ChiefsPlanet - NFL Draft Treatise from the "Gang of 14" (Long Read)

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)

- Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)

- -

Treatise from the "Gang of 14" (Long Read) (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=203071)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crush (Post 5526450)

DCS, where did you find that abomination?

Shit. Sorry.

I meant to post that here first, but I was already logged on to my WPI account.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 5526234)

Yes. And it has pretty much changed nothing, because in other threads, geniouses like CoMo are arguing that we should draft a freaking left tackle at 3.

hey it was a good read. But most fans don't think as highly of Sanchez as you do. It's not that they disagree about the value of a good QB, but that they don't think that Sanchez will be a good QB.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 5525019)

<o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PlaceName"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="country-region"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="City"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="State"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"></o:smarttagtype> Treatise from the “Gang of 14”:
<o></o>

The Philadelphia Eagles of the Buddy Ryan era had some of the most dominant defenders of any era. Guys like Reggie White, Jerome Brown, Clyde Simmons, Seth Joyner, Eric Allen, Wes Hopkins, and Andre Waters. They led the NFL in both passing and rushing yardage allowed in 1991, the first team to do that in 16 years, and they missed the playoffs. In fact, that team did not win a single playoff game.

Couldn't you make the same argument for the saints this year for offenses? ranked first in both rushing and passing. they didn't even make the playoffs. What about the 99 rams? one hit wonder with the best offense ever at that time???

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcbubb (Post 5526538)

The rams had a top 10 D IIRC

The point is that you need parity for both sides of the ball and that you can't have a top offense without a top quarterback, ever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lazepoo (Post 5526579)

The rams had a top 10 D IIRC

The point is that you need parity for both sides of the ball and that you can't have a top offense without a top quarterback, ever.

4th in points, 6th in yards.

Quote:

Again, no one has ever posed any form of a cogent argument about why Stafford or Sanchez aren't elite quarterback prospects.

I'm going to admit to playing devil's advocate here -- while I'd prefer the Chiefs to trade down, I don't see them finding anyone with which to do so. Thus, given the players out there at #3, Sanchez makes the most sense, IMHO.

With that being typed, people have, in fact, made more than cogent arguments against both of the QBs. But some come up with excuses or just ignore those arguments. For example:

-- Stafford has shown little ability to read defenses well and makes bad decisions with the ball, relying on his arm strength above making the smart play. He was on a team good enough to be a pre-season #1, yet looked average most of the season (the Ga. Tech and bowl games being the notable exceptions). Not great consistency for such a highly-touted player.

-- Sanchez has just 16 collegiate starts, and only nine QBs with 30 or fewer college starts have ever been selected in the first round. Out of those nine, only one has been moderately successful (Drew Brees). Regardless of schemes, it seems as though having so few starts leads to a lack of experience in a number of areas: clock management, how to handle repeated pressure situations, the expectations year after year, etc.

Again, I'm all good with Sanchez being the pick, and wouldn't lose my mind if the Chiefs got Stafford. There simply aren't any other options that make sense at the #3, given the Chiefs' needs.

But to say that no one has brought up good arguments is a bit of a strech, IMHO. They have been made -- some just can't manage to see them for whatever reason.

MM
~~:shrug:

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcbubb (Post 5526538)

I didn't read the whole original post since I figured it was mostly name-calling, but the paragraph you quoted about the Eagles caught my attention. If the argument is that the Eagles at that time lacked a franchise quarterback, I would have to disagree with that pretty strongly. Randall Cunningham was a beast for those Eagles teams, an absolute beast. If the Eagles weren't successful, it certainly wasn't because of a lack of talent at quarterback. The problem for them was that they didn't have any talent on offense outside of quarterback, other than maybe Fred Barnett.

That's a nitpick, and may or may not be relevant to the rest of the post, but I had to mention it since I'm a big Randall Cunningham fan.

Okay, I'm reading the part about the teams with great defenses. Three of those four teams won Super Bowls. I'm fine with winning just one Super Bowl. I have no problem with that.

I agree that a franchise quarterback is the best way to get there, and to get multiple Super Bowls, but the teams with great defenses seem to do okay as well.

he was making a point by using a team that had a great defense and not a great offense as a reason not to build the defense.

I was using the same type of reasoning for not building an offense. My point is that great teams are the ones that win superbowls.

that may sound simple, but you don't get there by reaching for players and drafting them higher than they should be drafted.

