Treatise from the "Gang of 14" (Long Read)

['Hamas' Jenkins]

<o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PlaceName"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="country-region"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="City"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="State"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"></o:smarttagtype><!--><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> Treatise from the “Gang of 14”:
<o></o>
I see a lot of dissent from the True Fans on the board that those of us who continually express the primacy of a franchise quarterback are not adding any kind of insight or support to our opinions, merely insults. In the interests of refutation, I am going to skip any form of attack in this post in order to demonstrate to you what our argument is, and the history that we have on the board of supporting said argument with pointed, and factual examples.
<o></o>
Why do we believe in obtaining a franchise QB?<o></o>
<o></o>
It’s quite simple. It is the most important piece of a team that will successfully contend for a number of years. Look back on the last several dynasties or near-dynasties in the NFL.
<o></o>
The Steelers of the 70’s had Bradshaw
The 49ers of the 80’s and 90’s had <st1:state w:st="on"><st1>Montana</st1>l</st1:state> who then bridged seamlessly to Steve Young
The Cowboys of the 90’s had Troy Aikman
The Bills of the 90’s had Jim Kelly
The Broncos of the 80’s and 90’s had John Elway
The Patriots of this decade have Tom Brady
The Colts of this decade have Peyton Manning
The Steelers of this decade have Ben Roethlisberger
<o></o>
8 teams, all of them had franchise QBs. Most of them also had good to great defenses, but none of them didn’t have a franchise quarterback.
<o></o>
Here is why we don’t believe in defense above all else:
<o></o>
The 1980s <st1:city w:st="on"><st1></st1></st1:city><st1:city w:st="on"><st1>Chicago</st1> </st1:city>Bears
The late 80’s-early 90’s Philadelphia Eagles
The Bucs of the 1990s and 2000s
The Ravens of this decade.
<o></o><o></o>
Many people consider the 1985 Bears to be the greatest team of all time, with the greatest defense of all time. What people forget is that the 1986 Bears had a better defense, setting NFL records for fewest points allowed. What they didn’t have was the same level of consistent play from the quarterback position as these other teams did. In spite of one of the most impressively talented units of all time on either side of the ball, they were essentially a one-hit wonder.
<o></o>
The Philadelphia Eagles of the Buddy Ryan era had some of the most dominant defenders of any era. Guys like Reggie White, Jerome Brown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Brown), Clyde Simmons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clyde_Simmons), Seth Joyner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Joyner), Eric Allen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Allen), Wes Hopkins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wes_Hopkins), and Andre Waters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_Waters). They led the NFL in both passing and rushing yardage allowed in 1991, the first team to do that in 16 years, and they missed the playoffs. In fact, that team did not win a single playoff game.
<o></o>
The Bucs of the last 10 years are another great example. Although they had an amazingly talented unit, Warren Sapp, Simeon Rice (120 sacks), Ronde Barber, Derrick Brooks, Booger McFarland, and John Lynch (among others), they routinely flamed out in the playoffs. They eventually won one Super Bowl, but with that kind of talent on one unit, it’s positively criminal that they weren’t in the <st1></st1><st1><st1:country-region w:st="on">Ch.</st1:country-region></st1> Game or Super Bowl every year.
<o></o>
The 2000 Ravens had arguably the greatest or second greatest D of all time, but with only Trent Dilfer at the helm, and no other offensive weapons aside from Jamal Lewis, they flamed out quicker than Colin Farrell.
<o></o>
Now, with that being said, why do we want a franchise QB this year?<o></o>
It comes down to this: we see Matt Stafford and Mark Sanchez as two of the best quarterback prospects of the last five years.
<o>
</o><st1>Stafford</st1> has an amazing physical skillset. Here is a list of reasons I posted in support of<st1>Stafford</st1> some months ago:
<o></o>


He has three years of starting experience in the SEC
2. He comes from a pro offense
3. He knows how to read a defense, and can audible into advantageous plays, recognizes the blitz
4. He's willing to get pounded and get back up
5. He's mobile
6. He has good mechanics
7. He has unbelievable arm strength
8. He's played with a very marginal OL this year with three freshmen on it, and receivers who can't get separation, so he has to make NFL throws to get them the ball, he's not lobbing a rainbow up to a WR with 5 yards of separation.
9. He's a leader and he's been under intense scrutiny since he was 16 years old.
10. He's improved every year in college, despite having less and less talent around him to work with.

<o></o>
Combine that with reports of how teams were “blown away” by his board work, as well as the natural athleticism he showed in running the 40, and I don’t know how one [I]wouldn’t be floored by this kid.
<o></o>
Why do we want Sanchez?<o></o>
<o></o>
It’s a similar question with slightly different answers, but achieving the same result.
<o></o>


Sanchez is a leader of men. It’s that simple. He’s naturally charismatic, and he has the aura around him that all great QBs do. He owns the room when he walks in. That confidence bordering on cockiness (minus Jeff George dickheadedness) is a great asset.
He has textbook throwing mechanics
He has dancer’s feet. The importance of this really cannot be stressed enough. The only coaching that he is going to need when coming into the league is how to read and react to NFL defenses. He’s about as close to mechanically flawless as anyone since the Human Juggs Machine, Carson Palmer
He has very good arm strength (it’s not elite, but it’s more than good enough to make any throw).
He comes from a pro offense
He has four years of post high school experience. He’s worked on the scout team, he’s been a backup, he’s been a spot starter, and he’s been the man.
He had great production with a team that had good, but nowhere near elite, talent around him. This isn’t the 2004 Trojans. They aren’t anywhere near as talented.

<o></o>
Granted, both prospects have their warts. Every prospect has question marks. People employ revisionist history far too often when evaluating players after the fact.
<o></o>
What did Joe Montana or Tom Brady have that made them jump off the page to someone?
Peyton Manning was considered potentially maxed out as a prospect, a QB with little upside.
John Elway never even went to a bowl game, was he really a “winner”? He was also a very generously listed “6’3”. Look at him next to Peyton Manning and see if he’s really 6’3”, and yet the same questions are used to discount <st1>Stafford</st1> and Sanchez.
<o></o>
Many of you will beg the following question:
<o></o>
Why not defense in this draft?<o></o>
It’s quite simple:


The draft is seven rounds. We have six other picks
This draft lacks elite talent on defense at the top
Next year’s draft has two of the most ridiculously talented freaks at DE of the last decade (Carlos Dunlap and Everson Griffen), as well as better safety, LB, DT, and CB prospects across the board. It is a draft of defense
Borrowing on 3, there is a draft after this year. The 2009 Chiefs have a 0% chance of winning anything meaningful. This is a solid 3 year rebuilding process. If you want to see this team built correctly, you should look to 2011

<o></o>
Why do you hate Aaron Curry?<o></o>
<o></o>
We don’t. The fact of the matter is that Aaron Curry, for all the safety that he brings as a draft pick, and for all his physical gifts, cannot change games.
<o></o>
He has no history of rushing the passer. He expressed confidence in his ability to learn to do so, but he’s never done it. That makes him as big of a project at that job as any safety Carl ever tried to move to corner.
<o></o>
Cover backers make tackles in space and take away the 3^rd-5^th receiving options. That’s great, but it’s also like saying that middle relievers are more important than starting pitchers. Both contribute to the win, but the starter has far more chances to affect the outcome of the game.
<o></o>
Curry, for all his projections, has also never played Mike. That will also entail a position move.
<o></o>
Let’s address additional follow up questions:
<o></o>
“Why are you ‘QB or bust’ no matter who the QB?” and “Why do you want to reach for any QB?”<o></o>
<o></o>


We aren’t
We don’t.

<o></o>
No one here is saying we should take Freeman at 3, or think that Rhett Bomar or Nate Davis are the kinds of guys who could carry a franchise. It’s folly.
<o></o>
“Why is the spread so bad? Look at the #s QBs put up!”<o>
</o><o></o>
The quarterback, his pedigree, and his experience are paramount. With the proliferation of the spread in college football, it will become more and more difficult in order to properly evaluate quarterbacks and how they translate to the pro game.
<o></o>
The spread works for the same reason that the option worked. There is simply not enough speed on college defenses to contain it, and defense is a chain, the weakest link causes the failure of all. Given that talent is spread so thin on college defenses, most teams have to trot out fourth corners that run like NFL defensive ends. Combine that with the fact that college players don’t devote the same amount of time to film study and coaching as their pro counterparts, and college defenses run more simplistic schemes.
<o></o>
This leads to soft zone defenses with corners playing way off. WRs don’t get jammed at the line, and their free release, when combined with a quasi-prevent D, allows them to kill the opposing defenses by paper cut, or if a single tackle is missed or assignment blown, by guillotine.
<o></o>
Furthermore, college quarterbacks from the spread are running a two read system, and they do not read the defenses in front of them. Look at any spread team before the snap. Watch how the QB looks to the sideline for instructions from the offensive coaching staff on what the defense across from him is. NFL QBs need to make as many as four reads on any given passing play that isn’t a max protect situation.
<o></o>
The spread is a great equalizer for teams like <st1:state w:st="on">Missouri</st1:state> and <st1:state w:st="on"><st1>Kansas</st1> </st1:state>that don’t have elite talent but want to exploit the lack of 1-80 talent on other teams. It is not a solution to an NFL defense, where everyone is talented, and where the schemes are more exotic.
<o></o>
It faces the same fate as the Run-N-Shoot: Kill the Quarterback.
When these things are taken into account, as well as the fact that all spread quarterbacks need to learn how to take snaps from under center and proper footwork for 3,5, and 7 step drops, you have a huge learning curve that exponentially increases the bust rate for the prospect.
<o></o>
QB is the riskiest position to draft. We should draft a safer position<o></o><o></o>
Aundray Bruce, Tony Mandarich, Pac Man, Robert Gallery, Leonard Davis, Troy Williamson, Charles Rogers, Ryan Sims, Wendell Bryant, the list goes on forever<o></o>

No position is safe.
<o></o>
Why not draft Crabtree?<o></o>
<o></o>
WRs from the spread don’t run a traditional NFL route tree. He has no experience in doing so, that increases his learning curve.
<o></o>
He lacks elite speed. WRs taken in the top 10 almost universally have elite speed
<o></o>
He lacks elite size.
<o></o>
He has a cracked foot
<o></o>
College stats are not a good predictor of NFL success. Look at Ron Dayne, Rashan Salaam, Timmy Chang, Jake Barton, Manny Hazard, or Alex Van Dyke
<o></o><o></o><o></o>
“Why not just draft a QB in the middle rounds?”<o>
</o><o></o>
ChiefsCountry has compiled an impressive list of QBs who won the Super Bowl and where they were drafted.
<o></o>
So you want Thiggy as our quarterback.

How about these facts:
57% of the Super Bowls have been won by first round quarterbacks.
(Out of those quarterbacks only 3 were not top 10 picks)
40% of the Super Bowls won by top 5 picks.
21% have been won by 1st round quarterbacks that wasnt their original team (Dawson, Plunkett (2), Williams, Young, Dilfer)
16% of the Super Bowls were won by Montana and Brady
4% were Roger Staubuach's wins who would have went in the first if he wasnt going to Vietnam
14% were won by a 9th or lower (counting Warner who was Undrafted) and 4 of those wins were by Bart Starr & Roger Staubauch.
4% were won by second round quarterbacks
4% 3rd and 6th rounds picks that were not <st1><st1:state w:st="on">Montana</st1:state></st1> or Brady
0% of the Super Bowls were won by a 7th round pick<o></o><o></o>

http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=5278394&postcount=129<o>
</o><o></o>
Additionally, this was done before this year’s Super Bowl, in which another 1^st round quarterback, Ben Roethlisberger, won.
<o></o><o></o>
Moreover, Scott Wright has an extensive breakdown of the profound failure rate of 2^nd and 3^rd round quarterbacks over the last 15 years on his site, NFLDraftCountdown.
<o></o><o></o>
“All you do is insult people”<o>
</o><o></o>
Actually we don’t. We insult people a lot, but a large portion of that is born out of frustration for having the same argument ad infinitum and telling the same thing to people who don’t’ listen to what we say.
<o></o>
I realize that this list is not comprehensive. It’s merely hitting the high notes of the discussions that we have previously had. If anyone else from the Gang of 14 wants to add anything, feel free.
<o></o>
Thank you for your time,
<o></o>
HJ

[Pioli Zombie]

Wow. I must say Hamas that was truly awesome. Totally respect a well thought through presentation like that. The only thing that has ever held me back from totally agreeing with that was doubts whether or not the 2 qbs are really that good. Of course if the guy is a franchise type qb you have to take him at #3

Stafford hasn't impressed me as much as sanchez potential. That why at this I have to trust piolis talent evaluation skills on that. Its not "ballwashing" its just realizing I'm not as qualified to make that determination. But you have convinced me in this years draft with what's available IF there is a franchise qb you take him. If the qb is not that.caliber you go with curry
Posted via Mobile Device

[the Talking Can]

other than "Montanal"...lmao...that is great and i completely sign off on it


rep x 10000

[dirk digler]

Good job Hamas but I have one little nitpick. Drop the True Fan line because all that is intended to do is divide people.

I would say and maybe I am wrong but I don't think anyone is arguing that we shouldn't have a franchise QB just that either one of the guys (mostly Sanchez) aren't that guy.

I have said over and over again I will put my trust in Pioli and whatever decision he makes outside of drafting a punter or kicker with the 3rd pick I will be happy about.

With that being said I fully expect them to draft a QB and Clark has made it known that is what he wants.

Time will tell.

[tmax63]

I thank you for taking the time to post your argument and agree with the almost all of your post. I (IMHO) think that the drop off from 3 yrs starting experience in the SEC to 4 yrs of post high school experience is far greater than most on your side will admit. I don't follow the players closely enough to know all the intangibles to know who I want so I'm going to respect the decision the Chiefs make on draft day and pray that it's the right one. I also will add that just because we disagree on this board doesn't mean the discourse should drop down to 4th grade name-calling even if it is over the internet.

[the Talking Can]

I also will add that just because we disagree on this board doesn't mean the discourse should drop down to 4th grade name-calling even if it is over the internet.

wrong, this is precisely what should happen

[philfree]

Well in all fairness






























Kill yourself! ******* Idiot!


PhilFree:arrow:
~was just joking and he does really want a QB~

[Pioli Zombie]

If that's true Clark really wants a QB and a qb is going to be the pick then I would go for sanchez because he has more potential upside. I'm afraid stafford is just going to be a mediocre brian greise level qb. He's the "safer" pick but the chiefs need to go for great. Draft sanchez then just as happened with elway and montana, sign a garcia to be steve deberg and mentor the kid and takes the hits until the line gets improved. Just my take on it.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Lzen]

Good stuff. I hope Stafford or Sanchez are there at #3 and we pick one of them. I really started liking Thiggy more and more as the season wore on last year. However, I still don't believe he is, or will ever be a starting caliber QB in the NFL.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

other than "Montanal"...lmao...that is great and i completely sign off on it


rep x 10000

I knew it was going to be long, so I wrote it in word. When I pasted it over, I got all those dumbass :p smileys, so I went in and manually removed them all. It's a vestige of that.

[keg in kc]

I knew it was going to be long, so I wrote it in word. When I pasted it over, I got all those dumbass :p smileys, so I went in and manually removed them all. It's a vestige of that.Why didn't you just click on 'disable smilies in text'?

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Why didn't you just click on 'disable smilies in text'?

Because, in the words of Roberto Di Vicenzo, "I am a stupid".

[jiveturkey]

Hard to argue with this.

[Just Passin' By]

I see a lot of dissent from the True Fans on the board that those of us who continually express the primacy of a franchise quarterback are not adding any kind of insight or support to our opinions, merely insults. In the interests of refutation, I am going to skip any form of attack in this post in order to demonstrate to you what our argument is, and the history that we have on the board of supporting said argument with pointed, and factual examples.

Here's the problem with your post:

Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, in it justifies the sort of attacks that have made on those who come to the conclusion that this is not a year to draft a QB in the top 5. Here's a simple example of why

57% of the Super Bowls have been won by first round quarterbacks.

This means that, even before you look into the individual situations involved, over 40% of all Super Bowls have been won by NON-first round quarterbacks. Clearly, then, it it not imperative that your quarterback be a first round pick in order to win a Super Bowl.

The problem with the "Gang of 14" is not that they favor taking the quarterback, it's that they're such a bunch of pricks to anyone who dares to disagree, when there is clearly no 'right' answer to the discussion. There is no magical formula for drafting a quarterback which guarantees a Super Bowl victory. Some of the greatest quarterbacks in league history played long careers without ever winning one. There are legitimate reasons to think that the particular quarterbacks in question are not the picks to make in the top 5 of the draft this year, just as there are legitimate reasons to think that the quarterbacks in question are the picks to make in the top 5 this year.

