Missed this comment from Clark on QBs
 

just replayed it on 810, from petro interview

Clark talked about the fact that the Patriots drafted a QB almost every year, and went on to say "I'm sure Scott Pioli's teams will draft a QB every year...and we'll hit on one of them and that will be our franchise QB..."


2 obvious points:

1. Clark gets it - we have to have a QB, and we have to draft QBs to find the right one...doesn't mean we'll take one at #3, but it is a clear change from Carl...

2. Thigpen is not our franchise QB

Stafford about to speak on College FOotball Live on ESPN.

I really like Thiggpy. Only if he had a good D, it would have been a different story.

I would love Thiggy to pan out but he seemed a little hot and cold. Maybe with a better QB coach and HC he could get better but he doesn't quite look like a franchise QB to me.

If only he could throw a football where he wanted to 15 yards downfield.

He's got everything going for him but the ability to throw the football. I just don't get the Thigpen people.

I think Stafford could be the most solid prospect in this class and I'm just not sold on Sanchez yet. With that being said, Thigpen's upside would make it an extremely difficult decision for Pioli. Do we wait a year and see if Tyler matures or do we go ahead and draft a qb? Is this another year of drafting the best available player?

I'm not totally opposed to trading down for two 1st rounders either. Do any teams have two 1st round picks this year?

With number three I think you have to draft the best available....if you wanna draft position, trade down.

Yeah, this seems clear to me, we ARE NOT drafting a quarterback in this 1st round of this draft.

I don't think we'll take one at #3, but I bet in a later round we do.

Does a good D somehow improve his gross inaccuracy?

This. When I was 24 I could throw a better deep ball.

Gross inaccuracy is pretty harsh. I'd say inconsistant accuracy. He's had some pretty good games for accuracy. It does, however seem to suffer as the game goes on. I kept waiting for Thiggy to lead that 4th quarter drive for a victory and he kept coming up short. That's a pretty worrisome shortcoming.

Back in 1982... I could throw a football a quarter mile.

I could throw a football clear over them mountains.

Tidbit from a Kiper chat:

Derek (Kansas City, MO): The Chiefs hold the #3 pick and now have a competent GM to use the pick in Scott Pioli. Pioli never used a high draft-pick on a QB in New England, so do you think he will take Matt Stafford with the #3 pick, or address O-line or defense help?

Mel Kiper: If you look at Pioli, Tyler Thigpen was a late round pick and they hit with Brady and Cassel in the late rounds. They have to evaluate Tyler Thigpen. They have needs at DE. They did not make up for the loss of Jared Allen. The WR position, they have Bowe, but they need a little more help. They need help on the second line at LB. In Pioli's case, if he thinks Thigpen is right for the job, then he can address those other positions.

http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=24555

this. BPA at #3. or trade down.

I don't think you can extrapolate from what happened in New England that Pioli doesn't like to draft QBs high. They had Bledsoe and then Brady, they never had any need to spend a high pick on a QB.

No but when you're scoring roughly 24pts a game, with a good defense that usually wins you football games.


Funny how some still dont realize this even after the DV years.

If our D held on to the 25+ points he helped score every game. i don't think we would be having this conversation.

I really do believe that Flacco is a slightly above average QB and it's his D that's lifting him.

Thiggy is going to ****ing tear it up next season.

That said, we should draft somebody in case he doesn't.

I would like to draft a QBOTF type and turn Thiggy into a slot receiver ala Wes Welker.

Puke

The KC night life is full of hotties.

Have you seen Flacco's deep ball? Yeah, Thig has wet dreams about it...

I agree, just doesnt need to be a top 3 pick. We have other HUGE glaring needs.

Flacco has a ****in cannon that even Croyle wish he even had.

