What's the argument?

The argument is you need both sides of the ball.

You can build a defense mostly out of the 1st round but this idea you can just pull a QB out of your ass in the 6th round is ludicrous.

That's why I asked the question and I'll ask it again, how many 1st rounders do the Steelers have on offense and how many do they have on defense and who is the highest drafted player on their roster?

You need both!!!! Damn't get this through your head!!!! :cuss:

How many times did Roethlisberger lead a 4th quarter winning drive for them?

The point is you can't sit here and say the defense is more important than Roethlisberger is.

for that team they probably are actually equal

You need a great defense and franchise qb. Franchise qbs are much harder to come by so if we pass up a chance to take one we run the risk of being the Minnesota Vikings. No playoff success.

I'm still waiting for someone to answer my question.

Ummm.... that's what I've said.

Agreed.

If Stafford is there draft him. If not Curry.

what 6 times 7 but to be fair they wouldnt have been in many of those games if not for the d keeping them in it thats why i said BEN=defense on THAT team(sorry thought the question you were referencing was how many 4th qtr comebacks)

Why? It's a stupid question. Brady was a 6th round pick, so do we somehow ignore him being a franchise quarterback for the Patriots? Your argument is bad because you're going overboard trying to make your point.

Ah yes the Brady defense, when someone doesn't have another argument that is what they go to.

Well Tom Brady!

I dont think anyone want to do the legwork for such a weak arguement. The answer wont mean that Sanchez is the answer.

I think most people know that the !# defense is the reason the Steelers won the SB.

A better question might be, how many middle of the road offenses have won a SB with no defense. Beecause that's where the Steelers are. Middle of the road on O.

It's not a defense. It's pointing out the obvious. The question of how many Steelers first round picks are on offense, defense or special teams is irrelevant.

Not to mention the best QB on the field was Warner. Where was he drafted?

it's overused sure, but it's a fact, some just dismiss it like its not true

I don't think anyone was really saying the Defense was "more important" but most definitely the outstanding strength of that team - as it has been forever.

Nor was it my point to say Ben doesn't belong somewhere amongst the elite. I love the guy's game...I think everyone would agree you need both the D and the QB to get it done.

Sure it is....

When people say they want to draft defense to be like the Steelers pointing out how they used their picks is totally irrelevant.

Agreed, I can't recall if it was Sapp or Chucky today that said it, but they were dead on. The strength of the PIT Defense is in consistency and COACHING....they've run a similar defense for decades, and find a way over and over again to teach the new guys the nuances of their system. Well, that and a couple freaks in Troy and Hampton. :D

Nobody says you have to be like the Steelers. You said you have to have an elite QB to win. I said the Steelers won with defense. Then the usual circle jerk ensued.

The fact is, the Steelers have been winning with defense ever since I can remember. Offense is not the backbone of that team by any means.

The point is, defense won the SB.

the high powered O lost.

There are various reasons for taking a player or position at different times of the draft. Taking a kicker in the 4th round doesn't mean that you don't care about kickers. It means that you think the best combination of Kicker quality and spent draft pick was in the 4th round.

In recent years, ILBs weren't getting picked much in the first round. As one can tell just from reading this site, guards are usually able to be found in the bottom of round 1 and then down into the lower rounds, so higher picks aren't spent on them because of trends. Furthermore, if you've already got excellent players at a position, you don't need to draft the position high. The Steelers drafted Ben in the first round because they needed a quarterback and they felt Ben offered value at #11 that year.

Of course, you know all this, which is why you must know that you're making a bad argument.

And their defense has been largely built OUT OF THE FIRST ROUND, the Steelers are a great example of why LB's aren't worth 1st round picks.

James Harrison who people jizz over wasn't even drafted.

huh?

they had the same defense before Roethlisburger showed up....only now they have 2 titles since....


people still don't get it?

great QBs win Superbowls

for the love god....

They are deep at LB, why would they draft one in the 1st round?

If thier defense was in the condition of the Chiefs, they very well might draft one in the 1st.

Lost in all this is probably the most insight you'll get from the Chiefs GM from here to draft day. When discussing TG, he said:

Now you can draw your own conclusions, but I think he makes it pretty clear as to what his plan is.

IYO what are his plans

Warner is better. Why didn't the Cards win then?

They're deep at LB because they draft mid round guys and replace guys when their contracts are up...they let Joey Porter walk, they let Chad Brown walk..and those guys themselves weren't 1st round picks..

They used pick 20 on Lawrence Timmons and he doesn't even start for them...

Their LB's are made by their scheme, LB is like the RB of defense when it comes to what they're worth in the draft.

Well, he was discussing TG, and TG has made it pretty clear that he doesn't want a QB drafted and to wait on him to develop. IMO Pioli phrased this comment to imply that TG is just going to have to deal with it.

because someone has to lose when 2 great QBs meet.....


are you new to sports?

thats a pretty good take, not what i was thinking. but makes sense

This must be why Marino and Tarkenton combined for 15 Super Bowl rings...

He very well might have if he had more than 40 seconds to work with after the D blew the lead.

Are you trying to play stupid or are you dense?

