Do you really need a quarterback drafted in the 1st to be a Superbowl contender?

[BigRichard]

Here is the list of QB's that have played in the Super Bowl for the last ten years and where they were drafted (I will put the winning QB first):

Roethlisberger - 1st , Warner - Undrafted
Eli Manning - 1st, Brady - 6th
Peyton Manning - 1st, Grossman 1st
Roethlisberger - 1st, Hasselbeck 6th
Brady - 6th, McNabb - 1st
Brady - 6th, Delhomme - undrafted
Johnson - 9th, Gannon - 4th
Brady - 6th, Warner - Undrafted
Dilfer - 1st, Collins - 1st (This one does not count since neither was good enough to be with their original team that drafted them)
Warner - Undrafted, McNair - 1st

To my count their have been 6 QB's taken in the first that have appeared in the Super Bowl and 6 QB's that have been drafted no earlier then the 4th round that have appeared in the Super Bowl (minus the year with Dilfer and Collins ). Seems to me you have just a good of chance of drafting a QB in the later rounds and grooming him. What is your opinion other then I am a dumbass, douchbag, shit for brains, or any other insulting term you can call me?

[The Franchise]

Here is the list of QB's that have played in the Superbowl for the last ten years and where they were drafted (I will put the winning QB first):

Roethlisberger - 1st , Warner - Undrafted
Eli Manning - 1st, Brady - 6th
Peyton Manning - 1st, Grossman 1st
Roethlisberger - 1st, Hasselbeck 6th
Brady - 6th, McNabb - 1st
Brady - 6th, Delhomme - undrafted
Johnson - 9th, Gannon - 4th
Brady - 6th, Warner - Undrafted
Dilfer - 1st, Collins - 1st (This one does not count since neither was good enough to be with their original team that drafted them)
Warner - Undrafted, McNair - 1st

To my count their have been 6 QB's taken in the first that have appeared in the Superbowl and 6 QB's that have been drafted no earlier then the 4th round that have appeared in the Superbowl (minus the year with Dilfer and Collins ). Seems to me you have just a good of chance of drafting a QB in the later rounds and grooming him. What is your opinion other then I am a dumbass, douchbag, shit for brains, or any other insulting term you can call me?

This.

[blueballs]

r

[Basileus777]

You need a franchise QB, and the top 10 is where you have the best chance of finding one.

Yeah, teams have won a Superbowl without a franchise QB, but the margin of error for doing so is just so small that the odds are not in your favor. To win a Superbowl without such a QB basically everything has to go your way, and in the NFL that's just not going to happen very often.

[blueballs]

e

[StcChief]

Teams have a better chance getting somebody in 1st round. top 10-15? diamonds appear later at times. crap shoot. Question is will Chiefs buck up $$$ for that at #3

[keg in kc]

I'm going to swap "drafted in the 1st" with "franchise quarterback", and my answer would be that you can contend for and even win the superbowl without a franchise quarterback, but I think your odds are much better with one. I think you're better off with someone who has the ability to carry your team to a win behind center. Although a number of teams have won without one.

And I think that's actually the real issue. Do you want a franchise quarterback or not? Do you think the Chiefs need one, or is the Brad Johnson, Trent Dilfer, Jake Delhomme route good enough?

Personally, I think it's more important now than at any other time in NFL history to have that franchise quarterback, because of the cap system and the level playing field, which makes individuals at key positions so important, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.

As for whether you're more likely to find a franchise quarterback in the first round than you are later in the draft, I think you clearly are. Look at your list and you're talking Roethlisberger and both Manning's versus Brady, who is the all time hall of fame aberration. I doubt we'll ever see another like him.

[oldandslow]

Classic case of having data but not knowing how to read it.

50% of SB QB come from first round.

Rounds 2-7 produce the other 50%.

Obviously your odds are better if you pick a QB first.

You could say never draft a QB and just pick up a guy who is sacking groceries in Iowa.

Happened once. Liklihood of it happening again....not good.

[Chiefs Pantalones]

Geez people it's "Super Bowl" ROFL

[CoMoChief]

Here is the list of QB's that have played in the Superbowl for the last ten years and where they were drafted (I will put the winning QB first):

Roethlisberger - 1st , Warner - Undrafted
Eli Manning - 1st, Brady - 6th
Peyton Manning - 1st, Grossman 1st
Roethlisberger - 1st, Hasselbeck 6th
Brady - 6th, McNabb - 1st
Brady - 6th, Delhomme - undrafted
Johnson - 9th, Gannon - 4th
Brady - 6th, Warner - Undrafted
Dilfer - 1st, Collins - 1st (This one does not count since neither was good enough to be with their original team that drafted them)
Warner - Undrafted, McNair - 1st

To my count their have been 6 QB's taken in the first that have appeared in the Superbowl and 6 QB's that have been drafted no earlier then the 4th round that have appeared in the Superbowl (minus the year with Dilfer and Collins ). Seems to me you have just a good of chance of drafting a QB in the later rounds and grooming him. What is your opinion other then I am a dumbass, douchbag, shit for brains, or any other insulting term you can call me?

Just about every 1st rounder on that list other than Peyton Manning has played in a SB because of the teams good defense and running game. Not because of QB play. Peyton is the only one out of all of them that can carry a team on his back and win games.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Just about every 1st rounder on that list other than Peyton Manning has played in a SB because of the teams good defense and running game. Not because of QB play. Peyton is the only one out of all of them that can carry a team on his back and win games.

When that vaunted Pittsburgh D was giving up 377 yards passing and two fourth quarter TDs, who was that overrated fatass that strapped a team with no O-line and running game, and one healthy WR on his back and took them 90 yards in 2 minutes?

[OnTheWarpath15]

Just about every 1st rounder on that list other than Peyton Manning has played in a SB because of the teams good defense and running game. Not because of QB play. Peyton is the only one out of all of them that can carry a team on his back and win games.

Dumbest comment ever.

Why is it shocking to you that teams with good defenses and good running games win Super Bowls? Who's the last team to win a Super Bowl with a bad defense?

If you have an elite QB, you can get by with less as a team.

If you don't, your team has to be that much better overall to make up for it.

[BigRichard]

Geez people it's "Super Bowl" ROFL

It has been corrected!

[JuicesFlowing]

Here is the list of QB's that have played in the Superbowl for the last ten years and where they were drafted (I will put the winning QB first):

Roethlisberger - 1st , Warner - Undrafted
Eli Manning - 1st, Brady - 6th
Peyton Manning - 1st, Grossman 1st
Roethlisberger - 1st, Hasselbeck 6th
Brady - 6th, McNabb - 1st
Brady - 6th, Delhomme - undrafted
Johnson - 9th, Gannon - 4th
Brady - 6th, Warner - Undrafted
Dilfer - 1st, Collins - 1st (This one does not count since neither was good enough to be with their original team that drafted them)
Warner - Undrafted, McNair - 1st

To my count their have been 6 QB's taken in the first that have appeared in the Superbowl and 6 QB's that have been drafted no earlier then the 4th round that have appeared in the Superbowl (minus the year with Dilfer and Collins ). Seems to me you have just a good of chance of drafting a QB in the later rounds and grooming him. What is your opinion other then I am a dumbass, douchbag, shit for brains, or any other insulting term you can call me?

Both. Or neither. You answered your own question without knowing it.

[ChiefsCountry]

Why did you stop at 2000? Didnt want the Aikman and Elway first round status flaw this argument.

[Reerun_KC]

t

[OnTheWarpath15]

Why did you stop at 2000? Didnt want the Aikman and Elway first round status flaw this argument.

http://www.forumspile.com/Owned/Owned-BadHair.jpg

[Buck]

a

[BigRichard]

Why did you stop at 2000? Didnt want the Aikman and Elway first round status flaw this argument.

Cause I got sick of looking up stats.

[BigRichard]

rd

[DaKCMan AP]

Look at the playoff teams this year:

Steelers - 1st round QB
Titans - 1st round QB
Dolphins - 1st round QB
Ravens - 1st round QB
Chargers - 1st round QB
Colts - 1st round QB

Eagles - 1st round QB
Cardinals - undrafted QB
Giants - 1st round QB
Panthers - undrafted QB
Vikings - 2nd round or 7th round QB (Jackson/Frerotte)
Falcons - 1st round QB

9/12 playoff teams this past season were led by 1st round quarterbacks. How do you like them apples?

[OnTheWarpath15]

Look at the playoff teams this year:

Steelers - 1st round QB
Titans - 1st round QB
Dolphins - 1st round QB
Ravens - 1st round QB
Chargers - 1st round QB
Colts - 1st round QB

Eagles - 1st round QB
Cardinals - undrafted QB
Giants - 1st round QB
Panthers - undrafted QB
Vikings - 2nd round or 7th round QB (Jackson/Frerotte)
Falcons - 1st round QB

9/12 playoff teams this past season were led by 1st round quarterbacks. How do you like them apples?

And boom goes the dynamite.

[The Franchise]

And boom goes the dynamite.

ROFL

[Reerun_KC]

Look at the playoff teams this year:

Steelers - 1st round QB
Titans - 1st round QB
Dolphins - 1st round QB
Ravens - 1st round QB
Chargers - 1st round QB
Colts - 1st round QB

Eagles - 1st round QB
Cardinals - undrafted QB
Giants - 1st round QB
Panthers - undrafted QB
Vikings - 2nd round or 7th round QB (Jackson/Frerotte)
Falcons - 1st round QB

9/12 playoff teams this past season were led by 1st round quarterbacks. How do you like them apples?

Those teams suck, they dont have Tyler Thigpen... Therefore they will never win...

[Reerun_KC]

Cause I got sick of looking up stats.

But you have to look at all the stats...

You forgot Montana...

[The Franchise]

Those teams suck, they dont have Tyler Thigpen... Therefore they will never win...

Dude....we all know that we can just draft a QB in the 6th-7th round and have him compete with Thigpen......

[DeezNutz]

Dude....we all know that we can just draft a QB in the 6th-7th round and have him compete with Thigpen......

Pioli does it all the fucking time.

Brady, Cassel, it's what he does.

To the shit111 I mean ship111

[lazepoo]

It's like groundhog day around here. I wish they would announce the assistant coaches already so we could talk about something else.

[DaneMcCloud]

What's stupid about "analysis" like this is that it doesn't take into account the fact that Tom Brady and Mark Rypien were the only 6th round QB's chosen to win the Super Bowl in 43 years!

And ANYONE knows that if the 2000 draft were held today, Brady would absolutely, unequivocally be the number choice overall. Same goes for Joe Montana; he'd be number one overall. He and Jeff Hostetler were the only 3rd round choices to ever win a Super Bowl.

In retrospect, Hostetler would STILL be a third rounder though Rypien might have moved up a few rounds to possibly round three. He didn't have much of a career after he won the Super Bowl.

[Ultra Peanut]

You can angle for being a one-year wonder, but I would rather do everything in my power to secure a Brady or Roethlisberger and have a much greater shot at multiple Super Bowls.

[CoMoChief]

When that vaunted Pittsburgh D was giving up 377 yards passing and two fourth quarter TDs, who was that overrated fatass that strapped a team with no O-line and running game, and one healthy WR on his back and took them 90 yards in 2 minutes?

I'm not debating that his play on that last drive was great and the deciding facator of the SB, I watched the game, but thats not my point.

PIT got to the SB from its defense (this season as well as 2005), not the way Big Ben played. Big Ben didn't have a very good season this year.

Big Ben had a great drive to win the SB, but the fact is that PIT won this season from its defense.

[Just Passin' By]

Look at the playoff teams this year:

Steelers - 1st round QB
Titans - 1st round QB
Dolphins - 1st round QB
Ravens - 1st round QB
Chargers - 1st round QB
Colts - 1st round QB

Eagles - 1st round QB
Cardinals - undrafted QB
Giants - 1st round QB
Panthers - undrafted QB
Vikings - 2nd round or 7th round QB (Jackson/Frerotte)
Falcons - 1st round QB

9/12 playoff teams this past season were led by 1st round quarterbacks. How do you like them apples?

Hmmm..... playoff teams last year?

Patriots - 6th round QB
Seahawks - 6th round QB
Steelers - 1st round QB
Jacksonville - 4th round QB
Giants - 1st round QB
Buccaneers - undrafted QB
Titans - 1st round QB
Chargers - 1st round QB
Packers - 2nd round Qb
Colts - 1st round QB
Cowboys - undrafted QB
Redskins - 2nd round QB

7 out of 12 teams the season before were led by non-1st round quarterbacks.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Hmmm..... playoff teams last year?

Patriots - 6th round QB
Seahawks - 6th round QB
Steelers - 1st round QB
Jacksonville - 4th round QB
Giants - 1st round QB
Buccaneers - undrafted QB
Titans - 1st round QB
Chargers - 1st round QB
Packers - 2nd round Qb
Colts - 1st round QB
Cowboys - undrafted QB
Redskins - 2nd round QB

7 out of 12 teams the season before were led by non-1st round quarterbacks.

8 of 12 is a majority, correct?

71% over the last 2 years.

Says a lot, IMO.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Hmmm..... playoff teams last year?

Patriots - 6th round QB
Seahawks - 6th round QB
Steelers - 1st round QB
Jacksonville - 4th round QB
Giants - 1st round QB
Buccaneers - undrafted QB
Titans - 1st round QB
Chargers - 1st round QB
Packers - 2nd round Qb
Colts - 1st round QB
Cowboys - undrafted QB
Redskins - 2nd round QB

7 out of 12 teams the season before were led by non-1st round quarterbacks.

Jason Campbell was a first rounder, dumbass.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Jason Campbell was a first rounder, dumbass.

Nice catch.

[CoMoChief]

Dumbest comment ever.

Why is it shocking to you that teams with good defenses and good running games win Super Bowls? Who's the last team to win a Super Bowl with a bad defense?

If you have an elite QB, you can get by with less as a team.

If you don't, your team has to be that much better overall to make up for it.

Its not shocking to me. What im trying to say is that PIT wins with defense. It got to the SB because they had the best defense in the NFL, not because of the way Big Ben played. Big Ben didn't have a good yr at all.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Its not shocking to me. What im trying to say is that PIT wins with defense. It got to the SB because they had the best defense in the NFL, not because of the way Big Ben played. Big Ben didn't have a good yr at all.