Sometimes you draft a quarterback before you solidify the rest of the team and it works out (Aikman). Sometimes you draft a quarterback before you solidify the rest of the team and it doesn't (Carr, Harrington). This is all situational, and disagreement based upon that does not make someone a "****ing retard".

[milkman]

Gang of 14?

['Hamas' Jenkins]

This means that, even before you look into the individual situations involved, over 40% of all Super Bowls have been won by NON-first round quarterbacks. Clearly, then, it it not imperative that your quarterback be a first round pick in order to win a Super Bowl.

1 Round has produced 60 percent of Super Bowl winners

Every other round combined has produced 40 percent.

What does that tell you?

[Sully]

Gang of 14?

I was wondering why I wasn't invited.

[Just Passin' By]

1 Round has produced 60 percent of Super Bowl winners

Every other round combined has produced 40 percent.

What does that tell you?

It tells me that, despite being able to pick from every single available quarterback, those choosing a QB in the first round screw up almost half the time, and that's only in regards to winning Super Bowls. The screw up rate is even higher on a success rate basis. There, it's just about a 2/3 screw up percentage.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Gang of 14?

It's a play on words from Pioli Zombie, because only 14 of us in a poll said we'd be pissed if Pioli passed on both QBs because we aren't giving him the benefit of the doubt.

[Reaper16]

Here's the problem with your post:

Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, in it justifies the sort of attacks that have made on those who come to the conclusion that this is not a year to draft a QB in the top 5. Here's a simple example of why



This means that, even before you look into the individual situations involved, over 40% of all Super Bowls have been won by NON-first round quarterbacks. Clearly, then, it it not imperative that your quarterback be a first round pick in order to win a Super Bowl.

The problem with the "Gang of 14" is not that they favor taking the quarterback, it's that they're such a bunch of pricks to anyone who dares to disagree, when there is clearly no 'right' answer to the discussion. There is no magical formula for drafting a quarterback which guarantees a Super Bowl victory. Some of the greatest quarterbacks in league history played long careers without ever winning one. There are legitimate reasons to think that the particular quarterbacks in question are not the picks to make in the top 5 of the draft this year, just as there are legitimate reasons to think that the quarterbacks in question are the picks to make in the top 5 this year.

Sometimes you draft a quarterback before you solidify the rest of the team and it works out (Aikman). Sometimes you draft a quarterback before you solidify the rest of the team and it doesn't (Carr, Harrington). This is all situational, and disagreement based upon that does not make someone a "****ing retard".
Are there really many legitimate reasons to think that Stafford y Sanchez aren't top 5 material? The posters who have tried to express those reasons end up sounding like they don't know much about football. I'd love to see someone with actual football smarts make the case against the two QB's.

[philfree]

Gang of 14?

Who are these Gang of 14?


PhilFree:arrow:

[keg in kc]

Are there really many legitimate reasons to think that Stafford y Sanchez aren't top 5 material? The posters who have tried to express those reasons end up sounding like they don't know much about football. I'd love to see someone with actual football smarts make the case against the two QB's.I don't like the way their butts look in football pants. And they need beards.

[philfree]

It's a play on words from Pioli Zombie, because only 14 of us in a poll said we'd be pissed if Pioli passed on both QBs because we aren't giving him the benefit of the doubt.


Oh that poll. O.K.


PhilFree:arrow:

[Reaper16]

I don't like the way their butts look in football pants. And they need beards.
Curry doesn't have a beard, either!

['Hamas' Jenkins]

It tells me that, despite being able to pick from every single available quarterback, those choosing a QB in the first round screw up almost half the time, and that's only in regards to winning Super Bowls. The screw up rate is even higher on a success rate basis. There, it's just about a 2/3 screw up percentage.

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=5478310#post5478310)

Since 2000:

2000: # of QBs: 12.
QBs taken out of the first round: 11.
Successful QBs out of first round: 2.

2001: # of QBs 11
QBs taken out of the first round: 10
Successful QBs out of first round 1 (Drew Brees, taken in the first pick of the second round)

2002: # of QBs: 15
QBs taken out of the first round: 13
Successful QBs taken out of the first round: 1 (David Garrard...wow)

2003: # of QBs: 13
QBs taken out of the first round: 11
Successful QBs taken out of the first round: 0

So, in those four years, we have 51 QBs taken, 45 of which were out of the first round. Of those 45, 3 were decent QBs, 1 was a Hall of Famer.

Clearly, a success rate of 8.9% is better than 33%, especially given that players in other positions never bust, like you know, left tackle.

If anyone else wants to do '04-'08, feel free.



2004: # of QBs: 17
QBs taken out of the first round: 14
Successful QBs taken out of the first round: 1, if you count Matt Schaub.

2005: # of QBs: 14
QBs taken out of the first round: 11
Successful QBs taken out of the first round: 1, if you count Matt Cassel.

2006: # of QBs: 12
QBs taken out of the first round: 9
Successful QBs taken out of the first round: 0

2007: # of QBs: 11
QBs taken out of the first round: 9
Successful QBs taken out of the first round: 2, if you count Edwards and Thigpen.


So BEST case scenario (Assuming you think guys like Thigpen are considered successful) is:

# of QBs: 54
QBs taken out of the first round: 43
Successful QBs taken out of the first round: 0 - 4.

At worst, 0%

At best, 9.3%

You still wanna play those odds?

This has already been told to you once.

[Sully]

It's a play on words from Pioli Zombie, because only 14 of us in a poll said we'd be pissed if Pioli passed on both QBs because we aren't giving him the benefit of the doubt.

So it's like the Big (11) 10

[dirk digler]

Are there really many legitimate reasons to think that Stafford y Sanchez aren't top 5 material? The posters who have tried to express those reasons end up sounding like they don't know much about football. I'd love to see someone with actual football smarts make the case against the two QB's.

My biggest problem with Sanchez is his 16 starts and he wasn't able to beat out Booty last year and only played because Booty was injured.

[Just Passin' By]

You still wanna play those odds?

This has already been told to you once.

Yes, and it was misleading then, as now. It changes absolutely nothing, as you full well know.

[milkman]

Good job Hamas but I have one little nitpick. Drop the True Fan line because all that is intended to do is divide people.

I would say and maybe I am wrong but I don't think anyone is arguing that we shouldn't have a franchise QB just that either one of the guys (mostly Sanchez) aren't that guy.

I have said over and over again I will put my trust in Pioli and whatever decision he makes outside of drafting a punter or kicker with the 3rd pick I will be happy about.

With that being said I fully expect them to draft a QB and Clark has made it known that is what he wants.

Time will tell.

Just a couple of thoughts here.
Both are things that I've said before.

First, when it appeared that the QBs who would be declaring for the draft were Matt Stafford and Sam Bradford, those of us who were arguing that Stafford was the better prospect were met by arguments that he wasn't ready, and that we shouldn't draft him.

Now that it has played out that Stafford and Sanchez, who no one expected to declare, are the QBs, and that sanchez will be the one available, those of us that are supporting Sanchez are met with the "Sanchez isn't ready, but we'd love to have Stafford" argument.

It just appears that there are people who simply are afraid to risk taking a QB.

Second thought here, I would argue that Stafford's physical ability makes him look like the kid with higher upside, but Sanchez's leadership and maturity, and the way he shows up in the biggest games against the better teams gives him as much upside.

I posted it elswhere, but it's worth repeating, Sanchez best games were against the best teams the Trojans faced, OSU, Oregon and Penn St., throwing for 11 Tds and only 1 pick combined.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

My biggest problem with Sanchez is his 16 starts and he wasn't able to beat out Booty last year and only played because Booty was injured.

Again, misinformed.

Every USC offensive coach told Carroll after practices in '07 that Sanchez>Booty. He overruled them.

He was going to start for them as a RS Frosh before the bogus rape allegations.

[milkman]

It's a play on words from Pioli Zombie, because only 14 of us in a poll said we'd be pissed if Pioli passed on both QBs because we aren't giving him the benefit of the doubt.

I never vote in these polls, so I guess that leaves me out.

:banghead:

[RINGLEADER]

The more I see of Stafford the more I'm convinced in your excellent analysis. The more I see of Sanchez, however, the less convinced I am that he can succeed at the next level. But, just as your comment that Aaron Curry can't change games is complete speculation, the general consensus forming in some circles that Stafford will succeed and Sanchez won't could be just as wrong.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Yes, and it was misleading then, as now. It changes absolutely nothing, as you full well know.

So, the fact that we could draft a QB in every other round other than the first, and still have a lower rate of winning a Super Bowl than simply drafting first round QBs is somehow "misleading" and "changes nothing", and you wonder why we feel the need to insult you?

[keg in kc]

I never vote in these polls, so I guess that leaves me out.You exceed the maximum age requirement.

[big nasty kcnut]

It's a well placed arguement. I still say thigpen will do good. We do need ol help and a good de.
Posted via Mobile Device

[dirk digler]

Just a couple of thoughts here.
Both are things that I've said before.

First, when it appeared that the QBs who would be declaring for the draft were Matt Stafford and Sam Bradford, those of us who were arguing that Stafford was the better prospect were met by arguments that he wasn't ready, and that we shouldn't draft him.

Now that it has played out that Stafford and Sanchez, who no one expected to declare, are the QBs, and that sanchez will be the one available, those of us that are supporting Sanchez are met with the "Sanchez isn't ready, but we'd love to have Stafford" argument.

It just appears that there are people who simply are afraid to risk taking a QB.

Second thought here, I would argue that Stafford's physical ability makes him look like the kid with higher upside, but Sanchez's leadership and maturity, and the way he shows up in the biggest games against the better teams gives him as much upside.

I posted it elswhere, but it's worth repeating, Sanchez best games were against the best teams the Trojans faced, OSU, Oregon and Penn St., throwing for 11 Tds and only 1 pick combined.

Those are fair points. For the record I have liked Stafford and wanted no part of Bradford.

And I really don't dislike Sanchez in fact I was giddy after watching him play in the Rose Bowl but have concerns over his lack of experience.

[Mecca]

Sanchez doesn't look nor handle himself like a guy with no experience....the lack of starts would bother me if he did alot of stupid things and was very sloppy but he's not.

[dirk digler]

Again, misinformed.

Every USC offensive coach told Carroll after practices in '07 that Sanchez>Booty. He overruled them.

He was going to start for them as a RS Frosh before the bogus rape allegations.

Excluding the bogus rape charge how does that change anything in 07? Carroll is the head coach he makes the final decision and thought Booty was better or maybe thought Sanchez just wasn't fully ready.

[Just Passin' By]

My biggest problem with Sanchez is his 16 starts and he wasn't able to beat out Booty last year and only played because Booty was injured.

Again, misinformed.

Every USC offensive coach told Carroll after practices in '07 that Sanchez>Booty. He overruled them.

He was going to start for them as a RS Frosh before the bogus rape allegations.

Here is another perfect example of the problem. Dirk is not misinformed at all. He's absolutely correct. Your response is an attempted explanation of WHY it happened, not proof that it didn't.

[Mecca]

Excluding the bogus rape charge how does that change anything in 07? Carroll is the head coach he makes the final decision and thought Booty was better or maybe thought Sanchez just wasn't fully ready.

Because Pete Carroll was always loyal to Booty to a fault, you can go pull up any message board dedicated to SC at that time and see a huge number of posts dedicated to Carrolls man love of Booty and how it cost the Trojans national titles.

[Just Passin' By]

So, the fact that we could draft a QB in every other round other than the first, and still have a lower rate of winning a Super Bowl than simply drafting first round QBs is somehow "misleading" and "changes nothing", and you wonder why we feel the need to insult you?

No, I don't wonder why at all. I understand that you can't deal successfully with someone who presents the arguments logically, so you insult them in an attempt to shout down the opposition. Since I don't give a damn who the Chiefs pick in any round this year, I don't have any emotional investment in Sanchez/Not Sanchez. Your arguments are all based upon looking at numbers from a myopic point of view, which is why you have gotten so much of it wrong.

[Tchoupitoulas]

Really disagree about Stafford. I don't post often, so consider this an important enough point for me to step out of anonymity and make a point:

Although not a huge Georgia fan, I have lived in Atlanta the past 5 years and have watched a lot of Georgia football with Georgia alums. Stafford is soft physically and soft in the head. He is a doughy primadonna. If there is an "it" factor he has the opposite of that.

And the amazing thing is that every Georgia fan I know, agrees with this. He is not a winner, he is not a team guy, he does not inspire fellow players or fans, he feels that he is entitled to greatness, he is not tough, and he is not very smart. Can he throw a deep ball - yes, but that's it. How this guy is perceived as a top pick is way beyond me. Any person who touts this guy as special either has not watched him play more than just casually or has fallen in love with his arm strength. That includes all the so called draft gurus at the major media outlets. This guy will set back any team that drafts him with a top pick for years. Do not want.

Franchise quarterbacks are great, unfortunately this guy is not one of them.

[Pioli Zombie]

Here's the problem with your post:

Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, in it justifies the sort of attacks that have made on those who come to the conclusion that this is not a year to draft a QB in the top 5. Here's a simple example of why



This means that, even before you look into the individual situations involved, over 40% of all Super Bowls have been won by NON-first round quarterbacks. Clearly, then, it it not imperative that your quarterback be a first round pick in order to win a Super Bowl.

The problem with the "Gang of 14" is not that they favor taking the quarterback, it's that they're such a bunch of pricks to anyone who dares to disagree, when there is clearly no 'right' answer to the discussion. There is no magical formula for drafting a quarterback which guarantees a Super Bowl victory. Some of the greatest quarterbacks in league history played long careers without ever winning one. There are legitimate reasons to think that the particular quarterbacks in question are not the picks to make in the top 5 of the draft this year, just as there are legitimate reasons to think that the quarterbacks in question are the picks to make in the top 5 this year.

Sometimes you draft a quarterback before you solidify the rest of the team and it works out (Aikman). Sometimes you draft a quarterback before you solidify the rest of the team and it doesn't (Carr, Harrington). This is all situational, and disagreement based upon that does not make someone a "****ing retard".


thats all i was trying say :clap::clap::clap: until i got into it too and...sorta.....started swearin too :cuss:

then i started to think about it :hmmm:

I wish i hadnt done it.

and i wish I had put it as eloquently as you just did it. :banghead:


kudos to you!!! :clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

[Just Passin' By]

Because Pete Carroll was always loyal to Booty to a fault, you can go pull up any message board dedicated to SC at that time and see a huge number of posts dedicated to Carrolls man love of Booty and how it cost the Trojans national titles.

Again.... opinion, not fact. Now, pull out the quote where Carroll says "Sanchez is definitely the better quarterback, and he gives us the best chance to win, but I'm going with Booty because of my loyalty." and you've got a case. It won't change the "experience" argument, but it will at least strengthen the pointless "why so little experience" argument.

[dirk digler]

Because Pete Carroll was always loyal to Booty to a fault, you can go pull up any message board dedicated to SC at that time and see a huge number of posts dedicated to Carrolls man love of Booty and how it cost the Trojans national titles.

Are you suggesting that Pete Carroll cared more about starting Booty then winning?

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Here is another perfect example of the problem. Dirk is not misinformed at all. He's absolutely correct. Your response is an attempted explanation of WHY it happened, not proof that it didn't.

It's not explanation, it's empirical fact.

Mark Sanchez was demonstrably better than JD Booty in all Spring Practices, and all the coaches told Carroll he should be #1.

The mere fact that Carroll can recruit does not mean he knows how to coach at all. Look at his stint in the NFL, FFS.

[DeezNutz]

Very nice post, 'Hamas'.

I'm surprised this qualified as your thesis, but I guess it might have been a tier-5 university.

Your username is hereby changed to 'Hamas' Jefferson, due to the documents you've labored to pen on behalf of the notorious gang of 14.

[dirk digler]

Really disagree about Stafford. I don't post often, so consider this an important enough point for me to step out of anonymity and make a point:

Although not a huge Georgia fan, I have lived in Atlanta the past 5 years and have watched a lot of Georgia football with Georgia alums. Stafford is soft physically and soft in the head. He is a doughy primadonna. If there is an "it" factor he has the opposite of that.

And the amazing thing is that every Georgia fan I know, agrees with this. He is not a winner, he is not a team guy, he does not inspire fellow players or fans, he feels that he is entitled to greatness, he is not tough, and he is not very smart. Can he throw a deep ball - yes, but that's it. How this guy is perceived as a top pick is way beyond me. Any person who touts this guy as special either has not watched him play more than just casually or has fallen in love with his arm strength. That includes all the so called draft gurus at the major media outlets. This guy will set back any team that drafts him with a top pick for years. Do not want.

