You're right.

The Chiefs should pass on a potential franchise QB out of fear.

Good one.

Ok, not every year but when you stated because they had a bad rushing game (just this year top 6 of 10 b4). I posted the stats you did not reply. You did say Ben was the fact due to your view but they had the top 10 rushing the first time Ben won and top running attack 4 of 6 years which includes his first SB. I quoted the facts of the running game and got no reply.

Just curious cause SB was plural under Ben.

See previous post.

I like Ben but to credit him as the only reason is narrow minded and not a fact based on your scale according to you.

I know I do not agree but deal with the real world.

JFC.

#1 Look up how many Super Bowls have been won with first round draft picks at QB

#2 Look up how many Super Bowls have been won by top 5 picks at QB

#3 Take the entire rest of the draft in the same time period, and show me the success/failure rate of those QBs

#4 Show me the safety of all these other high picks. Like LT. You know, the position of Leonard Davis, Robert Gallery, and Mike Williams?

#5: Show me a situation where a franchise should be totally risk averse, and how well it pays off for them.

No. We're all just waiting for Tebow, just to get your west coast goat.

JFC

do you ever think before you speak?

Do you have any of these answers? I am very curious about these.

Why do you say that?

You'll need to do a similar breakdown with other positions if you want it to be a truly thorough and logical discussion.

This has turned into a reeruned debate....

It went beyond pointless about 20 pages ago...

I agree but Versus SB winners in in the last 7 years?

I didn't say that, but nice attempt at trying to ignore the point. I can just turn that around on you, after all:

The Chiefs should take a statistically probable disapppointment just because some message board posters really want the team to take a quarterback.

How's that any better?


The real issue isn't what you'd prefer, or wouldn't prefer. The real issue is what Pioli thinks is the best choice. Neither taking a quarterback nor NOT taking the quarterback is an inherently bad idea. Insulting people categorically just because they believe that either of those ideas is the right decision this year is just stupid.

I am really wondering what I said to warrant this post. Please explain.

I still want to know what Brees could have done to make the Saints win more games this season.

More yards? Less INTs? Completion percentage? What?

I have already said if we knew, why not draft them. I am no expert but I believe our management is better than all of us.

What the heck is the fun if we are right. :)

Let's cut the bullshit.

Do the Chiefs have a franchise QB (shut the **** up people coddling Thigpen's balls)?

What's the best way to get one?

Good post.

This has been my problem all along. To act like either opinion is categorically wrong is crazy.

Won the SB with the same defense. LOL

Its all offense in here. Been there done that. ROFL

Please explain how you came to the conclusion that Stafford and/or Sanchez are "statistically probable disappointments."

Luck?

Because of Vince Young and Mike Vick. Because they're quarterbacks.

I used logic.

1 year in starting for college.

Bad decisions?

:evil:

Luck. ****.

I want a QB but need to stir the pot. I want a QB and agree but some act they are like scouts? No failures like DV.

Keep contributing.........

If only we had a QB like Big Ben who wills his team to win big games in 2003 against the Colts. Trent Green clearly didn't care about winning enough to drive the Chiefs down the field and win a close game. It was all his fault.

Ben Roethlisberger can win close games. Trent Green can not. That's the difference. Big Ben prays to Baal or some god every game to grant him the will to win games.

Big Ben would have stopped the Priest Holmes fumble and forced the Colts to punt once.

That's what the discussion should really be about. Whether Thigpen is a franchise quarterback (my vote would be 'anything is possible' with a heavy slant towards 'probably not'). Which would then beg the question of whether a franchise quarterback will be available at 3. It should be a discussion specific to the players at hand.

To answer my own question, Stafford may be. Although I don't think as highly of him as I did of Ryan last year. I wouldn't have a problem with the pick, though.

I don't think Sanchez has played enough to warrant a top-5 pick, and I think he needs to go somewhere with an established starter so he can have time to sit on the sidelines for a couple of years. That's clearly not KC at this point. On the other hand, in the end, if they feel strongly enough about him to spend the pick, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

What I see when I look at the top of this draft is a lack of guys that shout 'star' to me. Which is kind of a shame, picking 3rd and all.

Since 2000:

2000: # of QBs: 12.
QBs taken out of the first round: 11.
Successful QBs out of first round: 2.

2001: # of QBs 11
QBs taken out of the first round: 10
Successful QBs out of first round 1 (Drew Brees, taken in the first pick of the second round)

2002: # of QBs: 15
QBs taken out of the first round: 13
Successful QBs taken out of the first round: 1 (David Garrard...wow)

2003: # of QBs: 13
QBs taken out of the first round: 11
Successful QBs taken out of the first round: 0

So, in those four years, we have 51 QBs taken, 45 of which were out of the first round. Of those 45, 3 were decent QBs, 1 was a Hall of Famer.