"Only morons think that fantasy stats directly correlate to the success of a quarterback."

[DaneMcCloud]

Hmmm..... playoff teams last year?

Patriots - 6th round QB
Seahawks - 6th round QB
Steelers - 1st round QB
Jacksonville - 4th round QB
Giants - 1st round QB
Buccaneers - undrafted QB
Titans - 1st round QB
Chargers - 1st round QB
Packers - 2nd round Qb
Colts - 1st round QB
Cowboys - undrafted QB
Redskins - 2nd round QB

7 out of 12 teams the season before were led by non-1st round quarterbacks.

Favre was traded for a first round pick (as was Hasselbeck) so I don't think those guys count as 2nd & 6th round picks.

If they had made the playoffs with their original teams, I'd say yes. But their respective teams gave up number one draft choices for them, so I don't think that counts.

And furthermore, notice how the Patriots, Seahawks, Jaguars, Cowboys, and Buccaneers failed to make the playoffs in 2008. As did the Packers, without Favre.

[milkman]

Its not shocking to me. What im trying to say is that PIT wins with defense. It got to the SB because they had the best defense in the NFL, not because of the way Big Ben played. Big Ben didn't have a good yr at all.

Roethlisberger didn't have a good year if you only look at stats.

However, if you watch the games you realize that he has a knack for making plays and getting that team into the end zone. in spite of the fact that he had a crap O-Line and no running game.

When they needed plays from the offense, he delivered.

[King_Chief_Fan]

it must be needed. We haven't been close to a SB with all the retreads tried in KC. We tried a 3rd rounder....bust!!! tried 6th rounder, good back up. Gave up a 1st for Green? don't remember but, that wouldn't count.

Yup, you need a first rounder QB

[NickAthanFan]

Even though the majority of franchises that have great success have a first round QB, I think we'd be better off to see what we can do with a few undrafted free agents. Have you watched Kurt Warner?

[Manila-Chief]

I'm going to swap "drafted in the 1st" with "franchise quarterback", and my answer would be that you can contend for and even win the superbowl without a franchise quarterback, but I think your odds are much better with one. I think you're better off with someone who has the ability to carry your team to a win behind center. Although a number of teams have won without one.

And I think that's actually the real issue. Do you want a franchise quarterback or not? Do you think the Chiefs need one, or is the Brad Johnson, Trent Dilfer, Jake Delhomme route good enough?

Personally, I think it's more important now than at any other time in NFL history to have that franchise quarterback, because of the cap system and the level playing field, which makes individuals at key positions so important, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.

As for whether you're more likely to find a franchise quarterback in the first round than you are later in the draft, I think you clearly are. Look at your list and you're talking Roethlisberger and both Manning's versus Brady, who is the all time hall of fame aberration. I doubt we'll ever see another like him.

You are a very intelligent guy!!! As I began reading I was thinking it is a matter of a franchise QB not where they are drafted. You are correct that it's easier to "hit" on a franchise QB if he is rated high enough to be drafted at the top of the draft. Yes, there are busts at the top of the draft but many more drafted in the latter rounds. Brady/Warner fell through the cracks. With today's scouting, it gets harder for great players to drop to the lower rounds. As good as he is reported to be, I would not hold out too much hope for Pioli finding another franchise QB in the last rounds of this draft.

You can angle for being a one-year wonder, but I would rather do everything in my power to secure a Brady or Roethlisberger and have a much greater shot at multiple Super Bowls.

I agree. I've not done the stats, but it does seem to me that having a franchise QB helps a team win year after year.

[RustShack]

So we can draft a QB in the first round or we can just build a great defense to take our weak QB who will just manage games or we can pray to god we win the lottery and draft a HOF Qb in the 6th. I'll go with the greater odds and just draft a first round QB.

[Manila-Chief]

So we can draft a QB in the first round or we can just build a great defense to take our weak QB who will just manage games or we can pray to god we win the lottery and draft a HOF Qb in the 6th. I'll go with the greater odds and just draft a first round QB.

I'm with you ... especially if Pioli/Haley determine that he is worth the pick.

[CoMoChief]

Roethlisberger didn't have a good year if you only look at stats.

However, if you watch the games you realize that he has a knack for making plays and getting that team into the end zone. in spite of the fact that he had a crap O-Line and no running game.

When they needed plays from the offense, he delivered.

PIT won with their defense, theres no denying that, and you can't twist that in any way.

Sure he led the team down to a winning drive in a SB, but these PIT teams of recent have won with their defense. The reason their in the SB was because they had great defense, not because of Ben Roethlisberger.

[Brock]

PIT won with their defense, theres no denying that, and you can't twist that in any way.

Sure he led the team down to a winning drive in a SB.

Contradict yourself much?

[keg in kc]

PIT won with their defense, theres no denying that, and you can't twist that in any way.

Sure he led the team down to a winning drive in a SB, but these PIT teams of recent have won with their defense. The reason their in the SB was because they had great defense, not because of Ben Roethlisberger.It's not an either-or proposition. They aren't in the super bowl without that defense. They also aren't in the super bowl without roethlisberger.

[milkman]

PIT won with their defense, theres no denying that, and you can't twist that in any way.

Sure he led the team down to a winning drive in a SB, but these PIT teams of recent have won with their defense. The reason their in the SB was because they had great defense, not because of Ben Roethlisberger.


The Steelers have had outstanding defenses for the better part of 20 years.

But it's only a coincidence that they've won 2 of the last 5 since they drafted their franchise QB, while only appearing in only one of the previous 12 or so with the likes of Niel O'Donnell, Kordell Stewart and Tommy Maddox.

[latiger12]

Here is the list of QB's that have played in the Super Bowl for the last ten years and where they were drafted (I will put the winning QB first):

Roethlisberger - 1st , Warner - Undrafted
Eli Manning - 1st, Brady - 6th
Peyton Manning - 1st, Grossman 1st
Roethlisberger - 1st, Hasselbeck 6th
Brady - 6th, McNabb - 1st
Brady - 6th, Delhomme - undrafted
Johnson - 9th, Gannon - 4th
Brady - 6th, Warner - Undrafted
Dilfer - 1st, Collins - 1st (This one does not count since neither was good enough to be with their original team that drafted them)
Warner - Undrafted, McNair - 1st

To my count their have been 6 QB's taken in the first that have appeared in the Super Bowl and 6 QB's that have been drafted no earlier then the 4th round that have appeared in the Super Bowl (minus the year with Dilfer and Collins ). Seems to me you have just a good of chance of drafting a QB in the later rounds and grooming him. What is your opinion other then I am a dumbass, douchbag, shit for brains, or any other insulting term you can call me?

Seems like its a wash then. I would have leaned towards no.

[DeezNutz]

The Steelers have had outstanding defenses for the better part of 20 years.

But it's only a coincidence that they've won 2 of the last 5 since they drafted their franchise QB, while only appearing in only one of the previous 12 or so with the likes of Niel O'Donnell, Kordell Stewart and Tommy Maddox.

Finally, some sense.

It's a coincidence. The stats back this up.

[CoMoChief]

"Only morons think that fantasy stats directly correlate to the success of a quarterback."

who said anything about fantasy football?

[kcbubb]

QB is a tough position to evaluate in college. It is even difficult to know how good a pro QB is without talented receivers or a running game. For instance, look at Eli Manning. How good was he without Plaxico Burress. Certain QB's are only going to be good with talented teams. They, like Eli, can be great with talented team, but could be terrible with a bad team. If you put Eli Manning on the Chiefs last year, he would have been terrible. He would have made Thigpen look like he was bound for Canton.

Some QB's can play with a bad team and do pretty good, not great but pretty good. Those same QBs may not ever be great with a very talented team. Some of those QBs may have a ceiling. One good example of this is Jon Kitna and Carson Palmer. Kitna was playing pretty good for the Bengals, but they dumped him because Palmer had great potential. I don't think many people realize how bad the Chiefs offense was last year until Thigpen started and changed the system. We really don't know what Thigpen's limit is. He appears to have the ability to be a pretty good QB, but possibly not have the ability to be a great one. But we don't know. The biggest knock on him is his accuracy or inconsistency at times. Many great QBs have shown inaccuracy in their rookie season.

The point is that many of the stats that are used to support drafting a QB or not drafting a QB in the first round are not really relevant. You can find just as many arguments against it as for it. And that is why it is ground hog day.

You have to look at the Chiefs situation and try to predict how it will work out if they pick Sanchez at #3.

[Just Passin' By]

Jason Campbell was a first rounder, dumbass.

Todd Collins was the quarterback, dumbass

[RustShack]

I have a question for the people claiming we don't need a QB to win the Super Bowl, how often does your top three LB or whatever win a SB for the other team? Then how many of that position did it without being a first round player?

[Just Passin' By]

Favre was traded for a first round pick (as was Hasselbeck) so I don't think those guys count as 2nd & 6th round picks.

If they had made the playoffs with their original teams, I'd say yes. But their respective teams gave up number one draft choices for them, so I don't think that counts.

And furthermore, notice how the Patriots, Seahawks, Jaguars, Cowboys, and Buccaneers failed to make the playoffs in 2008. As did the Packers, without Favre.

Who cares what Favre was traded for? Brady would have been traded for first round +, too, that doesn't change where he was initially drafted.

As for where teams ended up in 2008, again, who cares. I'm not the one who tried to use one year as some sort of proof about first round picks. I simply showed how stupid that argument was.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Todd Collins was the quarterback, dumbass

And Drew Bledsoe was the QB of the '01 Pats because he played in the AFC Ch. after Brady got knocked out.

Campbell: 13 Starts
Collins: 3 Starts

Campbell was the QB until he dislocated a ligament in his knee. He didn't lose his job due to ineffectiveness.

Kill yourself.

[kstater]

Yes, next question.

[HemiEd]

9/12 playoff teams this past season were led by 1st round quarterbacks. How do you like them apples?

So are you happy just making the playoffs? You must be a true fan.

[Just Passin' By]

And Drew Bledsoe was the QB of the '01 Pats because he played in the AFC Ch. after Brady got knocked out.

Campbell: 13 Starts
Collins: 3 Starts

Campbell was the QB until he dislocated a ligament in his knee. He didn't lose his job due to ineffectiveness.

Kill yourself.

Collins came in during the second quarter of week 14, in a scoreless game and led the team to 4 straight wins. Prior to his insertion in the lineup, the Redskins were 5-7.

With your lack of knowledge of the game, you should probably avoiding insulting others when you post.

[OnTheWarpath15]

So are you happy just making the playoffs? You must be a true fan.

You can't win the Super Bowl without making the playoffs, Ed.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Collins came in during the second quarter of week 14, in a scoreless game and led the team to 4 straight wins. Prior to his insertion in the lineup, the Redskins were 5-7.

With your lack of knowledge of the game, you should probably avoiding insulting others when you post.

So, of the 9 wins that were necessary for the Redskins to make the playoffs, you're telling me that Campbell led them to 5 wins, and Collins led them to 4?

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Collins came in during the second quarter of week 14, in a scoreless game and led the team to 4 straight wins. Prior to his insertion in the lineup, the Redskins were 5-7.

With your lack of knowledge of the game, you should probably avoiding insulting others when you post.

So, Collins having 1/4 the number of passing attempts and only starting 3/16 games, and only doing so because of injury, thereby makes him the reason that the Skins won those games.

What you didn't mention is that in 2 of his four starts, he completely crapped the bed, but we'll give him the benefit of the doubt, anyway, because obviously picking 7 times as many quarterbacks and having the same raw number of success rates thereby means that a team is better off picking a QB in the later rounds.

[the Talking Can]

whats the difference between the Vikings, Panthers, Titans, and Steelers?



the QB

i wish this tard fanbase would off itself

[Just Passin' By]

So, Collins having 1/4 the number of passing attempts and only starting 3/16 games, and only doing so because of injury, thereby makes him the reason that the Skins won those games.

What you didn't mention is that in 2 of his four starts, he completely crapped the bed, but we'll give him the benefit of the doubt, anyway, because obviously picking 7 times as many quarterbacks and having the same raw number of success rates thereby means that a team is better off picking a QB in the later rounds.

Again... before Collins, the Redskins were 5-7 and scoreless in the second quarter of game 13. After he got into the game, they went 4-0. Now, maybe where you learned football, a 4-0 stretch that takes you from a non-playoff team to a playoff team is not as good as a 5-7 stretch that had made the playoffs almost out of reach. I was taught otherwise.

The second paragraph of yours is just nonsense intended to distract from your own stupidity in crediting Campbell for that season by belittling a claim I never made.

By the way, which 2 games did Collins completely crap the bed? He didn't throw any interceptions and only had a passer rating under 100 in one game, and that was in the win against the Giants.

[Brock]

Trouble is, he remembered he's Todd Collins the first week of the playoffs.

[the Talking Can]

the only time we've sniffed a Superbowl in almost a half century was when we had Montana, one of the greatest QB's in history....

we've tried it EVERY WAY POSSIBLE without a QB...we've had great defenses, great OL, great offenses, great running games...and we have DICK to show for it....

and this inbred fanbase still doesn't want to draft a QB, still doesn't understand that it is the most important position on the team by a factor of 10,000, still yearns to be the Ravens with Dilfer - the once in a lifetime exception....

they still aim low and operate out of fear...content with permanent failure, as long as we don't have to "risk" drafting a QB and watching him bust....

other teams draft QBs and win Superbowls, but not the Chiefs...no sir, we're afraid and we like it!

instead, we'll spend hour after hour, day after day, year after year proffering false analogies ("the QB is like rims on the car!"), dishonest arguments ("Brady proves you don't need to draft a QB in the first!"), and specious statistical equivocations ("Thigpen is as good as Ryan and Roethlesburger and Aikman, look at the stats!!)....and when all that fails, they simply lie about great QBs ("Aikman was just a game manager!" "There is no difference between Cassell and Brady!!" "Roethlesburger just plays with a good defense!!" and more...)*

IT NEVER ENDS AND IT NEVER CHANGES AND IT NEVER ENDS AND IT NEVER CHANGES


just one dipshit after another stretching to eternity.....

