|
Treatise from the "Gang of 14" (Long Read)
(https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=203071)
"we see Matt Stafford and Mark Sanchez as two of the best quarterback prospects of the last five years"
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
1. Lions Matt Stafford
2. Rams Mark Sanchez 3. Chiefs ___________ ? what then? Who? |
Quote:
That would be an ass load of money for 2 QB's... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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??? |
Yo guy ar moronz. Tebow's gonna refolushuize the qatarbak posishun.
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
I'm getting the feeling we'll end up trading down anyways. |
Quote:
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). |
Quote:
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. |
For someone who is "Just Passin' By," he sure is sticking around a long time.
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
Those factors alone make this class better. |
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
And he could have gained a change of mind, since Sanchez had a couple of days to do just that. |
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 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
ADDENDUM:
After weeks of frustrating garbage, that treatise mended my entire being in every possible way. |
Amen My brother A frikken men!!
|
You write that Hamas??
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
But Hamas, Peyton Manning and Jim McMahon both only have one Super Bowl ring.
YOU FAIL! |
Quote:
|
The Turdalition has been fantastic entertainment when it comes to mocks, and I think this one takes the prize*:
*WARNING: This requires a Homer-reerunant block, TFS level 8.9 Quote:
|
Quote:
DCS, where did you find that abomination? |
My guess would be WPI.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Chiefs Coalition*. *Coalition of One Hand Clapping :whackit: ROFL |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I meant to post that here first, but I was already logged on to my WPI account. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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: |
Quote:
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. |
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. |
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. |
Sanchez is Matt Leinart with a little stronger of an arm and much less experience.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
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. |
gang of 14?
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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: |
Quote:
Besides; Harrell's gonna' have that Texas insurance kingdom all wrapped up!:D |
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' 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: |
I think it's their age, and there's only a couple of them.
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Dude is the same size as Croyle. Listed at one inch taller and one pound lighter. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
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... |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:53 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.