I stumbled on this while searching for another thread. amazing read. Nice to evaluate some of the predictions over the years.

Lol at "He is a leader of men" regarding Sanchez. Aaron Curry? Hahaha. Freakin blowhard. Posts like the OP are why so many laugh at some of the football takes around here.

OP was spot on (i.e. correct) about Aaron Curry.

The OP was spot on about 99% of his post, but people will only focus on the single mistake that was made.

And you could argue that his "scouting report" on Sanchez is correct as well - he had shown these attributes at the time this was written. Just because he failed in NY doesn't mean the OP or any of the national scouts that said something similar were wrong.

Last I checked the QB currently starting for KC didn't exactly set the world on fire his first 7 years in the league - so I'll be happy to provide some of you a step ladder to get off your high horse.

99% and single mistake? I think that is generous.

ROFL

:doh!:

This thread inspires in me two emotions:

1) Amazement. The OP by Hamas is one of the most thorough and insightful posts I've seen on this site.

2) Sadness... that the Chiefs still haven't attempted to draft a franchise quarterback five years and two more rebuilds later.

The top dozen picks of the 2009 NFL draft has to be one of the weakest draft classes ever. It was almost impossible to advocate anyone in that draft without looking bad afterward.

3) Amazement and sadness...that this fanbase still thinks it's perfectly acceptable to have the 1st, 11th, 5th, 3rd and 5th overall pick since 2008 and not have used one of them on a QB.

Sickening that two of those picks are no longer with the team.

BUILD THROUGH THE DRAFT!

Wasn't findthedr all over Gholston's jock back then?

yeeehaw

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.n...75405767_n.png

Clay you dirty whore!

We got our man. No need to draft. Ever.

So, Cleveland has 0 ROFL

Nah, I think Weedon and Quinn have pulled out a win here and there.

Here's what you can take out of this. The Draft is an inexact science. (Read: Sanchez, Mark). However, you can't sit on the sidelines and hope that your QB (The most important position on the Team) is going to just fall into your lap if you don't spend a decent draft pick to get him. At some mother****ing point, you HAVE TO draft a gawdamn QB in the first 2 rounds, preferably the first. The fact that we haven't taken one in the first round, in 3 decades, is beyond embarrassing.

Because Chiefs

bernie kosar

:Lin:

Wasn't technically drafted.

Treatise from the "Gang of 14" (Long Read)
 

Never mind...

Bernie Kosar wasn't drafted by the Cleveland Browns.

There are other mistakes as well. Citing the Bucs of 1990's and 2000's for instance. Ummm, they won a SB in that time. The Ravens also won a super bowl in the time cited, and then stayed extremely competitive for the next 10 years, despite not having a franchise QB until Flacco, and is he really one?

What about Matt Stafford? What the hell has he done? Nada.

Also, only cherry picking the 8 teams that drafted a QB and then won is not a fair argument. In the same time period cited, from the 70 Steelers to present day, there have been plenty more "franchise" QB's drafted that didn't pan out, then ones that did.

If you want a dynasty you need to draft and develop your own QB. That's precisely why the Bucs, Bears, Ravens, and Eagles were part of the argument.

Good God.

I don't know if you didn't read the OP or didn't understand it, because your response could suggest either. What percentage of Super Bowls were won by QBs drafted high? What might that be indicative of?

"Oh hey, QBs don't pan out, too."

We obviously should have just taken Jason Smith or Aaron Curry then, Gotta love those safe picks.

Funny thing is, you are preaching to the quire. I'm with you. I'd love a franchise QB. Problem is, so many fans make it sound like you just go draft one. It's not that easy. The chiefs would have had to move up to pick anyone worth a shit in the past 20 years. Yes they could'v had Flacco, probably Rapelisberger, hell, they could have mortgaged a few drafts and had RG3. I'll pass on all three of those. The ONLY thing they did wrong was not sucking for Luck a few years ago. That is the ONE time that they had an almost sure thing sitting there and all they had to do was lose a couple of more games. I'm sure that is what Indy did.
But, my issue with the entire argument is that it simply isn't as easy as it seems. If you look at the OP, you would say that the 14 members of your group would have been happy at the time if the Chiefs had drafted Sanchez or Stafford. Here we are years later, and If that had happened, we'd be no closer to a super bowl than we are now.

