ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Chiefs Clark Judge: Rating smartest, boldest, scariest offseason moves (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=207680)

Just Passin' By 05-14-2009 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L.A.Chieffan (Post 5767226)
So even though Eli and Ben we're drafted in the first round they're not really first round QBs? You're all over the place man

WTF are you talking about? In the NFL today, there are 2 definite franchise quarterbacks: Peyton and Brady. When Warner is healthy, he's arguably a third, and one could argue the "yes" and "no" with Big Ben. That's it. Shit, anyone who watched Eli trying to QB without Burress should understand this.

Sweet Daddy Hate 05-14-2009 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L.A.Chieffan (Post 5767218)
So what are you saying? You WANT a shitty QB? The shittier the better? Keep sticking shit behind the center until one day we might luck out with a shitty QB instead of going with good Qbs?

The ol' shitty QB theory. That's ****ing interesting man, that's ****ing interesting

I believe Lombardi pioneered that, didn't he?LMAO

DaneMcCloud 05-14-2009 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By (Post 5767227)
So you want a game manager then?

Me? ROFL

No.

But if you think that Matt Cassel is anything but...

Reaper16 05-14-2009 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By (Post 5767223)
That's only true if you massage the "franchise-type" QB definition. Neither Eli nor Dilfer is in that mold, and Big Ben is more game manager than "franchise-type" in my opinion, although he's at least arguable. The reality is that you are, of course, right. You're more likely to get lucky at any position if you draft it higher. That's just common sense, since you have a larger pool to choose from. However, the reality is that of the 3 QBs closest to the "chuck it all around" type of franchise QBs to win Super Bowls in the past 10 years, Only Peyton was a first round pick. Neither Brady nor Warner were.

Your "numbers bear out" argument doesn't actually hold up in recent years, though.

Why? Because of Brady and Warner? You can't plan on lucking into a Hall of Fame QB.

A franchise QB doesn't have to be a "chuck it all around" player. Big Ben is a franchise calibur QB -- they Steelers don't win without that last TD on a pass so pornographically perfect that it dumbfounded me.

DaneMcCloud 05-14-2009 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By (Post 5767229)
WTF are you talking about? In the NFL today, there are 2 definite franchise quarterbacks: Peyton and Brady. When Warner is healthy, he's arguably a third, and one could argue the "yes" and "no" with Big Ben. That's it. Shit, anyone who watched Eli trying to QB without Burress should understand this.

You might be a moron.

Just Passin' By 05-14-2009 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 5767232)
Me? ROFL

No.

But if you think that Matt Cassel is anything but...

I'm not the one trying to argue that Dilfer lived up to the #6 pick billing for a QB. You are. As for Cassel, he sure wasn't just a game manager at the end of last season. What he'll be with a different cast around him remains to be seen.

Sweet Daddy Hate 05-14-2009 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reaper16 (Post 5767233)
Why? Because of Brady and Warner? You can't plan on lucking into a Hall of Fame QB.

A franchise QB doesn't have to be a "chuck it all around" player. Big Ben is a franchise calibur QB -- they Steelers don't win without that last TD on a pass so pornographically perfect that it dumbfounded me.

LMAO That was choice.

Just Passin' By 05-14-2009 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reaper16 (Post 5767233)
Why? Because of Brady and Warner? You can't plan on lucking into a Hall of Fame QB.

A franchise QB doesn't have to be a "chuck it all around" player. Big Ben is a franchise calibur QB -- they Steelers don't win without that last TD on a pass so pornographically perfect that it dumbfounded me.

You will, of course, win the argument if you discount players who prove your argument wrong. However, take a look at the defenses of the winning teams, and their ranking in terms of points allowed:

1999: 4
2000: 1
2001: 6
2002: 1
2003: 1
2004: 2
2005: 3
2006: 23
2007: 17
2008: 1

Only 2 of the defenses weren't top 6.

Reaper16 05-14-2009 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By (Post 5767247)
You will, of course, win the argument if you discount players who prove your argument wrong. However, take a look at the defenses of the winning teams, and their ranking in terms of points allowed:

1999: 4
2000: 1
2001: 6
2002: 1
2003: 1
2004: 2
2005: 3
2006: 23
2007: 17
2008: 1

Only 2 of the defenses weren't top 6.

I never said that defense wasn't important. In fact, it appears that a team typically needs both stellar QB play and stellar defensive play to win it all.

QB's still provide the most impact, imo.

Quesadilla Joe 05-14-2009 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Krab's (Post 5765365)
If he does well this year we will sign him to a long term deal midseason or just tag him again and sign him to a long term deal next offseason.

What if he plays well but refuses to sign longerterm with KC and comes do Denver as a free agent because he wants to play for McDaniels LMAO

I don't want Cassel, but that would be a funny situation.

chiefzilla1501 05-14-2009 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raised On Riots (Post 5767182)
With all due respect, that is the most convoluted football theorem that has ever passed before my eyes.
Please explain, because Tyson Jackson in this equation makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.

Because trading a second for Cassel gave the Chiefs the opportunity to use the #3 pick on a player that wasn't a QB.

Therefore:
-Mark Sanchez PLUS guy they would have taken with 2nd round pick

must be compared to:

-Tyson Jackson PLUS Matt Cassel

People forget that passing on Mark Sanchez gave us the opportunity to draft Tyson Jackson. If we don't trade for Cassel, we don't get Jackson.

Just Passin' By 05-14-2009 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reaper16 (Post 5767254)
I never said that defense wasn't important. In fact, it appears that a team typically needs both stellar QB play and stellar defensive play to win it all.

QB's still provide the most impact, imo.

To use this as a tangent....

The problem with arguments made by people arguing in the same vein Dane and yourself is that they are really not arguments based in logic as much as they are arguments by people pissed off that the team didn't draft Sanchez. Just for one example, you're sitting here harping on this "better chance with a top pick", but you rebel against the statistics about the number of starts a QB has before getting to the NFL. The reality is that, if you go by the "first round" stuff and other relevant numbers, you'd have wanted to avoid Sanchez at all costs.

Sweet Daddy Hate 05-14-2009 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 5767265)
Because trading a second for Cassel gave the Chiefs the opportunity to use the #3 pick on a player that wasn't a QB.

Therefore:
-Mark Sanchez PLUS guy they would have taken with 2nd round pick

must be compared to:

-Tyson Jackson PLUS Matt Cassel

People forget that passing on Mark Sanchez gave us the opportunity to draft Tyson Jackson. If we don't trade for Cassel, we don't get Jackson.

So basically what you're saying is; whoever gets the ring first wins?

I can live with that.

DaneMcCloud 05-14-2009 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 5767265)
People forget that passing on Mark Sanchez gave us the opportunity to draft Tyson Jackson. If we don't trade for Cassel, we don't get Jackson.

BFD.

I'd take Mark Sanchez and Max Unger over the duo of Jackson and Cassel any day of the week.

htismaqe 05-15-2009 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reerun_KC (Post 5766666)
I am doing my best not to cry.... I want to have a QBoTF and someone that can lead this team for years to come...

You believing that Cassel can't do it does not make it a fact.

The fact is, Cassel has the potential to be EXACTLY what you're wanting, you just won't give him a chance.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:30 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.