Franchise quarterbacks are great, unfortunately this guy is not one of them.

Thanks for the insight and input. You should post more and don't be such a lurker. :)

[Mecca]

Are you suggesting that Pete Carroll cared more about starting Booty then winning?

I'm suggesting that Pete Carroll is a stubborn coach that wanted to start his older 5 star QB over his younger one for recruiting purposes...

Booty was the #1 QB in the nation his recruiting year and I do think the effect it would possibly have on QB recruiting played in I also think he thought he would get 2 years out of Sanchez playing this out and when that didn't happen he got upset about it.

Pete Carroll was literally the only person on that coaching staff or at that school that thought Booty deserved to start.

[Pioli Zombie]

Just a couple of thoughts here.
Both are things that I've said before.

First, when it appeared that the QBs who would be declaring for the draft were Matt Stafford and Sam Bradford, those of us who were arguing that Stafford was the better prospect were met by arguments that he wasn't ready, and that we shouldn't draft him.

Now that it has played out that Stafford and Sanchez, who no one expected to declare, are the QBs, and that sanchez will be the one available, those of us that are supporting Sanchez are met with the "Sanchez isn't ready, but we'd love to have Stafford" argument.

It just appears that there are people who simply are afraid to risk taking a QB.

Second thought here, I would argue that Stafford's physical ability makes him look like the kid with higher upside, but Sanchez's leadership and maturity, and the way he shows up in the biggest games against the better teams gives him as much upside.

I posted it elswhere, but it's worth repeating, Sanchez best games were against the best teams the Trojans faced, OSU, Oregon and Penn St., throwing for 11 Tds and only 1 pick combined.

I agree totally ( i know that will probably worry you)

Im more concerned with leadership, poise, maturity, work habits,competitiveness, and rising up to the occassion in big moments than i am in raw physical talent.

before anyone says it, yes, you need physical skills, but the Montanas and Bradys and Roethlisburgers have that certain intangible that Jeff George didnt, you know?

Bledsoe was tall, had the strong arm, but Brady walked in and you just saw his poise in the pocket and could see he was better.

so ive determined that if they go for the Qb id much rather have Sanchez.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Really disagree about Stafford. I don't post often, so consider this an important enough point for me to step out of anonymity and make a point:

Although not a huge Georgia fan, I have lived in Atlanta the past 5 years and have watched a lot of Georgia football with Georgia alums. Stafford is soft physically and soft in the head. He is a doughy primadonna. If there is an "it" factor he has the opposite of that.

And the amazing thing is that every Georgia fan I know, agrees with this. He is not a winner, he is not a team guy, he does not inspire fellow players or fans, he feels that he is entitled to greatness, he is not tough, and he is not very smart. Can he throw a deep ball - yes, but that's it. How this guy is perceived as a top pick is way beyond me. Any person who touts this guy as special either has not watched him play more than just casually or has fallen in love with his arm strength. That includes all the so called draft gurus at the major media outlets. This guy will set back any team that drafts him with a top pick for years. Do not want.

Franchise quarterbacks are great, unfortunately this guy is not one of them.

There have been Georgia fans on this very board who have registered and posted just to tell us how good of a player, a teammate, and a leader Stafford is, so your axiomatic "Every Georgia fan" is completely fabricated bullshit.

[DeezNutz]

Gang of 14?

No worries.

Your sash, with the embroidered "**** True Fans" is in the mail.

[Just Passin' By]

It's not explanation, it's empirical fact.

Mark Sanchez was demonstrably better than JD Booty in all Spring Practices, and all the coaches told Carroll he should be #1.

The mere fact that Carroll can recruit does not mean he knows how to coach at all. Look at his stint in the NFL, FFS.

Ok, so you don't know the difference between "fact" and "opinion"? The "fact" is that Booty beat out Sanchez for the job. The "opinion" is that he didn't do so based upon performance and/or the chance to win games.

[Tchoupitoulas]

There have been Georgia fans on this very board who have registered and posted just to tell us how good of a player, a teammate, and a leader Stafford is, so your axiomatic "Every Georgia fan" is completely fabricated bullshit.

I said every GA fan "I know" I don't know those GA fans. But there are stupid GA fans just like there are stupid Chief fans, and they're all entitled to their opinions.

[milkman]

No worries.

Your sash, with the embroidered "**** True Fans", is in the mail.

Does this mean I can sign the treatise with my

John Hancock

[Frosty]

I never vote in these polls, so I guess that leaves me out.

:banghead:

Me too.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Ok, so you don't know the difference between "fact" and "opinion"? The "fact" is that Booty beat out Sanchez for the job. The "opinion" is that he didn't do so based upon performance and/or the chance to win games.

I'm sorry, but when I see the paucity of analysis that you bring Re: USC and compare it to one of our best football posters who has followed USC religiously for years, posts on USC boards, and keeps track of all of their moves within their program, I'm going to believe him over you, especially when combined with the rampant intellectual dishonest that you've displayed in all of your fabricated "arguing for the sake of arguing" posts, such as the fact that teams are better off searching outside of the first round.

Again, I apologize that something as impossibly simple as basic addition and how to read a number line (things like 60>40) are lost upon you, I really am. Because I wouldn't have to sit here and watch you fumble around and fuck them up.

[DeezNutz]

I said every GA fan "I know" I don't know those GA fans. But there are stupid GA fans just like there are stupid Chief fans, and there all entitled to their opinions.

Not to discredit you or your friends, but there are otherwise very intelligent posters on this very site who will tell you, emphatically, that a football team should be fully constructed before adding the QB, the final piece of the puzzle.

Everyone can have a particular blind spot, and it's usually the highest profile player on any given team that draws the most unfair criticism. Why? Because he has the talent. He's the one who is supposed to be carrying the team.

It's a lot easier to sharp shoot this guy than some fucking scrub who sucks the penis.

[DeezNutz]

Does this mean I can sign the treatise with my

John Hancock

Hey, dude, you keep that shit in your pants.

This is a family board.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Does this mean I can sign the treatise with my

John Hancock

It's HERBIE Hancock.

http://videodetective.com/photos/815/003424_16.jpg

[Just Passin' By]

I'm sorry, but when I see the paucity of analysis that you bring Re: USC and compare it to one of our best football posters who has followed USC religiously for years, posts on USC boards, and keeps track of all of their moves within their program, I'm going to believe him over you, especially when combined with the rampant intellectual dishonest that you've displayed in all of your fabricated "arguing for the sake of arguing" posts, such as the fact that teams are better off searching outside of the first round.

This is exactly my point about your posts. You post complete nonsense and act as if you're handing out the Rosetta Stone. Then when you get called on it, you can't handle it. I never said that teams are better off searching outside of the first round. As for what Mecca opines, it's still OPINION. Try to get that through your head. Mecca is not, as far as I know, Pete Carroll using the ChiefsPlanet message board.

Again, I apologize that something as impossibly simple as basic addition and how to read a number line (things like 60>40) are lost upon you, I really am. Because I wouldn't have to sit here and watch you fumble around and fuck them up.

And, yet again, you can't seem to grasp simple things. Call me when 60=100 and then you'll have an ironclad case. When it's a 60/40 split, you've got shit. Which is basically what your argument is.

[dirk digler]

I'm suggesting that Pete Carroll is a stubborn coach that wanted to start his older 5 star QB over his younger one for recruiting purposes...

Booty was the #1 QB in the nation his recruiting year and I do think the effect it would possibly have on QB recruiting played in I also think he thought he would get 2 years out of Sanchez playing this out and when that didn't happen he got upset about it.

Pete Carroll was literally the only person on that coaching staff or at that school that thought Booty deserved to start.

All football coaches are stubborn so that is no surprise. I can understand the argument that he probably figured Sanchez would stay for 2 more years and I also can understand the argument that the rape allegation might have hurt him as far as Carroll trusting him.

But he still only has 16 starts and my biggest concern is his experience and being a 1-hit wonder.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

This is exactly my point about your posts. You post complete nonsense and act as if you're handing out the Rosetta Stone. Then when you get called on it, you can't handle it. I never said that teams are better off searching outside of the first round. As for what Mecca opines, it's still OPINION. Try to get that through your head. Mecca is not, as far as I know, Pete Carroll using the ChiefsPlanet message board.



And, yet again, you can't seem to grasp simple things. Call me when 60=100 and then you'll have an ironclad case. When it's a 60/40 split, you've got shit. Which is basically what your argument is.

I don't know how this can be said any more plainly:

Are teams going to spend every draft pick outside of their #1 in a given draft on a quarterback?

No.

Why not?

Because its a gross misallocation of resources.

Well, for the sake of argument, let's give them extra picks in every other round other than 1, and let them use all of them on quarterbacks.

Would they, or would they not have a better chance of finding a QB from all those other picks, than they would from simply spending a first round pick on any of the top QB prospects?

They would not.

Stats bear this out
History bears this out.

And yet, in spite of all of this, you assume that because the odds of getting a SB winning QB are not 100% in round one, that somehow that justifies trying to look outside of round 1 for one.

1=60%

2+3+4+5+6+7=40% (and in many days you take n=round all the way up to 18 and it STILL DIDN'T MATTER).

This is your argument:

I put a gun to your head, if you don't win, I get to kill you. You have AA against 2 other random hands. You are basically saying, that because AA does not have a 100% chance of winning, that it's not the best course of action.

Cool, we get to blow your head off.


And as far as Carroll and Booty vs. Sanchez, I guess that the opinions of Pete Carroll outweigh those of all of his coaches. He was also proven right by the fact that USC was less successful with more offensive talent with Booty, and the fact that Booty was a 1st round draft pick, right?

Clearly Booty>Sanchez.

Obviously, Jerry Glanville was right in his assessment that Brett Favre should never start, since he's the head coach, right?

[Just Passin' By]

I don't know how this can be said any more plainly:

Are teams going to spend every draft pick outside of their #1 in a given draft on a quarterback?

No.

Why not?

Because its a gross misallocation of resources.

Well, for the sake of argument, let's give them extra picks in every other round other than 1, and let them use all of them on quarterbacks.

Would they, or would they not have a better chance of finding a QB from all those other picks, than they would from simply spending a first round pick on any of the top QB prospects?

They would not.

Stats bear this out
History bears this out.

And yet, in spite of all of this, you assume that because the odds of getting a SB winning QB are not 100% in round one, that somehow that justifies trying to look outside of round 1 for one.

1=60%

2+3+4+5+6+7=40% (and in many days you take n=round all the way up to 18 and it STILL DIDN'T MATTER).

This is your argument:

I put a gun to your head, if you don't win, I get to kill you. You have AA against 2 other random hands. You are basically saying, that because AA does not have a 100% chance of winning, that it's not the best course of action.

Cool, we get to blow your head off.


And as far as Carroll and Booty vs. Sanchez, I guess that the opinions of Pete Carroll outweigh those of all of his coaches. He was also proven right by the fact that USC was less successful with more offensive talent with Booty, and the fact that Booty was a 1st round draft pick, right?

Clearly Booty>Sanchez.

Obviously, Jerry Glanville was right in his assessment that Brett Favre should never start, since he's the head coach, right?

This is complete gibberish. Did you actually read this post before you submitted it? Let me try to be plain and, unlike yourself, actually make sense, and I'll do it in example form.

Example:

There are 30 quarterbacks to be taken. Out of those 30 quarterbacks, 1 will become a top shelf quarterback, 2-3 will become quality/above average quarterbacks and the rest will either be backups or out of the league.

Now, picking in the first round gives you the best chance to get one of the 4 quarterbacks worth picking. It does not, however, guarantee that the quarterback you pick will be one of those 4 quarterbacks.

As for the Booty argument, you keep acting as if opinion = fact. I can only suggest that you consult a dictionary and learn the difference.

[dirk digler]

I went back 5 years and looked at every QB that was drafted in the first round and found out how many years they started in college.

Not one had less than 2 years of starting experience.

But on the flip side having started alot in college doesn't necessarily equal success in the NFL.

[kcbubb]

So, the fact that we could draft a QB in every other round other than the first, and still have a lower rate of winning a Super Bowl than simply drafting first round QBs is somehow "misleading" and "changes nothing", and you wonder why we feel the need to insult you?

Your statistic would support us signing a 1st round QB that has been cut. If we are going by that stat, why not just sign David Carr or Joey Harrington or Micheal Vick? I say this to make a point, not to support that conclusion. Your stat is not a good stat to base selecting a QB in the first round.

The stat does not account for great QBs like Dan Marino that were great 1st round pics. Why should the Dolphins selecting Dan Marino add to the statistic of not taking a QB? Taking Marino was obviously a good choice but the fact that he never won a superbowl supports the statistical analysis of not taking a QB in round 1.

Trent Dilfer was also a first round pick and the Ravens won a superbowl with him. He was not drafted by the Ravens. He was a castoff of another team. The defense won that superbowl, but your statistics will use Trent Dilfer as support for taking a QB in round 1.

The statistical analysis of superbowl winning QBs is hard to rely on when taking into account who to draft because Superbowls are won by teams. You would probably be better off with using a statistic that shows the percentage of top 5 offenses with QBs that were drafted in the first round and still play on the team that drafted them.

That's what we are really looking for right? Picking a QB that can lead a successful offense. The QB can't control the defense. Your stat should only account for offensive production, not team production.

[DeezNutz]

Now, picking in the first round gives you the best chance to get one of the 4 quarterbacks worth picking. It does not, however, guarantee that the quarterback you pick will be one of those 4 quarterbacks.


Of course.

I don't know what you're arguing about, honestly. No one is saying that Stafford or Sanchez will be a lock. I've lost the keys to Doc's car, so I can't say definitively.

But we all know that you have the best odds to be right with these guys because they have, according to all indicators, the best talent.

[the Talking Can]

Really disagree about Stafford. I don't post often, so consider this an important enough point for me to step out of anonymity and make a point:

Although not a huge Georgia fan, I have lived in Atlanta the past 5 years and have watched a lot of Georgia football with Georgia alums. Stafford is soft physically and soft in the head. He is a doughy primadonna. If there is an "it" factor he has the opposite of that.

And the amazing thing is that every Georgia fan I know, agrees with this. He is not a winner, he is not a team guy, he does not inspire fellow players or fans, he feels that he is entitled to greatness, he is not tough, and he is not very smart. Can he throw a deep ball - yes, but that's it. How this guy is perceived as a top pick is way beyond me. Any person who touts this guy as special either has not watched him play more than just casually or has fallen in love with his arm strength. That includes all the so called draft gurus at the major media outlets. This guy will set back any team that drafts him with a top pick for years. Do not want.

Franchise quarterbacks are great, unfortunately this guy is not one of them.

....

[Reerun_KC]

Anyone have the link to the gang of 14?

[lazepoo]

I don't like the way their butts look in football pants. And they need beards.

Neck beards. You can't intimidate people and command respect in the huddle without a raging neck beard.

[Pioli Zombie]

ok, this is where i should have asked the question i just posed in the "should we bring in a mentor thread" but i'll ask here too.

since the gang of 14 has trashed the idea of ever drafting any other position at #3

say Stafford gets picked by the Lions and the Rams gobble up Sanchez

who would you pick at #3?

[Pioli Zombie]

Anyone have the link to the gang of 14?
its not literal.. at the time 14 people in the poll said it had to be a QB.

it kinda stuck, so now its more a symbolic thing.

you know....

[Just Passin' By]

Of course.

I don't know what you're arguing about, honestly. No one is saying that Stafford or Sanchez will be a lock. I've lost the keys to Doc's car, so I can't say definitively.

But we all know that you have the best odds to be right with these guys because they have, according to all indicators, the best talent.

Not everyone is in agreement that they have that "best talent", unless you're restricting the discussion strictly to this year's draft. Not a single running back broke a 4.3, for example, so that doesn't mean that the player who ran the closest to it should somehow be treated as if he did. Sometimes, the best of a bad lot is still bad. Many people here put Stafford and Sanchez in that category. They shouldn't be insulted the way these clowns have been insulting them every time they "dare" assert that opinion.

[lazepoo]

Regardless of how you feel about Stafford or Sanchez, there's no arguing the fact that most super bowl winning QBs come from the first round. It's not even like the first round gave a merely a plurality of super bowl winning QBs; when one round accounts for 60% of all winners, that's pretty compelling evidence, and it's over a very long period of time, so it's not like this is a coincidence.

For those of you that still believe this isn't a significant enough sample size, how many QBs have started more than 8 games for more than 6 seasons in the NFL? Of those consistent, starting-quality QBs, which have had the most success? I don't know the answers or have the inclination to find them, but I would be shocked to find that a round outside of the first was responsible for the most successful starting QBs.

