Arguing that Brady is the only example or is like hitting the lottery is silly, though. He's simply the most current example and the easiest to point to. Warner, Montana, many of the all time greats.... they all fit the example.

Let's try this again.... comfortably less than half of the "franchise" quarterbacks taken in the top 5 pan out as truly great picks.

In other words, they are exceptions to the rule. Seriously, this shouldn't be hard. Did you take any kind of mathematics in school?

Warner, yes. Montana, not so much, being a day 1 pick. Outside of round 1, I grant you.

Posters have run the numbers to see where a team is most likely to acquire a franchise QB. We need to see these statistics again.

I'll counter that "comfortably less" than 5% of QB's taken outside round one pan out as truly great picks.

How many times do we need to rehash the argument about where you have the best odds to locate a franchise guy?

It's not the *only* way, but it provides the best odds.

I'll sum it up for you....

The most likely place to draft a franchise, or at least top shelf, quarterback is in the first round. That "chance" is about 1-in-3, even with the ability to choose from every available quarterback (or every QB still available in round 1 at the drafting position).

This makes sense because 1st round picks are choosing from the entire pool of prospects, whereas lower rounds are choosing from a smaller pool of prospects passed over for quarterbacks thought to be better.

So what? How does a higher failure rate of QBs in round two or below somehow prove that the chiefs should take either Stafford or Sanchez?

Very good. Thanks. :thumb:

This sounds like a risk, though. Once again, unfortunately, a small sampling of urine has leaked from my hanglow.

We should take one of those bust-proof positions, like DT.

All picks have risks. However, let's pretend that 90% of all quarterbacks taken in round 1 turned into franchise quarterbacks.


Now, does that change in the data somehow make either Stafford or Sanchez a better quarterback?

It means that it's even more foolish, however, to start firing in rounds 2-3, drafts positions where an organization must consistently hit.

I've said it before, and I'll keep repeating. The biggest problem with the Chiefs isn't round 1 busts, it's all the misses in rounds 2-3.

Anyone who wouldn't take a Stafford/Sanchez at #3 but would take a Davis/Freeman in the second round should urinate on an electrified Roberto Alomar shrub.

Of course not. Is anyone saying otherwise?

My bad. I was going from a list put up from another poster.

So then there is no example of a 1 year QB drafted in the 1st who is successful?

No, I'm sorry, but you're now making a false assumption. A round 1 pick is not equal in value to a round 2 pick, etc..., and the rookie wage scale makes the equation even more harsh on first round misses. This does not mean that teams shouldn't draft first round picks, and it doesn't mean that teams should trade down for more and more 7th round picks. It does, however, mean that the penalty for mistakes is greater in the higher rounds, and it's greatest at the top of the first round.

Saying? No. Implying? Clearly.

said list was referencing spread qb's

And any pick we make is going to be extremely expensive at #3. Long was around 30-32 last year at 1/1 and Ryan was around 36 at 1/3, in guaranteed money.

There's no false assumption. Any missed pick at the top of the draft is going to have serious financial ramifications.

And I'm not devaluing the importance of round 1 selection.

But you don't get into the Chiefs situations by missing only in round 1, where the organization's track record is comparable to many others. The problem is that the Chiefs have fallen off a ****ing cliff in rounds 2-3, and this is where you must get solid production and, occasionally, a star.

No, it was a list of QBs taken in the 1st round over the last 10 years. But I was wrong in referencing it, so....

I would be curious to find out how many QBs have been drafted in the 1st round that were 1 year starters in school, and of those how many were successful or justified thier pick in the NFL.

Name all the super bowl winning teams that didn't have a good defense. Even the colts in '06 got great defense in the playoffs. But a bunch of teams have won the sb with so so qbs.

Colts. Earl morrall
Bears. Jim mcmahon
Redskins. Williams and rypien
Ravens. Dilfer
Bucs. Johnson

Brady and warner came out of nowhere

Defense wins championships.

The 90's Chiefs did built it right and came close with montana but carl dropped the ball by going with journeymen

Had they stuck with rich Gannon who knows.........
Posted via Mobile Device

So history has no bearing when it comes to predicting success. Just because there are higher odds of getting a franchise guy in round 1 doesn't make a player like Sanchez any better. Check.

History, however, does have bearing when it comes to arguing how unlikely it will be for him to be successful because of the extremely limited number--I don't know the figure, possibly 0--of one-year starters who have become stars. Check?

That's convenient.

**** me


people still aren't embarrassed to say "we did it right" in the 90's??


i can not describe how much i hate this fan base....there are no words for how much they love safe failure.....

What?
Posted via Mobile Device

I've got no problem with anything you've got here. Teams that crap out generally have failure at multiple levels: draft, free agency, player retention, etc....

But, then again, my position has never been that the Chiefs shouldn't take any QB at #3. My position has been that choosing Sanchez, or Stafford, is not such a no-brainer that the Sanchez ballwashing posse should be insulting everyone who dares to think that those two particular quarterbacks aren't the best choices to take.

