and you're forgetting the Tom Brady led Patriots. I'm not saying we should pass if Peyton Manning is on the board, but I haven't been real convinced by Mark Sanchez.

Without Sanders the Colts never get to that super bowl, just look at how they did when sanders was hurt, or look at them early this year when Jeff Saturday was hurt.

Oh and the fact that the Colts faced the "high powered" Chiefs Ravens Bears and Patriots in the playoffs doesn't make you wonder about putting QB above defense and running the ball? The chiefs completely lucked in at 9-7, but did so running the ball mercilessly, and the ravens, bears and patriots are built on defense and the run. I would take a great defense over a great offense any day.

We have a true fan, where is Can when you need him.

oh and I'm forgetting Dwight Freeeny of the colts. Consistently winning teams almost always have great pass rushers. T

And guess what those teams get the QB first then they build their defense. Wow what a concept.

yeah like the 2000 ravens and 2002 buccaneers

Funny those teams never made it back to the Super Bowl.

Yay! Let's build a great defense and hope that an aging, free agent veteran can take the Chiefs to the Super Bowl! Woo-hoo!!

Wake up, Son: The 90's are over.

Yep been there done that. But if you draft a QB in the 1st round you cant build a great defense, even though the Cowboys, Patriots, Steelers, Giants and others have proven that wrong.

No, but they were both contenders for quite some time. The Ravens were back in the title game this year.

You're saying that winning one super bowl is insignificant?

The ravens were 10-6, 7-9, 10-6, 9-7, 6-10, 13-3, 5-11, 11-5 since then, that's with Elvis Grbac Kyle Boller (a first round bust) and Joe Flacco ( a late first round pick) They were in the title game this year, but because their defense was unstoppable and Flacco didn't make many mistakes. He didn't light up the scoreboards, they ran the ball well and depended on the defense to force lots of turnovers. They picked off pennington in one playoff game almost as many times as he threw picks all season.

And the buccaneers had been successful for years prior to their super bowl. The core defensive players had aged and many left for lucrative contracts elsewhere. from 97 to 01, under Tony Dungy and led by the quarterbacking corps of Trent Dilfer, Shaun King, and Brad Johnson, they went 10-6 8-8 11-5 10-6 9-7 and then Dungy was canned cause they didn't think he could get it done in the playoffs, brought in Gruden and went 12-4 and won the super bowl. But by then the aging defensive guys weren't the same as they used to be, what followed was a decline in the defense and all sorts of blunders in the handling of the team by Gruden who is an "offensive guru" QB coach kind of guy. Also they had given up first round picks to get gruden and had significant salary cap issues.

JFC.

AFTER they moved up in the first round and did what?

Oh yeah, drafted what they think is a Franchise QB.

NINE YEARS LATER.

As to the rest of your post, JFC. What a bunch of hogwash.

I'm not saying you can't get a great defense after you get a quarterback in the top 5. What I'm saying is this:

A great defense and solid running game will make for a consistently successful team. A great quarterback is not necessary to win. Sure it would be nice to have a peyton manning, but those guys are very rare. So if Sanchez is a peyton manning, then by all means take him, but the list of qb busts in the first round is quite long. The 90's chiefs were the winningest team of the 90's. Yes they didn't win many playoff games, but they were very close to being super bowl caliber several years, but we never quite got everything put together right. Those teams were based on defense and running the ball. We brought in an old Montana and Allen and we were a game away from the super bowl. Free agent veterans can fill big holes like Quarterback if the rest of the team is solid. The problem with the 90's was carl peterson. Had we been picking quarterbacks in later rounds and had found a gem in there, we might very well have a ring or two, but he never picked qbs after his first few years when they didn't pan out. for every peyton manning there's three Todd Blackledges.

All I'm saying is that if you look at the track records teams with great defenses are consistent winners, and teams with great quarterbacks aren't quite so much.