It isn't like drafting players is some sort of lottery ticket. Teams make or lose money based on the people that they draft, and teams spend the entire year figuring out who to bring in based on those observations. To think that you'll have a better chance at finding a more talented player after every team in the league has taken their shot at a best guess at least once is asinine, and even moreso when you consider that QB is universally regarded as the most important position on the field and that teams are willing to take ridiculous chances on guys that just might fit the bill whether past performances bear that out or not.

[milkman]

Not everyone is in agreement that they have that "best talent", unless you're restricting the discussion strictly to this year's draft. Not a single running back broke a 4.3, for example, so that doesn't mean that the player who ran the closest to it should somehow be treated as if he did. Sometimes, the best of a bad lot is still bad. Many people here put Stafford and Sanchez in that category. They shouldn't be insulted the way these clowns have been insulting them every time they "dare" assert that opinion.

So, do you think next year's QB class is going to be better?

[DeezNutz]

Not everyone is in agreement that they have that "best talent", unless you're restricting the discussion strictly to this year's draft. Not a single running back broke a 4.3, for example, so that doesn't mean that the player who ran the closest to it should somehow be treated as if he did. Sometimes, the best of a bad lot is still bad. Many people here put Stafford and Sanchez in that category. They shouldn't be insulted the way these clowns have been insulting them every time they "dare" assert that opinion.

Both have their shortcomings, there's no doubt about that.

I can understand the concerns surrounding Sanchez much more, but I'll continue to state that if anyone doesn't think that Stafford is a very, very worthy top-3 selection as a QB, that person will never find a QB prospect that he likes.

[DeezNutz]

So, do you think next year's QB class is going to be better?

And this raises the most important question that Pioli and co. must answer:

If not now, how and when? Because the possibilities start to become even more cloudy very quickly.

[Just Passin' By]

So, do you think next year's QB class is going to be better?

I won't know until I see who declares. It should be deeper and more interesting, but as for "better", it's too soon to tell.

[Reerun_KC]

its not literal.. at the time 14 people in the poll said it had to be a QB.

it kinda stuck, so now its more a symbolic thing.

you know....

I think I was one of those 14, was just wanting to verify it...:D

[DeezNutz]

I won't know until I see who declares. It should be deeper and more interesting, but as for "better", it's too soon to tell.

Let's assume Bradford goes 1/1 like a lot of mocks from this year had him tabbed. The rest of the "top" guys are a joke. McCoy and Tebow.

From here, you start to talk about projects, as if these top guys aren't this already.

[Chiefnj2]

"we see Matt Stafford and Mark Sanchez as two of the best quarterback prospects of the last five years"

[Reerun_KC]

I won't know until I see who declares. It should be deeper and more interesting, but as for "better", it's too soon to tell.

Lets put it this way JPB, Lets just hope for argument sake that our GM and HC are looking down the ol draft pipe more than just this year.. Lets pray they are looking at needs 2-3 years down the line and have guys they are "already" looking at and trying to figure our how and what they need to complete a team...


I hope they are looking at the QB position along with next years draft and wondering if they really want to wait unitl 2011 to pick a QB, Maybe they have one already picked out in 2011 and want to build the team first?

Maybe they have LB's slotted for the mid rounds this year and DE's high next? Maybe they have a kicker that they want to select 1st over all and move him to safety???

Moral to the story is, lets hope they are smarter than the fanbase whom cant see their face despite their nose. Lets just hope they have a plan that will start to fall into place this draft and they dont waver from it.

[Just Passin' By]

Let's assume Bradford goes 1/1 like a lot of mocks from this year had him tabbed. The rest of the "top" guys are a joke. McCoy and Tebow.

From here, you start to talk about projects, as if these top guys aren't this already.

You call them jokes. I don't agree with that. You need to stop listening to the "Gang", because they don't know what the hell they are talking about. They may succeed or fail, but they are not jokes.

[Pioli Zombie]

1. Lions Matt Stafford
2. Rams Mark Sanchez
3. Chiefs ___________ ?

what then? Who?

[Reerun_KC]

1. Lions Matt Stafford
2. Rams Mark Sanchez
3. Chiefs ___________ ?

what then? Who?

Rams dumping Bulger?

That would be an ass load of money for 2 QB's...

[Just Passin' By]

Lets put it this way JPB, Lets just hope for argument sake that our GM and HC are looking down the ol draft pipe more than just this year.. Lets pray they are looking at needs 2-3 years down the line and have guys they are "already" looking at and trying to figure our how and what they need to complete a team...


I hope they are looking at the QB position along with next years draft and wondering if they really want to wait unitl 2011 to pick a QB, Maybe they have one already picked out in 2011 and want to build the team first?

Maybe they have LB's slotted for the mid rounds this year and DE's high next? Maybe they have a kicker that they want to select 1st over all and move him to safety???

Moral to the story is, lets hope they are smarter than the fanbase whom cant see their face despite their nose. Lets just hope they have a plan that will start to fall into place this draft and they dont waver from it.

If they think Stafford/Sanchez is "the man", they need to pull the trigger to get that guy, even if that means they trade up to the #1 spot to get him. If they don't think either one is "the man", they need to look elsewhere. Hopefully, the portion of the fanbase that thinks it's smarter than any College or NFL head coach will finally figure out that they aren't.

[DeezNutz]

You call them jokes. I don't agree with that. You need to stop listening to the "Gang", because they don't know what the hell they are talking about. They may succeed or fail, but they are not jokes.

I'm not listening to anyone.

McCoy: 6'3" 205--sound familiar? Factor in the spread.
Tebow: Cannot make all the necessary NFL throws.

This is from me. If you see some agreement from others, it might be that this is a pretty realistic set of points.

[Reerun_KC]

If they think Stafford/Sanchez is "the man", they need to pull the trigger to get that guy, even if that means they trade up to the #1 spot to get him. If they don't think either one is "the man", they need to look elsewhere. Hopefully, the portion of the fanbase that thinks it's smarter than any College or NFL head coach will finally figure out that they aren't.


But then your acting like your smarter than any College or NFL Head Coach with those comments...

Why are you right and everyone else is wrong?

What they both grade out equally by the Staff and they dont trade up and take whom is left at #3???

[keg in kc]

Yo guy ar moronz. Tebow's gonna refolushuize the qatarbak posishun.

[milkman]

You call them jokes. I don't agree with that. You need to stop listening to the "Gang", because they don't know what the hell they are talking about. They may succeed or fail, but they are not jokes.

They may not be jokes, but the fact is all three of those guys will have a huge adjustment to make to transition to the NFL, and none of them have the physical tools that Stafford or Sanchez has.

I really believe that in the right system with good coaching, Sam Bradford will have a good NFL career, but he's a guy that will have to sit and learn for two years, at the least.

But he doesn't have Sanchez's arm strength, much less Stafford's, and he has a long way to go before he can even hope to compete with Sanchez's mechanics.

[suds79]

1. Lions Matt Stafford
2. Rams Mark Sanchez
3. Chiefs ___________ ?

what then? Who?

Well if that happens, you try your best to trade down.

I'm getting the feeling we'll end up trading down anyways.

[DeezNutz]

They may not be jokes, but the fact is all three of those guys will have a huge adjustment to make to transition to the NFL, and none of them have the physical tools that Stafford or Sanchez has.

I really believe that in the right system with good coaching, Sam Bradford will have a good NFL career, but he's a guy that will have to sit and learn for two years, at the least.

But he doesn't have Sanchez's arm strength, much less Stafford's, and he has a long way to go before he can even hope to compete with Sanchez's mechanics.

The only guys I called jokes were McCoy and Tebow.

And yeah, this is an accurate assessment, IMO, of Brodie Croyle II and the black dude who tosses the javelin in Revenge of the Nerds (whom Tebow reminds me of when he launches his patented jump pass).

[Just Passin' By]

But then your acting like your smarter than any College or NFL Head Coach with those comments...

Why are you right and everyone else is wrong?

What they both grade out equally by the Staff and they dont trade up and take whom is left at #3???

1.) When it comes to the skills of the 2 quarterbacks, I haven't even come down on one side or the other in any 'final' evaluation. My point has been that the ridiculous and uncalled for attacks on those who dare to opine that Sanchez and/or Stafford are not gambles worth taking at #3 in their estimation should.

2.) I don't think I'm smarter about football than Pete Carroll, other college coaches, or NFL coaches. They won't be correct all the time, and it's fun to question and compare, but I don't pretend to think I'll be right more often in the long run. However, I haven't posted anything on this subject that those coaches don't already know, and I haven't claimed to have done so.

3.) Pete Carroll said that Sanchez should stay in school. I'm not sure how my saying that people shouldn't be berated for not wanting Sanchez at #3 is somehow acting as if I'm smarter than any college or NFL head coach given what came out of his own head coach's mouth.

[Reaper16]

For someone who is "Just Passin' By," he sure is sticking around a long time.

[Just Passin' By]

They may not be jokes, but the fact is all three of those guys will have a huge adjustment to make to transition to the NFL, and none of them have the physical tools that Stafford or Sanchez has.

I really believe that in the right system with good coaching, Sam Bradford will have a good NFL career, but he's a guy that will have to sit and learn for two years, at the least.

But he doesn't have Sanchez's arm strength, much less Stafford's, and he has a long way to go before he can even hope to compete with Sanchez's mechanics.

All quarterbacks have a huge adjustment to make when they transition to the NFL. Dan Marino is almost the sole example of a modern era quarterback who shows no real learning curve to be needed. Will players like Tebow, Bradford, et al. have more adjustments to make than they pro-style QBs? Absolutely. Does that mean they won't succeed? Only time will tell.

I will point out that sometimes the powers that be are completely wrong. It wasn't long ago, after all, that we were told that the era of the pocket passer was over, and that you needed to draft the Michael Vicks of the world if you were going to compete in the 'new' NFL. It's things like this that make message boards worthwhile.

[Reaper16]

All quarterbacks have a huge adjustment to make when they transition to the NFL. Dan Marino is almost the sole example of a modern era quarterback who shows no real learning curve to be needed. Will players like Tebow, Bradford, et al. have more adjustments to make than they pro-style QBs? Absolutely. Does that mean they won't succeed? Only time will tell.

I will point out that sometimes the powers that be are completely wrong. It wasn't long ago, after all, that we were told that the era of the pocket passer was over, and that you needed to draft the Michael Vicks of the world if you were going to compete in the 'new' NFL. It's things like this that make message boards worthwhile.
And its things like that that make message boards intolerable.

[milkman]

Well if that happens, you try your best to trade down.

I'm getting the feeling we'll end up trading down anyways.

Just what player is it that teams will be willing to pay the price to move up to select?

['Hamas' Jenkins]

1.) When it comes to the skills of the 2 quarterbacks, I haven't even come down on one side or the other in any 'final' evaluation. My point has been that the ridiculous and uncalled for attacks on those who dare to opine that Sanchez and/or Stafford are not gambles worth taking at #3 in their estimation should.

2.) I don't think I'm smarter about football than Pete Carroll, other college coaches, or NFL coaches. They won't be correct all the time, and it's fun to question and compare, but I don't pretend to think I'll be right more often in the long run. However, I haven't posted anything on this subject that those coaches don't already know, and I haven't claimed to have done so.

3.) Pete Carroll said that Sanchez should stay in school. I'm not sure how my saying that people shouldn't be berated for not wanting Sanchez at #3 is somehow acting as if I'm smarter than any college or NFL head coach given what came out of his own head coach's mouth.

1) No one is not a gamble. Why is this so hard to understand?

You aren't winning a SB without a franchise QB. You aren't getting a franchise QB out of the first round without a near miracle. These two QBs have skillsets that translate excellently into having potential to be a franchise QB.

It's about odds and skills. Odds are, if you want a franchise QB, he comes from round one. If you want a QB, he's coming from round 1. If you want a franchise QB, he better know how to read a defense, come from a pro system, have above average arm strength, and be an accurate passer. The more qualities they possess, the better.

Again, no one has ever posed any form of a cogent argument about why Stafford or Sanchez aren't elite quarterback prospects.

CP from October to December of 2008 was obsessed with denigrating Stafford, now people feel fit to bash everything about Sanchez, from false rape allegations to claims of him being stupid for hiring his brother as agent (which wasn't even true)

The biggest arguments I've heard about Sanchez are the fact that he lacks starting experience (legitimate) and that he looked bad throwing 10 passes in shorts to scrubs at the combine (ridiculous).


3) How many times has this been said? Pete Carroll wants to win for Pete Carroll. Do you think he believes he has a better chance to win with Mitch Mustain, Aaron Corp, Matt Barkley, or Mark Sanchez?

What does he have to gain from Sanchez staying? What does he have to lose from him leaving?

[milkman]

All quarterbacks have a huge adjustment to make when they transition to the NFL. Dan Marino is almost the sole example of a modern era quarterback who shows no real learning curve to be needed. Will players like Tebow, Bradford, et al. have more adjustments to make than they pro-style QBs? Absolutely. Does that mean they won't succeed? Only time will tell.

I will point out that sometimes the powers that be are completely wrong. It wasn't long ago, after all, that we were told that the era of the pocket passer was over, and that you needed to draft the Michael Vicks of the world if you were going to compete in the 'new' NFL. It's things like this that make message boards worthwhile.

The difference is that the adjustment for Sanchez and Stafford isn't nearly the huge adjustment that these other QBs will have to make, and they (sanchez and Stafford) have better physical tools.

Those factors alone make this class better.

[Rain Man]

Y'know, if you built a mathematical model to predict a player's odds of success, you could then optimize your selections based on the points in the draft model.

For example, if your top QB candidate has a 60 percent chance of success and costs you 2,200 draft points, and if your fourth-favorite QB candidate has a 20 percent chance of success and costs you 480 draft points, you could then compare that to a couple of LB candidates who has a 90 percent chance of success and a 10 percent chance of success at the same draft positions. It then becomes a simple optimization to see which you should pick where.

[Chiefnj2]

The difference is that the adjustment for Sanchez and Stafford isn't nearly the huge adjustment that these other QBs will have to make, and they (sanchez and Stafford) have better physical tools.

Those factors alone make this class better.

Bradford and McCoy have similar arm strength as Sanchez.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Bradford and McCoy have similar arm strength as Sanchez.

Not even close.

[orange]

3) How many times has this been said? Pete Carroll wants to win for Pete Carroll. Do you think he believes he has a better chance to win with Mitch Mustain, Aaron Corp, Matt Barkley, or Mark Sanchez?

What does he have to gain from Sanchez staying? What does he have to lose from him leaving?

Sanchez had already turned pro. What did Carroll have to gain by blowing up at a press conference? ... other than telling his real feelings, that is.

[milkman]

Sanchez had already turned pro. What did Carroll have to gain by blowing up at a press conference? ... other than telling his real feelings, that is.

Carroll reacted emotionally.

And he could have gained a change of mind, since Sanchez had a couple of days to do just that.

[FAX]

The thing that makes the draft so interesting and exciting are all the "unknowables". Each class has its own "busts" and "sleepers" just sitting out there waiting to be exposed. All the predictors in the world aren't going to protect a team from making a poor choice in the draft.

Still, when I read between Pioli's lines, I repeatedly hear this notion that it is extremely important that the player be coachable by the staff in place. To me, that's the wild card in all of this.

The Kansas City Chiefs have, for a large share of the last 20 years, proven themselves either incapable or unwilling to coach up players. However, assuming that you can, in fact, select players who will respond to your existing staff and assuming that your staff is competent at maximizing a player's talent on the field, it should (theoretically) reduce draft risk significantly.

Unfortunately, since Haley's never been an HC before, there's a lot Pioli doesn't know. Couple that with the fact that Pioli may well believe that we are probably closer to being competitive on the defensive side of the ball and your QB selection better damn well be right if you're using the 3 for him.

FAX

[Chiefnj2]

Sanchez had already turned pro. What did Carroll have to gain by blowing up at a press conference? ... other than telling his real feelings, that is.

He had 48 hours to change his mind.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

You call them jokes. I don't agree with that. You need to stop listening to the "Gang", because they don't know what the hell they are talking about. They may succeed or fail, but they are not jokes.

The only guys I called jokes were McCoy and Tebow.

And you we're damned correct in doing so.

And yeah, this is an accurate assessment, IMO, of Brodie Croyle II and the black dude who tosses the javelin in Revenge of the Nerds (whom Tebow reminds me of when he launches his patented jump pass).

No love for Lamar? :D

For someone who is "Just Passin' By," he sure is sticking around a long time.

