Yea they're just gonna tell you what they're doing...

This is not fantasy land. Josh Freeman falls no lower than 22.

i agree the chiefs cant take that chance IMO

Using a winning lottery ticket as an example of how to do things doesn't kill any argument. At all.

Arguing exceptions to the rule is always a brilliant plan....playing to be the exception is how you get your ass kicked.

That's like people who think Scott Pioli really believes he can pull a QB out of his ass in the 6th round.

I'm starting to hate Tom Brady.

Arguing that Brady is the only example or is like hitting the lottery is silly, though. He's simply the most current example and the easiest to point to. Warner, Montana, many of the all time greats.... they all fit the example.

Let's try this again.... comfortably less than half of the "franchise" quarterbacks taken in the top 5 pan out as truly great picks.

In other words, they are exceptions to the rule. Seriously, this shouldn't be hard. Did you take any kind of mathematics in school?

Warner, yes. Montana, not so much, being a day 1 pick. Outside of round 1, I grant you.

Posters have run the numbers to see where a team is most likely to acquire a franchise QB. We need to see these statistics again.

I'll counter that "comfortably less" than 5% of QB's taken outside round one pan out as truly great picks.

How many times do we need to rehash the argument about where you have the best odds to locate a franchise guy?

It's not the *only* way, but it provides the best odds.

I'll sum it up for you....

The most likely place to draft a franchise, or at least top shelf, quarterback is in the first round. That "chance" is about 1-in-3, even with the ability to choose from every available quarterback (or every QB still available in round 1 at the drafting position).

This makes sense because 1st round picks are choosing from the entire pool of prospects, whereas lower rounds are choosing from a smaller pool of prospects passed over for quarterbacks thought to be better.

So what? How does a higher failure rate of QBs in round two or below somehow prove that the chiefs should take either Stafford or Sanchez?

Very good. Thanks. :thumb:

This sounds like a risk, though. Once again, unfortunately, a small sampling of urine has leaked from my hanglow.

We should take one of those bust-proof positions, like DT.

All picks have risks. However, let's pretend that 90% of all quarterbacks taken in round 1 turned into franchise quarterbacks.


Now, does that change in the data somehow make either Stafford or Sanchez a better quarterback?

It means that it's even more foolish, however, to start firing in rounds 2-3, drafts positions where an organization must consistently hit.

I've said it before, and I'll keep repeating. The biggest problem with the Chiefs isn't round 1 busts, it's all the misses in rounds 2-3.

Anyone who wouldn't take a Stafford/Sanchez at #3 but would take a Davis/Freeman in the second round should urinate on an electrified Roberto Alomar shrub.