I guess another thing that is on my mind about this issue isn't the name of the player, its that if we are going to develop a young QB, it's going to take TIME. It won't happen in preseason, it won't happen in Sept, probably won't even happen by december, it might take a couple of seasons before that young QB starts playing like the QB everyone was wanting.

I don't think too many KC fans can live with that scenario. I read (and responded to) on the Planet in the last week where someone said they wrote Thigpen off in NY because he couldn't take the team down the field in the last minute for the win - in his second career start. John Horseface probably couldn't have done it in his second start.

It took Trent Green a full season and into his second before he settled down and quit throwing INTs every other throw.

The Titans had their high first round draft pick QB - booed him off the field, Vince couldn't handle it and went mental.


In KC, if we were to draft Stafford, this place would light up in celebration. Then, when he starts to struggle, people are going to start murmmering. If he's struggling in the regular season and turning the ball over people are going to be complaining. If he keeps it up, some of the same people bashing Thigpen will be asking for him to play. And, by the time the year is out, many will be disgusted with Stafford, Haley, Pioli, and Clark.

It takes time for any player to make the jump to the NFL, QB is probably the one that takes the longest and requires the most patience. No matter who Clark, Pioli, and Haley (or is that Pioli, Clark, and Haley) think is our best option at QB, if it is a young QB, we've got to be patient when they make mistakes, and if they lose games for us, oh well. If they are still losing games for us in 3-4 years, we didn't pick the right guy.

I call bullshit on this "given half a season to perform" bullshit.

If you have talent, you get more time.

Ask Matt Schaub, Trent Edwards and David Garrard, as some examples.

Guys like Bulger and Hasselebeck bounced around, but got their chance. They kept showing enough to stick around, and not wash out of the league completely.

Guys like Chris Simms and Brodie Croyle would have gotten several seasons had they been able to stay healthy.

You're making excuses.

I have no problem with that. You are looking at a guy you think will make it, not just hoping for a QB selection.

If I had to take one of the two, Stafford would be it.

But again, those numbers are skewed. So you can't put a "period" behind the statement simply because the numbers are available. Yes, first round picks are more likely to be franchise QBs. But again, I'd be interested to review the average number of starts every first round QB has had. My guess is that the majority of first round QBs have had at least 2-3 seasons to develop.

No 3rd round QB would EVER get the amount of time to develop that Eli Manning got. I understand the reasons why. But if they don't get the same opportunities, it's not a fair comparison to say that a 3rd round pick is 100 times less likely to succeed than a 1st round QB.

I understand what you're trying to say. Really, I do.

But my point is that there's a reason why these guys aren't given as many opportunities; teams don't like slamming their dicks up against a wall.

Every once in a great while, some team's dick punctures the dry wall on a miraculous wet spot, known as Tom Brady, and unbelievable jizzing ensues, which causes all teams (and fans) to think, "If we'd only been slamming our dicks against the wall. We, too, could be pumping gallons of jizz."

But this is flawed logic. 9.9 times out of 10, you're just going to get a sore dick.

Man, I just don't see anyway to classify Harrington as an average NFL QB. He has been a monumental bust in the 3 spot IMO.

And on the Anderson thing, here is my point. In 2007, he had a really nice year. People really didn't give a shit because he was a fluke, 6th round pick. That will probably all come true, although Mangini says he hasn't decided who will start between him and Quinn.

Statistically, he was very comparable to Ryan's 08. No one even gives that a shot to be a fluke with Ryan. I don't think it will be either, but being drafted in the first round gives a QB so much more credence.

Nice backtrack.

You're not fooling anyone.

Now, I can agree that the best odds of finding a franchise QB is to use first round picks to get one. However, the question for Chiefs fans (and Pioli, of course) is whether or not any quarterback that will be available at #3 in this year's draft is going to be that franchise quarterback. If you think the answer is "yes", you draft the quarterback. However, if you think the answer is "no", you draft another position. Taking a quarterback at #3 just because you're there is something a Matt Millen would do.

Frankly, I'm stunned that people here actually attack others for having such an obvious position.