This. ROFL

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

<o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PlaceName"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="country-region"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="City"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="State"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"></o:smarttagtype><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> Treatise from the “Gang of 14”:
<o></o>

Sheer Awesomeness Hamas. Rep to the 1,000,000th-Power.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

ADDENDUM:

After weeks of frustrating garbage, that treatise mended my entire being in every possible way.

[Dave Lane]

Amen My brother A frikken men!!

[Dave Lane]

You write that Hamas??

[beach tribe]

1) No one is not a gamble. Why is this so hard to understand?

You aren't winning a SB without a franchise QB. You aren't getting a franchise QB out of the first round without a near miracle. These two QBs have skillsets that translate excellently into having potential to be a franchise QB.

It's about odds and skills. Odds are, if you want a franchise QB, he comes from round one. If you want a QB, he's coming from round 1. If you want a franchise QB, he better know how to read a defense, come from a pro system, have above average arm strength, and be an accurate passer. The more qualities they possess, the better.

Again, no one has ever posed any form of a cogent argument about why Stafford or Sanchez aren't elite quarterback prospects.

CP from October to December of 2008 was obsessed with denigrating Stafford, now people feel fit to bash everything about Sanchez, from false rape allegations to claims of him being stupid for hiring his brother as agent (which wasn't even true)

The biggest arguments I've heard about Sanchez are the fact that he lacks starting experience (legitimate) and that he looked bad throwing 10 passes in shorts to scrubs at the combine (ridiculous).


3) How many times has this been said? Pete Carroll wants to win for Pete Carroll. Do you think he believes he has a better chance to win with Mitch Mustain, Aaron Corp, Matt Barkley, or Mark Sanchez?

What does he have to gain from Sanchez staying? What does he have to lose from him leaving?

Same thing he had to lose by starting Booty over Sanchez.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

You write that Hamas??

Yes. And it has pretty much changed nothing, because in other threads, geniouses like CoMo are arguing that we should draft a freaking left tackle at 3.

[Hammock Parties]

But Hamas, Peyton Manning and Jim McMahon both only have one Super Bowl ring.

YOU FAIL!

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Yes. And it has pretty much changed nothing, because in other threads, geniouses like CoMo are arguing that we should draft a freaking left tackle at 3.

ROFLROFLROFL Being the special-needs school Headmaster is a thankless job, no?

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

The Turdalition has been fantastic entertainment when it comes to mocks, and I think this one takes the prize*:

*WARNING: This requires a Homer-Retardant block, TFS level 8.9

evil-i:

Feb 25

FA
Derrick Ward, RB, New York Giants
Jason Brown, C, Baltimore Ravens
Angelo Crowell, LB, Buffalo Bills
Channing Crowder, LB, Miami Dolphins

Rd. KC's Mock Draft
1. Jason Smith, OT, Baylor
2. Larry English, DE, Northern Illinois
3. Chris Baker, DT, Hampton
4. Xavier Fulton, OT, Illinois
5. Tiquan Underwood, WR, Rutgers
6. Graham Harrell, QB, Texas Tech
7. Frantz Joseph, LB, Florida AtlanticRd. KC's Mock Draft
1. Jason Smith, OT, Baylor
2. Larry English, DE, Northern Illinois
3. Chris Baker, DT, Hampton
4. Xavier Fulton, OT, Illinois
5. Tiquan Underwood, WR, Rutgers
6. Graham Harrell, QB, Texas Tech
7. Frantz Joseph, LB, Florida Atlantic

[Crush]

The Turdalition has been fantastic entertainment when it comes to mocks, and I think this one takes the prize*:

*WARNING: This requires a Homer-Retardant block, TFS level 8.9




DCS, where did you find that abomination?

[The Franchise]

My guess would be WPI.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

DCS, where did you find that abomination?

My guess would be WPI.

ROFL She's a beaut, ain't she? ROFL

Chiefs Coalition*.


*Coalition of One Hand Clapping :whackit: ROFL

[OnTheWarpath15]

DCS, where did you find that abomination?

Probably the same place where 60% of dipshits polled thought that Tyler Thigpen is capable of leading a team to a Championship win.

[DeezNutz]

DCS, where did you find that abomination?

Shit. Sorry.

I meant to post that here first, but I was already logged on to my WPI account.

[kcbubb]

Yes. And it has pretty much changed nothing, because in other threads, geniouses like CoMo are arguing that we should draft a freaking left tackle at 3.

hey it was a good read. But most fans don't think as highly of Sanchez as you do. It's not that they disagree about the value of a good QB, but that they don't think that Sanchez will be a good QB.

[kcbubb]

<o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PlaceName"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="country-region"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="City"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="State"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"></o:smarttagtype><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> Treatise from the “Gang of 14”:
<o></o>

The Philadelphia Eagles of the Buddy Ryan era had some of the most dominant defenders of any era. Guys like Reggie White, Jerome Brown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Brown), Clyde Simmons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clyde_Simmons), Seth Joyner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Joyner), Eric Allen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Allen), Wes Hopkins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wes_Hopkins), and Andre Waters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_Waters). They led the NFL in both passing and rushing yardage allowed in 1991, the first team to do that in 16 years, and they missed the playoffs. In fact, that team did not win a single playoff game.

Couldn't you make the same argument for the saints this year for offenses? ranked first in both rushing and passing. they didn't even make the playoffs. What about the 99 rams? one hit wonder with the best offense ever at that time???

[lazepoo]

Couldn't you make the same argument for the saints this year for offenses? ranked first in both rushing and passing. they didn't even make the playoffs. What about the 99 rams? one hit wonder with the best offense ever at that time???

The rams had a top 10 D IIRC

The point is that you need parity for both sides of the ball and that you can't have a top offense without a top quarterback, ever.

[OnTheWarpath15]

The rams had a top 10 D IIRC

The point is that you need parity for both sides of the ball and that you can't have a top offense without a top quarterback, ever.

4th in points, 6th in yards.

[Mark M]

Again, no one has ever posed any form of a cogent argument about why Stafford or Sanchez aren't elite quarterback prospects.

I'm going to admit to playing devil's advocate here -- while I'd prefer the Chiefs to trade down, I don't see them finding anyone with which to do so. Thus, given the players out there at #3, Sanchez makes the most sense, IMHO.

With that being typed, people have, in fact, made more than cogent arguments against both of the QBs. But some come up with excuses or just ignore those arguments. For example:

-- Stafford has shown little ability to read defenses well and makes bad decisions with the ball, relying on his arm strength above making the smart play. He was on a team good enough to be a pre-season #1, yet looked average most of the season (the Ga. Tech and bowl games being the notable exceptions). Not great consistency for such a highly-touted player.

-- Sanchez has just 16 collegiate starts, and only nine QBs with 30 or fewer college starts have ever been selected in the first round. Out of those nine, only one has been moderately successful (Drew Brees). Regardless of schemes, it seems as though having so few starts leads to a lack of experience in a number of areas: clock management, how to handle repeated pressure situations, the expectations year after year, etc.

Again, I'm all good with Sanchez being the pick, and wouldn't lose my mind if the Chiefs got Stafford. There simply aren't any other options that make sense at the #3, given the Chiefs' needs.

But to say that no one has brought up good arguments is a bit of a strech, IMHO. They have been made -- some just can't manage to see them for whatever reason.

MM
~~:shrug:

[Rain Man]

Couldn't you make the same argument for the saints this year for offenses? ranked first in both rushing and passing. they didn't even make the playoffs. What about the 99 rams? one hit wonder with the best offense ever at that time???

I didn't read the whole original post since I figured it was mostly name-calling, but the paragraph you quoted about the Eagles caught my attention. If the argument is that the Eagles at that time lacked a franchise quarterback, I would have to disagree with that pretty strongly. Randall Cunningham was a beast for those Eagles teams, an absolute beast. If the Eagles weren't successful, it certainly wasn't because of a lack of talent at quarterback. The problem for them was that they didn't have any talent on offense outside of quarterback, other than maybe Fred Barnett.

That's a nitpick, and may or may not be relevant to the rest of the post, but I had to mention it since I'm a big Randall Cunningham fan.

[Rain Man]

Okay, I'm reading the part about the teams with great defenses. Three of those four teams won Super Bowls. I'm fine with winning just one Super Bowl. I have no problem with that.

I agree that a franchise quarterback is the best way to get there, and to get multiple Super Bowls, but the teams with great defenses seem to do okay as well.

[kcbubb]

he was making a point by using a team that had a great defense and not a great offense as a reason not to build the defense.

I was using the same type of reasoning for not building an offense. My point is that great teams are the ones that win superbowls.

that may sound simple, but you don't get there by reaching for players and drafting them higher than they should be drafted.

Most people who claim that a QB should be drafted claim that it is impossible to trade down from for example 7 spots from #3 to #10 because by the trade chart that is the value of an entire draft. But if you reach for a player like Sanchez and take him at #3, then that's what you are giving up (an entire draft) because Sanchez will not be taken from #4 to #9. Those teams don't need QBs and he has not evaluated high enough for someone like the Jets to move up from 17 to 9 to get him.

You don't build superbowl teams by reaching. Especially when you are reaching the value of an entire draft. that's how peterson drafted on several of his busts. he drafted for need and reached for a player.

[Chiefnj2]

Sanchez is Matt Leinart with a little stronger of an arm and much less experience.

[DeezNutz]

he was making a point by using a team that had a great defense and not a great offense as a reason not to build the defense.


This is such a gross misrepresentation that it's not even funny.

[ChiefsCountry]

This is such a gross misrepresentation that it's not even funny.

No kidding.

[chiefzilla1501]

Hamas, that's a really well thought-out post. As people should expect from me, I'm never satisfied with "slam dunk" arguments. That's the only place where I differ. I like the idea of drafting Stafford or Sanchez, but I don't think either are slam dunks. PS--I hope people will actually read what I write and not misinterpret and exaggerate my points, as seems to be pretty common....

Stafford has all the measurables. It's hard to find a negative on him. But most people don't think he'll fall to the Chiefs. If there was ever a negative, it's that completion %--way too low for a QB of his ability and experience level.

I actually like Sanchez better than Stafford. I think Sanchez has the fiery leadership that I don't see as much in Stafford. But you'd be hard-pressed to find an expert or scout that isn't concerned that he's under-prepared. I'm cool with drafting Sanchez, but you have to realize that it would probably be a mistake to let him start from game 1--he'll need a little more time to develop.

As for the rest of the arguments, I think a lot of it underestimates how difficult it is to find a franchise QB. While you talk a lot about "success rates", there's little talk of failure rates. I mentioned this in a thread a few weeks ago and got blasted, but ChiefsCountry's stats are flawed in that it fails to mention that 100% of first round QBs get a chance to start in the NFL. And probably well over half of them get 2-3 years to develop, even if they struggle. I would venture to guess that under 25% of 2nd rounders and below are given a chance to start, and well under 10% are given more than 2-3 years to develop. As I said in that earlier thread, first round QBs deservedly get more chances to start because they are scouted as having more talent and even if they were given the same opportunities as a 4th rounder, they'd still have a far higher success rate, but the statistic above assumes that all 2nd round QBs and below are given an opportunity to start and that they're allowed more than 2-3 years to truly develop. We all know that's far from the case. The appropriate answer is: if all QBs were given the same chances to start and the same 2-3 years to develop, first round QBs would likely succeed at a higher rate. However, because that doesn't happen, there is no way for us to know how MUCH higher that rate would be. We can only speculate. Those numbers above are flawed because it assumes that all things are equal.

I agree to some extent on the spread, but I don't agree that we know just yet what Thigpen is capable of in a pro-style offense. I completely agree that if he can't run a pro-style offense in at about half of the offensive sets, then we can give up on him completely. Either way, I think most scouts will tell you that Stafford or Sanchez shouldn't be starting from game 1 anyway--so I think Tyler has a chance to prove if he deserves to keep that job and he will have a LOT to prove.

As for the point about defense, I think a major part that you're leaving out is that many franchise QBs are built because of the defense that supports them. I don't think Eli would be a franchise QB if he didn't have an insane amount of talent on the defensive line to support his team, and I don't think Roethlisberger would have made it that far in 2009 had he had a poor defense to support him. Those teams benefited big time from having elite defenses--I think there's a good reason why Brees and Manning have struggled to make Super Bowls in spite of being the best QBs in the league.

Those are my thoughts. Again, let me say that I like the idea of Sanchez as a QB. But I'm arguing against the idea that it's a slam dunk decision.

[milkman]

Hamas, that's a really well thought-out post. As people should expect from me, I'm never satisfied with "slam dunk" arguments. That's the only place where I differ. I like the idea of drafting Stafford or Sanchez, but I don't think either are slam dunks. PS--I hope people will actually read what I write and not misinterpret and exaggerate my points, as seems to be pretty common....

Stafford has all the measurables. It's hard to find a negative on him. But most people don't think he'll fall to the Chiefs. If there was ever a negative, it's that completion %--way too low for a QB of his ability and experience level.

I actually like Sanchez better than Stafford. I think Sanchez has the fiery leadership that I don't see as much in Stafford. But you'd be hard-pressed to find an expert or scout that isn't concerned that he's under-prepared. I'm cool with drafting Sanchez, but you have to realize that it would probably be a mistake to let him start from game 1--he'll need a little more time to develop.

As for the rest of the arguments, I think a lot of it underestimates how difficult it is to find a franchise QB. While you talk a lot about "success rates", there's little talk of failure rates. I mentioned this in a thread a few weeks ago and got blasted, but ChiefsCountry's stats are flawed in that it fails to mention that 100% of first round QBs get a chance to start in the NFL. And probably well over half of them get 2-3 years to develop, even if they struggle. I would venture to guess that under 25% of 2nd rounders and below are given a chance to start, and well under 10% are given more than 2-3 years to develop. As I said in that earlier thread, first round QBs deservedly get more chances to start because they are scouted as having more talent and even if they were given the same opportunities as a 4th rounder, they'd still have a far higher success rate, but the statistic above assumes that all 2nd round QBs and below are given an opportunity to start and that they're allowed more than 2-3 years to truly develop. We all know that's far from the case. The appropriate answer is: if all QBs were given the same chances to start and the same 2-3 years to develop, first round QBs would likely succeed at a higher rate. However, because that doesn't happen, there is no way for us to know how MUCH higher that rate would be. We can only speculate. Those numbers above are flawed because it assumes that all things are equal.

I agree to some extent on the spread, but I don't agree that we know just yet what Thigpen is capable of in a pro-style offense. I completely agree that if he can't run a pro-style offense in at about half of the offensive sets, then we can give up on him completely. Either way, I think most scouts will tell you that Stafford or Sanchez shouldn't be starting from game 1 anyway--so I think Tyler has a chance to prove if he deserves to keep that job and he will have a LOT to prove.

As for the point about defense, I think a major part that you're leaving out is that many franchise QBs are built because of the defense that supports them. I don't think Eli would be a franchise QB if he didn't have an insane amount of talent on the defensive line to support his team, and I don't think Roethlisberger would have made it that far in 2009 had he had a poor defense to support him. Those teams benefited big time from having elite defenses--I think there's a good reason why Brees and Manning have struggled to make Super Bowls in spite of being the best QBs in the league.

Those are my thoughts. Again, let me say that I like the idea of Sanchez as a QB. But I'm arguing against the idea that it's a slam dunk decision.

I agree with much of what you say here, and I think if you paid close attention that many of us who are strongly in favor of drafting Sanchez (I like Sanchez better than Stafford for the same reason as you) are also in favor of allowing drafted QB to learn from the sideline.

And yes, teams win championships, but if you can find your QB and build a team around him on both sides of the ball, you improve your chances of consistently competing for years.

[Go Mizzou & Chiefs]

gang of 14?

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

I agree with much of what you say here, and I think if you paid close attention that many of us who are strongly in favor of drafting Sanchez (I like Sanchez better than Stafford for the same reason as you) are also in favor of allowing drafted QB to learn from the sideline.

And yes, teams win championships, but if you can find your QB and build a team around him on both sides of the ball, you improve your chances of consistently competing for years.

What we have here are two differing philosophies to team building. The draft is the draft is the draft; nobody is advocating or even attempting bring some wild, new, maverick strategy to the whole process, it simply is what it is.

Team building is the issue we're dealing with, and these are the two camps:

Group A believes that you build a team from the ground up. Linemen, LB's, CB's, and RB's comprise your core. You get this together, you get it right, and THEN you bring in the best QB you can get to lead your team.
This QB does not necessarily have to be a draft pick, and in most cases he won't be; you've built your 8-8 "powerhouse", you'll never see draft position worth a shit to get the best picks, and "why ya' gonna' bring in some n00b to lead all this experienced awesomeness, I tells 'ya"?!

