Great post.


For those who are offended by Dane's posting style, just think of him as Jeremy Piven and you'll get a laugh everday. The majority of the time he comes off as Ari Gold Jeremy Piven, but every now and then you get a Rush Hour 2 gay salesman Piven, a Old School "cheese" Piven, a The Goods Piven, or even a Two for the Money Piven.

Dane, I actually agree that having a franchise QB is very important. I also agree that it is the most important position on the field. I was simply taking your own argument back to you. If you are gonna use numbers, then your argument that QB in the firt round is a good risk is flawed. The percentages bare it out. I mean cmon, Montana and Brady have accounted for What 6 out of the last 30 superbowls. Thats 20 percent of superbowls by guys drafted in the third round or later. I was simply supporting the guy you bashed earlier with your "stats" which are flawed. Unless you change the NFL record books, you aing gonna win this one.

96.7%

349 QB's drafted in the 2nd round or later since 1980.

12 have started a Super Bowl:

Esiason
Hostetler
Rypien
Gannon
Chandler
Humphries
O'Donnell
Favre
Brady
Hasselbeck
Warner
Brees


EDIT: As I see Joe Montana added to the discussion, I'll add the 1979 draft class.

That takes the total number of QB's drafted in the 2nd round or later to 361, and the total number of those QB's to start a SB to 13.

96.4% failure rate.

Nearly every team missed on Tom Brady six times but the Patriots. Go back and look at pictures and film of him at the Combines. He looks like a doughy little boy, not a franchise QB. You're talking about a once in a generation miss, not something that happens each and every year.

Rothlisberger and Manning were taken in 2004 and both have won Super Bowls. Rivers and Sanchez have both been to the AFC Championship game, as has Flacco. These guys aren't fifth or sixth rounders, they're first rounders.

THAT'S what it takes in today's NFL.

As for Montana, that was more than 30 years ago and everyone knows that if there was a do over draft in any year, Brady & Montana would go number one overall in their respective years.

theres really no debate about what the most important position is in football today.

unless youre a chiefs fan...

That's just ****ing outstanding. Well done.

KC Chiefs: Looking for the right 3.6%

Well, maybe they could just surprise everyone and draft him in the first round to get better odds. :)

I like this kind of outside-of-the-box thinking.

What? Are you a ****ing reerun? What's to understand? No matter your contempt, you are still a HUGE bag of douche.

**** off

Found my new sig. Thanks.

I was wondering this, and didn't know if anyone had done the research on it.

Since it seems that the only way to find a franchise QB is in the first round, I was curious about where specifically in the first round seems to be the best place. To qualify for franchise QB status on this board, it seems that one must win a Super Bowl.

So my question is, how many QBs have been drafted in the top 5 and won a Super Bowl with their original team? It seems that the guys like Roethlisberger, Flacco, and even Sanchez (since the Jets weren't a bad enough team to be drafting top 5 but traded up to #5) are all guys who went to good teams, and definitely benefited from it. I'm not trying to take anything away from any of them, but it occured to me that while we are talking about the number of first round QBs that have won SBs, we should also look at the draft position and quality of team they went to. Seems that a lot of the QBs that are drafted top 5 do indeed bust, and a lot of times I'm not sure if that is because of the player or because of the shitty situation they went into.

Curious if anyone knew of the number of top 5 QBs that have won a SB with their original team?

LMAO.

I have inspired three active sigs on this board: GoChiefs, Sure-Oz, and now OTW.

Too funny.

Most all of those teams had a healthy base built around the team and the QB was one of the later pieces added to the puzzle. Why waste valuable years of a QB's play with a mediocre team that will go nowhere? Get your team competitive first then add the positions that add an immediate impact.

Everyone wants a playmaker, and criticized the organization for taking d-lineman. The guys who take about 3 yrs. to develop. If you didn't have these guys, and the need for them was the only thing holding your team back, you'd draft one and have to wait. Wasting players prime years, contracts(both length and money) and health. A lot can happen over 3 yrs.

If a well rounded, 1st round QB can make a difference in yr. 1, get him when your team is on the cusp. Build your base first. The guys who take time to develop. I know it takes time for the QB to be developed, but a recent trend shows that if you get a good one, maybe not. The guy may not be a world beater at QB, but as long as he can at least be a yr. 1 game manager, he can learn on the fly and you have years of productivity ahead of you. Otherwise you could do like all the shitty teams at the top of the draft over the years have done. Draft a guy with unlimited potential, and drown him in a pool of talentless teammates like the Lions.

A playmaker would make this team better now, and everyone would love it, but it won't really mean anything at all until there's a good base in place. Can't build on a shotty foundation. That is why the experts and coaches prefer to build from the front to back. A lot of guys don't like the unsexy picks in the trenches, but a team ain't shit without 'em. Not saying a o-lineman in the first round. You can get 'em in the 5th round if they can play, just get 'em first. Worry about the accessories later.




That oughta piss Dane off PLENTY! :D







**** you Dane!:)

Regarding what's in bold:

1. Wrong. No one (or damn few) criticized the selection of Dorsey. The problem with '09 was who and his role in a 34.

2. This plan is unbelievably flawed.

If you don't have a franchise QB, you consistently attempt to acquire one. Period. And the sooner the better.