Read my post on it, slick.

I'm fine with everything in this post.

Lucky for us, there are two high-quality QB prospects in this draft. I'm great with either at the #3 spot.

Pastor, I'll promise you this:

We could draft Stafford or Sanchez and they could be worse than the love child of David Carr and Akili Smith - and I'll NEVER be asking for Thigpen to come back into the game.

You're right, though. This fanbase on the whole has no patience for any player to pan out, QB included.

Look at all the people declaring Glenn Dorsey a bust after 1 season.

You take the guy, and if he busts, you go back out and try again.

But without a true franchise QB, we'll never win anything.

LMAO LMAO

There is nothing to disagree with here.

They're not excuses. You throw out a statistic claiming for an absolute fact that first round QBs succeed at a higher rate, but you leave out the part about how they are given a ton more opportunities than a lower-round pick will get.

Like I said, yes, first round picks would succeed at a higher rate no matter what. But leaving out the part about how almost every first round QB is guaranteed to start at least 2-3 years if they stay healthy means that the claim is highly exaggerated. You're comparing apples to oranges--you're comparing guys who were given opportunities to guys who have not.

I did, and we ALL know what you meant.

You should go back to the kiddie table over at WPI and quit wasting the grown-ups' time.

All I'm saying is that this isn't really about trends or which rounds it's best to get what position, it's about whether people think Sanchez, Stafford, Thigpen or somebody else should be behind center. The rest of the stuff is just window dressing.

And I think there's even an undercurrent argument about whether the team even needs a franchise quarterback. It's almost like people don't want to say what they really think, so they're cloaking it in all this other stuff.

See my beautiful dick-slamming post.

No one wants a sore dick. All QB's are not created equally. Time is not going to heal all the wounds of rounds 3-7.

Hope in one hand, shit in the other. See which fills up faster.

Body Builder huh? I'm really needing to start working out. My excuse is 2 jobs, and one of them is late night, but it is just that, an excuse. I have the time. I even started two months ago gained some good muscle, and then just fell off. Any pionters on how to stick with ti. Nevermind. I know it's just a choice, and discipline thing. I've gotta keep trying. I spent the first 26 yrs of my life doing hard labor. Then I go an education, and I sit on my ass all day. I've gotten tired, and weak. I MUST KEEP DOING IT.

Uh, look at the list in my post.

There are plenty of late round guys that are getting, or have gotten plenty of time.

You're trying to say that all late round picks get 6 games max to show something, and that's absolute bullshit.

You also seem to be implying that is every late round slapdick was given 3 years to prove himself, the numbers would be different.

I'm not buying it.

You can give a guy like Jeff Smoker 10 years, and he's never going to turn into Peyton Manning.

All you've done in the meantime is waste 9 years.

What are you, about 5 years old? Eli Manning has been a major disappointment throughout most of his career, but I put him in the "stud" category to be generous with my ratings of the first round quarterbacks, and you're going to bitch at me because I put Anderson in the 'successful' category? Man, you're an ass.

I'm not saying that all late round QBs do. If I did, that was not my intention. My point is that most late round QBs will never get a chance to start unless a first round pick QB gets hurt, and most late round picks are only given usually a half season to show any kind of success.

Schaub and Garrard got extra playing time because they were impressive in backup roles, after their starting QB got injured. If any of them put up Eli Manning rookie numbers, no way in hell would they ever get more than a season to prove themselves. Just because you point out a few examples, does not make it a trend. Those are only a few of the lower-round pick QBs who were given a chance to play in extended time.

Me too, but I think Stafford will be good as well.

There's no way Stafford gets by Detroit.


(Unless you can convince the Chiefs to trade LJ to Detroit for that top spot, then convince Detroit to do it)

I'm thinking this may be the first time in a decade or longer that that may not be the case. With a new GM and a new head coach taking so much of the focus, I don't think there will be as much pressure or expectation on a new QB.

I bet if a high draft pick came in and had a season (statistically) that fell somewhere between Joe Flacco and Matt Ryan (ie 2500-3500 yards, 60% completions, decent TD/INT ratio), there wouldn't be much in the way of complaint at all, even if the team didn't win a lot of games.