Group B, the group I belong to, believes that excellence and long-term success come by building from the top down.
Ownership, General Manager, Head Coach, Coordinators, Squad Coaches, Trainers, and Quarterback.
I subscribe to this philosophy for the reason that the Quarterback is your team's leader, and that leadership should be brought as early as possible in the situation we find ourselves in, that leadership should be developed from the get-go in a major rebuild, and that leadership should be constant as time goes on and as the great players, the not-so great players, and the scrubs come and go.

As much as I loathe the Donkos, they did it the right way with Elway. Regardless of who may have played with him over the years, when you heard "Denver Broncos", the first image in your minds eye was John Elway.

It's time for Kansas City to acquire and develop it's John Elway.

[chiefzilla1501]

What we have here are two differing philosophies to team building. The draft is the draft is the draft; nobody is advocating or even attempting bring some wild, new, maverick strategy to the whole process, it simply is what it is.

Team building is the issue we're dealing with, and these are the two camps:

Group A believes that you build a team from the ground up. Linemen, LB's, CB's, and RB's comprise your core. You get this together, you get it right, and THEN you bring in the best QB you can get to lead your team.
This QB does not necessarily have to be a draft pick, and in most cases he won't be; you've built your 8-8 "powerhouse", you'll never see draft position worth a shit to get the best picks, and "why ya' gonna' bring in some n00b to lead all this experienced awesomeness, I tells 'ya"?!

Group B, the group I belong to, believes that excellence and long-term success come by building from the top down.
Ownership, General Manager, Head Coach, Coordinators, Squad Coaches, Trainers, and Quarterback.
I subscribe to this philosophy for the reason that the Quarterback is your team's leader, and that leadership should be brought as early as possible in the situation we find ourselves in, that leadership should be developed from the get-go in a major rebuild, and that leadership should be constant as time goes on and as the great players, the not-so great players, and the scrubs come and go.

As much as I loathe the Donkos, they did it the right way with Elway. Regardless of who may have played with him over the years, when you heard "Denver Broncos", the first image in your minds eye was John Elway.

It's time for Kansas City to acquire and develop it's John Elway.

It's hard to say. There's also a third school: if you're going to build around a QB, it had better be the right one. I think that's the part that some people aren't all on board with--not everyone is convinced Sanchez is a guy to build around. And I think that's a pretty reasonable concern--it is most definitely a risk to go with a QB that raw.

[Mecca]

Sanchez is Matt Leinart with a little stronger of an arm and much less experience.

That's pretty amusing coming from the guy who thinks Colt McCoy is a awesome prospect.

[Basileus777]

The thing about this draft class is that it is fucking awful outside of QBs or LTs. Perhaps in some other draft classes you could make a case for taking a superior pass rushing prospect over a QB. But that isn't even an option this year. If we don't take Sanchez/Stafford, we would be forced to reach for a position or a prospect that we should not be taking with the 3rd pick. Any legitimate arguments that could be made against taking a QB have been made null by this shitty draft class.

[milkman]

The thing about this draft class is that it is ****ing awful outside of QBs or LTs. Perhaps in some other draft classes you could make a case for taking a superior pass rushing prospect over a QB. But that isn't even an option this year. If we don't take Sanchez/Stafford, we would be forced to reach for a position or a prospect that we should not be taking with the 3rd pick. Any legitimate arguments that could be made against taking a QB have been made null by this shitty draft class.

Well said.

[Mecca]

The thing about this draft class is that it is fucking awful outside of QBs or LTs. Perhaps in some other draft classes you could make a case for taking a superior pass rushing prospect over a QB. But that isn't even an option this year. If we don't take Sanchez/Stafford, we would be forced to reach for a position or a prospect that we should not be taking with the 3rd pick. Any legitimate arguments that could be made against taking a QB have been made null by this shitty draft class.

Here comes someone to tell you all about how Aaron Curry is the best player.

[Chiefnj2]

That's pretty amusing coming from the guy who thinks Colt McCoy is a awesome prospect.

McCoy and Bradford will have more successful careers than Leinart.

[Mecca]

McCoy and Bradford will have more successful careers than Leinart.

Really? At what selling insurance? Or maybe used cars?

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

It's hard to say. There's also a third school: if you're going to build around a QB, it had better be the right one. I think that's the part that some people aren't all on board with--not everyone is convinced Sanchez is a guy to build around. And I think that's a pretty reasonable concern--it is most definitely a risk to go with a QB that raw.

You're absolutely right.

However, I didn't see how the "Hindsight Is 20/20"-group could factor in to this matter with any kind of intellectual honesty.

:shrug:

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Really? At what selling insurance? Or maybe used cars?

McCoy strikes me as more of a Grain and Feed kind of guy.

Besides; Harrell's gonna' have that Texas insurance kingdom all wrapped up!:D

[Mr. Laz]

omg .... they even made up a name for their little group of draft hitmen

have a some sort of Manifesto now i guess too






i think i'm gonna be ill :Lin:

[philfree]

'Gang Of 14' Sounds like a gay porn title.



I know, I Know! I couldn't help it I was weak. Don't take it seriously it was just a joke.



PhilFree:arrow:

[Rain Man]

I think it's their age, and there's only a couple of them.

[DaneMcCloud]

Are you suggesting that Pete Carroll cared more about starting Booty then winning?

Pete Carroll was concerned about winning, recruiting and the school's image.

He didn't wan the focus of the 2007 football season to be on the rape allegations. He wanted the focus to be on football and the USC program.

How could he look a recruit's parents in the face and tell them that he had their best interests at heart, all the while, playing a QB accused of raping a young USC woman at a party? He'd appear to be "all about football" and not all about the players. He would have lost major credibility.

He made the right decision. Too bad for Sanchez, as he would have had 2 years of starting under his belt, making the draft decision much easier for NFL teams.

[DeezNutz]

McCoy and Bradford will have more successful careers than Leinart.

McCoy is going to have get much bigger if he's going to be able to survive physically.

Dude is the same size as Croyle. Listed at one inch taller and one pound lighter.

[doomy3]

McCoy is going to have get much bigger if he's going to be able to survive physically.

Dude is the same size as Croyle. Listed at one inch taller and one pound lighter.


There are plenty of QBs in the NFL that are around that size and aren't injured like Croyle. It's something else with him, but I don't think it's all size.

[OnTheWarpath15]

There are plenty of QBs in the NFL that are around that size and aren't injured like Croyle. It's something else with him, but I don't think it's all size.

The only guy I can think of off the top of my head that are similar build (6'2"+, under 210) is Bulger, and he's played 16 games once in his career.

[doomy3]

The only guy I can think of off the top of my head that are similar build (6'2"+, under 210) is Bulger, and he's played 16 games once in his career.

Marc Bulger, Drew Brees, Jake Delhomme, Jeff Garcia are some

[OnTheWarpath15]

Marc Bulger, Drew Brees, Jake Delhomme, Jeff Garcia are some

Brees is 3 inches shorter and weighs more than Croyle/Bulger.

Delhomme weighs 10 pounds more and has battled injuries 2 of the last 3 years.

Garcia is 2 inches shorter, weighs the same, and hasn't played a full season since 2002.

[doomy3]

There are plenty of QBs in the NFL that are around that size and aren't injured like Croyle. It's something else with him, but I don't think it's all size.

The only guy I can think of off the top of my head that are similar build (6'2"+, under 210) is Bulger, and he's played 16 games once in his career.

Brees is 3 inches shorter and weighs more than Croyle/Bulger.

Delhomme weighs 10 pounds more and has battled injuries 2 of the last 3 years.

Garcia is 2 inches shorter, weighs the same, and hasn't played a full season since 2002.

I didn't say they were the exact same size, but we can agree that they are similar build, no? And yes, I realize Bulger has been injured, but as you said in another thread yesterday, he has gotten completely abused behind a terrible line. I wouldn't say his injuries have been only because of his size.

[OnTheWarpath15]

I didn't say they were the exact same size, but we can agree that they are similar build, no? And yes, I realize Bulger has been injured, but as you said in another thread yesterday, he has gotten completely abused behind a terrible line. I wouldn't say his injuries have been only because of his size.

Of all the guys you listed, only Bulger has a slighter build than Croyle. All of them are 215 or under.

And all of them have missed significant time to to injury, with the exception of Brees, who was lucky enough to get hurt in the last game of the season and not the first.

Not a coincidence, IMO.

[doomy3]

Of all the guys you listed, only Bulger has a slighter build than Croyle. All of them are 215 or under.

And all of them have missed significant time to to injury, with the exception of Brees, who was lucky enough to get hurt in the last game of the season and not the first.

Not a coincidence, IMO.


Those are just guys who are in the NFL now though. There have been many (Montana, Young, Namath, Trent Green, etc) that were slight build and didn't have these injury problems. Maybe it's not a coincidence, and maybe the NFL has changed a lot, I don't know. Not really even sure why this is a debate.

[soundmind]

I really think Brodie just doesn't like to get hit. That sounds ridiculous and humorous, but if you've ever played ball, that's a big part of the game that some guys never get.

Maybe he just can't take a hit, or never really learned how? In any event, he should've played baseball, he's got a hell of an arm, but he's made of glass and toothpicks. We should dress him out in blue and teach him a curveball...

[DeezNutz]

Those are just guys who are in the NFL now though. There have been many (Montana, Young, Namath, Trent Green, etc) that were slight build and didn't have these injury problems. Maybe it's not a coincidence, and maybe the NFL has changed a lot, I don't know. Not really even sure why this is a debate.

Montana started 16 games only twice in his career. Injuries were definitely a problem.

Steve Young was 6'2" 215. Sounds like it's similar, but if it's 10 more pounds of muscle mass, it's really not.

Green we know about, and injuries were definitely a problem. Blowing out the knee was freak, however.

Namath. Not sure how well this comparison stacks up, to be honest.

[Rigodan]

It's hard to say. There's also a third school: if you're going to build around a QB, it had better be the right one. I think that's the part that some people aren't all on board with--not everyone is convinced Sanchez is a guy to build around. And I think that's a pretty reasonable concern--it is most definitely a risk to go with a QB that raw.

You gotta take the big risks (pick a QB) to get the big rewards (playoff wins). Go big or go home.

[OnTheWarpath15]

You gotta take the big risks (pick a QB) to get the big rewards (playoff wins). Go big or go home.

This.

For some reason, people think that any pick other than Stafford/Sanchez is a safe pick.

There is no such thing as a safe pick.

[chiefzilla1501]

You gotta take the big risks (pick a QB) to get the big rewards (playoff wins). Go big or go home.

I don't disagree. But again, just saying it's not a slam dunk and it's reasonable for people to be hesitant.

[chiefzilla1501]

This.

For some reason, people think that any pick other than Stafford/Sanchez is a safe pick.

There is no such thing as a safe pick.

No, but I think there will be many that believe that those two QBs are less NFL-ready than most top QBs going into the draft. Granted, the top of the class is pretty shallow in general and the Chiefs can't just cross their fingers and hope they'll get a top 5 pick next year (especially given that the QB class might be worse next year).

But to your point... QBs generally bust at the highest rate. Other positions would be safer, without a doubt. But it's about risk vs. reward. QBs are high risk, high reward.

[OnTheWarpath15]

I don't disagree. But again, just saying it's not a slam dunk and it's reasonable for people to be hesitant.

And it's just as reasonable for people to be hesitant about taking a LB that doesn't rush the passer at the 3 slot.

Add to that what Scott Wright said this week, that Curry compares to DJ Williams, and you have another reason people would be hesitant.

DJ.

Williams.

Let that sink in.

EVERY pick has risks associated with it.

[ChiefsCountry]

omg .... they even made up a name for their little group of draft hitmen

have a some sort of Manifesto now i guess too






i think i'm gonna be ill :Lin:

Your dupe account made that nickname.

[OnTheWarpath15]

No, but I think there will be many that believe that those two QBs are less NFL-ready than most top QBs going into the draft. Granted, the top of the class is pretty shallow in general and the Chiefs can't just cross their fingers and hope they'll get a top 5 pick next year (especially given that the QB class might be worse next year).

But to your point... QBs generally bust at the highest rate. Other positions would be safer, without a doubt. But it's about risk vs. reward. QBs are high risk, high reward.

There may be people that don't know how to scout the QB position that think they are less NFL ready.

Scott Wright mentioned in his chat today that he thinks Stafford is a better prospect than both Cutler and Ryan.

He's admitted that Sanchez has everything you look for, but that the lack of experience may scare some teams.

QB's are going to bust at a higher rate, because they play the most important position on the field, and more is asked of them.

If a LT busts, you move him to guard. At least you're getting something out of him.

When a QB busts, you have to ride it out.

But if you're too chickenshit to take the risk, you'll never have to worry about losing playoff and championship games - you'll never get there.

[DeezNutz]

And it's just as reasonable for people to be hesitant about taking a LB that doesn't rush the passer at the 3 slot.

Add to that what Scott Wright said this week, that Curry compares to DJ Williams, and you have another reason people would be hesitant.

DJ.

Williams.

Let that sink in.

EVERY pick has risks associated with it.

It stretches believability to try to argue that Stafford and Sanchez aren't first-round quality prospects, and this begs the obvious: If not now, when and how?

FA? We know the results this tends to bring.

Next years draft? For whom, Bradford? Ok, but he's probably going very, very early. Maybe even 1/1, and we'll likely not be *that* bad.

And I don't even want to talk seriously about a guy like McCoy. He's going to be about a 3rd rounder. Maybe he'll develop into a stud, but you're talking about a much riskier avenue.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

omg .... they even made up a name for their little group of draft hitmen

have a some sort of Manifesto now i guess too






i think i'm gonna be ill :Lin:


Gang of 14 dedicates the following number to ALL you little bitches!!!!

:fire::LOL:

<object width="425" height="344">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RfX9SO7-HkA&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>

[Reaper16]

Gang of 14 dedicates the following number to ALL you little bitches!!!!

:fire::LOL:

<object width="425" height="344">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RfX9SO7-HkA&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>

Jesus. Next time, instead of a Bathory tribute, just play something from Bathory. It would make my ears, and Quorthon's soul, happy.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

You gotta take the big risks (pick a QB) to get the big rewards (playoff wins). Go big or go home.

And it's just as reasonable for people to be hesitant about taking a LB that doesn't rush the passer at the 3 slot.

Add to that what Scott Wright said this week, that Curry compares to DJ Williams, and you have another reason people would be hesitant.

DJ.

Williams.

Let that sink in.

EVERY pick has risks associated with it.

There may be people that don't know how to scout the QB position that think they are less NFL ready.

Scott Wright mentioned in his chat today that he thinks Stafford is a better prospect than both Cutler and Ryan.

He's admitted that Sanchez has everything you look for, but that the lack of experience may scare some teams.

QB's are going to bust at a higher rate, because they play the most important position on the field, and more is asked of them.

If a LT busts, you move him to guard. At least you're getting something out of him.

When a QB busts, you have to ride it out.

But if you're too chickenshit to take the risk, you'll never have to worry about losing playoff and championship games - you'll never get there.

THESE!

And for the love of FUCK; we been drafting defense, defense, defense for two fucking seasons now, and the positions that people are crying for today, ARE THE SAME GODDAMNED ONES WE'VE BEEN WASTING PICKS ON!!!!

DIE IN FIRE!

:fire::bang::fire:

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Jesus. Next time, instead of a Bathory tribute, just play something from Bathory. It would make my ears, and Quorthon's soul, happy.


ROFL
The live( and only recording I could find on You Tube )Bathory version is even more lo-fi than this!
DCS respects your passion for authenticity though.

[Reaper16]

ROFL
The live( and only recording I could find on You Tube )Bathory version is even more lo-fi than this!
DCS respects your passion for authenticity though.
Yeah, but it sounds much, much better. Bathory are stone-cold classics. RIP, Quorthon.

<object width="425" height="344">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/j-iuIArton4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Yeah, but it sounds much, much better. Bathory are stone-cold classics. RIP, Quorthon.

<object width="425" height="344">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/j-iuIArton4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>

Now that I've heard it a few times and know where the lyrics are, the original IS better.

[Pioli Zombie]

Hello I would like to talk about the draft

Shit piss fuck cunt cocksucker motherfucker tits

Is that a no?
Posted via Mobile Device

[Reerun_KC]

Hello I would like to talk about the draft

Shit piss **** **** one who sucks the penis mother****er tits

Is that a no?
Posted via Mobile Device

Hey where is the orginal thread for the gang of 14?

