oughta piss Dane off PLENTY!







**** you Dane!

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by aturnis

Most all of those teams had a healthy base built around the team and the QB was one of the later pieces added to the puzzle. Why waste valuable years of a QB's play with a mediocre team that will go nowhere? Get your team competitive first then add the positions that add an immediate impact.

Everyone wants a playmaker, and criticized the organization for taking d-lineman. The guys who take about 3 yrs. to develop. If you didn't have these guys, and the need for them was the only thing holding your team back, you'd draft one and have to wait. Wasting players prime years, contracts(both length and money) and health. A lot can happen over 3 yrs.

If a well rounded, 1st round QB can make a difference in yr. 1, get him when your team is on the cusp. Build your base first. The guys who take time to develop. I know it takes time for the QB to be developed, but a recent trend shows that if you get a good one, maybe not. The guy may not be a world beater at QB, but as long as he can at least be a yr. 1 game manager, he can learn on the fly and you have years of productivity ahead of you. Otherwise you could do like all the shitty teams at the top of the draft over the years have done. Draft a guy with unlimited potential, and drown him in a pool of talentless teammates like the Lions.

A playmaker would make this team better now, and everyone would love it, but it won't really mean anything at all until there's a good base in place. Can't build on a shotty foundation. That is why the experts and coaches prefer to build from the front to back. A lot of guys don't like the unsexy picks in the trenches, but a team ain't shit without 'em. Not saying a o-lineman in the first round. You can get 'em in the 5th round if they can play, just get 'em first. Worry about the accessories later.

Regarding what's in bold:

1. Wrong. No one (or damn few) criticized the selection of Dorsey. The problem with '09 was who and his role in a 34.

2. This plan is unbelievably flawed.

If you don't have a franchise QB, you consistently attempt to acquire one. Period. And the sooner the better.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by aturnis

Most all of those teams had a healthy base built around the team and the QB was one of the later pieces added to the puzzle. Why waste valuable years of a QB's play with a mediocre team that will go nowhere? Get your team competitive first then add the positions that add an immediate impact.

Everyone wants a playmaker, and criticized the organization for taking d-lineman. The guys who take about 3 yrs. to develop. If you didn't have these guys, and the need for them was the only thing holding your team back, you'd draft one and have to wait. Wasting players prime years, contracts(both length and money) and health. A lot can happen over 3 yrs.

If a well rounded, 1st round QB can make a difference in yr. 1, get him when your team is on the cusp. Build your base first. The guys who take time to develop. I know it takes time for the QB to be developed, but a recent trend shows that if you get a good one, maybe not. The guy may not be a world beater at QB, but as long as he can at least be a yr. 1 game manager, he can learn on the fly and you have years of productivity ahead of you. Otherwise you could do like all the shitty teams at the top of the draft over the years have done. Draft a guy with unlimited potential, and drown him in a pool of talentless teammates like the Lions.

A playmaker would make this team better now, and everyone would love it, but it won't really mean anything at all until there's a good base in place. Can't build on a shotty foundation. That is why the experts and coaches prefer to build from the front to back. A lot of guys don't like the unsexy picks in the trenches, but a team ain't shit without 'em. Not saying a o-lineman in the first round. You can get 'em in the 5th round if they can play, just get 'em first. Worry about the accessories later.




That oughta piss Dane off PLENTY!







**** you Dane!

Piss me off? You guys seriously over-think my emotional state. Using strong words to express my opinion doesn't mean I'm "pissed" or angy.

The rest of your post is pure, unadulterated drivel that is not based in reality.

In short, it's nonsense.