But I've been wrong before.

Thanks for confirming.

I knew you came over from WPI.

And how do you consider Manning a disappointment?

Never under 3,200 yards, and never more INT's than TD's in his 4 years as a starter.

Oh, and he has a SB ring too.

THere is a better chance of us drafting both Stafford and Sanchez at #3 than Detroit trading out of #1 for LJ.

No, I read it, and I recognize that first round QBs will likely succeed at a higher rate. But why is it that QBs bust at such an astronomically higher rate than other positions, including left tackle and DE, which are also difficult to draft for? It's because DEs can still get a chance to play, even if they're not a starter. Many of them eventually prove themselves. Most lower round QBs leave the NFL without taking a single meaningful snap in their NFL careers. My point is, how can you claim that QB was a bust without ever seeing how he would perform in a real NFL game? You can't. All you can do is make the ASSUMPTION that because he was a lower round QB, he wouldn't have succeeded anyway. And yes, OTW brings up that there are some lower round QBs who do get opportunities, but those are the exception, not the rule. If we had 20 QBs in the lower round starting in the NFL, then we can make an apples to apples comparison.

The point is not to say that lower round picks have high success rates. Or it does not deny that they are riskier to support. But OTW would have you believe that first round picks are astronomically better bets to become franchise QBs because the numbers overwhelmingly support that assumption. My claim is that you simply do not KNOW what most lower round picks are capable of unless you put them out on the field and you give them a full season of work to prove themselves. I understand the reason why most teams won't do that. But I can guarantee you that the success rate of lower round picks would skyrocket if they were all given a chance to start for the 2-3 years that first round Qbs are typically given.

Among hardcore fans like you and I?

Of course not, we'd be thrilled. We understand it's a progression, and will take time.

Among the casual/True Fans?

Go check the other boards, you'll understand where I'm coming from.

Reports were saying the NY fans weren't too happy with Eli leading up to the SB run year. That may be where he gets it.


NY fans are pretty tough to please too.

New York fans are reeruned, but that's for another thread.

You know these dumbasses will pin all wins, and losses on the QB.

Losses? I agree.

Wins?

Hell, we have people HERE that don't give Roethlisberger any credit for winning 2 SB's, much less the mouthbreathers on the other boards.

There's a guy on one of the other boards who thinks Trent Green is better than Carson Palmer, and that Sage Rosenfels would be a backup to Thigpen.

I think this kind of dipshittery speaks for itself:

http://i44.tinypic.com/20acutw.jpg

Genius.... I don't have anything to do with WPI. I've never even visited the place, although I've read some of the threads where you people have pounded that site.

Now, let's compare Anderson and Manning:

Anderson: 43 touchdowns, 35 interceptions, which is a 1.228/1 ratio
Manning: 98 touchdowns, 74 interceptions, which is a 1.324/1 ratio

Anderson's career passer rating is 75.1, Manning's is 76.1

Anderson's career average is 6.7 yards per attempt, Manning's is 6.4 ypa

Anderson's career TD% is 4.6, Manning's is 4.3
Anderson's career INT% is 3.8, Manning's is 3.2

Their stats are pretty comparable, and Anderson's done it on a far worse team.

No, their stats AREN'T comparable, because Manning has done that over FOUR seasons, and has won a CHAMPIONSHIP, while Anderson has done that over 1 season.

Here's Eli's stats:

http://i39.tinypic.com/2u8c8s2.jpg

Know what I see there?

Consistency, and a guy who's taken a beating. (And a Championship)

Here's Anderson's:

http://i41.tinypic.com/t5g293.jpg

Know what I see there?

1 solid season, sandwiched between 2 garbage seasons.

Sorry, but you have to be missing some crucial part of the critical thinking process if you think Eli Manning has been a disappointment, and Derek Anderson has been a success.

And with that, I'm off to bed.

I don't know that I'd want Eli Manning or Derek Anderson either one.