IT'S THE QB YOU ****TARDS!!

CAN YOU HEAR ME?

IT'S THE ****ING QB

IT'S THE ****ING QB

YOU ASSHOLES, IT'S THE QB


*all examples given are true and taken from this board, just this season....

[OnTheWarpath15]

Again... before Collins, the Redskins were 5-7 and scoreless in the second quarter of game 13. After he got into the game, they went 4-0. Now, maybe where you learned football, a 4-0 stretch that takes you from a non-playoff team to a playoff team is not as good as a 5-7 stretch that had made the playoffs almost out of reach. I was taught otherwise.

The second paragraph of yours is just nonsense intended to distract from your own stupidity in crediting Campbell for that season by belittling a claim I never made.

By the way, which 2 games did Collins completely crap the bed? He didn't throw any interceptions and only had a passer rating under 100 in one game, and that was in the win against the Giants.

I was taught basic math, where without those 5 wins that Campbell accounted for, what Collins did would have been irrelevant.

But hey, it's a moot point anyway.

It doesn't change the fact that 66%+ of playoff teams over the past 2 years were led by a 1st round QB, or that the last 4 Super Bowl winners were taken in the Top 11 of their respective drafts.

[Just Passin' By]

Trouble is, he remembered he's Todd Collins the first week of the playoffs.

Very true. Then again, Chad Pennington remember he's Chad Pennington, Peyton Manning remembered it was the playoffs, Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco remembered they were rookies, and Eli Manning remembered that he's Eli Manning. That sort of thing happens every year.

[keg in kc]

Well, obviously we don't need a quarterback and should just go with a fulltime wildcat formation.

[kc rush]

Well, obviously we don't need a quarterback and should just go with a fulltime wildcat formation.

Finally. Someone that gets it. All we need to do is bring back Marques Hagans and everything will be fine. This will allow us to draft a right guard or a kicker in the first round.

[The Franchise]

the only time we've sniffed a Superbowl in almost a half century was when we had Montana, one of the greatest QB's in history....

we've tried it EVERY WAY POSSIBLE without a QB...we've had great defenses, great OL, great offenses, great running games...and we have DICK to show for it....

and this inbred fanbase still doesn't want to draft a QB, still doesn't understand that it is the most important position on the team by a factor of 10,000, still yearns to be the Ravens with Dilfer - the once in a lifetime exception....

they still aim low and operate out of fear...content with permanent failure, as long as we don't have to "risk" drafting a QB and watching him bust....

other teams draft QBs and win Superbowls, but not the Chiefs...no sir, we're afraid and we like it!

instead, we'll spend hour after hour, day after day, year after year proffering false analogies ("the QB is like rims on the car!"), dishonest arguments ("Brady proves you don't need to draft a QB in the first!"), and specious statistical equivocations ("Thigpen is as good as Ryan and Roethlesburger and Aikman, look at the stats!!)....and when all that fails, they simply lie about great QBs ("Aikman was just a game manager!" "There is no difference between Cassell and Brady!!" "Roethlesburger just plays with a good defense!!" and more...)*

IT NEVER ENDS AND IT NEVER CHANGES AND IT NEVER ENDS AND IT NEVER CHANGES


just one dipshit after another stretching to eternity.....

IT'S THE QB YOU ****TARDS!!

CAN YOU HEAR ME?

IT'S THE ****ING QB

IT'S THE ****ING QB

YOU ASSHOLES, IT'S THE QB


*all examples given are true and taken from this board, just this season....

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

[Cormac]

The Steelers have had outstanding defenses for the better part of 20 years.

But it's only a coincidence that they've won 2 of the last 5 since they drafted their franchise QB, while only appearing in only one of the previous 12 or so with the likes of Niel O'Donnell, Kordell Stewart and Tommy Maddox.

Best argument made on this thread

[Just Passin' By]

I was taught basic math, where without those 5 wins that Campbell accounted for, what Collins did would have been irrelevant.

But hey, it's a moot point anyway.

You should save this post. In about 2-3 years, you can look back on it and realize that it was one of the stupidest things anyone's ever posted on the internet.

It doesn't change the fact that 66%+ of playoff teams over the past 2 years were led by a 1st round QB, or that the last 4 Super Bowl winners were taken in the Top 11 of their respective drafts.

I agree with your basic premise, although conveniently using the last 4 years as your cutoff in order to avoid Brady is bush league. I've never said it was a bad idea to draft a quarterback in the first round, as a general proposition. Obviously, if you need a quarterback, the best time to get one is before some have been taken, because you get the pick of the litter. That doesn't automatically mean that you should take the quarterback, though: I'd hope that the 2002 draft class would be proof enough of that for anyone.

It also doesn't mean that great quarterbacks can't be found elsewhere. Some of the greatest quarterbacks of all time were lower round draft picks:

Brady
Montana
Unitas
Favre
Starr
Tarkenton
Staubach

These guys are all arguably amongst the top 10 quarterbacks of all time, and they weren't taken in round 1.

[The Franchise]

Yeah and hoping that you can draft a franchise QB in the laters rounds of the draft....will set your franchise back years.

[OnTheWarpath15]

You should save this post. In about 2-3 years, you can look back on it and realize that it was one of the stupidest things anyone's ever posted on the internet.



I agree with your basic premise, although conveniently using the last 4 years as your cutoff in order to avoid Brady is bush league. I've never said it was a bad idea to draft a quarterback in the first round, as a general proposition. Obviously, if you need a quarterback, the best time to get one is before some have been taken, because you get the pick of the litter. That doesn't automatically mean that you should take the quarterback, though: I'd hope that the 2002 draft class would be proof enough of that for anyone.

It also doesn't mean that great quarterbacks can't be found elsewhere. Some of the greatest quarterbacks of all time were lower round draft picks:

Brady
Montana
Unitas
Favre
Starr
Tarkenton
Staubach

These guys are all arguably amongst the top 10 quarterbacks of all time, and they weren't taken in round 1.

I haven't "conveniently" left off shit.

It's been discussed ad fucking nauseum around here.

There are multiple posts floating around that show that there are more 1st round Super Bowl winners than in every other round, combined.

There are 32 picks in the 1st round, 223 in the remaining.

Let that sink in.

[Cormac]

Look at the playoff teams this year:

Steelers - 1st round QB
Titans - 1st round QB
Dolphins - 1st round QB
Ravens - 1st round QB
Chargers - 1st round QB
Colts - 1st round QB

Eagles - 1st round QB
Cardinals - undrafted QB
Giants - 1st round QB
Panthers - undrafted QB
Vikings - 2nd round or 7th round QB (Jackson/Frerotte)
Falcons - 1st round QB

9/12 playoff teams this past season were led by 1st round quarterbacks. How do you like them apples?

Hopefully everybody realises that this argument counts for crap until we know how many of the non-playoff teams were led by 1st round QBs. If the answer is 10% then this really means something. If the answer is 75% then obviously it doesn't. Anybody volunteer?

[OnTheWarpath15]

Hopefully everybody realises that this argument counts for crap until we know how many of the non-playoff teams were led by 1st round QBs. If the answer is 10% then this really means something. If the answer is 75% then obviously it doesn't. Anybody volunteer?

I posted it during the season, and IIRC, it was split 50/50 between 1st round starters and 2-7 starters.

[Pioli Zombie]

There are no "franchise quarterbacks" out there in the draft. Drafting a qb at 3 doesn't make him peyton manning
Posted via Mobile Device

[Just Passin' By]

I haven't "conveniently" left off shit.

It's been discussed ad fucking nauseum around here.

There are multiple posts floating around that show that there are more 1st round Super Bowl winners than in every other round, combined.

There are 32 picks in the 1st round, 223 in the remaining.

Let that sink in.

Brady has 3 rings this decade, including one the year just before you made your "4 years" cutoff. Conveniently, that was omitted from your argument. Don't play stupid.


Or, perhaps you're not playing?

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Again... before Collins, the Redskins were 5-7 and scoreless in the second quarter of game 13. After he got into the game, they went 4-0. Now, maybe where you learned football, a 4-0 stretch that takes you from a non-playoff team to a playoff team is not as good as a 5-7 stretch that had made the playoffs almost out of reach. I was taught otherwise.

The second paragraph of yours is just nonsense intended to distract from your own stupidity in crediting Campbell for that season by belittling a claim I never made.

By the way, which 2 games did Collins completely crap the bed? He didn't throw any interceptions and only had a passer rating under 100 in one game, and that was in the win against the Giants.

So he did, or did not throw two picks in a 21 point loss to the Seahawks, and he did, or did not go 8/25 against the Giants?

[OnTheWarpath15]

Brady has 3 rings this decade. Conveniently, that was omitted from your argument. Don't play stupid.


Or, perhaps you're not playing?

How about, go fuck yourself.

The data is there, and it backs up our point.

Since you seem to be "challenged," I'll go ahead and do the dirty work.

There have been 27 QB's to ever win a SB.

15 of them were taken in the 1st round.

The other 12 were taken in any round other than the 1st.

So, 15 came from the 1st 32 picks, the other 12 came from the remaining 200+ picks.

Interesting that GM's weren't able to find more SB winners out of all those extra opportunities.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

You should save this post. In about 2-3 years, you can look back on it and realize that it was one of the stupidest things anyone's ever posted on the internet.



I agree with your basic premise, although conveniently using the last 4 years as your cutoff in order to avoid Brady is bush league. I've never said it was a bad idea to draft a quarterback in the first round, as a general proposition. Obviously, if you need a quarterback, the best time to get one is before some have been taken, because you get the pick of the litter. That doesn't automatically mean that you should take the quarterback, though: I'd hope that the 2002 draft class would be proof enough of that for anyone.

It also doesn't mean that great quarterbacks can't be found elsewhere. Some of the greatest quarterbacks of all time were lower round draft picks:

Brady
Montana
Unitas
Favre
Starr
Tarkenton
Staubach

These guys are all arguably amongst the top 10 quarterbacks of all time, and they weren't taken in round 1.

If Staubach didn't have his Navy commitment he would have been taken first overall.

Elway
Manning
Manning
Bradshaw
Aikman
Roethlisberger
Simms
Plunkett
Griese
McMahon
Dilfer
Namath
Williams

Off the top of my head. In 43 Super Bowls, that is 22 wins from 1st round QBs. Every other QB in every other round, contributed 21, and 7 of those were from Brady and Montana.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

I'd also like to point out to Just Fisting Myself, that your boy Todd Collins threw two pick sixes in the playoffs last year, each of which was a 55+ yard return for a TD.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Here, Hamas. You will definitely appreciate this.

So, we've established that out of the 27 SB winning QB's, 15 have been 1st round selections, and 12 went in the 2nd or later.

I've done some rough math to show how lopsided that really is.

In the 43 years that the Super Bowl has been played, there have been approximately 1,300 picks made in the 1st round of the draft.

In those same 43 years, there have been approximately 13,000 picks taken in the 2nd -17th rounds. (and yes, my math was adjusted to compensate for years in which the draft went 17, 12, 8 and 7 rounds)

So using these numbers, a Super Bowl winning QB is selected in the 1st round of the draft once every 86.6 selections.

Meanwhile, a Super Bowl winning QB is selected in the 2nd-through-last round of the draft once every 1083 selections.

I like my odds with a 1st round QB.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Here, Hamas. You will definitely appreciate this.

So, we've established that out of the 27 SB winning QB's, 15 have been 1st round selections, and 12 went in the 2nd or later.

I've done some rough math to show how lopsided that really is.

In the 43 years that the Super Bowl has been played, there have been approximately 1,300 picks made in the 1st round of the draft.

In those same 43 years, there have been approximately 13,000 picks taken in the 2nd -17th rounds. (and yes, my math was adjusted to compensate for years in which the draft went 17, 12, 8 and 7 rounds)

So using these numbers, you'll select a Super Bowl winning QB in the 1st round of the draft once every 86.6 selections.

Meanwhile, you'll select a Super Bowl winning QB in the 2nd-through-last round of the draft once every 1083 selections.

I like my odds with a 1st round QB.

I refuse to believe the validity of those statistics/Sam Hall.

[kstater]

Here, Hamas. You will definitely appreciate this.

So, we've established that out of the 27 SB winning QB's, 15 have been 1st round selections, and 12 went in the 2nd or later.

I've done some rough math to show how lopsided that really is.

In the 43 years that the Super Bowl has been played, there have been approximately 1,300 picks made in the 1st round of the draft.

In those same 43 years, there have been approximately 13,000 picks taken in the 2nd -17th rounds. (and yes, my math was adjusted to compensate for years in which the draft went 17, 12, 8 and 7 rounds)

So using these numbers, a Super Bowl winning QB is selected in the 1st round of the draft once every 86.6 selections.

Meanwhile, a Super Bowl winning QB is selected in the 2nd-through-last round of the draft once every 1083 selections.

I like my odds with a 1st round QB.


Not to mention that 1083 is slightly skewed by Brady's 3.

[kstater]

Here, Hamas. You will definitely appreciate this.

So, we've established that out of the 27 SB winning QB's, 15 have been 1st round selections, and 12 went in the 2nd or later.

I've done some rough math to show how lopsided that really is.

In the 43 years that the Super Bowl has been played, there have been approximately 1,300 picks made in the 1st round of the draft.

In those same 43 years, there have been approximately 13,000 picks taken in the 2nd -17th rounds. (and yes, my math was adjusted to compensate for years in which the draft went 17, 12, 8 and 7 rounds)

So using these numbers, a Super Bowl winning QB is selected in the 1st round of the draft once every 86.6 selections.

Meanwhile, a Super Bowl winning QB is selected in the 2nd-through-last round of the draft once every 1083 selections.

I like my odds with a 1st round QB.


Any way we can get a sticky on this?

Can I use your math in the future?

[SAUTO]

I refuse to believe the validity of those statistics/Sam Hall.

funny but otw didnt believe the stats in the other thread either

[Just Passin' By]

How about, go **** yourself.

The data is there, and it backs up our point.

Since you seem to be "challenged," I'll go ahead and do the dirty work.

There have been 27 QB's to ever win a SB.

15 of them were taken in the 1st round.