Ahhh.... irony.

No one who wants a QB said we need a QB and nothing else so don't even go there with that...

True.

Game managers are equally successful.

Trent Dilfers will do.

I must hate defense.

I always enjoy when they go to the play stupid defense, like anyone who wants a QB thinks that's all we need.

Ehhh..... I've got no beef with you on this issue. Mecca's just being an idiot in order to justify his continued ballwashing of Sanchez.

So what you're saying is they DIDN'T draft their franchise QB first then build the team around him.

Interesting.

I'll bet there are several GMs that will disagree with you when the draf comes around.

I also feel thaht there will be plenty of inexperienced QBs left in the later rounds.

You act as though, I'm totally against draftin a QB all together. As I said earlier, if Stafford is there, take him. If not take Curry.

I really dont know why you keep making this arguement. You obviously arent listening.

For you it has nothing to do with a QB. It has everything to do with Sanchez. I dont want Sanchez, you do. I get it. Nothing you will say is going to convince me that taking big risks with the #3 is the way to go when better players less risky are there. Especially given that we have needs everywhere.

**** Sanchez.

Careful now. You'll overload their minds and the feedback might kill them.

Great let em disagree with me, just like they can disagree with me about picking a RB in the 1st round.

Oh I get it now people are upset with me because they just think I'm a Sanchez homer and now we're back to the USC thing...

How amusing.

It only took Bill Cowher 15 years to realize he needed a real QB to win, any coach of any other team would have been fired years before for that kind of stupidity.

is there anyone on this board who isn't a certified ****ing reerun?

what I'm saying is you have to get a ****ing QB when you have the opportunity, which they did....

we have the opportunity this year

jesus h christ

I'm not upset with you. You're using piss poor arguments to justify your position and I'm noting that. Despite what you seem to think, there is a difference.

This offseason has brought out all kinds of reeruns.

You two should work this out.

was that his fault? who picks the players for pitt?

Um.....you are.

Look at your avvy and sig.

Oh jesus, yes it's a poor argument as you went to..

Tom Brady!

So, if Pioli doesnt take a QB at the #3 spot, is he a certified reerun?

He had a ton of say over their players, he got into a spat with their then GM Tom Donahoe and got him fired.

so he didnt want ben? was that the spat? just wondering who had the final say cowher?

Curry rnd 1 Freeman rnd 2

wasted years believing you don't need a QB....but hey they "built their team first"....so i guess wasting all those years is ok...

He had complete say by then....

But the fact still remains he wasted years on a guy like Kordell Stewart.

Freeman won't be there in round 2.

is that actually what they were thinking?

Josh Freeman isn't lasting till round 2...

You know you'd get better value taking a QB first and taking a LB like Marcus Freeman in the 3rd round...

so he had complete control when stewart was picked?

good:D

Considering they started seasons with Neil O'Donnell, Kordell Stewart, Mike Tomczak and Tommy Maddox I'm going to go with yea.

or cushing or sintim

.

Oh, he's totally the wrong fit for the Chiefs. I think he'll do well in the league. But not until after holding a clipboard for a while.

You see, this is exactly the kind of poor argument I'm talking about...

In 2004, the Steelers were 15-1, and the mighty Ben Roethlisberger was the quarterback. They didn't win the Super Bowl because they were beaten by a 14-2 team. That team went on to win the Super Bowl.

In 2001, the Steelers were 13-3, without the Mighty Ben Roethlisberger. They didn't win the Super Bowl because they were beaten by an 11-5 Patriots team that had gone 7-1 in the second half of the season, with its only loss a close one to the team many thought was the best in the league. That Patriots team went on to avenge that loss by beating the Rams in the Super Bowl.

In other words, when the Steelers have faced the Patriots in the playoffs this decade, they've lost, even as favorites and no matter who's been the Steelers quarterback. Had the Patriots not been in the way, the Steelers might have 2 more Super Bowl wins this decade, one without the mighty Ben Roethlisberger.

He always had alot of say to begin with even when Donahoe was there...Donahoe took off to Buffalo I believe in 98 or 99.

when stafford and sanchez slip freeman will be there

Well, when you go from Neil O Donnell to Mike Tomczak to Kordell Stewart to Tommy Maddox, it sort of drives the point home.

Please stop living in fantasy land.

There's more of a chance of all 3 being gone by #20 than Freeman being there at 34.

Who'd they pass up?

so you have a 3 a 2 an udfa and a 1, they spent some higher picks there

Singletary already said he likes his young guys to battle it out. Rex Ryan said the same.

Brady's not a poor argument, as you well know. You don't like it as an example because the he tends to kill all your weak arguments.

Yea they're just gonna tell you what they're doing...

This is not fantasy land. Josh Freeman falls no lower than 22.

i agree the chiefs cant take that chance IMO

Using a winning lottery ticket as an example of how to do things doesn't kill any argument. At all.

Arguing exceptions to the rule is always a brilliant plan....playing to be the exception is how you get your ass kicked.

That's like people who think Scott Pioli really believes he can pull a QB out of his ass in the 6th round.

I'm starting to hate Tom Brady.