That 25-30 yd out pass he threw was ****in nuts. thats pretty much equivalent to darting a ball 45-50 yds

When he was talking about taking a QB virtually annually, he didn't in any way infer that meant drafting a QB high. He mentioned Pioli finding Brady in the 6th and Cassel in the 7th. I got the impression, in that light, that he was talking about taking a flyer on a mid- to late-round day pick every year, which we've already been doing (well, technically we've been trading for other teams low round draft picks, like Thigpen, Smoker, etc). Hopefully Pioli does a better job at it.

He did, however, state the position is an important one.

As for Thigpen, I doubt Pioli even knows what Pioli thinks about him at this point. Much less has a clue who we're taking at 3.

Um, QB IS a HUGE glaring need. :rolleyes:

Flacco and Thigpen put up almost identical numbers.

Flacco: 257/428, 2971 Yards 14 TD 12 INT 80.3 QB rating
Thigpen: 230/420 2608 Yards 18 TD 14 INT 76.0 QB rating

Thigpen wasn't the starter for half the season. Flacco was a 1st round pick who was the starter coming out of camp. The only real difference between the two of them seems to be that Thigpen can scramble, and Flacco has a deep ball. Based on those two sets of numbers, and Joe Flacco's supporting cast vs Thigpen's, can you really say there's a huge difference between the two?

I feel much more comfortable with Pioli drafting a QB in the later rounds than Carl. I think it's safe to say he's proven that they can be found.

Except that in the Ravens offense, he'd be asked to play under center.

Uh, do you remember those results with Thigpen at the helm?

Yes, yes, he's a circus. Give him an off-season with competent coaching, draft the best LB/DE you can find, and find a QB project in the later rounds. Brady was a 6th rounder, Drew Brees was the last pick of the 2nd round, you don't NEED to burn a top 3 pick on a QB, especially when you have so many other glaring needs.

I don't see what all the pro-Thigpen peoples problems are with us drafting a QB. If Thigpen is worth his salt as a starter he shouldn't have a problem beating someone out in training camp.

I don't have a problem drafting a QB; I think it would be foolish not to. But when you draft a guy with the number 3 pick, any 'competition' is transparent and laughable; the guy you give 30 million in guarantees to is obviously going to start eventually. Take a qb in the second or third round and watch what happens when you have competent coaching.

And Thigpen will probably look a lot better with an overhauled line east of Albert and Waters.

Statistics are useful only to the extent that they can be used to predict future results. This tends to work alright in baseball, not so much in football.

What is far more useful is examining how Tyler Thigpen actually performed. Even balls he threw that were caught tended to be behind his guy and/or forced into TG. He's not a good passer, at all. Additionally, as a passer, he regressed over 400 attempts. He did not improve a single bit as the season went along. The stats reflect that, but his actual play to play performance does a far better job showing that than any raw numbers could.

That's not always true. Didn't Phillip Rivers backup Drew Brees briefly, Jay Cutler didn't immediately start over Jake Plummer. There's plenty of examples of first round QBs not starting immediately.

These are the QBs drafted by Scott at NE (and where they were drafted)

2000 Tom Brady 199
2001 none
2002 Rohan Davey 117
2003 Kliff Kingsbury 201
2004 none
2005 Matt Cassel 230
2006 none
2007 none
2008 Kevin O'Connell 94

I would say that is closer to every other year.

one future HOF and another very solid pick who some expect will be traded to the Chiefs; 2 busts and a TBD.

Palmer and Kitna as well.

Using Tom Brady as example is foolish. Complete and utter foolishness. How many QB's in the history of the NFL were selected in the 6th round that didn't amount to a hill of beans?

In hindsight, Tom Brady would have been the number one overall pick in 2000, bar none. He's a Hall Of Famer in waiting. The same goes for Joe Montana. Just because Montana was chosen in the third round doesn't automatically make ANY third round choice a potential Hall of Famer.

Stupid, stupid comparison.

Drew Brees was the FIRST pick of the 2nd round, not the last. Furthermore, his slide was predicated on the fact that the teams above him did NOT need a QB.