The other 12 were taken in any round other than the 1st.

So, 15 came from the 1st 32 picks, the other 12 came from the remaining 200+ picks.

Interesting that GM's weren't able to find more SB winners out of all those extra opportunities.

Again, I'm not arguing that taking a quarterback in the first round is a bad idea. I'm simply pointing out that it's not the only avenue, as evidenced by the many great quarterbacks who were taken in rounds other than the first, and that you shouldn't take a QB in the first round if you don't think that particular quarterback is worth the risk. Furthermore, even having the choice of EVERY SINGLE QUARTERBACK available (other than those already taken in the first round), quarterbacks taken in the first round have made up only 56% of the Super Bowl winning quarterbacks, and have won only 56% of the Super Bowls. In fact, prior to your "last four years", it was a 50/50 split. That means that despite having all the information in front of them, the GMs miss a Super Bowl winning quarterback about half the time when it comes to taking them in the first round.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Not to mention that 1083 is slightly skewed by Brady's 3.

No, it's not.

I only took QB's that had won, not how many times they won.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Again, I'm not arguing that taking a quarterback in the first round is a bad idea. I'm simply pointing out that it's not the only avenue, as evidenced by the many great quarterbacks who were taken in rounds other than the first, and that you shouldn't take a QB in the first round if you don't think that particular quarterback is worth the risk. Furthermore, even having the choice of EVERY SINGLE QUARTERBACK available (other than those already taken in the first round), quarterbacks taken in the first round have made up only 56% of the Super Bowl winning quarterbacks, and have won only 56% of the Super Bowls. In fact, prior to your "last four years", it was a 50/50 split. That means that despite having all the information in front of them, the GMs miss a Super Bowl winning quarterback about half the time when it comes to taking them in the first round.

Are you a Sam Hall multiple account?

[Just Passin' By]

I'd also like to point out to Just Fisting Myself, that your boy Todd Collins threw two pick sixes in the playoffs last year, each of which was a 55+ yard return for a TD.

Great, what does that have to do with him being a non first round quarterback who took his team to the playoffs?

Oh, right.... nothing at all.

[kstater]

Again, I'm not arguing that taking a quarterback in the first round is a bad idea. I'm simply pointing out that it's not the only avenue, as evidenced by the many great quarterbacks who were taken in rounds other than the first, and that you shouldn't take a QB in the first round if you don't think that particular quarterback is worth the risk. Furthermore, even having the choice of EVERY SINGLE QUARTERBACK available (other than those already taken in the first round), quarterbacks taken in the first round have made up only 56% of the Super Bowl winning quarterbacks, and have won only 56% of the Super Bowls. In fact, prior to your "last four years", it was a 50/50 split. That means that despite having all the information in front of them, the GMs miss a Super Bowl winning quarterback about half the time when it comes to taking them in the first round.

Credit to OTWP:

So, we've established that out of the 27 SB winning QB's, 15 have been 1st round selections, and 12 went in the 2nd or later.

I've done some rough math to show how lopsided that really is.

In the 43 years that the Super Bowl has been played, there have been approximately 1,300 picks made in the 1st round of the draft.

In those same 43 years, there have been approximately 13,000 picks taken in the 2nd -17th rounds. (and yes, my math was adjusted to compensate for years in which the draft went 17, 12, 8 and 7 rounds)

So using these numbers, a Super Bowl winning QB is selected in the 1st round of the draft once every 86.6 selections.

Meanwhile, a Super Bowl winning QB is selected in the 2nd-through-last round of the draft once every 1083 selections.

I like my odds with a 1st round QB.

[kstater]

No, it's not.

I only took QB's that had won, not how many times they won.

Gotcha, thanks.

[DeezNutz]

Here, Hamas. You will definitely appreciate this.

So, we've established that out of the 27 SB winning QB's, 15 have been 1st round selections, and 12 went in the 2nd or later.

I've done some rough math to show how lopsided that really is.

In the 43 years that the Super Bowl has been played, there have been approximately 1,300 picks made in the 1st round of the draft.

In those same 43 years, there have been approximately 13,000 picks taken in the 2nd -17th rounds. (and yes, my math was adjusted to compensate for years in which the draft went 17, 12, 8 and 7 rounds)

So using these numbers, a Super Bowl winning QB is selected in the 1st round of the draft once every 86.6 selections.

Meanwhile, a Super Bowl winning QB is selected in the 2nd-through-last round of the draft once every 1083 selections.

I like my odds with a 1st round QB.

I would suggest you submit the above for consideration in an academic journal.

If it passes the stringent peer review process, then I'll trust it.

[OnTheWarpath15]

I would suggest you submit the above for consideration in an academic journal.

If it passes the stringent peer review process, then I'll trust it.

ROFL

[SAUTO]

ROFL

are you laughing at yourself here?

[OnTheWarpath15]

are you laughing at yourself here?

Do you not get the joke here, fuckstick?

Sam Hall claimed that statistics are only acceptable if they are part of academic research.

He's making fun of Sam's dipshittery and butthurtedness.

(Dane's gonna steal "butthurtedness", I know it)

[Just Passin' By]

Are you a Sam Hall multiple account?

Hey, I'm sorry your argument sucks. I really am. Trying to get you to understand simple reality on this topic is like trying to teach calculus to a developmentally challenged kitten.

[the Talking Can]

The Steelers have had outstanding defenses for the better part of 20 years.

But it's only a coincidence that they've won 2 of the last 5 since they drafted their franchise QB, while only appearing in only one of the previous 12 or so with the likes of Niel O'Donnell, Kordell Stewart and Tommy Maddox.

and how many would the Ravens have if they had a QB?

they've wasted one great defense after another.....at they understand the problem and keep drafting QBs....

[SAUTO]

Do you not get the joke here, fuckstick?

Sam Hall claimed that statistics are only acceptable if they are part of academic research.

He's making fun of Sam's dipshittery and butthurtedness.

(Dane's gonna steal "butthurtedness", I know it)

you disputed the same stats right?

[kstater]

Hey, I'm sorry your argument sucks. I really am. Trying to get you to understand simple reality on this topic is like trying to teach calculus to a developmentally challenged kitten.

No, the reality of it is this: To get a SuperBowl winning QB, based on past odds, you have an equal chance of finding that QB by either drafting 1 in round one or drafting one in each of rounds 2-7. So, which draft board do you like:
Round 1: QB
Round 2-7: other positions

OR

Round 1: other positions
Round 2: QB
Round 3: QB
Round 4: QB
Round 5: QB
Round 6: QB
Round 7: QB

[OnTheWarpath15]

you disputed the same stats right?

Did you miss the part where he said he wasn't willing to accept stats from NFL.com?

[DeezNutz]

and how many would the Ravens have if they had a QB?

they've wasted one great defense after another.....at they understand the problem and keep drafting QBs....

This is exactly right.

But I'm sure the True Fan's argument would look something like this, "The Ravens went about it the right way! Build everything else first, and then focus on getting the QB in place! Otherwise, you risk killing the QB111"

Or something equally fucking stupid and ass backwards.

The fucking Ravens are evidence A for why getting the QB is so damn important.

[kstater]

This is exactly right.

But I'm sure the True Fan's argument would look something like this, "The Ravens went about it the right way! Build everything else first, and then focus on getting the QB in place! Otherwise, you risk killing the QB111"

Or something equally fucking stupid and ass backwards.

The fucking Ravens are evidence A for why getting the QB is so damn important.

The Ravens won a Super Bowl/

[DeezNutz]

The Ravens won a Super Bowl/

With a first-round QB.

[SAUTO]

Did you miss the part where he said he wasn't willing to accept stats from NFL.com?

yep now that is crazy, but i'll still blame it on you. you got him started on the disputing stats tip:D

[Basileus777]

The Ravens won a Super Bowl/

With one of the best defenses in NFL history. And they've had great defenses most of the years since then and have never come close again, in fact they didn't even win a playoff game until this year. It is possible to win a Superbowl without a franchise QB, everything just has to go right for you. You have no margin for error, which is why it is pretty rare.

[DeezNutz]

With one of the best defenses in NFL history. And they've had great defenses most of the years since then and have never come close again, in fact they didn't even win a playoff game until this year. It is possible to win a Superbowl without a franchise QB, everything just has to go right for you. You have no margin for error, which is why it is pretty rare.

Simmah, simmah111

I checked him for a True Fan firearm at the door. He's clean.

There was a gerbil. But nothing dangerous.

[SAUTO]

With one of the best defenses in NFL history. And they've had great defenses most of the years since then and have never come close again, in fact they didn't even win a playoff game until this year. It is possible to win a Superbowl without a franchise QB, everything just has to go right for you. You have no margin for error, which is why it is pretty rare.

thats the case for any team to win it all IMO, hell the pats went 16-0 and still lost

[Basileus777]

Simmah, simmah.

I checked him for a True Fan firearm at the door. He's clean.

There was a gerbil. But nothing dangerous.

:)

I honestly can't tell the difference anymore. They're everywhere.

[kstater]

Simmah, simmah111

I checked him for a True Fan firearm at the door. He's clean.

There was a gerbil. But nothing dangerous.

You weren't supposed to find the gerbil. I guess I'll have to find a different place to hide it.

[milkman]

Here, Hamas. You will definitely appreciate this.

So, we've established that out of the 27 SB winning QB's, 15 have been 1st round selections, and 12 went in the 2nd or later.

I've done some rough math to show how lopsided that really is.

In the 43 years that the Super Bowl has been played, there have been approximately 1,300 picks made in the 1st round of the draft.

In those same 43 years, there have been approximately 13,000 picks taken in the 2nd -17th rounds. (and yes, my math was adjusted to compensate for years in which the draft went 17, 12, 8 and 7 rounds)

So using these numbers, a Super Bowl winning QB is selected in the 1st round of the draft once every 86.6 selections.

Meanwhile, a Super Bowl winning QB is selected in the 2nd-through-last round of the draft once every 1083 selections.

I like my odds with a 1st round QB.


So, you're saying there's a chance/true fan

[DeezNutz]

:)

I honestly can't tell the difference anymore. They're everywhere.

They're amongst us.

The best thing we can do is keep our sarcasm meters at "full bullshit" and our weapons loaded. Don't worry about seeing whites of eyes.

[milkman]

thats the case for any team to win it all IMO, hell the pats went 16-0 and still lost

To a team with an outstanding defense, and a first round QB.

[DeezNutz]

So, you're saying there's a chance/true fan

:grovel:

Coffee. Almost on my fucking keyboard.

You sumbitch...

[Just Passin' By]

No, the reality of it is this: To get a SuperBowl winning QB, based on past odds, you have an equal chance of finding that QB by either drafting 1 in round one or drafting one in each of rounds 2-7. So, which draft board do you like:
Round 1: QB
Round 2-7: other positions

OR

Round 1: other positions
Round 2: QB
Round 3: QB
Round 4: QB
Round 5: QB
Round 6: QB
Round 7: QB

This is really unanswerable because of all the variables, and it's a poor argument to begin with because people are ignoring the obvious: even with every quarterback available to the GM's, there has been about a 50% overall failure rate when it comes to drafting Super Bowl winners in the first round, because about half of the winners come from outside that round.

Furthermore, it should be pointed out that, using the numbers in your earlier post and assuming they are true, there is about a 2 out of 3 chance that there's not a Super Bowl winning quarterback in round one.

I keep pointing out that I'm not opposed to drafting quarterbacks in round one. I'm not even opposed to gambling with that pick. The question, as any intelligent analyst, GM or otherwise, has to answer for himself is whether or not the potential reward of any particular pick, QB or otherwise, is worth the risk of blowing that pick.

[SAUTO]

To a team with an outstanding defense, and a first round QB.

doesnt matter just sayin that everything has to align to win a championship for ANY team

[milkman]

doesnt matter just sayin that everything has to align to win a championship for ANY team

I was being sarcastic.

However, the chances of things aligning just right improve if you can compete on a consistent basis and have a QB that can make plays.

[Basileus777]

doesnt matter just sayin that everything has to align to win a championship for ANY team

If you have a quarterback that can drive down the field and win the game for you at the end, you can get away with a lot more mistakes during the game. You have a margin of error to work with because you have someone who can get you 7 points when you need it. It's not a coincidence that the last two teams to win the Superbowl did it because their franchise QB took them down the field and won it for them.

If you have a quarterback like that you can stay in a game. Teams built on defense and average quarterbacks have trouble making those drives when it counts or when they fall behind in a game.

[SAUTO]

If you have a quarterback that can drive down the field and win the game for you at the end, you can get away with a lot more mistakes during the game. You have a margin of error to work with because you have someone who can get you 7 points when you need it. It's not a coincidence that the last two teams to win the Superbowl did it because their franchise QB took them down the field and won it for them.

If you have a quarterback like that you can stay in a game. Teams built on defense and average quarterbacks have trouble making those drives when it counts or when they fall behind in a game.

i'm talking about everything involved in getting there not winning once you get there. its a long seaeson and to fight through the injuries and all the other things it takes a lot of luck. Of course being good helps:D

[SAUTO]

I was being sarcastic.

However, the chances of things aligning just right improve if you can compete on a consistent basis and have a QB that can make plays.

agreed

[Basileus777]

i'm talking about everything involved in getting there not winning once you get there. its a long seaeson and to fight through the injuries and all the other things it takes a lot of luck. Of course being good helps:D

All of those things I said apply to regular season games as well. It's how the Colts managed to win 12 games this year. Peyton Manning won them games they had no business winning with late game drives. It's how the Pats went 16-0 in the regular season, they had a great QB who managed to put together game winning drives in those few close games they had. There's examples from every team with a franchise QB.

[OnTheWarpath15]

So, you're saying there's a chance/true fan

ROFL

Why am I shocked that there's some dumbass who's still trying to argue against those odds?