Clearly, a success rate of 8.9% is better than 33%, especially given that players in other positions never bust, like you know, left tackle.

If anyone else wants to do '04-'08, feel free.

#1/2/3: Well, this decade, Brady (6th round pick) and Johnson (9th round) have combined for 4 of the 8 Super Bowl wins. The other 4 have gone to Big Ben (2), Manning (1) and Manning (1), so the first round has no clear cut edge here.

#4: Leonard Davis turned into a Pro Bowl guard. If you're going to put him into a negative/bust category, you're clearly not going to be objective about this and I'm not going to waste my time breaking down other positions.

#5 This doesn't even warrant an answer.

He should have tackled better, obviously.

Roethlisberger*2 and both Mannings, sprinkled around two from Brady and one for Brad Johnson.

So, the entire success rate of every other round in the draft equating to the same chance of a Super Bowl win as a 1st rounder, somehow means that you are just as probable with a QB not in the first round?

Yeah, you might have a point if a team spent picks on rounds 2-7 on QB.

Show me where guards are worth the #2 overall pick in the draft and that contract. Please.

50 percent of the SB's have been won by a top 10 pick, yet this is "no clear cut edge" when it's Tom ****ing Brady toting the water for basically the other half?

Well, as long as we're being intellectually honest with each other...

Choosing not to draft Sanchez is not the same as choosing to draft someone in a lower round. What you're showing is that getting a successful quarterback ANYWHERE in the draft is a difficult task. People already know that. By the way, the most successful QB of the decade was a 6th round pick.

I have a feeling the reply will be that Brady, as the 6th round aberration, is the exception that proves the rule, that franchise quarterbacks have won 7 of the last 8 superbowls, with Johnson being the odd dog out.

You chose...wisely.

Brady and Johnson make 2 people. Manning/Manning/Ben are 3 people. Even if you only credit that way, it's still only 3-2 in winners, which is still a pretty even split.

As for Tom ****ing Brady, isn't his being on the list really the point? I don't think Thigpen will ever be Brady, but I don't think Sanchez will, either. Do you?

2004: # of QBs: 17
QBs taken out of the first round: 14
Successful QBs taken out of the first round: 1, if you count Matt Schaub.

2005: # of QBs: 14
QBs taken out of the first round: 11
Successful QBs taken out of the first round: 1, if you count Matt Cassel.

2006: # of QBs: 12
QBs taken out of the first round: 9
Successful QBs taken out of the first round: 0

2007: # of QBs: 11
QBs taken out of the first round: 9
Successful QBs taken out of the first round: 2, if you count Edwards and Thigpen.


So BEST case scenario (Assuming you think guys like Thigpen are considered successful) is:

# of QBs: 54
QBs taken out of the first round: 43
Successful QBs taken out of the first round: 0 - 4.

At worst, 0%

At best, 9.3%

No, I'm not.

I'm showing that trying to get a successful QB in a round past the first becomes incredibly more difficult, and it's borne out by a relatively quick glance at the trends and statistics of success at the position.

But hey, if Andre Smith busts we can move him to right guard, so that somehow justifies the risk/reward for him, right?

Kyle Orton and Derek Anderson were also in 2005.

I would like to know where we are going to find all these other players, you know, to actually field a football team, when we have to spend 5 picks a year on quarterbacks in the middle rounds in order to ensure the same quantitative amount of success as drafting one in the first round.

Where do you find this stuff. I actually want to look at the names of the QBs drafted. I know Bulger was a 4th, seems like there were a few others in the 2000-2004, but I don't know what years.

And also, there seems to be different grading scales.

In a thread in the draft forum, Joey Harrington was considered an average NFL QB, and not considered a bust, even though he was the #3 pick, so if that is the standard for average, I want to find the rest of these QBs.

.

Pigpen's upside, his ceiling, is probably competent backup.

The ceiling for both Stafford and Sanchez is considerably higher. Will they be HOFers? No clue. But, yes, they both have that type of *potential*.

I guess you missed the part where we were talking about successful QB's taken outside the 1st round.

Yeah, and they suck. Hence not showing them as successes.

what % of NFL teams have a first round pick at starting QB compared to other rounds.

Bulger was a 6th, # 168 in 2000.

He and Brady are the 2 successful QB's outside the 1st round of the 2000 draft.