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Hey where is the orginal thread for the gang of 14?`


We confiscated the sonofabitch. If you want access; secret handshake and password please...:D

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Hello I would like to talk about the draft

Shit piss fuck cunt cocksucker motherfucker tits

Is that a no?
Posted via Mobile Device

Much better! :D

[Pioli Zombie]

Much better! :D

I'm starting to get the lingo down. :)
Posted via Mobile Device

[Reerun_KC]

`


We confiscated the sonofabitch. If you want access; secret handshake and password please...:D

Alright here is the secret handshake! Password is, "bitch you better have my money"


Secret Handshake! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edaJP3Lp0Gg)

[Pioli Zombie]

Blah blah blah quarterback

Blah blah blah linebacker

You fucking retard douchebag asshole mother fucking cunt licking piece of shit retard ass wipe fuckhead dick shit ass fuck fuck piece of fuck

Blah blah blah linebacker.
Posted via Mobile Device

[DaneMcCloud]

3.) Pete Carroll said that Sanchez should stay in school. I'm not sure how my saying that people shouldn't be berated for not wanting Sanchez at #3 is somehow acting as if I'm smarter than any college or NFL head coach given what came out of his own head coach's mouth.

Why do you care what Pete Carroll thinks?

I've posted quotes from big time USC Boosters that have told me that Pete was pissed because he was virtually eliminated from Title Contention the minute Sanchez declared.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Alright here is the secret handshake! Password is, "bitch you better have my money"


Secret Handshake! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edaJP3Lp0Gg)

LMAO That's the hand shake that gets you dropped through Porky's trap-door!

Why do you care what Pete Carroll thinks?

I've posted quotes from big time USC Boosters that have told me that Pete was pissed because he was virtually eliminated from Title Contention the minute Sanchez declared.

Hell yes he was pissed!
It kills me that no matter how painfully obvious it is that Mark is one very talented young man who will be such a dynamic leader for a team, TF's in KC just have a really inbred mental block from 30 years of overall shite that will NOT let them see the forest for the trees!

Winner. That's what this kid is, plain and simple.

[tk13]

I think it's definitely devolved to the point where all the QB lovers cut down Curry, Crabtree, and pretty much every one else who isn't a QB. And the people who are afraid of a QB cut them down while propping up the other guy.

In the end, most people get so caught up in wanting to be right that their opinion becomes way too emotional. Some of the hyperbole both ways about these guys is flat insane. People saying Sanchez is some God like leader of men or Stafford doesn't have "it"... I don't know about that. And I'm probably being kind.

It's a huge risk, this is probably the time to take it. There doesn't appear to be too many insane prospects out there. I'm not sure Curry's really worth it at 3, but I'm not sure he sucks quite as bad as some people think he does. All the other top 15-20 picks besides Stafford and Sanchez aren't going to bust, and there are guys we're propping up now who are going to fail, and guys who people think are overrated who will succeed.

The reality is that you're more likely to find a Super Bowl winning guy in the 1st round. The other reality is that picking a 1st round QB that flops will set your franchise back 4 or 5 years. So it's not a pick to be made lightly. It's not a mistake you can just fix, you have to ride it out and be patient. That is not a poor argument to make. That doesn't mean you should be afraid to take the risk, but you have to be right, and sometimes that comes down to luck, injuries, the team that's built around them, etc.. The amount of confidence people on both sides of this argument make is probably way too excessive. But that's life on a message board.

The other thing is, we're not going to be a Super Bowl team next year, but we've got high draft picks, a ridiculous amount of cap space, with a horribly weak division that's being turned over with the Raiders, a younger coach than Mangini, and Norv Turner. I think turning in a record much better than 2-14 is not far-fetched. This team could look totally different come June, Pioli really has the freedom to do whatever he wants.

[Mecca]

I don't think Aaron Curry sucks, I just don't think OLB's are worth top 3 picks.

And Michael Crabtree has red flags popping up everywhere he's cutting himself down.

[tk13]

But it is different now with Pioli. It's not like Carl. Regardless of whether he succeeds in KC or not, the dude was a HUGE part in the evaluation and decision making process of the greatest dynasty of the salary cap era. It's very hard to second guess his decisions, or to act like you're smarter than him. Because you're not. And he will make some poor decisions, I don't doubt that one bit.

[Reerun_KC]

But it is different now with Pioli. It's not like Carl. Regardless of whether he succeeds in KC or not, the dude was a HUGE part in the evaluation and decision making process of the greatest dynasty of the salary cap era. It's very hard to second guess his decisions, or to act like you're smarter than him. Because you're not. And he will make some poor decisions, I don't doubt that one bit.

Which is funny, because people bash someone for wanting a certain player, Saying they arent smarter than NFL GM's. Then turn right around and say we wont pass on a sure fire HOF OLB... Because they are smarter than the GM...

How do you figure that?

[Mecca]

Which is funny, because people bash someone for wanting a certain player, Saying they arent smarter than NFL GM's. Then turn right around and say we wont pass on a sure fire HOF OLB... Because they are smarter than the GM...

How do you figure that?

Because the argument is "Pioli agrees with me" which I don't really understand but there are posters that seem to really think that.

[Reerun_KC]

Because the argument is "Pioli agrees with me" which I don't really understand but there are posters that seem to really think that.

How do they know that Pioli agrees with them? Can they post a link or evidence to support those claims?

[Mecca]

How do they know that Pioli agrees with them? Can they post a link or evidence to support those claims?

They don't it just sounds good so they can call everyone else stupid or "you think you know more than Pioli does!"

[tk13]

Three is probably a bit high. Although I think OLB is an impact position if you are a 3-4 team. But that said, there doesn't appear to be a Mario Williams in this draft, no Glenn Dorsey's... if you're not looking for a QB or LT then Curry looks about as good as anyone else. What do you do?

[Mecca]

Three is probably a bit high. Although I think OLB is an impact position if you are a 3-4 team. But that said, there doesn't appear to be a Mario Williams in this draft, no Glenn Dorsey's... if you're not looking for a QB or LT then Curry looks about as good as anyone else. What do you do?

You take the QB?

There's a ton of defenders next year and reality is we'll be picking high again.

[keg in kc]

Because the argument is "Pioli agrees with me" which I don't really understand but there are posters that seem to really think that.There's a lot of folks who think the chiefs are going to do exactly what they want for some reason, this attitude like 'when the chiefs take curry, i'll be vindicated, and it'll prove that sanchez sucks!'. Like they somehow know better than the rest of us what the chiefs are going to do. It's interesting.

[Mecca]

There's a lot of folks who think the chiefs are going to do exactly what they want for some reason, this attitude like 'when the chiefs take curry, i'll be vindicated, and it'll prove that sanchez sucks!'. Like they somehow know better than the rest of us what the chiefs are going to do. It's interesting.

No one knows, which is why those arguments do get on my nerves. Just like the "you don't work in the NFL" arguments are lazy.

What should we all do sit around going "they'll make the right decision" like little sheep with no opinions that'd be a real fun forum.

[Goldmember]

What I'd like to see is some statistic that shows the relationship of success to the quality of their offensive line. I'd say that most of those qb's you listed didn't spend a lot of time on their asses or have to hurry the majority of their throws. I still think the most important position on the team is the entire offensive line. BTW, I am not a former Big Ugly nor am I related to one whatsoever.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

What I'd like to see is some statistic that shows the relationship of success to the quality of their offensive line. I'd say that most of those qb's you listed didn't spend a lot of time on their asses or have to hurry the majority of their throws. I still think the most important position on the team is the entire offensive line. BTW, I am not a former Big Ugly nor am I related to one whatsoever.

"The Ballad Of Fix The O-Line And Everything Will Fall In To Place"

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dt1fBjCm49g&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dt1fBjCm49g&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[kcbubb]

I don't think Aaron Curry sucks, I just don't think OLB's are worth top 3 picks.

And Michael Crabtree has red flags popping up everywhere he's cutting himself down.

that's where your opinion differs with many NFL analysts. one reason Curry has been projected so high is because of his versatility. They believe he can play any LB position in the 3-4 or 4-3 including rushing the passer as a 3-4 OLB.

[Mecca]

that's where your opinion differs with many NFL analysts. one reason Curry has been projected so high is because of his versatility. They believe he can play any LB position in the 3-4 or 4-3 including rushing the passer as a 3-4 OLB.

Just thinking a guy with less than 10 sacks in his career that readily admits he's never been coached to pass rush and has no pass rush moves is a pretty large assumption.

[Demonpenz]

ask anyone in the nfl defense wins championships

[keg in kc]

They believe he can play any LB position in the 3-4 or 4-3 including rushing the passer as a 3-4 OLB.Inside/outside? Yes, 'they' say that. "Including rushing the passer"? No, 'they' don't say that. I don't think I've seen anybody anywhere talk about him as any kind of a pass rusher, excluding a handful of people on this board who seem to believe his lack of sacks was the sole result of WFs coaching staff.

[philfree]

Inside/outside? Yes, 'they' say that. "Including rushing the passer"? No, 'they' don't say that. I don't think I've seen anybody anywhere talk about him as any kind of a pass rusher, excluding a handful of people on this board who seem to believe his lack of sacks was the sole result of WFs coaching staff.

I've heard Mayock say that Curry could rush the passer. I like the clip of Mayock showing Curry's one supposed flaw of occasionally not breaking down in space to make the tackle. Curry shases the QB down and forces him to throw an INT. Some flaw.


PhilFree:arrow:

[Mr. Laz]

Your dupe account made that nickname.

O'rly ....... and what would the name of my dupe account be?



dyin' to hear this ROFL

[Brock]

I've heard Mayock say that Curry could rush the passer. I like the clip of Mayock showing Curry's one supposed flaw of occasionally not breaking down in space to make the tackle. Curry shases the QB down and forces him to throw an INT. Some flaw.


PhilFree:arrow:

3 sacks per year. It's probably a flaw.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

I think it's definitely devolved to the point where all the QB lovers cut down Curry, Crabtree, and pretty much every one else who isn't a QB. And the people who are afraid of a QB cut them down while propping up the other guy..

Did you even read the OP?

[Mr. Laz]

3 sacks per year. It's probably a flaw.
unfair ..... Curry wasn't used as a pass rusher

he got 3 sacks per year just in his normal linebacker duties

but ..... it is a concern

much like Sanchez's lack of experience, Curry's lack of experience as a pass rusher makes it a difficult judgment taking him so high in the draft.

the difference is that even if Curry doesn't develop as a stud pass rusher he could still be a stud linebacker, which he's already shown.

Sanchez, on the other hand, is boom or bust.

[htismaqe]

unfair ..... Curry wasn't used as a pass rusher

he got 3 sacks per year just in his normal linebacker duties

but ..... it is a concern

much like Sanchez's lack of experience, Curry's lack of experience as a pass rusher makes it a difficult judgment taking him so high in the draft.

the difference is that even if Curry doesn't develop as a stud pass rusher he could still be a stud linebacker, which he's already shown.

Sanchez, on the other hand, is boom or bust.

The problem is that you could get a guy like Curry with a MUCH later pick. Just ask Jerrod Mayo.

I'm VERY torn on Sanchez. He has the "it" factor - the intangibles - that you want in a QB. However, lack of experience is a HUGE red flag. He won't have a chance to gain "experience" at this point. He has a chance to learn by watching film and studying plays, but that's not game-time experience. He's either going to succeed, or he's going to fail. Simple as that.

To be fair, I'm torn on Stafford too. He has the experience that Sanchez doesn't, but the more I watched him this past year, the more I thought he DOESN'T have "it". He's got the physical tools, but does he have it upstairs?

[Mr. Laz]

The problem is that you could get a guy like Curry with a MUCH later pick. Just ask Jerrod Mayo.

I'm VERY torn on Sanchez. He has the "it" factor - the intangibles - that you want in a QB. However, lack of experience is a HUGE red flag. He won't have a chance to gain "experience" at this point. He has a chance to learn by watching film and studying plays, but that's not game-time experience. He's either going to succeed, or he's going to fail. Simple as that.

To be fair, I'm torn on Stafford too. He has the experience that Sanchez doesn't, but the more I watched him this past year, the more I thought he DOESN'T have "it". He's got the physical tools, but does he have it upstairs?
agreed with pretty much everything

the top of the draft is weak and risky this year ... more so than many other years imo.

you got guys with less exp that you want with a top pick
you got guys with part of their game missing that is necessary for a top pick

i'm pretty much ok with whomever Pioli goes with tbh

it's a dam crap shoot as far as i can tell. I wish him good luck and hopes he doesn't screw it up.

[htismaqe]

i'm pretty much ok with whomever Pioli goes with tbh

:clap:

I'm there with you brother.

[Brock]

:clap:

I'm there with you brother.

WTF are you doing here?

[Mr. Laz]

WTF are you doing here?
htismaqe is my secret lover

we had a spat, so he left

we are back together now, so he's back


come here and give me a hug, parkee baby.

[Brock]

htismaqe is my secret lover

we had a spat, so he left

we are back together now, so he's back


come here and give me a hug, parkee baby.

Well, I'm glad to see it. Give him a kiss on the ear for me.

[htismaqe]

WTF are you doing here?

I couldn't let the BEST OFFSEASON EVER pass without talking to SOMEBODY about it.

My wife just rolls her eyes when I walk in the door every night after walk and shout "PIOLI!"

:D

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

unfair ..... Curry wasn't used as a pass rusher

he got 3 sacks per year just in his normal linebacker duties

but ..... it is a concern

much like Sanchez's lack of experience, Curry's lack of experience as a pass rusher makes it a difficult judgment taking him so high in the draft.

the difference is that even if Curry doesn't develop as a stud pass rusher he could still be a stud linebacker, which he's already shown.

Sanchez, on the other hand, is boom or bust.

:whackit:

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn182/lightbringerrr/GHOSTOFTODD.gif

[Mr. Laz]

I couldn't let the BEST OFFSEASON EVER pass without talking to SOMEBODY about it.

My wife just rolls her eyes when I walk in the door every night after walk and shout "PIOLI!"

:D
HA!!!

*cough, cough* btw didn't i call this Pioli thing about 5 years ago? :evil:

[htismaqe]

HA!!!

*cough, cough* btw didn't i call this Pioli thing about 5 years ago? :evil:

You always were the eternal optimist. ROFL

[FAX]

Great to see you, Mr. htismaqe.

FAX

[Reerun_KC]

You always were the eternal optimist. ROFL

:hail:

welcome back! You have been missed!

[Hammock Parties]

YAAAAAAY PARKER!!!

KISS ME

[htismaqe]

YAAAAAAY PARKER!!!

KISS ME

SSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

['Hamas' Jenkins]

:whackit:

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn182/lightbringerrr/GHOSTOFTODD.gif

ROFLROFLROFL

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

ROFLROFLROFL

I had me a feelin' you'd like that!

[RealSNR]

Bump. This thread gets linked enough, I think we should just keep it on the front page.

[Pitt Gorilla]

The Kurt Warner things is interesting. In STL, he had a solid line, great back, great receivers. In AZ (I know they didn't win, but they did everything but win), he had no backs, no line, and a pretty porous D. It was basically Warner and his receivers that just about ended up Super Bowl champs. How does one account for an interesting talent like him? Should he have been drafter higher?

[Ebolapox]

The Kurt Warner things is interesting. In STL, he had a solid line, great back, great receivers. In AZ (I know they didn't win, but they did everything but win), he had no backs, no line, and a pretty porous D. It was basically Warner and his receivers that just about ended up Super Bowl champs. How does one account for an interesting talent like him? Should he have been drafter higher?

he wasn't drafted at all, IIRC

[Pitt Gorilla]

he wasn't drafted at all, IIRCBelieve me, I know. It's a UNI thing.

[Hammock Parties]

Bump.

[kstater]

Can we get a ban for all the retards that feel the need to bump every Cassel thread out there?

[Pasta Little Brioni]

Hooray it's 09 all over again :whackit: Time to boog out for a while.