The Chiefs NEED the most talented QB they can find and if it's Stafford or Sanchez, either will be the finest QB that the Chiefs have ever drafted in ANY round.

yep he can be our ryan leaf....

Oh yes lets dont take the QB bc of the bust factor. Its about 70% that you will get at least a Pro Bowl QB with a top 5 pick.

There's no way that Sanchez or Stafford will go the way of Leaf.

Regardless of when they're chosen and by whom.

That guy was and is mental.

Nah, the fact that 25 SBs were won by 1st rounders is the anomoly (and 3 others by Staubach and Thiesmann who would've been 1st rounders but for the Navy and baseball respectively). Dayton Moore's an idiot as well, he should trade Zack Greinke for a lefty that throws 82 mph, Jaime Moyer's been doing it for 20 years.

It pains me to see people point out Tom Brady as a reason to pass on 1st round QBs when the results are so readily apparent for anyone that isn't a reerun.

It would be foolish if your GM didn't strike gold TWICE. Matt Cassel was drafted in the 7th round. And while Matt Cassel is no Tom Brady he is probably the greatest 7th round QB in history.

Where does Nate Davis project in the draft? I realize how Whitlockish this sounds, but the guy has a nice frame and seems to have some real potential as a QB in the NFL. If he was available 2nd round, we could possibly trade down out of #3, pick up a defensive playmaker in the first, perhaps a right tackle in the extra pick, and Nate Davis with our 2nd round selection. I like Maualuga, that guy's a monster.

Yay! I can't wait for the 7th round of the 2009 draft!

Woo-hoo!



:rolleyes:

Honestly I am for grabbing a QB every other year or more until you get a franchise guy..

The key is to make them earn it..

Say we get stafford or sanchez, they are going to have to beat out Thigpin to get the starting gig.. As long as there is competition I do not care who starts..

IMO it would be foolish to pass on Stafford or Sanchez if they are there at #3 just to pick up a few more players..

2nd round QB's dont win Super Bowls. Take the QB in the first, fix the defense with the rest.

hi Carl...thanks for 20 years of failure all based on the fear of drafting a QB....

Wow...horrible statement.

Look it up. Stabler and Favre thats it, and Packers traded a 1st for Favre.

Only TWO second round QB's have ever won a Super Bowl: Ken Stabler and Brett Favre.

And, it could be argued that since the Packers gave a first round draft choice for Favre, only one second rounder ever won a Super Bowl.

How is that a "horrible statement"?

Point is you are more likely to find your franchise QB if you were to draft one per year in rounds 3-7 until you hit a one (might get lucky on the first try might take 3 years) Then drafting one #3 overall and being stuck with him even if he is a bust.

Historically that is not true at all.

There have only been 27 QB's in the history of the league actually WIN a Super Bowl, out of hundreds, if not well over a thousand that have played in the league.

That's a ridiculously small sample size.

Except you cant always trade down. I dont know if we take a chance on Sanchez if he's there. I am worried about that only starting 1 year thing. If Staffords there though, get em.

No fifth round QB has won a Super Bowl. No 7th round QB has won a Super Bowl.

Only ONE 4th round QB has one the Super Bowl (Theisman).

Yet 24 Super Bowls have been one by first rounders.

And unless Kurt Warner wins the Super Bowl, that number will grow to 25.

Isn't Super Bowl wins what defines QB play? Its the reason why Marino, Kelly and others arent thought of as highly as they should.

I wonder how many first round QB's flamed out and never won squat.....

it's not just the QB...it's getting the right players and staff together at the right time...it is extremely hard to do....

Only by reeruns that don't know shit about football.

Christ, we're talking about 2 Hall Of Famers.

There are great QB's that have never won a SB, and less than average QB's that have.

It's reeruned to say that because a 5th round QB has never won a SB, that it will never happen.

Of the 27 QB's that HAVE won a SB, 14 of them were taken in the 1st.

That means the other 13 weren't.

Someday, I'll take the time to research and report.

This is true but in the era of free-agency, a stellar QB should be able to move onto a better team, thus improving his chances at a Super Bowl.

