Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 5478432)

Gotta disagree with him on VY.

However, I'd agree with him on Harrington.

Has he been a disappointment based on his draft slot?

Absolutely.

But to call a guy who has 15,000 yards in 6 seasons (4 of them in Hell) a bust is reaching, IMO.

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By (Post 5478438)

I didn't say he was better, did I? Are you so ridiculously set in your position that you can't even grasp another angle? Anderson has been more successful to date than Quinn has.

Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 5478439)

I don't think we've lost sight of anything at all.

The number crunching has been the evidence to prove that you have the best odds of finding a franchise QB early in the draft. Period.

Whether or not Thigpen is a franchise QB isn't worth discussing, IMO.

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 5478463)

Nice backtrack.

You're not fooling anyone.

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By (Post 5478468)

Now, I can agree that the best odds of finding a franchise QB is to use first round picks to get one. However, the question for Chiefs fans (and Pioli, of course) is whether or not any quarterback that will be available at #3 in this year's draft is going to be that franchise quarterback. If you think the answer is "yes", you draft the quarterback. However, if you think the answer is "no", you draft another position. Taking a quarterback at #3 just because you're there is something a Matt Millen would do.

Frankly, I'm stunned that people here actually attack others for having such an obvious position.

Originally Posted by PastorMikH (Post 5478444)

I guess another thing that is on my mind about this issue isn't the name of the player, its that if we are going to develop a young QB, it's going to take TIME. It won't happen in preseason, it won't happen in Sept, probably won't even happen by december, it might take a couple of seasons before that young QB starts playing like the QB everyone was wanting.

I don't think too many KC fans can live with that scenario. I read (and responded to) on the Planet in the last week where someone said they wrote Thigpen off in NY because he couldn't take the team down the field in the last minute for the win - in his second career start. John Horseface probably couldn't have done it in his second start.

It took Trent Green a full season and into his second before he settled down and quit throwing INTs every other throw.

The Titans had their high first round draft pick QB - booed him off the field, Vince couldn't handle it and went mental.


In KC, if we were to draft Stafford, this place would light up in celebration. Then, when he starts to struggle, people are going to start murmmering. If he's struggling in the regular season and turning the ball over people are going to be complaining. If he keeps it up, some of the same people bashing Thigpen will be asking for him to play. And, by the time the year is out, many will be disgusted with Stafford, Haley, Pioli, and Clark.

It takes time for any player to make the jump to the NFL, QB is probably the one that takes the longest and requires the most patience. No matter who Clark, Pioli, and Haley (or is that Pioli, Clark, and Haley) think is our best option at QB, if it is a young QB, we've got to be patient when they make mistakes, and if they lose games for us, oh well. If they are still losing games for us in 3-4 years, we didn't pick the right guy.

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 5478475)

Pastor, I'll promise you this:

We could draft Stafford or Sanchez and they could be worse than the love child of David Carr and Akili Smith - and I'll NEVER be asking for Thigpen to come back into the game.

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By (Post 5478468)

Now, I can agree that the best odds of finding a franchise QB is to use first round picks to get one. However, the question for Chiefs fans (and Pioli, of course) is whether or not any quarterback that will be available at #3 in this year's draft is going to be that franchise quarterback. If you think the answer is "yes", you draft the quarterback. However, if you think the answer is "no", you draft another position. Taking a quarterback at #3 just because you're there is something a Matt Millen would do.

Frankly, I'm stunned that people here actually attack others for having such an obvious position.

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 5478455)

I call bullshit on this "given half a season to perform" bullshit.

If you have talent, you get more time.

Ask Matt Schaub, Trent Edwards and David Garrard, as some examples.

Guys like Bulger and Hasselebeck bounced around, but got their chance. They kept showing enough to stick around, and not wash out of the league completely.

Guys like Chris Simms and Brodie Croyle would have gotten several seasons had they been able to stay healthy.

You're making excuses.

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By (Post 5478470)

Read my post on it, slick.

Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 5478439)

The number crunching has been the evidence to prove that you have the best odds of finding a franchise QB early in the draft. Period.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 5478481)

They're not excuses. You throw out a statistic claiming for an absolute fact that first round QBs succeed at a higher rate, but you leave out the part about how they are given a ton more opportunities than a lower-round pick will get.

Like I said, yes, first round picks would succeed at a higher rate no matter what. But leaving out the part about how almost every first round QB is guaranteed to start at least 2-3 years if they stay healthy means that the claim is highly exaggerated. You're comparing apples to oranges--you're comparing guys who were given opportunities to guys who have not.

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 5478436)

I'd love to continue this, but I'm going to go to the gym.

As evidenced by the great examples in this thread, since I am going to lift weights, and I am one, physical human being, I also have the same chance of winning the Mr. Olympia as Arnold did in 1975.

With that, I will let you know about the greatest thing about lifting weights:

The greatest feeling you can get in a gym, or the most satisfying feeling you can get in the gym is... The Pump. Let's say you train your biceps. Blood is rushing into your muscles and that's what we call The Pump. You muscles get a really tight feeling, like your skin is going to explode any minute, and it's really tight - it's like somebody blowing air into it, into your muscle. It just blows up, and it feels really different. It feels fantastic. It's as satisfying to me as, uh, coming is, you know? As, ah, having sex with a woman and coming. And so can you believe how much I am in heaven? I am like, uh, getting the feeling of coming in a gym, I'm getting the feeling of coming at home, I'm getting the feeling of coming backstage when I pump up, when I pose in front of 5,000 people, I get the same feeling, so I am coming day and night. I mean, it's terrific. Right? So you know, I am in heaven.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 5478481)

They're not excuses. You throw out a statistic claiming for an absolute fact that first round QBs succeed at a higher rate, but you leave out the part about how they are given a ton more opportunities than a lower-round pick will get.

Like I said, yes, first round picks would succeed at a higher rate no matter what. But leaving out the part about how almost every first round QB is guaranteed to start at least 2-3 years if they stay healthy means that the claim is highly exaggerated. You're comparing apples to oranges--you're comparing guys who were given opportunities to guys who have not.

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 5478482)

I did, and we ALL know what you meant.

You should go back to the kiddie table over at WPI and quit wasting the grown-ups' time.