[aturnis]

<o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PlaceName"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="country-region"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="City"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="State"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"></o:smarttagtype><!--><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> Treatise from the “Gang of 14”:
<o></o>
I see a lot of dissent from the True Fans on the board that those of us who continually express the primacy of a franchise quarterback are not adding any kind of insight or support to our opinions, merely insults. In the interests of refutation, I am going to skip any form of attack in this post in order to demonstrate to you what our argument is, and the history that we have on the board of supporting said argument with pointed, and factual examples.
<o></o>
Why do we believe in obtaining a franchise QB?<o></o>
<o></o>
It’s quite simple. It is the most important piece of a team that will successfully contend for a number of years. Look back on the last several dynasties or near-dynasties in the NFL.
<o></o>
The Steelers of the 70’s had Bradshaw
The 49ers of the 80’s and 90’s had <st1:state w:st="on"><st1>Montana</st1>l</st1:state> who then bridged seamlessly to Steve Young
The Cowboys of the 90’s had Troy Aikman
The Bills of the 90’s had Jim Kelly
The Broncos of the 80’s and 90’s had John Elway
The Patriots of this decade have Tom Brady
The Colts of this decade have Peyton Manning
The Steelers of this decade have Ben Roethlisberger
<o></o>
8 teams, all of them had franchise QBs. Most of them also had good to great defenses, but none of them didn’t have a franchise quarterback.
<o></o>
Here is why we don’t believe in defense above all else:
<o></o>
The 1980s <st1:city w:st="on"><st1></st1></st1:city><st1:city w:st="on"><st1>Chicago</st1> </st1:city>Bears
The late 80’s-early 90’s Philadelphia Eagles
The Bucs of the 1990s and 2000s
The Ravens of this decade.
<o></o><o></o>
Many people consider the 1985 Bears to be the greatest team of all time, with the greatest defense of all time. What people forget is that the 1986 Bears had a better defense, setting NFL records for fewest points allowed. What they didn’t have was the same level of consistent play from the quarterback position as these other teams did. In spite of one of the most impressively talented units of all time on either side of the ball, they were essentially a one-hit wonder.
<o></o>
The Philadelphia Eagles of the Buddy Ryan era had some of the most dominant defenders of any era. Guys like Reggie White, Jerome Brown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Brown), Clyde Simmons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clyde_Simmons), Seth Joyner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Joyner), Eric Allen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Allen), Wes Hopkins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wes_Hopkins), and Andre Waters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_Waters). They led the NFL in both passing and rushing yardage allowed in 1991, the first team to do that in 16 years, and they missed the playoffs. In fact, that team did not win a single playoff game.
<o></o>
The Bucs of the last 10 years are another great example. Although they had an amazingly talented unit, Warren Sapp, Simeon Rice (120 sacks), Ronde Barber, Derrick Brooks, Booger McFarland, and John Lynch (among others), they routinely flamed out in the playoffs. They eventually won one Super Bowl, but with that kind of talent on one unit, it’s positively criminal that they weren’t in the <st1></st1><st1><st1:country-region w:st="on">Ch.</st1:country-region></st1> Game or Super Bowl every year.
<o></o>
The 2000 Ravens had arguably the greatest or second greatest D of all time, but with only Trent Dilfer at the helm, and no other offensive weapons aside from Jamal Lewis, they flamed out quicker than Colin Farrell.
<o></o>
Now, with that being said, why do we want a franchise QB this year?<o></o>
It comes down to this: we see Matt Stafford and Mark Sanchez as two of the best quarterback prospects of the last five years.
<o>
</o><st1>Stafford</st1> has an amazing physical skillset. Here is a list of reasons I posted in support of<st1>Stafford</st1> some months ago:
<o></o>


He has three years of starting experience in the SEC
2. He comes from a pro offense
3. He knows how to read a defense, and can audible into advantageous plays, recognizes the blitz
4. He's willing to get pounded and get back up
5. He's mobile
6. He has good mechanics
7. He has unbelievable arm strength
8. He's played with a very marginal OL this year with three freshmen on it, and receivers who can't get separation, so he has to make NFL throws to get them the ball, he's not lobbing a rainbow up to a WR with 5 yards of separation.
9. He's a leader and he's been under intense scrutiny since he was 16 years old.
10. He's improved every year in college, despite having less and less talent around him to work with.

<o></o>
Combine that with reports of how teams were “blown away” by his board work, as well as the natural athleticism he showed in running the 40, and I don’t know how one [I]wouldn’t be floored by this kid.
<o></o>
Why do we want Sanchez?<o></o>
<o></o>
It’s a similar question with slightly different answers, but achieving the same result.
<o></o>


Sanchez is a leader of men. It’s that simple. He’s naturally charismatic, and he has the aura around him that all great QBs do. He owns the room when he walks in. That confidence bordering on cockiness (minus Jeff George dickheadedness) is a great asset.
He has textbook throwing mechanics
He has dancer’s feet. The importance of this really cannot be stressed enough. The only coaching that he is going to need when coming into the league is how to read and react to NFL defenses. He’s about as close to mechanically flawless as anyone since the Human Juggs Machine, Carson Palmer
He has very good arm strength (it’s not elite, but it’s more than good enough to make any throw).
He comes from a pro offense
He has four years of post high school experience. He’s worked on the scout team, he’s been a backup, he’s been a spot starter, and he’s been the man.
He had great production with a team that had good, but nowhere near elite, talent around him. This isn’t the 2004 Trojans. They aren’t anywhere near as talented.

<o></o>
Granted, both prospects have their warts. Every prospect has question marks. People employ revisionist history far too often when evaluating players after the fact.
<o></o>
What did Joe Montana or Tom Brady have that made them jump off the page to someone?
Peyton Manning was considered potentially maxed out as a prospect, a QB with little upside.
John Elway never even went to a bowl game, was he really a “winner”? He was also a very generously listed “6’3”. Look at him next to Peyton Manning and see if he’s really 6’3”, and yet the same questions are used to discount <st1>Stafford</st1> and Sanchez.
<o></o>
Many of you will beg the following question:
<o></o>
Why not defense in this draft?<o></o>
It’s quite simple:


The draft is seven rounds. We have six other picks
This draft lacks elite talent on defense at the top
Next year’s draft has two of the most ridiculously talented freaks at DE of the last decade (Carlos Dunlap and Everson Griffen), as well as better safety, LB, DT, and CB prospects across the board. It is a draft of defense
Borrowing on 3, there is a draft after this year. The 2009 Chiefs have a 0% chance of winning anything meaningful. This is a solid 3 year rebuilding process. If you want to see this team built correctly, you should look to 2011

<o></o>
Why do you hate Aaron Curry?<o></o>
<o></o>
We don’t. The fact of the matter is that Aaron Curry, for all the safety that he brings as a draft pick, and for all his physical gifts, cannot change games.
<o></o>
He has no history of rushing the passer. He expressed confidence in his ability to learn to do so, but he’s never done it. That makes him as big of a project at that job as any safety Carl ever tried to move to corner.
<o></o>
Cover backers make tackles in space and take away the 3^rd-5^th receiving options. That’s great, but it’s also like saying that middle relievers are more important than starting pitchers. Both contribute to the win, but the starter has far more chances to affect the outcome of the game.
<o></o>
Curry, for all his projections, has also never played Mike. That will also entail a position move.
<o></o>
Let’s address additional follow up questions:
<o></o>
“Why are you ‘QB or bust’ no matter who the QB?” and “Why do you want to reach for any QB?”<o></o>
<o></o>


We aren’t
We don’t.

<o></o>
No one here is saying we should take Freeman at 3, or think that Rhett Bomar or Nate Davis are the kinds of guys who could carry a franchise. It’s folly.
<o></o>
“Why is the spread so bad? Look at the #s QBs put up!”<o>
</o><o></o>
The quarterback, his pedigree, and his experience are paramount. With the proliferation of the spread in college football, it will become more and more difficult in order to properly evaluate quarterbacks and how they translate to the pro game.
<o></o>
The spread works for the same reason that the option worked. There is simply not enough speed on college defenses to contain it, and defense is a chain, the weakest link causes the failure of all. Given that talent is spread so thin on college defenses, most teams have to trot out fourth corners that run like NFL defensive ends. Combine that with the fact that college players don’t devote the same amount of time to film study and coaching as their pro counterparts, and college defenses run more simplistic schemes.
<o></o>
This leads to soft zone defenses with corners playing way off. WRs don’t get jammed at the line, and their free release, when combined with a quasi-prevent D, allows them to kill the opposing defenses by paper cut, or if a single tackle is missed or assignment blown, by guillotine.
<o></o>
Furthermore, college quarterbacks from the spread are running a two read system, and they do not read the defenses in front of them. Look at any spread team before the snap. Watch how the QB looks to the sideline for instructions from the offensive coaching staff on what the defense across from him is. NFL QBs need to make as many as four reads on any given passing play that isn’t a max protect situation.
<o></o>
The spread is a great equalizer for teams like <st1:state w:st="on">Missouri</st1:state> and <st1:state w:st="on"><st1>Kansas</st1> </st1:state>that don’t have elite talent but want to exploit the lack of 1-80 talent on other teams. It is not a solution to an NFL defense, where everyone is talented, and where the schemes are more exotic.
<o></o>
It faces the same fate as the Run-N-Shoot: Kill the Quarterback.
When these things are taken into account, as well as the fact that all spread quarterbacks need to learn how to take snaps from under center and proper footwork for 3,5, and 7 step drops, you have a huge learning curve that exponentially increases the bust rate for the prospect.
<o></o>
QB is the riskiest position to draft. We should draft a safer position<o></o><o></o>
Aundray Bruce, Tony Mandarich, Pac Man, Robert Gallery, Leonard Davis, Troy Williamson, Charles Rogers, Ryan Sims, Wendell Bryant, the list goes on forever<o></o>

No position is safe.
<o></o>
Why not draft Crabtree?<o></o>
<o></o>
WRs from the spread don’t run a traditional NFL route tree. He has no experience in doing so, that increases his learning curve.
<o></o>
He lacks elite speed. WRs taken in the top 10 almost universally have elite speed
<o></o>
He lacks elite size.
<o></o>
He has a cracked foot
<o></o>
College stats are not a good predictor of NFL success. Look at Ron Dayne, Rashan Salaam, Timmy Chang, Jake Barton, Manny Hazard, or Alex Van Dyke
<o></o><o></o><o></o>
“Why not just draft a QB in the middle rounds?”<o>
</o><o></o>
ChiefsCountry has compiled an impressive list of QBs who won the Super Bowl and where they were drafted.
<o></o>
So you want Thiggy as our quarterback.

How about these facts:
57% of the Super Bowls have been won by first round quarterbacks.
(Out of those quarterbacks only 3 were not top 10 picks)
40% of the Super Bowls won by top 5 picks.
21% have been won by 1st round quarterbacks that wasnt their original team (Dawson, Plunkett (2), Williams, Young, Dilfer)
16% of the Super Bowls were won by Montana and Brady
4% were Roger Staubuach's wins who would have went in the first if he wasnt going to Vietnam
14% were won by a 9th or lower (counting Warner who was Undrafted) and 4 of those wins were by Bart Starr & Roger Staubauch.
4% were won by second round quarterbacks
4% 3rd and 6th rounds picks that were not <st1><st1:state w:st="on">Montana</st1:state></st1> or Brady
0% of the Super Bowls were won by a 7th round pick<o></o><o></o>

http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=5278394&postcount=129<o>
</o><o></o>
Additionally, this was done before this year’s Super Bowl, in which another 1^st round quarterback, Ben Roethlisberger, won.
<o></o><o></o>
Moreover, Scott Wright has an extensive breakdown of the profound failure rate of 2^nd and 3^rd round quarterbacks over the last 15 years on his site, NFLDraftCountdown.
<o></o><o></o>
“All you do is insult people”<o>
</o><o></o>
Actually we don’t. We insult people a lot, but a large portion of that is born out of frustration for having the same argument ad infinitum and telling the same thing to people who don’t’ listen to what we say.
<o></o>
I realize that this list is not comprehensive. It’s merely hitting the high notes of the discussions that we have previously had. If anyone else from the Gang of 14 wants to add anything, feel free.
<o></o>
Thank you for your time,
<o></o>
HJ

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTe3opXvyPKp-hesknMpN-DsFpRm1DjJoWnoqpxjCGcEpJ7SZfG

I'll round with you through them....

[Hammock Parties]

Can we get a ban for all the retards that feel the need to bump every Cassel thread out there?

This isn't a Cassel thread.

It's a draft a franchise QB thread.

We are now moving into position to do so, so the retards who think we should draft another position need to be educated.

[orange]

This isn't a Cassel thread.

It's a draft a franchise QB thread.

We are now moving into position to do so, so the retards who think we should draft another position need to be educated.

Interesting thought, though. What if the Chiefs/Cassel suck bad enough that they go to Stanzi in mid-season and he shows some promise? Is that good enough? (to hold off drafting another QB)

[OnTheWarpath15]

Interesting thought, though. What if the Chiefs/Cassel suck bad enough that they go to Stanzi in mid-season and he shows some promise? Is that good enough? (to hold off drafting another QB)

Nope.

But it won't even come to that.

I figured after losing Mo and Berry for the year, that would be enough of an excuse for the front office to keep Cassel around.

Now that Jamaal is done as well, I'd be willing to bet Cassel's leash just got lengthened by at least another year.

[Bowser]

Nope.

But it won't even come to that.

I figured after losing Mo and Berry for the year, that would be enough of an excuse for the front office to keep Cassel around.

Now that Jamaal is done as well, I'd be willing to bet Cassel's leash just got lengthened by at least another year.

I don't think I'd take that bet if I were you, especially if he keeps throwing turds on the field like he has the first couple of weeks. OF course, it may be moot, because if we give up 600+ points, I'm thinking the current regime will be jettisoned.

[Titty Meat]

We should trade the first pick in the 2nd round for Flynn and draft a LT at #1.

[ChiefsCountry]

We should trade the first pick in the 2nd round for Flynn and draft a LT at #1.

And that is what will probably happen. :banghead:

[BigMeatballDave]

We should trade the first pick in the 2nd round for Flynn and draft a LT at #1.
LMAO

[BigMeatballDave]

If we are in a position to draft Luck, and pass on him, I will be done. Pioli should then be executed.

[DeezNutz]

Nope.

But it won't even come to that.

I figured after losing Mo and Berry for the year, that would be enough of an excuse for the front office to keep Cassel around.

Now that Jamaal is done as well, I'd be willing to bet Cassel's leash just got lengthened by at least another year.

I don't think that will happen.

Like the Chiefs themselves, he also has to be treading historic territory: once again he posted a sub-50 QB rating, one of many throughout his 2+ years at the helm. I'm not sure if the total number has been matched.

Anyway, I don't think he has a leash. He'll either return as the clear placeholder for the QBOTF or be released.

[ChiefsCountry]

So I wonder which douchebag is going to be the one who is against Luck?

[RealSNR]

So I wonder which douchebag is going to be the one who is against Luck?
Has Pawnmower repented yet?

[Titty Meat]

McCoy and Bradford will have more successful careers than Leinart.



Really? At what selling insurance? Or maybe used cars?

Classic.

[planetdoc]

I stumbled on this while searching for another thread. amazing read. Nice to evaluate some of the predictions over the years.

[tooge]

Lol at "He is a leader of men" regarding Sanchez. Aaron Curry? Hahaha. Freakin blowhard. Posts like the OP are why so many laugh at some of the football takes around here.

[planetdoc]

OP was spot on (i.e. correct) about Aaron Curry.

[OnTheWarpath15]

OP was spot on (i.e. correct) about Aaron Curry.

The OP was spot on about 99% of his post, but people will only focus on the single mistake that was made.

And you could argue that his "scouting report" on Sanchez is correct as well - he had shown these attributes at the time this was written. Just because he failed in NY doesn't mean the OP or any of the national scouts that said something similar were wrong.

Last I checked the QB currently starting for KC didn't exactly set the world on fire his first 7 years in the league - so I'll be happy to provide some of you a step ladder to get off your high horse.

[planetdoc]

The OP was spot on about 99% of his post, but people will only focus on the single mistake that was made.

99% and single mistake? I think that is generous.


Sanchez is a leader of men. It’s that simple.

ROFL


Why not draft Crabtree?
:doh!:

[duncan_idaho]

This thread inspires in me two emotions:

1) Amazement. The OP by Hamas is one of the most thorough and insightful posts I've seen on this site.

2) Sadness... that the Chiefs still haven't attempted to draft a franchise quarterback five years and two more rebuilds later.

[Rain Man]

The top dozen picks of the 2009 NFL draft has to be one of the weakest draft classes ever. It was almost impossible to advocate anyone in that draft without looking bad afterward.

[OnTheWarpath15]

This thread inspires in me two emotions:

1) Amazement. The OP by Hamas is one of the most thorough and insightful posts I've seen on this site.

2) Sadness... that the Chiefs still haven't attempted to draft a franchise quarterback five years and two more rebuilds later.

3) Amazement and sadness...that this fanbase still thinks it's perfectly acceptable to have the 1st, 11th, 5th, 3rd and 5th overall pick since 2008 and not have used one of them on a QB.

Sickening that two of those picks are no longer with the team.

BUILD THROUGH THE DRAFT!

[Bugeater]

Wasn't findthedr all over Gholston's jock back then?

[Hammock Parties]

yeeehaw

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1.0-9/10255963_10154054452550234_4271787272975405767_n.png