ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   NFL Draft Treatise from the "Gang of 14" (Long Read) (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=203071)

Sweet Daddy Hate 02-25-2009 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman (Post 5527227)
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 02-25-2009 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth CarlSatan (Post 5527436)
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 02-25-2009 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2 (Post 5527139)
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 02-25-2009 08:18 PM

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.

milkman 02-25-2009 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Basileus777 (Post 5527528)
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 02-25-2009 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Basileus777 (Post 5527528)
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.

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

Chiefnj2 02-25-2009 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 5527480)
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 02-25-2009 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2 (Post 5527591)
McCoy and Bradford will have more successful careers than Leinart.

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

Sweet Daddy Hate 02-25-2009 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 5527472)
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 02-25-2009 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 5527597)
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 02-25-2009 09:01 PM

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 02-25-2009 09:06 PM

'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 02-25-2009 09:11 PM

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

DaneMcCloud 02-25-2009 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirk digler (Post 5525260)
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 02-25-2009 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2 (Post 5527591)
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.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:43 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.