Your reasoning is spot on. The only flaw in your otherwise brilliant treatise is that it's not as easy to identify that franchise quarterback as you seem to think. Obviously Sanchez wasn't the guy. Perhaps Stafford could have been, and he sure looks great at times in Detroit, but I haven't seen Detroit in any Super Bowls since they selected Matt Stafford. So in other words, both quarterbacks identified in your treatise were failures.

Part of getting that franchise quarterback is timing and being lucky. The Colts were damn lucky TWICE because they had the #1 overall pick the year that the best quarterback of his generation was available. The Chiefs missed out on that by one stinking year. That's not a systemic organizational failure. That's bad ****ing luck, and it doesn't do any good to crucify Dorsey for (correctly) passing on Geno Smith last year and for not drafting a quarterback this year if they don't think he is truly the guy.

You miss 100 percent of the shots you don't take.

Matt Stafford is 25 years old. He needs some work, but I'm also not going to hold Jim Schwartz against him.

However, that's also the epitome of the Chiefs' problem WRT: QBs. The fans are fine punting on one every year, preaching patience, yet any QB who isn't throwing for 4000 yards and 35 TDs on a 14-2 team out of the gate is automatically a bust.

The truth is that you're only winning consistently if you have a QB, and you have to take a risk to get one. If you don't have one, you aren't winning anything anyway, so the only "risk" is fretting over 4-12 being demonstrably worse than 8-8 when both teams were DOA anyway.

From the top!



The Gang of 14
The Gang of 14
They know what everybody knows
Until the Chiefs draft a franchise QB
They'll never win the Super Bowl

In 2009 they could of had Sanchez
And they had the 1st pick in 2013
But then they traded for Alex Smith
So we knew they'd draft Fisher he was clean

The Gang of 14
The Gang of 14
They know what everybody knows
Until the Chiefs draft a franchise QB
They'll never win the Super Bowl

This. Absolutely this.

Again, how are you so sure that QBs are busts after one year? Peyton Manning won three games and threw a rookie record for interceptions.

You don't know if passing on Geno Smith or EJ Manuel was the right move yet; thinking you can close the book on a QB after a year is why it's always a good business move for the Chiefs to pass on them: their fans will always rationalize the decision.

but drafting a QB bust might set this franchise back years!

like imagine if we had to pay a QB 19 million a year and he turned out to be mediocre

You are correct. Never up, never in. I get it. However, so much of the Chiefs predicament has to do with Luck, and I don't mean the QB of the same name.

They weren't going to get Aikman from the Cowboys in that draft. They weren't getting Manning from the colts in that draft. They weren't getting Luck from the colts in that draft. They weren't getting Eli in that draft. Don't even bring up anything associated with Brady. That's complete luck. Hell, he was passed over for 6 rounds by all 32 teams, so that doesn't count. So, really, were talking about Rothlisberger and Warner as the only multiple SB appearance QB's that we could've had, and Warner was total luck as well. Quite frankly, Big Ben hasn't really created a dynasty, so it really boils down to teams falling into two categories for creating dynasties. One are the teams that just so happened to suck horribly the year right before a once in a generation QB came out, and the others are those that took a shot on a guy in later rounds and through injuries or just plain luck, the guy panned out (see Warner). Now, who knows, the chiefs could find themselves with a gen in Bray. It'll take an injury to see it this year most likely however.

I also admit that there was the one year that the Chiefs blew it. 1987. Plain and simple, they had it in front of them, and they blew it. Having said that, they weren't getting Elway, and Marino and Kelly never won shit as far as SB's go.