I would consider Manning a disappointment, for what that's worth. I think he's been pedestrian to this point in his career, although he showed some signs in '08, at least statistically. I've never been particularly impressed by his play, and I think the Chargers made out like bandits on that deal.

Eli Manning was a top 5 pick. His stats are on par with Derek Anderson. He's had more bad to mediocre seasons, consistently. That's supposed to be something impressive? Also, you keep avoiding that other season of Manning's, where he did throw more interceptions than touchdowns and he completed fewer than 50% of his passes.

If the Chiefs quarterback was putting up Manning numbers, you'd be calling for his head. Hell, Thigpen threw for 18 touchdowns and only 12 interceptions this season, had a 4.2% touchdown rate, a 3.1% interception rate, averaged 6.2 yards per attempt, had a rating of 74.7 and people here want to run him out of town on a rail.

Again, match up the numbers:

Thigpen threw 18/12 for a 1.5/1 td/int ratio compared to Manning's career average of 1.324/1

Thigpen had a 4.2% TD rate compared to Manning's 4.3%
Thigpen had a 3.1 INT rate compared to Manning's 3.2%

Thigpen had a 74.7 passer rating compared to Manning's 76.1

I don't like him for two reasons, off the top of my head. His completion percentage and his height. I'd probably throw in his mechanics as a third.

I don't think he's going to be more than a backup at this level, over the long term. I thought that before this season, and I still think it. I just don't see a whole lot of upside there. I would like to keep him around , just in case he does turn out to be more, and I think he could be a servicable backup long-term, but I wouldn't want to pin the future of the franchise on him. Just too big a gamble for me.

I wasn't impressed with him, either, and I do think that the Chiefs need to look elsewhere to find their quarterback. The question really comes down to how you feel about this year's quarterbacks. Both of the two most talked about choices have major question marks.

I can't put links in because I don't have enough posts, but there's a rotoworld article that talks about this. It was written by Evan Silva as a draft preview for this upcoming draft. The money quote, with regards to Stafford and Sanchez, is probably this one:

so we need to look elsewhere for a qb, just not these two qbs because they are going in the 1st round and we dont want to draft a qb in the 1st round because drafting qbs in the 1st round isnt as good as drafting qbs in other rounds? is that right?

true

I'd be less hesitant with Stafford than with Sanchez. I just don't think Sanchez has enough experience. One year starting is not enough of a sample size for a top-5 pick, there's too much he's going to have to learn on the job at the professional level, and, while I don't remember the specifics enough to post in any detail, I think history demonstrates that quarterbacks that leave early without a certain number of starts under their belt generally fail. In any case, with Sanchez you're making a shot in the dark based on projection and potential instead of actual production, and I just don't think that's a wise move at the top of the first round.

I don't think you draft a quarterback later than the first round if you intend for him to be your starter. You may end up with one that exceeds expectations and starts, but I think if you're looking for a qbotf in the draft, you do it in the first round. That's where the franchise quarterbacks are. Later picks are for backups and players with flaws that you try to work out in time.

If drafting a quarterback is not an option, then you have to find a way to trade for one. There's the obvious talk of Cassel, but I'm not all that enthusiastic about him. Maybe there's another alternative. I don't think there's going to be a solution on the free agent market.

However, all that said, for the first time in my tenure as a chiefs fan (10 years now), I have enough faith in the front office that I'll gladly acquiesce to whatever decision they make in the end. If they see enough in Sanchez or in Stafford or in Cassel or even in Thigpen, then, well, I have more faith in that decision being a good one long term than I ever have.

He had almost 400 yards rushing in 11 games. If he plays the entire year I could see him having 550 easy. He is the white Michael Vick except he can throw. Well sort of. Just because his QB rating isn't sexy doesn't mean he's horrible. If it's not there he can make things happen with his legs. Not saying he's the answer for sure at QB, but even if we draft a QB first round I'd give the reigns to start the year unless he just can't run the new offense. If this team would of had Tom Brady they would of still not won more than 4 games.

That Lewin thing is a GUESS, just like anything else he tried to come up with a guessrate formula it is not flawless or correct all the time.

And please stop with Derek Anderson he got himself benched.