I assume that Pioli is doing his homework to make damned sure that his first draft (and any draft related moves) in his new position is a successful one and, therefore, I don't think anyone should get their panties in a bunch no matter how it shakes out. If he takes Sanchez, I'd tell the "Don't draft Sanchez!" people to STFU, give Sanchez time to develop and support the team even if Sanchez never sees the field in year one. If he skips the QB position, I'd tell the Sanchez/Stafford ballwashers to STFU, give Pioli time to put his structure in place, and he'll find his QB when he thinks he has a comfortable fit.

This Chiefs team has a lot of problems, and they'll all need to be addressed along the way. The order is not something that fans should be fighting about as if there's only one way to do it.

Yeah. The chiefs sure sucked back then. Marty blew it by not playing gannon, who proved in oakland the kind of qb he was. And peterson blew it by banking on bono and grbec.

But overall. The 13-3 teams. What would you have done different. Not draft DT? Or neil smith. Or that offensive line?
Posted via Mobile Device

Think about what you're trying to assert here. You're trying to mix generalized odds with a specific player and acting as if the disconnect is with the people who won't do that.

We're not far apart in our approaches, actually.

The one thing I'll add is that, for most posters, it's not fair to paint the ballwashing with a broad brush. Most of the regulars, many of whom are very knowledgeable fans, are pro Stafford or Sanchez because it's a position arrived at after careful analysis.

Yeah, there are some bandwagoners, but you seem smart enough to distinguish between the two. Mecca, for all the heat he draws, would not be a part of the bandwagon crowd.

Let me put it this way: Does the performance of any past QB to enter the league have any bearing on Sanchez? Does the performance of a Palmer or an Akili Smith have an bearing?

No, but Mecca has so much invested in his defense of Sanchez that he makes piss poor arguments in order to defend him, even when he doesn't have to. Unfortunately, he gets lumped in the the idiot brigade because they hold his position and drown out any validity in a sea of needless insults. There's nothing wrong with Mecca saying something as basic as "I've seen Sanchez play. I know he's got fewer games under his belt than people would like, but I'm still excited by his talent and I think he's worth the risk.". That's a valid position, whether or not it turns out Sanchez can survive in the NFL at any particular level.

Where he goes off the track is when he starts belittling the lower rounds as if that somehow strengthens the argument for Sanchez. They aren't the same argument because he's trying to insert a specific person into a generalized equation, but he misses that in the grand scheme. It's why he gets so upset when the Brady example is used: Brady completely kills the argument, as does Warner, Montana, etc..., because it takes to the specific player who's not in round 1 and points to success.

Many of the rest of the crowd are just idiots who think calling those who disagree "asshole", "true fan" and the like somehow is a pithy rejoinder worthy of honor. Unfortunately for Mecca, he gets lumped in the generality.

Absolutely not, The odds of any general QB taken in any round don't define the success or failure of any specific player. What they can do is use the past to inform the present.

edit: just to follow up with a non-football comparison...

If a man has 9 divorces, it doesn't guarantee that his 10th marriage will end in divorce. It is, however, something the prospective wife should take note of.

Hey! I've only had 2!!!!
Posted via Mobile Device

And that's what I was saying.

Flawed logic. Same man.

As far as I know, Sanchez will be entering the league for the first time. Could be wrong, though.

I makes no difference how many QBs with X games starting experience have or have not been successful pros.

Some of you morons would have us reach for a QB at #3, just like we reached for Sims at #6. How did that pan out? I can't wait to see his all-star production next year...

So you want a rookie QB to a Pro Bowler?

This is an excellent point!!!

Its not an insult to say these qbs aren't worth a # just as its not an insult to brady to say he shouldn't have been picked in the first round in 2000. Its great the patriots got him at #199 but there would have been no justification to use a first on him at the time. Likewise it is not out of the question the chiefs qb of the future comes out of a later round ala montana or brady or found like warner. This is what gms are paid to do. And it doesn't mean sanchez "sucks"
Posted via Mobile Device

All these anti-QB name callers are really hurting my feelings.

Name calling is wrong.

I wouldnt really call Sims a reach at #6 either at that time everybody had him, Henderson, Haynesworth and Wendall Bryant all rated the same.

"Darb" was a Babylonian demi-god who, according to ancient legend, was the demi-peep who wept for a couple of months over the loss of his wife who was snatched by some other demi-dude and taken to the afterlife in a big boat. His tears fell to the Earth as rain and caused the Great Flood which wiped out several species that Noah either couldn't find or lasso including unicorns, the giant, two-legged opossum, and the T Rex. I don't think it's solely coincidence that "Brady" spelled backwards is "Y Darb".

Just want to keep things in perspective.

FAX

This is why it's so risky to take a DT high. Sims has crippled this franchise for years.

We should do something safer, like QB.