[SAUTO]

All of those things I said apply to regular season games as well. It's how the Colts managed to win 12 games this year. Peyton Manning won them games they had no business winning with late game drives. It's how the Pats went 16-0 in the regular season, they had a great QB who managed to put together game winning drives in those few close games they had. There's examples from every team with a franchise QB.

i;m not even arguing about a qb here, just to get through the season and win the superbowl a lot of stuff has to work out in your favor, yes the qb would make it easier, a defense would make it easier, still the ball bounces funny sometimes, luck is almost as important as being good, green bay was in the championship game last year and won 6 games this year, and please dont blame it on farve

[milkman]

i;m not even arguing about a qb here, just to get through the season and win the superbowl a lot of stuff has to work out in your favor, yes the qb would make it easier, a defense would make it easier, still the ball bounces funny sometimes, luck is almost as important as being good, green bay was in the championship game last year and won 6 games this year, and please dont blame it on farve

It was a combination of factors, most notably a far more difficult schedule combined with the loss of their best young DT to free agency.

[Saul Good]

Furthermore, it should be pointed out that, using the numbers in your earlier post and assuming they are true, there is about a 2 out of 3 chance that there's not a Super Bowl winning quarterback in round one.


Sorry, but your math is bad. You don't know how many first round QBs currently playing in the NFL will go on to win a Super Bowl. The number you used would only be correct if none of them go on to win a Super Bowl in their career. There are a lot of young QBs that are likely to win one in the future. The odds are a lot closer to 50-50.

That said, your argument is stupid as well. There are 32 starting QBs in the NFL, and there have only been 43 Super Bowls. Fewer than 30 QBs have ever won the Super Bowl, and there is a reason. It generally takes a pretty damned good QB to win one.

Why don't you pick whatever non-QBposition you think is the most important and try to figure out what the odds of drafting a Super Bowl winning (MLB, LT, Long Snapper, etc.) in the first round?

[chiefzilla1501]

Not to mention that 1083 is slightly skewed by Brady's 3.

I argued this point in another thread. That statistic is horribly skewed by the fact that most 6th round QBs rarely ever get a chance to start whereas close to 100% of first round QBs will get at least one full year of starting experience and most of them will get 2-3 years of starting experience.

It's a horribly skewed statistic. A lot of those 6th round picks don't bust or become Super Bowl QBs simply because they don't play. Plain and simple--you do not know what a QB is capable of unless you give them a chance to play and you give them a chance to develop and learn.

I fully understand why teams would rather start first round QBs versus 6th round QBs. And I understand that first round QBs are more likely to succeed than a 6th round QB. But I can absolutely guarantee you that if every year, 15-20 sixth round picks every single season were given an opportunity to start, that 1083 number would drop SIGNIFICANTLY.

Given that in almost every season, over half of the starting QBs in the NFL are first round picks (even if some of them were never good enough to be starters in the first place), OF COURSE you're more likely to get more Super Bowls.

It's like this. You throw 20 red marbles in a jar and 10 blue marbles, it's common sense that you are far more likely to draw a red marble out of that jar than a blue one.

[keg in kc]

i;m not even arguing about a qb here, just to get through the season and win the superbowl a lot of stuff has to work out in your favor, yes the qb would make it easier, a defense would make it easier, still the ball bounces funny sometimes, luck is almost as important as being good, green bay was in the championship game last year and won 6 games this year, and please dont blame it on farveAnd since you can't count on luck, you build the strongest team you can and put yourself in the best possible position to win.

[DaneMcCloud]

I argued this point in another thread. That statistic is horribly skewed by the fact that most 6th round QBs rarely ever get a chance to start

You are absolutely out of your fucking mind.

[Saul Good]

I argued this point in another thread. That statistic is horribly skewed by the fact that most 6th round QBs rarely ever get a chance to start whereas close to 100% of first round QBs will get at least one full year of starting experience and most of them will get 2-3 years of starting experience.

It's a horribly skewed statistic. A lot of those 6th round picks don't bust or become Super Bowl QBs simply because they don't play. Plain and simple--you do not know what a QB is capable of unless you give them a chance to play and you give them a chance to develop and learn.


Fantastic point! That's also the reason that so few CP posters have won Super Bowls. Teams are just too busy giving chances to talented players to see the truth.

Were you laughed out of that thread too? If not, please link the thread so that I can mock your argument there as well.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Fantastic point! That's also the reason that so few CP posters have won Super Bowls. Teams are just too busy giving chances to talented players to see the truth.

Were you laughed out of that thread too? If not, please link the thread so that I can mock your argument there as well.

ROFL

[keg in kc]

I argued this point in another thread. That statistic is horribly skewed by the fact that most 6th round QBs rarely ever get a chance to start whereas close to 100% of first round QBs will get at least one full year of starting experience and most of them will get 2-3 years of starting experience.

It's a horribly skewed statistic. A lot of those 6th round picks don't bust or become Super Bowl QBs simply because they don't play. Plain and simple--you do not know what a QB is capable of unless you give them a chance to play and you give them a chance to develop and learn.

I fully understand why teams would rather start first round QBs versus 6th round QBs. And I understand that first round QBs are more likely to succeed than a 6th round QB. But I can absolutely guarantee you that if every year, 15-20 sixth round picks every single season were given an opportunity to start, that 1083 number would drop SIGNIFICANTLY.

Given that in almost every season, over half of the starting QBs in the NFL are first round picks (even if some of them were never good enough to be starters in the first place), OF COURSE you're more likely to get more Super Bowls.

It's like this. You throw 20 red marbles in a jar and 10 blue marbles, it's common sense that you are far more likely to draw a red marble out of that jar than a blue one.That's a ridiculous comparison to make. The only difference between those 20 marbles is their color. Whereas the difference in talent between first rounders and sixth rounders (any position, not just quarterback) would be like filling a bag with 10 bb's and 10 giant jawbreakers.

This idea that all 6th rounders are just a 'win one for the gipper' away from superstardom is cute, but it just isn't reality. Oh, you'll find a few gems a year, you'll even find undrafted free agents that hit, but the truth is that those guys fell into that draft range because they have red flags, whether it's talent or attitude or something else. In other words, they just aren't that good. Tom Brady is the exception that proves the rule.

[cdcox]

You defintely need a QB that was drafted in the 1st round or a QB that should have been drafted in the 1st round.

Therefore, your choices are 1) take the appropriate action given the situation or 2) ignore reality and hope you get lucky.

[chiefzilla1501]

You are absolutely out of your ****ing mind.

What's so ridiculous?

OTW said that there's a 1 in 1083 chance of a 6th round QB making the Super Bowl. And everyone gobbled that up like it's this amazingly foolproof statistic. My argument should prove to anyone with any ounce of common sense that the statistic is horribly skewed.

You are comparing first round picks to 6th round picks. Regardless of who is more talented than whom, you are comparing players who are given every chance to succeed ON THE FIELD against players who are almost never given a chance on the field. It's NOT an apples to apples comparison. If every 6th round pick was given an opportunity to start, of course it wouldn't end up that 1 out of every 1 QB ended up making the Super Bowl. But it would be a significant improvement from the 1/1083 that OTW presents with such certainty.

Anyone with any hint of an understanding of statistics knows that the number he presented is ridiculously biased.

[ChiefsCountry]

Zilla talking out of his ass again imagine that.

[chiefzilla1501]

That's a ridiculous comparison to make. The only difference between those 20 marbles is their color. Whereas the difference in talent between first rounders and sixth rounders (any position, not just quarterback) would be like filling a bag with 10 bb's and 10 giant jawbreakers.

This idea that all 6th rounders are just a 'win one for the gipper' away from superstardom is cute, but it just isn't reality. Oh, you'll find a few gems a year, you'll even find undrafted free agents that hit, but the truth is that those guys fell into that draft range because they have red flags, whether it's talent or attitude or something else. In other words, they just aren't that good. Tom Brady is the exception that proves the rule.

It's not a ridiculous comparison to make. OTW's stat was comparing first round picks to 6th round picks or worse. Guess what, in any given year, the NFL usually has about 15 first round pick QBs starting and about 3 or 4 sixth round picks starting. So the more appropriate comparison is that you have a jar of 32 marbles, 15 of them are red, 3 are blue, and the rest are whatever different color. Like I said, I fully understand that first round picks are generally scouted as more talented and, therefore, are more likely to succeed. So yes, the marbles example is more an illustration than a real live example. But you get the point... the mere fact that there are in most given seasons at least 3 times as many first round picks starting versus 6th round picks or below, that tells you that the sample is very skewed.

Here's a better example. If you had a pie-eating contest, and you had 32 contestants. 15 of those contestants were from Kansas City, and 5 of those contestants were from Omaha, who would be more likely to win? Yes, there are situational factors that may make you say "Omaha", but the pure fact that Kansas City has more contestants alone dictates that they have a huge advantage simply because they have stronger numbers.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Chiefzilla--Even with a vastly greater # of non first round QBs in the league, and the fact that there are currently 6 rounds in which 1st round QBs aren't drafted and one in which they are, there are still far more 1st rounders going to the playoffs and winning in the playoffs and Super Bowl.

Why? Because they are better players. Do you really think that any coach worth a rat shit would sit Tom Brady over Drew Bledsoe once he knew what he had in both, simply because Bledsoe was a first rounder?

The better guy plays, and the better guy is almost always a first rounder.

[Mecca]

I wonder if Zilla thinks about the most irrational argument he can make and then goes with that...you know 6th rounds would be good if they played, the draft chart is dumb.

[OnTheWarpath15]

What's so ridiculous?

OTW said that there's a 1 in 1083 chance of a 6th round QB making the Super Bowl.

No, that's NOT what OTW said.

What OTW said was that there's a 1 in 1083 chance of any QB drafted from the 2nd round on winning the Super Bowl.

Not focusing solely on 6th round picks.

[EyePod]

You need a franchise QB, and the top 10 is where you have the best chance of finding one.

Yeah, teams have won a Superbowl without a franchise QB, but the margin of error for doing so is just so small that the odds are not in your favor. To win a Superbowl without such a QB basically everything has to go your way, and in the NFL that's just not going to happen very often.

Da Bears were a contender without one. Great ST and great defense. THE DEAL IS DONE.

[Mecca]

I'd love to see these guys play poker....well I'm going all in because I got a 5% chance of getting that royal flush here!

[ChiefsCountry]

I wonder if Zilla thinks about the most irrational argument he can make and then goes with that...you know 6th rounds would be good if they played, the draft chart is dumb.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=5481631&postcount=136

[chiefzilla1501]

Chiefzilla--Even with a vastly greater # of non first round QBs in the league, and the fact that there are currently 6 rounds in which 1st round QBs aren't drafted and one in which they are, there are still far more 1st rounders going to the playoffs and winning in the playoffs and Super Bowl.

Why? Because they are better players. Do you really think that any coach worth a rat shit would sit Tom Brady over Drew Bledsoe once he knew what he had in both, simply because Bledsoe was a first rounder?

The better guy plays, and the better guy is almost always a first rounder.

I have never denied that they are better players. What I am suggesting is that people are trying to hammer out "definitive" statistics like "1 out of 1083 sixth round QBs will make the Super Bowl" as if they are definitive. They aren't. Maybe the number gets increased to "1 out of 500" if every single 6th round QB got a chance to start and was given 2-3 years to develop. Maybe "1 out of 100". I don't know. But it annoys the living shit out of me that I'm getting hammered by my comments, and yet people are willing to accept the 1 out of 1083 number as fact, even given the really obvious conclusion that we're comparing apples to oranges.

I am not even remotely suggesting that 6th round talent is the same or better than first round talent. Not at all. I'm pointing to the fact that people are rallying around a number that is horribly biased. Any statistician would cringe if they saw the kind of logic behind such a statistic.

[EyePod]

Here, Hamas. You will definitely appreciate this.

So, we've established that out of the 27 SB winning QB's, 15 have been 1st round selections, and 12 went in the 2nd or later.

I've done some rough math to show how lopsided that really is.

In the 43 years that the Super Bowl has been played, there have been approximately 1,300 picks made in the 1st round of the draft.

In those same 43 years, there have been approximately 13,000 picks taken in the 2nd -17th rounds. (and yes, my math was adjusted to compensate for years in which the draft went 17, 12, 8 and 7 rounds)

So using these numbers, a Super Bowl winning QB is selected in the 1st round of the draft once every 86.6 selections.

Meanwhile, a Super Bowl winning QB is selected in the 2nd-through-last round of the draft once every 1083 selections.

I like my odds with a 1st round QB.

But I'd still rather take one later than at 3. Sanchez isn't worth the 3rd pick. He's too raw.

[Mecca]

And I saw the line in this thread "there is no franchise QB this year"

Really wasn't that said last year too? Seems that proved to be right didn't it...oh shit.

[DeezNutz]

What's so ridiculous?

OTW said that there's a 1 in 1083 chance of a 6th round QB making the Super Bowl. And everyone gobbled that up like it's this amazingly foolproof statistic. My argument should prove to anyone with any ounce of common sense that the statistic is horribly skewed.

You are comparing first round picks to 6th round picks. Regardless of who is more talented than whom, you are comparing players who are given every chance to succeed ON THE FIELD against players who are almost never given a chance on the field. It's NOT an apples to apples comparison. If every 6th round pick was given an opportunity to start, of course it wouldn't end up that 1 out of every 1 QB ended up making the Super Bowl. But it would be a significant improvement from the 1/1083 that OTW presents with such certainty.

Anyone with any hint of an understanding of statistics knows that the number he presented is ridiculously biased.

Regarding NFL players, from practice squad to starters:

These mother****ers can't take a shit without being on tape. Every ****ing thing is broken down and analyzed.

If the player could compete at a high enough level, he'd play.

****. This sounds like the type of crying shit you hear from parents about why their kid isn't playing in high school.

Here's the truth. Your kid ****ing sucks. It's not that anything is unfair. It's the fault of the worthless ****ing parents that have low-quality DNA that have passed on a lot of suck to the next generation. That's why Junior "doesn't get a chance."

[Mecca]

I have never denied that they are better players. What I am suggesting is that people are trying to hammer out "definitive" statistics like "1 out of 1083 sixth round QBs will make the Super Bowl" as if they are definitive. They aren't. Maybe the number gets increased to "1 out of 500" if every single 6th round QB got a chance to start and was given 2-3 years to develop. Maybe "1 out of 100". I don't know. But it annoys the living shit out of me that I'm getting hammered by my comments, and yet people are willing to accept the 1 out of 1083 number as fact, even given the really obvious conclusion that we're comparing apples to oranges.