Only morons believe that fantasy stats somehow correlate directly to the effectiveness of a quarterback.

Actually, he did it the very first time he set foot on an NFL field:

In a show-stopping performance that blazed across the Denver sky last Friday night, Bronco Quarterback John Elway established himself—in exactly four minutes, 22 seconds—as a phenom of extraordinary proportions. That's how long it took the NFL's most heralded rookie in eons, and at $l million a year its highest-paid player, to grab the Broncos—2-7 last year and trailing in this game 7-3—by the throat and march them, nay, stampede them, 75 yards into the Seattle end zone for the winning touchdown. The drive took 10 plays—Elway's first 10 as a pro—and during it the quarterback completed five of six passes, in the rain.

If he keeps this up, he'll be a legend by September and eligible for sainthood by October.

August 15, 1983
Douglas S. Looney
Sports Illustrated

http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.c...1123/index.htm

It doesn't take that long to show something...

it can be telling
Posted via Mobile Device

I personally prefer game film over fantasy stats when evaluating a player, but that's just me.

I guess he did... hey, wait, that coulda been beginner's luck, it was his first game, could he have done it in his second was the question

And could he have done it with this team and Herm at the helm????


:):)

QFT.

****!

It seems that the majority of the fan base would love the QB of the Chiefs to lead all of the Fantasy Football categories instead of actually winning on the football field.

Only "True Fans" would take Derek Anderson over Eli Manning or Drew Brees over Ben Rothlisberger.

What the ****??

Who in this thread said they would take Anderson over Manning?

ROFL

Super Bowl last year, 12-4 record this year. 21 TD's, 10 INT's.

I guess his career is over at age 28.

Yeah people don't realize it takes time to develop most 1st round QB's.

As good as Big Ben is, I'd like to see Brees in the Pittsburgh offense.

Nonsense.

Trent Edwards is getting "time" to develop. Brodie Croyle was given "time to develop". Jeff Hostetler was given "time to develop". Chris Redman was finally cut by Baltimore but won some games for Atlanta in 2007. Chris Simms ring a bell?

The bottom line is that you're confusing "time to develop" with first round talent, meaning that Manning was ready to play immediately. Sure, he made mistakes but he wasn't so far behind the curve that he held back the team from competing.

And in year four, he won a Super Bowl. So I'd say that the decision to start him mid-way into his rookie year paid off handsomely.

Because bottom line: Is that why they play the game? To win the Super Bowl?

Can Bree's take a hit? Because that's what Big Ben repeatedly does....and still gets back up.

And apparently, you don't listen outside of the draft forum either:

Brees would absolutely be destroyed behind the Pittsburgh line, throwing to the Pittsburgh receivers.

If Ben was sacked 46 times, how many times do you think Brees would have been sacked? 60? What do you think his completion percentage would have been with defenders in his face one each and every play?

No, he can't.

He's 6' tall and weighs 200 pounds on a good day.

He'd be on IR quicker than Brodie Croyle behind the Steelers line.

I'd say he can after taking that hit against Denver and coming back from arthroscopic shoulder surgery.

Drew Brees has started every game except one during the past five seasons. It's safe to say he can take a hit.

Here's more: Brees had almost 1,300 pass attempts during the past two seasons. It's safe to say he took plenty of shots.

Uh, no. It's not.

Brees has been sacked 29 times combined in 2007/2008.

There were 11 QB that we sacked more THIS YEAR ALONE.

Only Jay Cutler and Kerry Collins were sacked fewer times in 2008.

In Brees' 3 years with the Saints, he's been sacked a whopping 47 times.

Or 1 fewer time than Ben Roethlisberger was sacked THIS YEAR.

Just admit that Brees has taken his share of hits. All the Saints do is throw.

Brees wouldn't't be sacked 40+ times in Pittsburgh because he doesn't hold onto the ball way too ****ing long like Ben does. Pittsburgh's line isn't good, but Ben is responsible for a lot of those sacks.

[QUOTE=OnTheWarpath58;5478376]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.[/QUOTE]

this post is spot on, no matter where a player is drafted they could end up sucking, you just made my point thank you

He doesn't.