So, to sum up, yeah, I agree with you. I just think luck and circumstance play a much larger role than you do.

So the Chiefs should've taken Geno or EJ in your opinion?

If you draft a shitty QB and you end up 2-14 well guess what....you get a chance to draft another one pretty quick.

Or you can go 9-7 and draft a guard.

Let me try to repeat that question to see if you and Hamas can actually answer it with a simple yes or no. Should the Chiefs have drafted Geno Smith or EJ Manuel in the last draft?

Plus, according to Hamas, you can't judge them right away, so you certainly wouldn't want to draft another one too quickly.

Given the other options, yes.

I thinks it's really tough to predict the future. I also believe the E.J. has an opportunity to be a beast.

hmmm... yeah, wasn't he supplemental draft though? brb

yep, supplemental. doesn't count?

edit: ROFL

yeah, technically, the pick wasn't cleveland's. still pretty much a cleveland draft pick though. farking technicalities

I disagree. It's not just bad luck. This franchise is legitimately QBphobic. It's been run by QBphobes. It hired other QBphobes. And I don't care what Reid and Dorsey were like before KC. Until they go out and draft some QBs, THEY are just continuing the tradition of QBphobic drafting that has been a staple of this franchise since Blackledge.

Let's forget even about 1st round QBs. The Chiefs have drafted three total QBs since 1998.

Let me repeat that again. As shitty and abysmal as the Chiefs have been at the QB position in that span from 1998-2013, they only attempted to draft a QB THREE times. In ANY round. Three times. James Killian, Brodie Croyle, and Ricky Stanzi. Three.

That's equal to the number of FBs they've drafted in that same span (George Layne, Shane Bannan, and Braden Wilson). It's equal to the number of picks they've spent on kickers and punters in that span (Dustin Colquitt, Justin Medlock, Ryan Succop).

That's 15 drafts. With the problems they've had at the QB position in those 15 years, only THREE times did they view a QB in ANY ROUND AT ANY PICK worthy of the best selection they could have made for the team?

I'm not even going to tally that as a percentage of their picks, but it's gotta be abysmal. That's at least 100 draft picks. And only 3 of them were spent on QBs.

That's not bad luck at all. That's ****ing stupidity. It's an ignorance and fear of the QB position.

I know Carl was at the head of 10 of those drafts. What's the excuse with Pioli and now Dorsey? Why are we still continuing to hire bozos for the front office who don't ever ****ing draft any QBs?

I really hope Dorsey does the right thing this year. Christ, it's not like the QB depth is that much better than the depth we've got at other positions. If anything, it's worse because there's absolutely no reason why we should be paying Daniel that much money or putting any amount of trust at all in Tyler Bray.

Over Eric Fisher?

I mean, seriously, if we're going to use hindsight here, the answer is overwhelmingly yes. Ask any team out there and I'll bet they'd say the same thing after only one year.

The franchise also keeps hiring retread head coaches.

I don't think it's a coincidence that we keep getting retread QBs.

The one year we got a n00b head coach, he was overruled by a dumb GM, too.

Always find something new and odd on CP. Unless you're actually talking about a collection of paper

Heh

:D

JFC

http://www.documentingreality.com/fo...indow_fall.gif

A big vindication for the Chiefs' decision not to draft Geno was the fact that nobody else drafted him in the first round either. If the Chiefs missed on him, so did every other team that doesn't already have their franchise quarterback.

However, your point about the folly of judging whether or not someone is a bust after one year is completely valid. I suggest that we apply the same standard to John Dorsey.

That's a fair point. The Chiefs record of drafting quarterbacks in the last quarter of a century is horrific. I just have to think that if Luck had been sitting there when the Chiefs had the top pick, they would have taken him. So in essence they would have been very lucky, and that would have saved them.

It wouldn't bother me at all if the Chiefs decide to use their first round pick on Bridgewater, Carr, or even Garoppolo.