I am not even remotely suggesting that 6th round talent is the same or better than first round talent. Not at all. I'm pointing to the fact that people are rallying around a number that is horribly biased. Any statistician would cringe if they saw the kind of logic behind such a statistic.

If a 6th round pick had the talent to warrant that kind of time he'd get it..there's a reason they are 6th round picks..

Are you aware the last successful 3rd round QB was Joe Montana? The truth is successful QB's taken late in drafts are abberations not the rule how hard is that to understand?

[chiefzilla1501]

No, that's NOT what OTW said.

What OTW said was that there's a 1 in 1083 chance of any QB drafted from the 2nd round on winning the Super Bowl.

Not focusing solely on 6th round picks.

That's fine, but it doesn't change the point. You are still comparing apples to oranges.

I don't have the time to go through the numbers, but a more appropriate statistic is probably "Number of Super Bowls per NFL start" or "Number of Super Bowls per full NFL season." I would also be interested to know what % of 2nd round QBs and beyond started for more than 2 years (if we all agree with the logic that it takes 3 years to fully develop).

I can tell you that based on a really unscientific analysis, if you look at the 2008 QBs and you divide the number of Super Bowls by their number of pro seasons as a starter, here's the finding....

-First rounders in 62 seasons, they won 4 Super Bowlers and made it to 10 Super Bowls. That means they make it to a Super Bowl once every 10 years and win a Super Bowl once every 15 years.
-2nd rounders and beyond in 71 seasons have been to 11 Super Bowls and won 5 of them. That means they win a Super Bowl once every 14 years and make a Super Bowl once every 6 years. If you take Brady out of the equation, they would win a Super Bowl once every 32 years but make the Super Bowl once every 9 years.

Again, very unscientific, but it's a more apples to apples comparison.

[Saul Good]

Here's a better example. If you had a pie-eating contest, and you had 32 contestants. 15 of those contestants were from Kansas City, and 5 of those contestants were from Omaha, who would be more likely to win? Yes, there are situational factors that may make you say "Omaha", but the pure fact that Kansas City has more contestants alone dictates that they have a huge advantage simply because they have stronger numbers.

Let's say you have a foot race with 1 Olympic sprinter and 1 billion fat guys with their shoelaces tied together. I guess you would expect the sheer volume of fat guys to produce a winner, right?

[chiefzilla1501]

Regarding NFL players, from practice squad to starters:

These mother****ers can't take a shit without being on tape. Every ****ing thing is broken down and analyzed.

If the player could compete at a high enough level, he'd play.

****. This sounds like the type of crying shit you hear from parents about why their kid isn't playing in high school.

Here's the truth. Your kid ****ing sucks. It's not that anything is unfair. It's the fault of the worthless ****ing parents that have low-quality DNA that have passed on a lot of suck to the next generation. That's why Junior "doesn't get a chance."

You can say that all that you want, but the undeniable fact is players prove their worth on the field and most people on this board have said (even those who support first round picks) that players need about 3 years to develop as QBs. Those are two opportunities that few 2nd round picks and below are afforded

Again, people are acting like I'm saying there is a high success rate for lower round picks as QBs. I'm not saying that at all. Nor am I saying that every 6th round QB or below should get a chance. What I am suggesting is that most teams are typically conservative and would rather play a first round pick over a 6th round pick--a decision I completely agree with. But to say that 6th round pick didn't make a Super Bowl because he wasn't good enough is flawed--the answer is: we don't know if that 6th round pick could make a Super Bowl, because he was never given an opportunity to prove one way or the other.

[Saul Good]

But I'd still rather take one later than at 3. Sanchez isn't worth the 3rd pick. He's too raw.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again...If a QB is worth taking anywhere the first round or probably even the second round, he's worth taking at any slot in the draft in which he is the top QB left on the board. If he turns out to be a franchise QB, he would have been worth the number 1 overall pick. If he turns out to be a bust, he wouldn't be worth a 7th round pick.

[DaneMcCloud]

we don't know if that 6th round pick could make a Super Bowl, because he was never given an opportunity to prove one way or the other.

YOU may not know. But the scouts, GM's, coaches and coordinators know.

Why you can't figure that out is fucking ridiculous.

That's like arguing that the guys playing basketball on Venice Beach COULD be the next Michael Jordan, they just haven't been given a chance.

ROFL

Give me a fucking break.

These guys have been scouted since fucking middle school, let alone high school and college. They've been invited to NFL mini-camps and training camps. People in the NFL are generally RIGHT about players, not wrong.

What a stupid, ignorant "argument".

[cdcox]

I've said this before, and I'll say it again...If a QB is worth taking anywhere the first round or probably even the second round, he's worth taking at any slot in the draft in which he is the top QB left on the board. If he turns out to be a franchise QB, he would have been worth the number 1 overall pick. If he turns out to be a bust, he wouldn't be worth a 7th round pick.

Pretty much the point of my Matt Ryan poll. If you hit on a franchise QB, the payoff is so huge that the cost of acquiring him is negligible.

[DeezNutz]

You can say that all that you want, but the undeniable fact is players prove their worth on the field and most people on this board have said (even those who support first round picks) that players need about 3 years to develop as QBs. Those are two opportunities that few 2nd round picks and below are afforded

Again, people are acting like I'm saying there is a high success rate for lower round picks as QBs. I'm not saying that at all. Nor am I saying that every 6th round QB or below should get a chance. What I am suggesting is that most teams are typically conservative and would rather play a first round pick over a 6th round pick--a decision I completely agree with. But to say that 6th round pick didn't make a Super Bowl because he wasn't good enough is flawed--the answer is: we don't know if that 6th round pick could make a Super Bowl, because he was never given an opportunity to prove one way or the other.

Every time a player shows up to practice at an NFL facility, he's being given an opportunity.

Some excel, and others don't.

[cdcox]

YOU may not know. But the scouts, GM's, coaches and coordinators know.

Why you can't figure that out is ****ing ridiculous.

That's like arguing that the guys playing basketball on Venice Beach COULD be the next Michael Jordan, they just haven't been given a chance.

ROFL

Give me a ****ing break.

These guys have been scouted since ****ing middle school, let alone high school and college. They've been invited to NFL mini-camps and training camps. People in the NFL are generally RIGHT about players, not wrong.

What a stupid, ignorant "argument".

Thanks for this post. I was going to lose sleep tonight over the fact that the Chiefs might have cut a HOFer in Matt Blundin.

[ChiefRon]

Every time a player shows up to practice at an NFL facility, he's being given an opportunity.

Some excel, and others don't.

And they're taped and scrutinized through all hours of the night.

[chiefzilla1501]

Chiefzilla--Even with a vastly greater # of non first round QBs in the league, and the fact that there are currently 6 rounds in which 1st round QBs aren't drafted and one in which they are, there are still far more 1st rounders going to the playoffs and winning in the playoffs and Super Bowl.

Why? Because they are better players. Do you really think that any coach worth a rat shit would sit Tom Brady over Drew Bledsoe once he knew what he had in both, simply because Bledsoe was a first rounder?

The better guy plays, and the better guy is almost always a first rounder.

Your second paragraph is exactly my point. How do you know what you got until you put the guy on the field and play him? And given that QBs tend to take 3 years to develop, how do you know what you got if you don't give a QB 3 years of starts to fully develop as a starter? Had Drew Bledsoe never been injured, I can tell you right now that Tom Brady more than likely would have been a journeyman's QB; a poor man's Damon Huard. You say that no coach worth a rat's shit would have benched Tom Brady, and yet there was talk during the Super Bowl that Brady may have been benched for Bledsoe.

The better guy doesn't always play because teams don't know what they have in a QB who never sees the field. Teams usually go for the higher round pick because based on draft evaluations, they liked the guy's potential better. But they have no idea if the guy's actual NFL ability is the same. You don't know that until you actually put them on the field to play. That's why I keep saying that it's an apples to oranges comparison. We are comparing QBs who are given 3 years to succeed to QBs who are rarely given more than 2 unless they are immediately playoff-bound successful. I can fully understand why first round QBs get more chances than lower round picks, but I just disagree with the logic that lower round picks bust because they suck. I think the majority of lower round picks are scrapped before we ever have a full chance to evaluate their true potential.

[DeezNutz]

And they're taped and scrutinized through all hours of the night.

Even when sleeping?

That's a lot of pressure. Not everyone can produce a nocturnal emission.

Well, fuck 'em if they can't.

[Mecca]

I really don't know why common logic is so hard to understand...do you really love underdogs that much that you'll throw all odds and factors out the window to go "lets go with the longshot guy"

[cdcox]

Had Drew Bledsoe never been injured, I can tell you right now that Tom Brady more than likely would have been a journeyman's QB; a poor man's Damon Huard.

Unbelievable.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Steve Bellisari would have been a goddamn Hall of Famer had the Rams given him a chance. /chiefzilla

[OnTheWarpath15]

Unbelievable.

Chiefzilla just broke the speed of retard.

[chiefzilla1501]

Every time a player shows up to practice at an NFL facility, he's being given an opportunity.

Some excel, and others don't.

You don't know what a player has until he plays on the field. Period.

First round picks play more because they have more upside. That's a point I agree with and an approach I agree with. But that also means that they will start even if they are outperformed on the practice field. Coaches are reasonably more worried about starting a QB their scouts didn't rate so highly in the draft and that's only because they don't want to waste time developing a QB that may not have the upside of a higher-rated pick.

But that doesn't mean that low-round pick doesn't have any upside. It simply means that teams don't want to risk trying to develop the guy. Which again leads me to the point that while first round picks grade better, the reason why lower round picks bust at such a high rate is because they're not given as much opportunity to succeed. Again, I fully understand why teams do it and given the uncertainty of developing a QB, I think it's the only choice that teams have.

I'm not saying that lower round pick QBs wouldn't still bust at a significant rate. What I'm suggesting is that people on this thread are exaggerating how high that bust rate is.

[EyePod]

And I saw the line in this thread "there is no franchise QB this year"

Really wasn't that said last year too? Seems that proved to be right didn't it...oh shit.

Did you really think there was last year? And lets look at the franchise QB's from the fucking first round last year...

Matt Ryan - Atlanta Falcons

2008 Defense - 20.3 PPG - 11th

Joe Flacco - Baltimore Ravens

2008 Defense - 15.2 PPG - 3rd


Do you really think that we'll be able to put up defensive stats like that next season? There's no way. I'd agree that either Stafford or Sanchez would have a chance if our defense wasn't so terrible, but our QB won't have that same crutch, especially if we have to waste our high draft pick on a non-defensive player.

[Basileus777]

Keep the whac-a-mole going guys.

[Mecca]

That Brady thing is stupid know why?

He was good right away, if he had come in and been Damon Huard or some other shitty backup guess what, they'd have gone back to Bledsoe when he was ready..

So once again your argument is flawed.

[chiefzilla1501]

Unbelievable.

What's unbelievable. Do you really think Brady, a 6th round pick, would have ever been given a chance to start unless the Patriots had no choice but to start him? If Bledsoe stayed healthy all of 2001, who the hell knows what the story on Brady would have been.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Your second paragraph is exactly my point. How do you know what you got until you put the guy on the field and play him? And given that QBs tend to take 3 years to develop, how do you know what you got if you don't give a QB 3 years of starts to fully develop as a starter? Had Drew Bledsoe never been injured, I can tell you right now that Tom Brady more than likely would have been a journeyman's QB; a poor man's Damon Huard. You say that no coach worth a rat's shit would have benched Tom Brady, and yet there was talk during the Super Bowl that Brady may have been benched for Bledsoe.

The better guy doesn't always play because teams don't know what they have in a QB who never sees the field. Teams usually go for the higher round pick because based on draft evaluations, they liked the guy's potential better. But they have no idea if the guy's actual NFL ability is the same. You don't know that until you actually put them on the field to play. That's why I keep saying that it's an apples to oranges comparison. We are comparing QBs who are given 3 years to succeed to QBs who are rarely given more than 2 unless they are immediately playoff-bound successful. I can fully understand why first round QBs get more chances than lower round picks, but I just disagree with the logic that lower round picks bust because they suck. I think the majority of lower round picks are scrapped before we ever have a full chance to evaluate their true potential.

Yeah, because Joe Montana, Jeff Hostetler, David Garrard, Brett Favre, Trent Green, and Joe Theismann never got a chance to play.

[Mecca]

Did you really think there was last year? And lets look at the franchise QB's from the fucking first round last year...

Matt Ryan - Atlanta Falcons

2008 Defense - 20.3 PPG - 11th

Joe Flacco - Baltimore Ravens

2008 Defense - 15.2 PPG - 3rd


Do you really think that we'll be able to put up defensive stats like that next season? There's no way. I'd agree that either Stafford or Sanchez would have a chance if our defense wasn't so terrible, but our QB won't have that same crutch, especially if we have to waste our high draft pick on a non-defensive player.

I was the biggest Ryan backer on this forum...I dealt with that "he's being pushed up due to a bad class, he's not a franchise QB" shit all year or things like "he's a no better prospect than Croyle"

Who was right who was wrong?

[Basileus777]

Did you really think there was last year? And lets look at the franchise QB's from the fucking first round last year...

Matt Ryan - Atlanta Falcons

2008 Defense - 20.3 PPG - 11th

Joe Flacco - Baltimore Ravens

2008 Defense - 15.2 PPG - 3rd


Do you really think that we'll be able to put up defensive stats like that next season? There's no way. I'd agree that either Stafford or Sanchez would have a chance if our defense wasn't so terrible, but our QB won't have that same crutch, especially if we have to waste our high draft pick on a non-defensive player.
It's not about next season, it's about the 10 after that.

[Basileus777]

What's unbelievable. Do you really think Brady, a 6th round pick, would have ever been given a chance to start unless the Patriots had no choice but to start him? If Bledsoe stayed healthy all of 2001, who the hell knows what the story on Brady would have been.

Brady would have gotten a chance to play anyway. Even guys like Schaub eventually got a chance.

[OnTheWarpath15]

What's unbelievable. Do you really think Brady, a 6th round pick, would have ever been given a chance to start unless the Patriots had no choice but to start him? If Bledsoe stayed healthy all of 2001, who the hell knows what the story on Brady would have been.