The stats don't bear that out.

At all.

That offense is predicated on getting the ball out quickly, and that is reflected in the statistics for the number of sacks he's taken. He's not exactly Michael Vick back there, making plays with his feet.

He throws a lot, therefore he must get hit a lot is a ridiculously poor argument.

They run completely different offenses.

The Saints run quick timing patterns, getting the ball out quickly.

And you can say BR holds the ball too long, and he does. But how many sacks has he avoided my being mobile in the pocket?

At minimum, it's a wash, and I'd bet if you charted every pass play this year, you'd find he avoided more sacks that he caused by holding the ball too long.

Okay, the Anderson/Manning debate was one thing, but Brees (who I've never liked, to be honest), has been one of the best QBs in the NFL the last 5 years, particularly the last 3 in NO. He's as much a franchise QB as Roethlisberger is. He'd have been a 1st round draft pick if he was 3 inches taller, he's got all the rest of the skill set (and it's not like he was drafted late, 1st pick of the 2nd round, 32nd overall).

(And what's he doing in the Thigpen discussion, anyway? Because he's short? He's about as far from Thigpen in style of play as you can get - he's a pocket-passer with a high completion percentage, not a running QB who chucks it up for grabs)

So, what's the consensus?

How many people think Thigpen is a franchise QB?

really? you are talking to guys who act as though thigpen cost us games this year, nevermind that our defense was horrible

You can't question Brees' toughness knowing he has almost 1,300 attempts during the past two seasons. He has almost 400 more attempts than Big Ben over that time.

I agree. I don't know how anyone can dispute the fact that Ben holds the ball too long. I think even Tomlin has said as much.

yeah lets just give a 1st rounder time:rolleyes:

they also throw the deep ball as much as any team in the league

and then to use sacks as the only indication of how many times brees was HIT, not sacked hit. a qb can get hit no BLASTED and it not be a sack right?

Yeah, I can question his toughness, when you're trying to equate it to him throwing a lot.

The stats bear this out: He's near or at the top when it comes to attempts over the past 3 years, and he's near or at the bottom when it comes to getting sacked.

Peyton Manning throws the ball a lot as well, and he's rarely hit. (Interestingly enough, he's been sacked 49 times in the past 3 years)

He throws a lot, therefore he gets hit a lot is not a logically sound argument.

do you actually think that sacks tell the whole story?

I think he's a project, not a franchise QB. If he ever does develop into into a quality starter, it'll be with another franchise years down the road. I'm thinking his upper limit is Rich Gannon, Trent Green, Steve Beuerlein, Jake Delhomme, someone that takes years to grow into it.

(No, I'm not saying that's what he is, I'm saying that's the best case scenario...)

But, either way, he's not a franchise quarterback. I don't think you build a team around Tyler Thigpen, or hand him a 100 million dollar contract, or make him the face of the Chiefs.

I think the whole idea of Thigpen as QBotF is the same kind of fascination that had people rooting for Mike Maslowski as a linebacker or Marc Boerigter as a receiver. It's the attraction to the underdog story.

Agreed. The Sanchez fanatics are going too far to make their point. Some of their points are legit, but sometimes they deny established truths about the league. That's what I don't like about the Planet lately. And I think the Chiefs should draft Sanchez.

me too, but to just look at one side is hilarious. in what 1300 pas attempts and to only get "hit" 29 times is just asinine to say. thats using one side to show youre right while conveniently forgetting that you dont have to be sacked to take a hit

They tell more of the story than ASSUMING that because he throws a lot, he gets hit a lot.

Peyton Manning rarely gets hit. Anyone who watches the Colts knows this.

Yet he throws the ball 500+ times a year, and is always near the top of the attempts list.

Shy of breaking down film of every Brees attempt, the stats, and knowing the offensive system the Saints use (interestingly, very similar to the Colts) have to be used to contract an argument.

But you can't sit here and assume that he gets hit a lot, FOR NO OTHER REASON than he throws a lot. That's terribly flawed logic.