Even if you land a great QB it still might not do much. Look at Cincinatti. A few years ago it seemed Palmer was the next Manning, and look how terrible they've been since then. They don't have a defense.

How much better off woud Tennesse be if they hadn't picked Vince "I thought about retiring my rookie season" Young. If your quartback draft pick busts, it sets a team back a long time. What if they had picked someone else, maybe that player isn't a hall of famer, but a defensive pick or an offensive line pick, anything other than QB and that player can still contribute even if they aren't fantastic.

How about the Giants, they had Kurt Warner, who we see can still play. What if they had picked Robert Gallery or Larry Fitzgerald instead?

2002 draft. Texans take David Carr 1st, Julius Peppers goes 2nd, and then The Lions take Joey Harrington third. Quentin Jammer, Roy Williams (the safety), John Henderson, Dwight Freeney, and Albert Haynesworth are on the board. You really telling me that the texans and Lions are better off picking Qbs to put behind their terrible offensive lines than they are tacking any of those impact defensive players that are still great. What would it look like in Houston if they had Dwight Freeney back in 2002 and had just picked up a veteran free agent QB to manage games for a while?

Did you watch any of the Raven's playoff games? Their defense just ran people over. Quarterbacks were running for their lives, heave-hoing lame ducks and they couldnt run the ball at all. Their offense managed the clock, made few mistakes, managed the game.

Remember when Kyle Boller was the first round pick to save the franchise? How'd that work out? I would take Ed Reed before Joe Flacco any day.


Oh and they weren't starting fresh. Yeah they didn't have a great season last year, but they have had one of the most consistently great defenses of the past decade. bettered by maybe only pittsburgh.

Titans would be in the Super Bowl if they had drafted Cutler like Fisher wanted. You are underminded the QB position which is the most important by far. Your little theory of anybody can lead a QB to a Super Bowl is bullshit for the most part. 57% of the Super Bowls have been won by 1st round QB's. Throw Brady & Montana into that group and its around 70%. Not to mention out of those non-first rounders Stabuch is included and he would have been a first if he didnt have to go to Vietnam. If you want to be the 90's Chiefs go ahead, I would rather be the 90's Cowboys. Which is the team that alot of us want to build. Strong defense with a playmaking offense. Not a game managed one.

You guys are chasing your tails. I think you both are actually in agreement, however one of you PREFERS a QB THIS YEAR via the draft and it seems it must be our 1st round pick(Sanchez,Stafford or Bust) and the other prefers one at a later time or by other means, besides the draft. I think you both make some valid points, but for God's sake let's have a little more fun and alot less bitchin'.

We might be making a move for Cassell AND still keeping our 1st rounder this year.

Wait....why are you throwing montana in there? He was a third round pick? and Brady? he was a seventh round pick!

I'm totally with you on getting a great QB, I just think that if you pick one in the top 3 and he doesn't become Peyton Manning then you have screwed yourself with a huge contract on a guy who may not even play much. I just think of every single draft choice as a gamble. I think there are defensive players and offensive line type guys who are much better bets to be successsful in the nfl than the QB choices are. So for my money, take sure fire playmakers early, and pick some QBs in the later rounds. Montana was a 3rd round choice, Brady was a seventh. They were taking guys that were better bets and then taking a risk on quarterbacks later on. You pick a QB in the seventh round every season and you're bound to get a decent one and you'll never get burned with a fifty million dollar contract. Look at Arizona with all the money they have tied up with Leinart while Warner takes them to the Super Bowl. And Tennesse in the Super Bowl if they chose Cutler instead? Well, you might be right, but look how much they lost on picking Young, the guys riding the bench and pulling in a huge salary. They could have had an impact player in addition to the Kerry Collins managed running attack. Put in Cutler and maybe that's a play making offense. But if Tennesee picks D'Brickashaw Ferguson or A.J. Hawk, I think they are definitely a better team than they were this year. Quarterback is a very high risk pick, if he doesn't start then he's practically a waste, other positions aren't like that.