It's some kind of dictionary with a name that sounds like it was made up by those Islander people that kind of look like Chinamen.

Willfredia?
Honowaidia?

Wikipedia....I was way off

Here's my thoughts on Thigpen...

I like what I see with his competitive nature - I loved watching Green take off down field and nail someone for the ball carrier, yeah it's hard on QBs and no it isn't a good idea, but it shows a desire to win - I see this with Thigpen, he's got heart.

I also like Thigpen's ability to make things happen with his legs. He's got enough speed to gain some yards if he has to scramble.

He appears to be tough - at least tough enough to last the rest of the season behind this line.

I think he put up some pretty impressive stats for a 2nd year QB seeing his first real field time this year.

I think he's rough and needs work - especially his footwork. On multiple step drops he tends to throw off his back foot instead of stepping into the pass, sending the ball high. But I think some work on mechanics and more work at reading Ds could really make a difference.


I'm not necesarily saying I think Thigpen SHOULD be our starter, I've posted numerous times that I'm for drafting/signing some QBs and making him compete for the job.

I also, as I've stated before, am not impressed with Stafford or Sanchez. If Bradford were there at the 3rd pick, I'd take him in a heartbeat. I'd lobbying for him in threads from the time he declared until the time he was picked. Why, because I really believe he has what it takes to make a stud Pro QB - arm, intelligence, accuracy, ability to read Ds and adjust, etc. Sanchez started one year and I read that even his coach thinks he needs another year in college. Stafford put up some numbers, but I've also read where he really didn't play at his full potential - read one commentator that said with the talent he had around him his numbers should have been much higher. I really don't want to draft a 70 million dollar qb that may or may not make it when we could quite possibly trade down and get him for a third to half that amount and get another draft pick to boot. We could also pass on them, and nab a couple of QBs off the next tier level and see which ones pan out.



I guess my responding question to the "Anti-Thigpen" crowd is...

Do you really, really like either Stafford or Sanches and think that player is who we need, or are do you just want a first round draft pick QB so bad that you will take one of these two 'cause they are the best that's available?

You're probably going to have to do this Google thing yourself.

All the cool kids are using it.

to be honest, I don't use that often. Just type in 2000 QBs, etc?

drafthistory.com is a good resource

2000 NFL Draft.

That's kind of pointless.

We have a 7th starting.

Doesn't mean he's any good.

The Raiders have a 1st overall starting.

Doesn't mean he's any good either.

perfect. thanks man. Rep to you.

While those numbers are compelling and no doubt first round QBs succeed at a higher clip because they are rated by scouts to be the top QBs in a given draft, you have to realize that you're dealing with a severely, severely skewed sample.

How many 4th round picks could have played as poorly as Eli Manning or Harrington or Carr or Leftwich, etc... for as long as they did and still keep their job? The reason first round QBs tend to succeed at a far higher rate is because most of them are given 2-3 years to work everything out, whereas a 3rd round QB or lower would be lucky to get more than 6 games to prove himself.

Derek Anderson went to a Pro Bowl, which is more than Brady Quinn has done. For crying out loud, I credited Eli Manning as a "stud" quarterback in order to be generous about these guys.

We heard this a lot from the Croyle people last year.

First rounders are given all the opportunities because they, generally, have the necessary tool set. Lower round choices, with notable exceptions, generally do not.

You could give Croyle 10 years, and he'd get hurt every single one (by "one" I mean games, every ****ing one). You could give Thigpen 5 years and he still couldn't execute a 5-step drop. Oh...wait.

I keed. Sort of.

When the Pro Bowl is no longer a popularity contest voted on by dumbass fans like yourself, I'll start letting it carry some weight.

Until then, Derek Anderson is still nothing more than a QB that has had one decent year.

That's not successful in my book.

Good grief. More than Quinn has ever done? Yeah, in his whole 3 (?) games of starting experience...

My Stafford Treatise:

1. He has three years of starting experience in the SEC
2. He comes from a pro offense
3. He knows how to read a defense, and can audible into advantageous plays, recognizes the blitz
4. He's willing to get pounded and get back up
5. He's mobile
6. He has good mechanics
7. He has unbelievable arm strength
8. He's played with a very marginal OL this year with three freshmen on it, and receivers who can't get separation, so he has to make NFL throws to get them the ball, he's not lobbing a rainbow up to a WR with 5 yards of separation.
9. He's a leader and he's been under intense scrutiny since he was 16 years old.
10. He's improved every year in college, despite having less and less talent around him to work with.

Other than that...nothing.