I can guarantee you he would have at some point, because it's mentioned in Patriot Reign that they were drafting Brady to backup Bledsoe, but that they thought he had the tools necessary to start when Bledsoe started declining.

So yes, Brady would have eventually gotten his chance.

[chiefzilla1501]

Yeah, because Joe Montana, Jeff Hostetler, David Garrard, Brett Favre, Trent Green, and Joe Theismann never got a chance to play.

Hamas, close to 100% of first rounders get a chance to start for an extended time at some point in their NFL careers. No round in the draft comes even remotely close to matching that.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Yeah, because Joe Montana, Jeff Hostetler, David Garrard, Brett Favre, Trent Green, and Joe Theismann never got a chance to play.

Matt Hasselbeck.

Marc Bulger.

[Mecca]

If Tom Brady had come in and been Tyler Thigpen then he'd be a journeyman backup...fact is he wasn't.

So lets stop this retarded argument.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

What's unbelievable. Do you really think Brady, a 6th round pick, would have ever been given a chance to start unless the Patriots had no choice but to start him? If Bledsoe stayed healthy all of 2001, who the hell knows what the story on Brady would have been.

Well, first of all, he was drafted to be camp fodder and they figured he was most likely a 3rd stringer, who was going to fight it out with Michael Bishop and John Friesz. He beat them out. Then the next year, they brought in Huard to back up Bledsoe, and he beat him out. Then Bledsoe gets hurt and they bring in Brady and he plays above and beyond any expectation to the point where a guy with HOF #s gets his ass put down behind him.

The next year, they didn't flinch, they traded Bledsoe. He beat him out, too.

[Basileus777]

Hamas, close to 100% of first rounders get a chance to start for an extended time at some point in their NFL careers. No round in the draft comes even remotely close to matching that.

They get that chance because they deserve it. The team that drafted them saw something in them that warrants that playing time. If a later round pick shows enough in camp/practice, they get their chances often enough too.

[keg in kc]

I was the biggest Ryan backer on this forum...I dealt with that "he's being pushed up due to a bad class, he's not a franchise QB" shit all year or things like "he's a no better prospect than Croyle"I was a big ryan fan, too, but I'm not sure about this year. I see stafford as kind of a ryan light, but to me he did less with more, which is a red flag. And I've been pretty open about my lack of confidence in sanchez as a high pick. I think he really should've stayed in school.

I don't know that I'm all that excited about next year's class either.

[Saul Good]

Hamas, close to 100% of first rounders get a chance to start for an extended time at some point in their NFL careers. No round in the draft comes even remotely close to matching that.

It's almost as if those guys were drafted in the first round because they had more talent.

[Reerun_KC]

You don't know what a player has until he plays on the field. Period.

First round picks play more because they have more upside. That's a point I agree with and an approach I agree with. But that also means that they will start even if they are outperformed on the practice field. Coaches are reasonably more worried about starting a QB their scouts didn't rate so highly in the draft and that's only because they don't want to waste time developing a QB that may not have the upside of a higher-rated pick.

But that doesn't mean that low-round pick doesn't have any upside. It simply means that teams don't want to risk trying to develop the guy. Which again leads me to the point that while first round picks grade better, the reason why lower round picks bust at such a high rate is because they're not given as much opportunity to succeed. Again, I fully understand why teams do it and given the uncertainty of developing a QB, I think it's the only choice that teams have.

I'm not saying that lower round pick QBs wouldn't still bust at a significant rate. What I'm suggesting is that people on this thread are exaggerating how high that bust rate is.

So your saying that NFL coaches suck because they wont let unimpressive players on the field to prove themselves?

So basically OTA's, Training Camp and miles of film on guys is just worthless, because he doesnt get on the field to prove himself?

I dont understand your logic... Why have film, training camp and OTA's then?

[keg in kc]

I dont understand your logic... Why have film, training camp and OTA's then?Why scout and rank college players, why have a draft.

[OnTheWarpath15]

I think it's comical that Zilla claims that guys drafted in the 2nd and after don't get a chance to play, when 18 of the 32 starters on opening day 2008 were 2nd round picks or later.

There are only 32 jobs as a starting NFL QB, and they have 56% of those jobs.

[Mecca]

This argument is never going to end....

We'll never escape Carl Peterson.

[Reerun_KC]

Why scout and rank college players, why have a draft.

This is basically his whole argument....

Guys are on the bench and behind the stars and starters, because the HC's are too stupid to let them prove themselves on the field...

[cdcox]

If only I'd been stocking groceries in that store instead of Kurt Warner. Could have been my big break. Life is so random.

[DeezNutz]

I'm surprised he hasn't tried pulling the Warner rabbit.

Never would have gotten a chance.

Um, yeah right. That's why the Rams front office made sure that Grandpa didn't rush back to Tony fucking Banks. Why they knew things were going to be ok when Green went down with an injury.

Even a fucking grocery bagger was getting his shot in the league, at one point or another, because FO personnel identified him as a player with talent.

Amazing how that works.

[Basileus777]

This argument is never going to end....

We'll never escape Carl Peterson.

Like I said, it's whac-a-mole. The True Fans will just keep on coming until you give up from exhaustion.

[DeezNutz]

If only I'd been stocking groceries in that store instead of Kurt Warner. Could have been my big break. Life is so random.

We're, like, so here. *motions back and forth*

[kcchiefsus]

How about I put it this way. Depending on how Jamarcus Russell continues to develop (as much as I hate to admit it he did pretty well the last few games of the season) we could end up being the only team in the division without a top quarterback. Hmm, I just love the thought of that.

And i'm sure it's just a coincidence that we are also the only team in the division to not use a 1st round pick on a quarterback.

[Reerun_KC]

This argument is never going to end....

We'll never escape Carl Peterson.
It will take time Mecca, I say 3-5 years before most of those fans leave and go to some other NFL team...

Some will come around, but most will just leave out of sheer disappointment without mediocrity...

[OnTheWarpath15]

I'm surprised he hasn't tried pulling the Warner rabbit.

Never would have gotten a chance.

Um, yeah right. That's why the Rams front office made sure that Grandpa didn't rush back to Tony fucking Banks. Why they knew things were going to be ok when Green went down with an injury.

Even a fucking grocery bagger was getting his shot in the league, at one point or another, because FO personnel identified him as a player with talent.

Amazing how that works.

Have you ever watched the "America's Game" episode on the 99 Rams?

Vermeil makes a comment that the kid (Warner) just kept impressing us in practice, so we had to keep him around.

[chiefzilla1501]

They get that chance because they deserve it. The team that drafted them saw something in them that warrants that playing time. If a later round pick shows enough in camp/practice, they get their chances often enough too.

Didn't I say the first point about 100 times?

And no, most lower round picks would not beat out a first round pick QB unless they were either immediately very impressive or unless the team felt the first round QB wasn't ready.

I have said about a million times that I understand and support the decision to start first round QBs over lower round picks. I am just saying that you don't know anything about a QB until you put him on the field.

[Mecca]

Like I said, it's whac-a-mole. The True Fans will just keep on coming until you give up from exhaustion.

Then when you've finally had enough where you completely lose your patience you are met with

"You need to calm down" "why are you being an asshole"

Gee I wonder.

[keg in kc]

I'm surprised he hasn't tried pulling the Warner rabbit.

Never would have gotten a chance.

Um, yeah right. That's why the Rams front office made sure that Grandpa didn't rush back to Tony ****ing Banks. Why they knew things were going to be ok when Green went down with an injury.

Even a ****ing grocery bagger was getting his shot in the league, at one point or another, because FO personnel identified him as a player with talent.

Amazing how that works.I was big into fantasy at the time, and I remember that people were talking about Warner even before Green went down with the injury. At least some folks thought he might take the job outright.

If a guy is good enough, some team somewhere will find him and use him. We saw it with Rich Gannon, we saw it with Trent Green, we saw it with Priest Holmes and Tony Richardson. We saw it with Brian Waters. We saw it with Joe Horn going to New Orleans. We saw it with Jimmy Smith going to Jacksonville. These teams all network, and it's very hard to hide talented players. That's the whole reason they have a practice squad, to give guys in the low round range an opportunity to continue to develop without taking a spot on the main roster.

The franchises turn over every rock...

[OnTheWarpath15]

I think it's comical that Zilla claims that guys drafted in the 2nd and after don't get a chance to play, when 18 of the 32 starters on opening day 2008 were 2nd round picks or later.

There are only 32 jobs as a starting NFL QB, and they have 56% of those jobs.

Let me add to this from a previous discussion:

Out of 12 playoff teams this year, 9 of them were led by 1st round picks.

So 9/14 1st round QB's got their team to the playoffs, (64%) while only 3 of the 18 later round guys made the playoffs. (16%)

Last I checked, you can't win the Super Bowl without making the playoffs.

[Ultra Peanut]

Here, Hamas. You will definitely appreciate this.

So, we've established that out of the 27 SB winning QB's, 15 have been 1st round selections, and 12 went in the 2nd or later.

I've done some rough math to show how lopsided that really is.

In the 43 years that the Super Bowl has been played, there have been approximately 1,300 picks made in the 1st round of the draft.

In those same 43 years, there have been approximately 13,000 picks taken in the 2nd -17th rounds. (and yes, my math was adjusted to compensate for years in which the draft went 17, 12, 8 and 7 rounds)

So using these numbers, a Super Bowl winning QB is selected in the 1st round of the draft once every 86.6 selections.

Meanwhile, a Super Bowl winning QB is selected in the 2nd-through-last round of the draft once every 1083 selections.

I like my odds with a 1st round QB.Sweet feathery Jesus, this is an amazing post.

[DeezNutz]

Have you ever watched the "America's Game" episode on the 99 Rams?

Vermeil makes a comment that the kid (Warner) just kept impressing us in practice, so we had to keep him around.

No, I haven't.

I always heard the story that it was the FO that made sure DV stuck with Warner, since, as we all know, the coach has such an affinity for vets.

Not all true?

[OnTheWarpath15]

I am just saying that you don't know anything about a QB until you put him on the field.

You can keep saying it, but it's still bullshit.

[chiefzilla1501]

So your saying that NFL coaches suck because they wont let unimpressive players on the field to prove themselves?

So basically OTA's, Training Camp and miles of film on guys is just worthless, because he doesnt get on the field to prove himself?

I dont understand your logic... Why have film, training camp and OTA's then?

What's funny is that the same people who argue that you learn everything you need to know about a player on film and in practice, are exactly the same people who are going to claim that QBs shouldn't be judged until the 2nd or 3rd year of their development. By the way, I agree with that 100%. I believe you can only judge a QB by what he contributes ON THE FIELD and you have to give a QB at least a full season of reps before judging.

Practices, scouting, training camp... all of those things are just ways of evaluating who might have more potential. There are lots of QBs who look outstanding in practice but lousy on the field, and plenty who don't practice well but somehow looking great on the field. There is simply no substitute for in-game evaluation. None.

[ChiefsCountry]

I remember watching Warner in NFL Europe and he kicked ass.

[Saul Good]

It will take time Mecca, I say 3-5 years before most of those fans leave and go to some other NFL team...

Some will come around, but most will just leave out of sheer disappointment without mediocrity...

Why can't we just do it like the Dolphins? Grab a QB who might have 1-2 years left in the tank, and we, too, can experience the joy of watching our inferior team get unceremoniously bounced out of the playoffs.

[OnTheWarpath15]

No, I haven't.

I always heard the story that it was the FO that made sure DV stuck with Warner, since, as we all know, the coach has such an affinity for vets.

Not all true?

Well, he does say "we" in the clip. He's not taking credit.

I think he was fully confident in Warner's abilities prior to opening day of 1999.

[keg in kc]

I remember watching Warner in NFL Europe and he kicked ass.I miss NFL Europe.

[Reerun_KC]

What's funny is that the same people who argue that you learn everything you need to know about a player on film and in practice, are exactly the same people who are going to claim that QBs shouldn't be judged until the 2nd or 3rd year of their development. By the way, I agree with that 100%. I believe you can only judge a QB by what he contributes ON THE FIELD and you have to give a QB at least a full season of reps before judging.

Practices, scouting, training camp... all of those things are just ways of evaluating who might have more potential. There are lots of QBs who look outstanding in practice but lousy on the field, and plenty who don't practice well but somehow looking great on the field. There is simply no substitute for in-game evaluation. None.

Then why are you complaining about this to a message board and not in an NFL office somewhere?

[Reerun_KC]

Why can't we just do it like the Dolphins? Grab a QB who might have 1-2 years left in the tank, and we, too, can experience the joy of watching our inferior team get unceremoniously bounced out of the playoffs.

We have done that for 20 years.. No thanks I will pass...

[DeezNutz]

Well, he does say "we" in the clip. He's not taking credit.

I think he was fully confident in Warner's abilities prior to opening day of 1999.

Yeah, if I were as confident I'd probably be more apt to give DV a lot more credit as a coach.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Well, he does say "we" in the clip. He's not taking credit.

I think he was fully confident in Warner's abilities prior to opening day of 1999.

"We will rally behind Kurt Warner, and we will play good football."

[OnTheWarpath15]

Then why are you complaining about this to a message board and not in an NFL office somewhere?

He better start with this topic, he'll get booted out about 5 seconds into his "GM's are retarded for using the draft chart" speech.

He might make it 30 seconds with this tripe.

[Saul Good]

What's funny is that the same people who argue that you learn everything you need to know about a player on film and in practice, are exactly the same people who are going to claim that QBs shouldn't be judged until the 2nd or 3rd year of their development. By the way, I agree with that 100%. I believe you can only judge a QB by what he contributes ON THE FIELD and you have to give a QB at least a full season of reps before judging.

Practices, scouting, training camp... all of those things are just ways of evaluating who might have more potential. There are lots of QBs who look outstanding in practice but lousy on the field, and plenty who don't practice well but somehow looking great on the field. There is simply no substitute for in-game evaluation. None.

Do you really still think that you are right, or are you just too deeply invested in your argument to admit that you are wrong?

I'll give you a "Get out of an entrenched position free" card. You can walk away from your abysmal failure of an argument with quiet dignity.

