Originally Posted by Just Passin' By (Post 5525188)

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.

Originally Posted by milkman (Post 5525201)

Gang of 14?

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 5525202)

1 Round has produced 60 percent of Super Bowl winners

Every other round combined has produced 40 percent.

What does that tell you?

Originally Posted by milkman (Post 5525201)

Gang of 14?

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By (Post 5525188)

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 reerun".

Originally Posted by milkman (Post 5525201)

Gang of 14?

Originally Posted by Reaper16 (Post 5525213)

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.

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 5525212)

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.

Originally Posted by keg in kc (Post 5525215)

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

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By (Post 5525210)

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 OTW58

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%

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 5525212)

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.

Originally Posted by Reaper16 (Post 5525213)

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.

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 5525219)

You still wanna play those odds?

This has already been told to you once.

Originally Posted by dirk digler (Post 5525068)

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.

Originally Posted by dirk digler (Post 5525222)

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.