This is exactly my point about your posts. You post complete nonsense and act as if you're handing out the Rosetta Stone. Then when you get called on it, you can't handle it. I never said that teams are better off searching outside of the first round. As for what Mecca opines, it's still OPINION. Try to get that through your head. Mecca is not, as far as I know, Pete Carroll using the ChiefsPlanet message board.

And, yet again, you can't seem to grasp simple things. Call me when 60=100 and then you'll have an ironclad case. When it's a 60/40 split, you've got shit. Which is basically what your argument is.

All football coaches are stubborn so that is no surprise. I can understand the argument that he probably figured Sanchez would stay for 2 more years and I also can understand the argument that the rape allegation might have hurt him as far as Carroll trusting him.

But he still only has 16 starts and my biggest concern is his experience and being a 1-hit wonder.

I don't know how this can be said any more plainly:

Are teams going to spend every draft pick outside of their #1 in a given draft on a quarterback?

No.

Why not?

Because its a gross misallocation of resources.

Well, for the sake of argument, let's give them extra picks in every other round other than 1, and let them use all of them on quarterbacks.

Would they, or would they not have a better chance of finding a QB from all those other picks, than they would from simply spending a first round pick on any of the top QB prospects?

They would not.

Stats bear this out
History bears this out.

And yet, in spite of all of this, you assume that because the odds of getting a SB winning QB are not 100% in round one, that somehow that justifies trying to look outside of round 1 for one.

1=60%

2+3+4+5+6+7=40% (and in many days you take n=round all the way up to 18 and it STILL DIDN'T MATTER).

This is your argument:

I put a gun to your head, if you don't win, I get to kill you. You have AA against 2 other random hands. You are basically saying, that because AA does not have a 100% chance of winning, that it's not the best course of action.

Cool, we get to blow your head off.


And as far as Carroll and Booty vs. Sanchez, I guess that the opinions of Pete Carroll outweigh those of all of his coaches. He was also proven right by the fact that USC was less successful with more offensive talent with Booty, and the fact that Booty was a 1st round draft pick, right?

Clearly Booty>Sanchez.

Obviously, Jerry Glanville was right in his assessment that Brett Favre should never start, since he's the head coach, right?

This is complete gibberish. Did you actually read this post before you submitted it? Let me try to be plain and, unlike yourself, actually make sense, and I'll do it in example form.

Example:

There are 30 quarterbacks to be taken. Out of those 30 quarterbacks, 1 will become a top shelf quarterback, 2-3 will become quality/above average quarterbacks and the rest will either be backups or out of the league.

Now, picking in the first round gives you the best chance to get one of the 4 quarterbacks worth picking. It does not, however, guarantee that the quarterback you pick will be one of those 4 quarterbacks.

As for the Booty argument, you keep acting as if opinion = fact. I can only suggest that you consult a dictionary and learn the difference.

I went back 5 years and looked at every QB that was drafted in the first round and found out how many years they started in college.

Not one had less than 2 years of starting experience.

But on the flip side having started alot in college doesn't necessarily equal success in the NFL.

Your statistic would support us signing a 1st round QB that has been cut. If we are going by that stat, why not just sign David Carr or Joey Harrington or Micheal Vick? I say this to make a point, not to support that conclusion. Your stat is not a good stat to base selecting a QB in the first round.

The stat does not account for great QBs like Dan Marino that were great 1st round pics. Why should the Dolphins selecting Dan Marino add to the statistic of not taking a QB? Taking Marino was obviously a good choice but the fact that he never won a superbowl supports the statistical analysis of not taking a QB in round 1.

Trent Dilfer was also a first round pick and the Ravens won a superbowl with him. He was not drafted by the Ravens. He was a castoff of another team. The defense won that superbowl, but your statistics will use Trent Dilfer as support for taking a QB in round 1.

The statistical analysis of superbowl winning QBs is hard to rely on when taking into account who to draft because Superbowls are won by teams. You would probably be better off with using a statistic that shows the percentage of top 5 offenses with QBs that were drafted in the first round and still play on the team that drafted them.

That's what we are really looking for right? Picking a QB that can lead a successful offense. The QB can't control the defense. Your stat should only account for offensive production, not team production.

Of course.

I don't know what you're arguing about, honestly. No one is saying that Stafford or Sanchez will be a lock. I've lost the keys to Doc's car, so I can't say definitively.

But we all know that you have the best odds to be right with these guys because they have, according to all indicators, the best talent.

....

Anyone have the link to the gang of 14?

Neck beards. You can't intimidate people and command respect in the huddle without a raging neck beard.

ok, this is where i should have asked the question i just posed in the "should we bring in a mentor thread" but i'll ask here too.

since the gang of 14 has trashed the idea of ever drafting any other position at #3

say Stafford gets picked by the Lions and the Rams gobble up Sanchez

who would you pick at #3?

its not literal.. at the time 14 people in the poll said it had to be a QB.

it kinda stuck, so now its more a symbolic thing.

you know....

Not everyone is in agreement that they have that "best talent", unless you're restricting the discussion strictly to this year's draft. Not a single running back broke a 4.3, for example, so that doesn't mean that the player who ran the closest to it should somehow be treated as if he did. Sometimes, the best of a bad lot is still bad. Many people here put Stafford and Sanchez in that category. They shouldn't be insulted the way these clowns have been insulting them every time they "dare" assert that opinion.

Regardless of how you feel about Stafford or Sanchez, there's no arguing the fact that most super bowl winning QBs come from the first round. It's not even like the first round gave a merely a plurality of super bowl winning QBs; when one round accounts for 60% of all winners, that's pretty compelling evidence, and it's over a very long period of time, so it's not like this is a coincidence.

For those of you that still believe this isn't a significant enough sample size, how many QBs have started more than 8 games for more than 6 seasons in the NFL? Of those consistent, starting-quality QBs, which have had the most success? I don't know the answers or have the inclination to find them, but I would be shocked to find that a round outside of the first was responsible for the most successful starting QBs.

It isn't like drafting players is some sort of lottery ticket. Teams make or lose money based on the people that they draft, and teams spend the entire year figuring out who to bring in based on those observations. To think that you'll have a better chance at finding a more talented player after every team in the league has taken their shot at a best guess at least once is asinine, and even moreso when you consider that QB is universally regarded as the most important position on the field and that teams are willing to take ridiculous chances on guys that just might fit the bill whether past performances bear that out or not.

So, do you think next year's QB class is going to be better?