Most people who claim that a QB should be drafted claim that it is impossible to trade down from for example 7 spots from #3 to #10 because by the trade chart that is the value of an entire draft. But if you reach for a player like Sanchez and take him at #3, then that's what you are giving up (an entire draft) because Sanchez will not be taken from #4 to #9. Those teams don't need QBs and he has not evaluated high enough for someone like the Jets to move up from 17 to 9 to get him.

You don't build superbowl teams by reaching. Especially when you are reaching the value of an entire draft. that's how peterson drafted on several of his busts. he drafted for need and reached for a player.

Sanchez is Matt Leinart with a little stronger of an arm and much less experience.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcbubb (Post 5527011)

he was making a point by using a team that had a great defense and not a great offense as a reason not to build the defense.

This is such a gross misrepresentation that it's not even funny.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 5527148)

This is such a gross misrepresentation that it's not even funny.

No kidding.

Hamas, that's a really well thought-out post. As people should expect from me, I'm never satisfied with "slam dunk" arguments. That's the only place where I differ. I like the idea of drafting Stafford or Sanchez, but I don't think either are slam dunks. PS--I hope people will actually read what I write and not misinterpret and exaggerate my points, as seems to be pretty common....

Stafford has all the measurables. It's hard to find a negative on him. But most people don't think he'll fall to the Chiefs. If there was ever a negative, it's that completion %--way too low for a QB of his ability and experience level.

I actually like Sanchez better than Stafford. I think Sanchez has the fiery leadership that I don't see as much in Stafford. But you'd be hard-pressed to find an expert or scout that isn't concerned that he's under-prepared. I'm cool with drafting Sanchez, but you have to realize that it would probably be a mistake to let him start from game 1--he'll need a little more time to develop.

As for the rest of the arguments, I think a lot of it underestimates how difficult it is to find a franchise QB. While you talk a lot about "success rates", there's little talk of failure rates. I mentioned this in a thread a few weeks ago and got blasted, but ChiefsCountry's stats are flawed in that it fails to mention that 100% of first round QBs get a chance to start in the NFL. And probably well over half of them get 2-3 years to develop, even if they struggle. I would venture to guess that under 25% of 2nd rounders and below are given a chance to start, and well under 10% are given more than 2-3 years to develop. As I said in that earlier thread, first round QBs deservedly get more chances to start because they are scouted as having more talent and even if they were given the same opportunities as a 4th rounder, they'd still have a far higher success rate, but the statistic above assumes that all 2nd round QBs and below are given an opportunity to start and that they're allowed more than 2-3 years to truly develop. We all know that's far from the case. The appropriate answer is: if all QBs were given the same chances to start and the same 2-3 years to develop, first round QBs would likely succeed at a higher rate. However, because that doesn't happen, there is no way for us to know how MUCH higher that rate would be. We can only speculate. Those numbers above are flawed because it assumes that all things are equal.

I agree to some extent on the spread, but I don't agree that we know just yet what Thigpen is capable of in a pro-style offense. I completely agree that if he can't run a pro-style offense in at about half of the offensive sets, then we can give up on him completely. Either way, I think most scouts will tell you that Stafford or Sanchez shouldn't be starting from game 1 anyway--so I think Tyler has a chance to prove if he deserves to keep that job and he will have a LOT to prove.

As for the point about defense, I think a major part that you're leaving out is that many franchise QBs are built because of the defense that supports them. I don't think Eli would be a franchise QB if he didn't have an insane amount of talent on the defensive line to support his team, and I don't think Roethlisberger would have made it that far in 2009 had he had a poor defense to support him. Those teams benefited big time from having elite defenses--I think there's a good reason why Brees and Manning have struggled to make Super Bowls in spite of being the best QBs in the league.

Those are my thoughts. Again, let me say that I like the idea of Sanchez as a QB. But I'm arguing against the idea that it's a slam dunk decision.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 5527193)

I agree with much of what you say here, and I think if you paid close attention that many of us who are strongly in favor of drafting Sanchez (I like Sanchez better than Stafford for the same reason as you) are also in favor of allowing drafted QB to learn from the sideline.

And yes, teams win championships, but if you can find your QB and build a team around him on both sides of the ball, you improve your chances of consistently competing for years.