[OnTheWarpath15]

"We will rally behind Kurt Warner, and we will play good football."

Bingo.

[cdcox]

Didn't I say the first point about 100 times?

And no, most lower round picks would not beat out a first round pick QB unless they were either immediately very impressive or unless the team felt the first round QB wasn't ready.

I have said about a million times that I understand and support the decision to start first round QBs over lower round picks. I am just saying that you don't know anything about a QB until you put him on the field.

OK, time to quit being hypothetical. Which QB do you want to turn the reigns of the Chiefs to for the next 3 years?

Consider that 3 years represents 100% of Todd Haley's chances to succeed, 50% of Pioli's chances to succeed, 25% of a star players career, and 5% of millions of fans chances to see their team win a SB.

Who you going with? Who gives you the best chance such that you are willing to justify that kind of investment?

[Reerun_KC]

You can keep saying it, but it's still bullshit.

There is a thing called preseason as well....

Those late round players get to show whether or not they belong...

This isnt some pickup league and most teams could careless about late round picks... No GM is going to hitch his wagon on a player that needs to show what he has on the field when he is a late round unproductive pick.

You invest in a 1st Rd QB, just like you invest in the stock market and your home...

You just hope you get a return on your investment. IF not, you start over and try agian... You dont hitch your investment to junk bonds and hope for the best...

[Saul Good]

We have done that for 20 years.. No thanks I will pass...

What are you talking about? Besides Dave Kreig, Ron Jaworski, Joe Montana, Steve DeBerg, Steve Bono, Elvis Grbac, Rich Gannon, and Trent Green, the Chiefs have a history of drafting and developing QBs.

[OnTheWarpath15]

OK, time to quit being hypothetical. Which QB do you want to turn the reigns of the Chiefs to for the next 3 years?

Consider that 3 years represents 100% of Todd Haley's chances to succeed, 50% of Pioli's chances to succeed, 25% of a star players career, and 5% of millions of fans chances to see their team win a SB.

Who you going with? Who gives you the best chance to make that kind of investment?

Mike Reilly, Central Washington, FTW!

[chiefzilla1501]

Let me add to this from a previous discussion:

Out of 12 playoff teams this year, 9 of them were led by 1st round picks.

So 9/14 1st round QB's got their team to the playoffs, (64%) while only 3 of the 18 later round guys made the playoffs. (16%)

Last I checked, you can't win the Super Bowl without making the playoffs.

Yeah, and in 2006 and 2007, 6 out of 12 were first round QBs.

And did you check out my stat on 2008 QBs and their Super Bowls per NFL season figure? It's not a perfect number, but it goes to show the flaw in claiming that 1/1083 2nd round QBs and below can make a Super Bowl. That's a far more valid statistic than your apples to oranges comparison.

[ChiefsCountry]

I miss NFL Europe.

I swear my NFL Europe idea for here in the states would do really well IMO. Get the 12 next cities in line for NFL football and put teams with regional affilations with NFL and some former college stars and it would do well. NFLN could cover the games, give them more ammo to get on more cable systems and programming.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Yeah, and in 2006 and 2007, 6 out of 12 were first round QBs.

And did you check out my stat on 2008 QBs and their Super Bowls per NFL season figure? It's not a perfect number, but it goes to show the flaw in claiming that 1/1083 2nd round QBs and below can make a Super Bowl. That's a far more valid statistic than your apples to oranges comparison.

Wrong, but keep trying.

We're enjoying it.

[EyePod]

If Tom Brady had come in and been Tyler Thigpen then he'd be a journeyman backup...fact is he wasn't.

So lets stop this retarded argument.

They also were 6th in PTS allowed during the 2001 season. It must have ****ing helped to have a good defense behind Brady always giving him the ball back....

[chiefzilla1501]

OK, time to quit being hypothetical. Which QB do you want to turn the reigns of the Chiefs to for the next 3 years?

Consider that 3 years represents 100% of Todd Haley's chances to succeed, 50% of Pioli's chances to succeed, 25% of a star players career, and 5% of millions of fans chances to see their team win a SB.

Who you going with? Who gives you the best chance such that you are willing to justify that kind of investment?

I think Matt Sanchez gives you the best chance to succeed. I've said many times that a first round pick succeeds at a higher rate.

I'm just arguing against the logic that Tyler Thigpen has a 1/1083 chance of getting the team to the Super Bowl.

Of course Sanchez offers a better chance to make a Super Bowl than Thigpen. But not nearly to the exaggerated extent that people on this thread are suggesting by throwing out a bunch of statistics that are filled with flaws.

[EyePod]

Yeah, and in 2006 and 2007, 6 out of 12 were first round QBs.

And did you check out my stat on 2008 QBs and their Super Bowls per NFL season figure? It's not a perfect number, but it goes to show the flaw in claiming that 1/1083 2nd round QBs and below can make a Super Bowl. That's a far more valid statistic than your apples to oranges comparison.

He looked at winning the SB, not just getting to one.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

They also were 6th in PTS allowed the 2001 season. It must have fucking helped to have a good defense behind Brady always giving him the ball back....

And 23rd in yards. That wasn't an elite defense.

[DeezNutz]

I think Matt Sanchez gives you the best chance to succeed. I've said many times that a first round pick succeeds at a higher rate.

I'm just arguing against the logic that Tyler Thigpen has a 1/1083 chance of getting the team to the Super Bowl.

Of course Sanchez offers a better chance to make a Super Bowl than Thigpen. But not nearly to the exaggerated extent that people on this thread are suggesting by throwing out a bunch of statistics that are filled with flaws.

I'm more in favor of Mark Stafford.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Yeah, and in 2006 and 2007, 6 out of 12 were first round QBs.

And did you check out my stat on 2008 QBs and their Super Bowls per NFL season figure? It's not a perfect number, but it goes to show the flaw in claiming that 1/1083 2nd round QBs and below can make a Super Bowl. That's a far more valid statistic than your apples to oranges comparison.

And who won the Super Bowl those years?

The 1st overall pick.

You can keep trying to manipulate the numbers to make it look like you have a case, but you don't.

The odds are astronomically in your favor to draft a QB in the 1st round and win a SB than it is all the other rounds combined.

Period.

End of story.

No twisting, no manipulation.

FACTS.

[cdcox]

I think Matt Sanchez gives you the best chance to succeed. I've said many times that a first round pick succeeds at a higher rate.

I'm just arguing against the logic that Tyler Thigpen has a 1/1083 chance of getting the team to the Super Bowl.

Of course Sanchez offers a better chance to make a Super Bowl than Thigpen. But not nearly to the exaggerated extent that people on this thread are suggesting by throwing out a bunch of statistics that are filled with flaws.

Defense rests, Your Honor.

[chiefzilla1501]

Defense rests, Your Honor.

That is what I've been saying all along. I'm not arguing against the idea that a top 5 pick has a much better chance of succeeding. I just don't like when statistics are twisted to prove a point.

[EyePod]

And 23rd in yards. That wasn't an elite defense.

I judge my defenses by points, not yardage. Cardinals had more yards. That didn't matter.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

I judge my defenses by points, not yardage. Cardinals had more yards. That didn't matter.

Well, if a defense can't get an offense off the field, and is consistently putting the offense in bad field position, it becomes a fuck of a lot harder to score, now doesn't it?

[Saul Good]

They also were 6th in PTS allowed during the 2001 season. It must have ****ing helped to have a good defense behind Brady always giving him the ball back....

The Steelers have seemingly always had great defenses. They have had franchise QBs for 16 years, and they have 6 Lombardi trophies in those 16 years. In the other 27 years of their existence during the Super Bowl era, they have had no franchise QBs and no Lombardi trophies.

Defense is great, but...

[OnTheWarpath15]

That is what I've been saying all along. I'm not arguing against the idea that a top 5 pick has a much better chance of succeeding. I just don't like when statistics are twisted to prove a point.

Nothing twisted here, numbers and information taken directly from drafthistory.com and all math done with my trusty Casio MS-80TV 10-key calculator.

Just because you don't like the results doesn't mean the data is not factual.

Shouldn't you be putting a presentation together to show all those GM's how stupid they are for using the draft chart?

[Manila-Chief]

The Steelers have had outstanding defenses for the better part of 20 years.

But it's only a coincidence that they've won 2 of the last 5 since they drafted their franchise QB, while only appearing in only one of the previous 12 or so with the likes of Niel O'Donnell, Kordell Stewart and Tommy Maddox.

Haven't read all the posts ... but, this is an excellent point.

Also, consider that the SB's they won in the 70's had one of the all time great QB's leading the team. They had an excellent defense, but Bradshaw won a lot of games.

What we need is a great defense, excellent special teams, and a great offense ... being led by a franchise QB. I think odds are very long that we will find him in the 6th. round.

It's not often that a team is drafting this high and if a franchise QB is there at #3 ... take him. Enough said!!!!

[OnTheWarpath15]

Off to bed, I have exams in the morning.

Until tomorrow, gentlemen, when Zilla will try to tell us how stupid positional value is and that we should draft an interior offensive lineman at #3.

[chiefzilla1501]

Nothing twisted here, numbers and information taken directly from drafthistory.com and all math done with my trusty Casio MS-80TV 10-key calculator.

Just because you don't like the results doesn't mean the data is not factual.

Shouldn't you be putting a presentation together to show all those GM's how stupid they are for using the draft chart?

Okay, congratulations. We all know that statistics can be manipulated in any way that you want it to. Perhaps we should also put a statistic out there that 100% of QBs from the University of Delaware end up becoming playoff QBs. That's on drafthistory.com too--no need for a calculator. Statistics is not about what numbers you have, it's about how you interpret them. I purposely posted a statistic that tells a completely different story using close to the same numbers. That is living proof that you can make statistics tell whatever story you want it to tell.

Based on current QBs in the NFL, 4 Super Bowls have been won by a first round QB versus 5 won by a QB from the second round and beyond. 6 Super Bowls were made by first round QBs versus 11 Super Bowls made by a QB from the second round QB and beyond. And before you start griping about how there are more starters in the 2nd round and beyond in that sample, realize that the first round starters totaled about 62 total pro, 16-game seasons played while 2nd round starters and beyond totaled about 71 total pro, 16-game seasons.

It's not an accurate statistic. And neither is yours. But it's proof that you can tell an entirely different story. If you want a true statistic (and I don't have the time to research this), I would look at this over a 20-year span. My guess is that first rounders will have a better success rate, but not even remotely close to the 1/1083 statistic you posted. No, you did not twist the stats, but you misinterpreted them by assuming that both sides of the sample were operating under the same conditions. They clearly were not. You have to compare first round QBs who were given a chance to second round QBs and beyond who were given a chance. And you can't compare a Peyton Manning, who finally made the Super Bowl after 9 seasons to a guy like Matt Schaub who has only played in two--for those people that were so critical of Bill Cowher only winning one Super Bowl in over 10 years, why are we so forgiving about an elite QB who couldn't make a Super Bowl in 10 years?

[chiefzilla1501]

Off to bed, I have exams in the morning.

Until tomorrow, gentlemen, when Zilla will try to tell us how stupid positional value is and that we should draft an interior offensive lineman at #3.

I'm not going to argue that point, but anyone who has paid any attention to what I'm saying instead of blindly disagreeing before they even read my points knows that I have never said anything even remotely suggesting that.

[DaneMcCloud]

I'm just arguing against the logic that Tyler Thigpen has a 1/1083 chance of getting the team to the Super Bowl.



You are incorrect.

It's more like 1 in 10,000,000.

[kcbubb]

the only time we've sniffed a Superbowl in almost a half century was when we had Montana, one of the greatest QB's in history....

we've tried it EVERY WAY POSSIBLE without a QB...we've had great defenses, great OL, great offenses, great running games...and we have DICK to show for it....

and this inbred fanbase still doesn't want to draft a QB, still doesn't understand that it is the most important position on the team by a factor of 10,000, still yearns to be the Ravens with Dilfer - the once in a lifetime exception....

they still aim low and operate out of fear...content with permanent failure, as long as we don't have to "risk" drafting a QB and watching him bust....

other teams draft QBs and win Superbowls, but not the Chiefs...no sir, we're afraid and we like it!

instead, we'll spend hour after hour, day after day, year after year proffering false analogies ("the QB is like rims on the car!"), dishonest arguments ("Brady proves you don't need to draft a QB in the first!"), and specious statistical equivocations ("Thigpen is as good as Ryan and Roethlesburger and Aikman, look at the stats!!)....and when all that fails, they simply lie about great QBs ("Aikman was just a game manager!" "There is no difference between Cassell and Brady!!" "Roethlesburger just plays with a good defense!!" and more...)*

IT NEVER ENDS AND IT NEVER CHANGES AND IT NEVER ENDS AND IT NEVER CHANGES


just one dipshit after another stretching to eternity.....

IT'S THE QB YOU ****TARDS!!

CAN YOU HEAR ME?

IT'S THE ****ING QB

IT'S THE ****ING QB

YOU ASSHOLES, IT'S THE QB


*all examples given are true and taken from this board, just this season....

The problem is not with understanding how important the QB position is. But how good is Sanchez? Is he worth the #3 pick?

If Sanchez would have stayed at USC would you recommend taking Josh Freeman at #3 because the QB position is so valuable. Basically reaching for the pick? That's an obvious answer but it goes to the same point.

Most people don't mind taking a QB, they just want to get value for their pick. And we don't think Sanchez is a good value at #3.

[RUSH]

There is no way in hell that anyone here would want Freeman with the third pick. We want Sanchez because he is a stud. It's not hard to see...The guy has all the tools and qualities that you look for in a franchise QB. He can possibly lead us where we all wanna go, the Super Bowl. That's why we want him at #3.

[DaneMcCloud]

The problem is not with understanding how important the QB position is. But how good is Sanchez? Is he worth the #3 pick?

If Sanchez would have stayed at USC would you recommend taking Josh Freeman at #3 because the QB position is so valuable. Basically reaching for the pick? That's an obvious answer but it goes to the same point.

Most people don't mind taking a QB, they just want to get value for their pick. And we don't think Sanchez is a good value at #3.

Suggesting that Freeman and Sanchez are anywhere near the same guy is ridiculous.