He was a reach. He did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in college, even though he was on the same line as Peppers (who was always getting double teamed). Lets face it, the Chiefs put way too much stock (as well as everyone else) into the combine and got burned hardcore on it.

My friend is a UNC fan and he called that bust from the get go. I guess CP never actually looked at game tapes, just combine stats.

But it's not flawed logic, because it's looking at the same problem from two different angles. For any one player, the odds of success aren't known or knowable. However, over the course of numerous "one player" results, the odds of success for those in that same position can be found. You are absolutely right about Sanchez the individual, but the anti-Sanchez people are absolutely right about players in Sanchez' position as they define it. That's what makes vigorous debate fun, but it also makes the idiot brigade useless and obnoxious.

Right.

It was the combine. The Sims selection had nothing to do with the Grandpa network.

Which was why we picked him but to say he was a reach is a complete lie.

How is Sanchez a reach? Have you polled scouts, coaches or analysts and found that Sanchez is rated considerably lower than the #2 QB and a top 10 overall pick?

Absolutely.

A lot of mocks had him going very high, and there was a good amount of debate about whether it was Sims or Peppers who was the more influential player.

Didn't UNC's own coach feed into this, IIRC?

UNC's coach Bunting was Vermeil's buddy.

If the Chiefs hadn't taken Sims Minnesota was going to so the Chiefs weren't the only team that liked him...

And please don't talk about next year, those of us that want a QB are thinking about 3 years from now not what's gonna happen right now.

Three years from now with the Chiefs OL, Sanchez will probably be crippled. But then again, most QB's would.

No, not that. Wasn't the word that Bunting told Vermeil that Sims was the best player on the line?

For some reason, I thought this rumor started with reports from the horse's mouth.

You do realize there is 7 rounds in a draft, not to mention the draft this year is stacked with great guard and center propsects in the 2nd & 3rd round which was where Grunhard and Shields were taken. And next year's draft is loaded with defense.

Without taking an OL in the 1st round the next 3 years, it has no chance of improving. That's why good teams consistently use multiple 1st round picks on the OL.

Contrary to popular belief, the draft will last more than one round. There will be another draft in each following year as well.

Mecca is hell-bent at his position that a) the Chiefs draft Manchez at #3
and b) Freeman doesn't fall past 22

he's wrong on both parts...and I'm going to link this post when it happens.

A young qb that gets thrown out there will get the jim plunkett treatment. Stafford is no jim plunkett.
Posted via Mobile Device

ROFL

Well, I'd say that comment got a response.

There's also free agency.

Freeman will go in round 1. Very possibly at #17.

Do you have a crystal ball?

And frankly why would you care that Freeman falls or not, are you a big fan of JaMarcus Russell?

Gosh, its so easy. Makes you wonder why we don't have one already!

Lets not let him face the fact that basically all of the best teams in the league have 1 or no 1st round offensive linemen.

When did I ever say to draft one? I just said that our line sucks, and Sanchez is an injury waiting to happen.

So the Chiefs line can't possibly ever get any better?

Gun got all the FA's and high draft picks the past few seasons. That is why our defense rocked.

When did Sanchez become injury prone?

When he became a rapist or a developed a Pennington arm?

Some of this stuff is really so far out there.

Lets see, wore a knee brace the whole year after injuring it. Hobbled around a bunch the last few games, and played one season as a starter. So maybe you are right, he might not be, but its hard to tell from one year.

I'm not on the pc so I can't check. Chiefs****ry. Kstater. Hamas. Dirth carl stalin. Crush. 5 minutes have gone by time to give me my negative rep. And make sure you do it every 5 minutes. Ok?
Posted via Mobile Device

Mark Sanchez will be good, but I don't know if he's worth the 3rd pick. He might be. The third pick doesn't look like a good spot in round one.

Uh some guys always wear knee braces..

He never missed any games, by that theory Brett Favre was injury prone because he got hurt even though he played.

You mean the freak accident in practice.

That's right. I forgot they say sanchez raped a girl. I don't think its fair to keep saying sanchez raped a girl. There's no proof sanchez raped a girl. If they can prove sanchez raped a girl than they should do it or else stop saying sanchez raped a girl.
Posted via Mobile Device

I'm at the annual point where none of the potential first round picks look good.

So why didn't stafford throw at the combine?
Posted via Mobile Device

Because he was advised not to...

Was it an injury or not? Being a freak one doesn't matter. Most injuries are freak. Football players are too well conditioned for it not to be.

Did he miss any games?

Deal.

He dislocated his kneecap and it popped right back into place. Then wore a brace the rest of the year. It wasnt like a MCL or ACL tear.

You'd think he was Brodie Croyle the way some people are acting.

LAWL...Because the Pats have a stellar ****ing draft record and Brady wasn't like hitting runner-runner for a straight flush, Roethlisberger was "safe", and the Ravens haven't spent two first round picks on QBs within five years of one another.

I was a big supportive of Croyle and Sanchez is no way shape in form comparable body wise to Brodie.