And Roy Williams the Safety went to a Pro Bowl, and he's one of the five worst strong safeties in the league.

But again, the point is that when someone is a first round or "Franchise" Pro Bowl QB, it means something entirely different. Again, Vince Young was said not to be a bust because he had made a Pro Bowl.

Earlier in this thread, I was called a moron, because I stated that Jake Delhomme and Matt Hasselbeck are average NFL starting QBs IMO. The reasoning is because they are Pro Bowl QBs.

I've seen your arguments on this thread. Being a dumbass would be a step up for you.

Who said VY wasn't a bust?

Dane. Also, that Joey Harrington wasn't a bust.

For the record, I'm with you on the Harrington deal.

This whole, "average," "above-average" discussion has gotten way out of whack in some respects.

yeah, I don't get it at all. People on this board would go freaking nuts if we ended up with a guy like Harrington with out #3 pick.

And the great slayer of the hopelessly uninformed shall commence:

Please explain, with pointed examples.

Whatever you say, genius.

I'm not the ****tard that thinks Derek Anderson is a better QB than Brady Quinn, just because Quinn wasn't able to get an invite to the Pro Bowl based on his 3 career starts.

And I don't either.

But I still have a problem with only using the Pro Bowl or a successful NFL season as a positive barometer if said QB was drafted in the first round.

Everybody's still lost sight of the real issue:

Is Thigpen a franchise quarterback?

If someone says yes then there's no reason for them to discuss anyone other than him.

If the answer is no then the next question is whether we need to find a franchise QB, and, if so, where we would do so.

The rest of this in-depth draft analysis and number crunching is pretty much ancillary. Is Thigpen the answer? Is Stafford the answer? Is Sanchez the answer? Is someone else the answer? And some people may ask if we even need an answer at all.

In some ways, he's a difficult example because he seems more committed to stroking a piano than working on his game.

Hard to tell if he's just a bitch, or a player beaten to a pulp by a shitty team and organization.

Chicken or the egg? Either way, you're right.

We don't wants us no Harrington.

While I understand that first rounders will likely succeed at a higher clip, the implication made on this thread is that lower round QBs don't usually succeed in the NFL and that's damning proof against them. My point being is, if lower round QBs are never given more than a half-season to perform (if even that), how do we have any idea what they could have been capable of?

I would have to imagine that if more lower-round QBs were given the time and patience that QBs like Harrington and Leftwich got, you would see a far higher success rate. But they don't. That's just the nature of the game. It's an understandable decision, but realize that it's an unfair statement to make that lower round QBs fail at such a high rate because they aren't any good. Most of them fail because they were never given a chance to prove one way or the other.

Gotta disagree with him on VY.

However, I'd agree with him on Harrington.

Has he been a disappointment based on his draft slot?

Absolutely.

But to call a guy who has 15,000 yards in 6 seasons (4 of them in Hell) a bust is reaching, IMO.

Who's doing that?

I'm confused. Maybe I missed a side conversation or something.

I'd love to continue this, but I'm going to go to the gym.

As evidenced by the great examples in this thread, since I am going to lift weights, and I am one, physical human being, I also have the same chance of winning the Mr. Olympia as Arnold did in 1975.

With that, I will let you know about the greatest thing about lifting weights:

The greatest feeling you can get in a gym, or the most satisfying feeling you can get in the gym is... The Pump. Let's say you train your biceps. Blood is rushing into your muscles and that's what we call The Pump. You muscles get a really tight feeling, like your skin is going to explode any minute, and it's really tight - it's like somebody blowing air into it, into your muscle. It just blows up, and it feels really different. It feels fantastic. It's as satisfying to me as, uh, coming is, you know? As, ah, having sex with a woman and coming. And so can you believe how much I am in heaven? I am like, uh, getting the feeling of coming in a gym, I'm getting the feeling of coming at home, I'm getting the feeling of coming backstage when I pump up, when I pose in front of 5,000 people, I get the same feeling, so I am coming day and night. I mean, it's terrific. Right? So you know, I am in heaven.

I didn't say he was better, did I? Are you so ridiculously set in your position that you can't even grasp another angle? Anderson has been more successful to date than Quinn has.

I don't think we've lost sight of anything at all.

The number crunching has been the evidence to prove that you have the best odds of finding a franchise QB early in the draft. Period.

Whether or not Thigpen is a franchise QB isn't worth discussing, IMO.

Earlier in this thread I was called a moron for calling a couple QBs who have played in the Pro Bowl as average NFL starting QBs. It's too far back to try to find.