Jim Plunkett is one example, as is Steve Young. Trent Dilfer (a former first rounder) even won a Super Bowl.

Exactly.

It's a team sport.

Hell, Jim Kelly took a pretty damn good team to the SB FOUR times, only to run into a better TEAM 3 times, and get let down by a kicker on the other.

Regardless, the odds of winning a Super Bowl are greatly increased if you have a first round QB at the helm.

That cannot be disputed.

bledsoe went first overall in 1993. that's a pretty high pick for a QB, isn't it?

Really?

Because of the 27 that have won a SB, only 14 (52%) were 1st round picks. I don't see how that's "greatly increased."

That stat aside, again, it's a ridiculously small sample size.

It's something people who can't back their argument up say.

"There's never been a QB drafted in the 5th round win the SB."

BFD.

There HAVE been QB's win in every other round except the 7th, including the 9th round, 10th round and an UDFA.

It all means NOTHING, because football is a TEAM sport.

Don't forget that Jim Kelly was a first rounder.

But according to some, he's a POS because he never won a SB.

And without doing the research, there are several late round QB's that also went the the SB and lost, Hasselbeck and Bulger being the most recent.

no you couldn't.

Probably because that 52% is more than all the other rounds combined....then you factor in that 2 guys account for 7 of the non first 1st round bowls.

He already has...

EDIT: Wait, I think I see what you mean.

I would love to see any kind of real facts to back this up. This is a blatantly made up statistic. You are claiming that 70% of QBs drafted in the top 5 become Pro Bowlers???? ROFL

Montana and Brady own I think its 16% of all-time Super Bowl wins. Not to mention Roger Stabuach, he was a 10th round pick bc of Vietnam.

Whoa, Cowboy.

It absolutely means SOMETHING.

If it were a meaningless stat, why would anyone bother drafting a QB in the first round, much like guards and centers?

If it were such a meaningless stat, why are 3 out of the 4 remaining teams left in the 2008 playoffs helmed by first round QB's?

Regardless of the fact that no QB drafted in the 5th and 7th rounds have never won a Super Bowl and regardless of the fact that four Super Bowls were won by Joe Montana (a third round choice) and three were won by Tom Brady (6th rounder), the best chance of winning the Super Bowl is with a first round selection.

Brady and Montana were anomalies that skew the stats. Both weren't "System QB's" that won on flukes. It was fluke that both were overlooked by scouts. In hindsight, there's absolutely no question that both would have gone number one overall in their respective draft years.

It's not a fluke that both are Hall of Fame players.

Well, using that theory, there should be a LOT more.

After all, a 1st round pick SHOULD be a better player than a 5th round pick, right?

Regardless, as I've pointed out, it's a pointless stat.

You're basing this on TWENTY SEVEN QB's out of over a THOUSAND that have played the game at this level.

I said he was a piece of shit? Where?

JFC Dude, settle the **** down.

They don't skew the stats at all, because I'm only counting them once.

27 QB's have won a SB. Some multiple times.

In hindsight, Stabler, Theismann and Unitas would have gone #1 too. What's your point? They didn't.

I didn't say anything about you, I said there are some that do.

And that's true.

SOME people have gone over the ****ing deep end to try to defend their position and look ****ing stupid doing it.

Odd are probably also increased if you have a shutdown corner or a future hof running back or a defensive end that leads the league in sacks. Point being that a there are plenty of areas to add a difference maker.

My philosophy (and as best I can tell it is Scott Pioli's as well) in round one particularly with the first 10 picks you want a player with minimal downside. If your choice are a guy that could be the next Tom Brady or could be the next Ryan Leaf pass on him for the guy you don't think will be a HOFer but you are absolutely certain is a 16 game starter. Guys you can get an excellent understanding of their capabilities from their college play. (that means no QBs) then in rounds 4-7 and with UDFA grab a couple of guys that could be diamonds in the rough or who could be total busts.