Of course not. Is anyone saying otherwise?

My bad. I was going from a list put up from another poster.

So then there is no example of a 1 year QB drafted in the 1st who is successful?

No, I'm sorry, but you're now making a false assumption. A round 1 pick is not equal in value to a round 2 pick, etc..., and the rookie wage scale makes the equation even more harsh on first round misses. This does not mean that teams shouldn't draft first round picks, and it doesn't mean that teams should trade down for more and more 7th round picks. It does, however, mean that the penalty for mistakes is greater in the higher rounds, and it's greatest at the top of the first round.

Saying? No. Implying? Clearly.

said list was referencing spread qb's

And any pick we make is going to be extremely expensive at #3. Long was around 30-32 last year at 1/1 and Ryan was around 36 at 1/3, in guaranteed money.

There's no false assumption. Any missed pick at the top of the draft is going to have serious financial ramifications.

And I'm not devaluing the importance of round 1 selection.

But you don't get into the Chiefs situations by missing only in round 1, where the organization's track record is comparable to many others. The problem is that the Chiefs have fallen off a ****ing cliff in rounds 2-3, and this is where you must get solid production and, occasionally, a star.

No, it was a list of QBs taken in the 1st round over the last 10 years. But I was wrong in referencing it, so....

I would be curious to find out how many QBs have been drafted in the 1st round that were 1 year starters in school, and of those how many were successful or justified thier pick in the NFL.

Name all the super bowl winning teams that didn't have a good defense. Even the colts in '06 got great defense in the playoffs. But a bunch of teams have won the sb with so so qbs.

Colts. Earl morrall
Bears. Jim mcmahon
Redskins. Williams and rypien
Ravens. Dilfer
Bucs. Johnson

Brady and warner came out of nowhere

Defense wins championships.

The 90's Chiefs did built it right and came close with montana but carl dropped the ball by going with journeymen

Had they stuck with rich Gannon who knows.........
Posted via Mobile Device

So history has no bearing when it comes to predicting success. Just because there are higher odds of getting a franchise guy in round 1 doesn't make a player like Sanchez any better. Check.

History, however, does have bearing when it comes to arguing how unlikely it will be for him to be successful because of the extremely limited number--I don't know the figure, possibly 0--of one-year starters who have become stars. Check?

That's convenient.

**** me


people still aren't embarrassed to say "we did it right" in the 90's??


i can not describe how much i hate this fan base....there are no words for how much they love safe failure.....

What?
Posted via Mobile Device

I've got no problem with anything you've got here. Teams that crap out generally have failure at multiple levels: draft, free agency, player retention, etc....

But, then again, my position has never been that the Chiefs shouldn't take any QB at #3. My position has been that choosing Sanchez, or Stafford, is not such a no-brainer that the Sanchez ballwashing posse should be insulting everyone who dares to think that those two particular quarterbacks aren't the best choices to take.

I assume that Pioli is doing his homework to make damned sure that his first draft (and any draft related moves) in his new position is a successful one and, therefore, I don't think anyone should get their panties in a bunch no matter how it shakes out. If he takes Sanchez, I'd tell the "Don't draft Sanchez!" people to STFU, give Sanchez time to develop and support the team even if Sanchez never sees the field in year one. If he skips the QB position, I'd tell the Sanchez/Stafford ballwashers to STFU, give Pioli time to put his structure in place, and he'll find his QB when he thinks he has a comfortable fit.

This Chiefs team has a lot of problems, and they'll all need to be addressed along the way. The order is not something that fans should be fighting about as if there's only one way to do it.

Yeah. The chiefs sure sucked back then. Marty blew it by not playing gannon, who proved in oakland the kind of qb he was. And peterson blew it by banking on bono and grbec.

But overall. The 13-3 teams. What would you have done different. Not draft DT? Or neil smith. Or that offensive line?
Posted via Mobile Device

Think about what you're trying to assert here. You're trying to mix generalized odds with a specific player and acting as if the disconnect is with the people who won't do that.

We're not far apart in our approaches, actually.

The one thing I'll add is that, for most posters, it's not fair to paint the ballwashing with a broad brush. Most of the regulars, many of whom are very knowledgeable fans, are pro Stafford or Sanchez because it's a position arrived at after careful analysis.

Yeah, there are some bandwagoners, but you seem smart enough to distinguish between the two. Mecca, for all the heat he draws, would not be a part of the bandwagon crowd.