Treatise from the "Gang of 14" (Long Read)
 

<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><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> Treatise from the “Gang of 14”:
<o></o>
I see a lot of dissent from the True Fans on the board that those of us who continually express the primacy of a franchise quarterback are not adding any kind of insight or support to our opinions, merely insults. In the interests of refutation, I am going to skip any form of attack in this post in order to demonstrate to you what our argument is, and the history that we have on the board of supporting said argument with pointed, and factual examples.
<o></o>
Why do we believe in obtaining a franchise QB?<o></o>
<o></o>
It’s quite simple. It is the most important piece of a team that will successfully contend for a number of years. Look back on the last several dynasties or near-dynasties in the NFL.
<o></o>
The Steelers of the 70’s had Bradshaw
The 49ers of the 80’s and 90’s had <st1:state w:st="on"><st1>Montana</st1>l</st1:state> who then bridged seamlessly to Steve Young
The Cowboys of the 90’s had Troy Aikman
The Bills of the 90’s had Jim Kelly
The Broncos of the 80’s and 90’s had John Elway
The Patriots of this decade have Tom Brady
The Colts of this decade have Peyton Manning
The Steelers of this decade have Ben Roethlisberger
<o></o>
8 teams, all of them had franchise QBs. Most of them also had good to great defenses, but none of them didn’t have a franchise quarterback.
<o></o>
Here is why we don’t believe in defense above all else:
<o></o>
The 1980s <st1:city w:st="on"><st1></st1></st1:city><st1:city w:st="on"><st1>Chicago</st1> </st1:city>Bears
The late 80’s-early 90’s Philadelphia Eagles
The Bucs of the 1990s and 2000s
The Ravens of this decade.
<o></o><o></o>
Many people consider the 1985 Bears to be the greatest team of all time, with the greatest defense of all time. What people forget is that the 1986 Bears had a better defense, setting NFL records for fewest points allowed. What they didn’t have was the same level of consistent play from the quarterback position as these other teams did. In spite of one of the most impressively talented units of all time on either side of the ball, they were essentially a one-hit wonder.
<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.
<o></o>
The Bucs of the last 10 years are another great example. Although they had an amazingly talented unit, Warren Sapp, Simeon Rice (120 sacks), Ronde Barber, Derrick Brooks, Booger McFarland, and John Lynch (among others), they routinely flamed out in the playoffs. They eventually won one Super Bowl, but with that kind of talent on one unit, it’s positively criminal that they weren’t in the <st1></st1><st1><st1:country-region w:st="on">Ch.</st1:country-region></st1> Game or Super Bowl every year.
<o></o>
The 2000 Ravens had arguably the greatest or second greatest D of all time, but with only Trent Dilfer at the helm, and no other offensive weapons aside from Jamal Lewis, they flamed out quicker than Colin Farrell.
<o></o>
Now, with that being said, why do we want a franchise QB this year?<o></o>
It comes down to this: we see Matt Stafford and Mark Sanchez as two of the best quarterback prospects of the last five years.
<o>
</o><st1>Stafford</st1> has an amazing physical skillset. Here is a list of reasons I posted in support of<st1>Stafford</st1> some months ago:
<o></o>

• 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.

<o></o>
Combine that with reports of how teams were “blown away” by his board work, as well as the natural athleticism he showed in running the 40, and I don’t know how one wouldn’t be floored by this kid.
<o></o>
Why do we want Sanchez?<o></o>
<o></o>
It’s a similar question with slightly different answers, but achieving the same result.
<o></o>

• Sanchez is a leader of men. It’s that simple. He’s naturally charismatic, and he has the aura around him that all great QBs do. He owns the room when he walks in. That confidence bordering on cockiness (minus Jeff George dickheadedness) is a great asset.
• He has textbook throwing mechanics
• He has dancer’s feet. The importance of this really cannot be stressed enough. The only coaching that he is going to need when coming into the league is how to read and react to NFL defenses. He’s about as close to mechanically flawless as anyone since the Human Juggs Machine, Carson Palmer
• He has very good arm strength (it’s not elite, but it’s more than good enough to make any throw).
• He comes from a pro offense
• He has four years of post high school experience. He’s worked on the scout team, he’s been a backup, he’s been a spot starter, and he’s been the man.
• He had great production with a team that had good, but nowhere near elite, talent around him. This isn’t the 2004 Trojans. They aren’t anywhere near as talented.

<o></o>
Granted, both prospects have their warts. Every prospect has question marks. People employ revisionist history far too often when evaluating players after the fact.
<o></o>
What did Joe Montana or Tom Brady have that made them jump off the page to someone?
Peyton Manning was considered potentially maxed out as a prospect, a QB with little upside.
John Elway never even went to a bowl game, was he really a “winner”? He was also a very generously listed “6’3”. Look at him next to Peyton Manning and see if he’s really 6’3”, and yet the same questions are used to discount <st1>Stafford</st1> and Sanchez.
<o></o>
Many of you will beg the following question:
<o></o>
Why not defense in this draft?<o></o>
It’s quite simple:

• The draft is seven rounds. We have six other picks
• This draft lacks elite talent on defense at the top
• Next year’s draft has two of the most ridiculously talented freaks at DE of the last decade (Carlos Dunlap and Everson Griffen), as well as better safety, LB, DT, and CB prospects across the board. It is a draft of defense
• Borrowing on 3, there is a draft after this year. The 2009 Chiefs have a 0% chance of winning anything meaningful. This is a solid 3 year rebuilding process. If you want to see this team built correctly, you should look to 2011

<o></o>
Why do you hate Aaron Curry?<o></o>
<o></o>
We don’t. The fact of the matter is that Aaron Curry, for all the safety that he brings as a draft pick, and for all his physical gifts, cannot change games.
<o></o>
He has no history of rushing the passer. He expressed confidence in his ability to learn to do so, but he’s never done it. That makes him as big of a project at that job as any safety Carl ever tried to move to corner.
<o></o>
Cover backers make tackles in space and take away the 3^rd-5^th receiving options. That’s great, but it’s also like saying that middle relievers are more important than starting pitchers. Both contribute to the win, but the starter has far more chances to affect the outcome of the game.
<o></o>
Curry, for all his projections, has also never played Mike. That will also entail a position move.
<o></o>
Let’s address additional follow up questions:
<o></o>
“Why are you ‘QB or bust’ no matter who the QB?” and “Why do you want to reach for any QB?”<o></o>
<o></o>

• We aren’t
• We don’t.

<o></o>
No one here is saying we should take Freeman at 3, or think that Rhett Bomar or Nate Davis are the kinds of guys who could carry a franchise. It’s folly.
<o></o>
“Why is the spread so bad? Look at the #s QBs put up!”<o>
</o><o></o>
The quarterback, his pedigree, and his experience are paramount. With the proliferation of the spread in college football, it will become more and more difficult in order to properly evaluate quarterbacks and how they translate to the pro game.
<o></o>
The spread works for the same reason that the option worked. There is simply not enough speed on college defenses to contain it, and defense is a chain, the weakest link causes the failure of all. Given that talent is spread so thin on college defenses, most teams have to trot out fourth corners that run like NFL defensive ends. Combine that with the fact that college players don’t devote the same amount of time to film study and coaching as their pro counterparts, and college defenses run more simplistic schemes.
<o></o>
This leads to soft zone defenses with corners playing way off. WRs don’t get jammed at the line, and their free release, when combined with a quasi-prevent D, allows them to kill the opposing defenses by paper cut, or if a single tackle is missed or assignment blown, by guillotine.
<o></o>
Furthermore, college quarterbacks from the spread are running a two read system, and they do not read the defenses in front of them. Look at any spread team before the snap. Watch how the QB looks to the sideline for instructions from the offensive coaching staff on what the defense across from him is. NFL QBs need to make as many as four reads on any given passing play that isn’t a max protect situation.
<o></o>
The spread is a great equalizer for teams like <st1:state w:st="on">Missouri</st1:state> and <st1:state w:st="on"><st1>Kansas</st1> </st1:state>that don’t have elite talent but want to exploit the lack of 1-80 talent on other teams. It is not a solution to an NFL defense, where everyone is talented, and where the schemes are more exotic.
<o></o>
It faces the same fate as the Run-N-Shoot: Kill the Quarterback.
When these things are taken into account, as well as the fact that all spread quarterbacks need to learn how to take snaps from under center and proper footwork for 3,5, and 7 step drops, you have a huge learning curve that exponentially increases the bust rate for the prospect.
<o></o>
QB is the riskiest position to draft. We should draft a safer position<o></o><o></o>
Aundray Bruce, Tony Mandarich, Pac Man, Robert Gallery, Leonard Davis, Troy Williamson, Charles Rogers, Ryan Sims, Wendell Bryant, the list goes on forever<o></o>

No position is safe.
<o></o>
Why not draft Crabtree?<o></o>
<o></o>
WRs from the spread don’t run a traditional NFL route tree. He has no experience in doing so, that increases his learning curve.
<o></o>
He lacks elite speed. WRs taken in the top 10 almost universally have elite speed
<o></o>
He lacks elite size.
<o></o>
He has a cracked foot
<o></o>
College stats are not a good predictor of NFL success. Look at Ron Dayne, Rashan Salaam, Timmy Chang, Jake Barton, Manny Hazard, or Alex Van Dyke
<o></o><o></o><o></o>
“Why not just draft a QB in the middle rounds?”<o>
</o><o></o>
ChiefsCountry has compiled an impressive list of QBs who won the Super Bowl and where they were drafted.
<o></o>
So you want Thiggy as our quarterback.

How about these facts:
57% of the Super Bowls have been won by first round quarterbacks.
(Out of those quarterbacks only 3 were not top 10 picks)
40% of the Super Bowls won by top 5 picks.
21% have been won by 1st round quarterbacks that wasnt their original team (Dawson, Plunkett (2), Williams, Young, Dilfer)
16% of the Super Bowls were won by Montana and Brady
4% were Roger Staubuach's wins who would have went in the first if he wasnt going to Vietnam
14% were won by a 9th or lower (counting Warner who was Undrafted) and 4 of those wins were by Bart Starr & Roger Staubauch.
4% were won by second round quarterbacks
4% 3rd and 6th rounds picks that were not <st1><st1:state w:st="on">Montana</st1:state></st1> or Brady
0% of the Super Bowls were won by a 7th round pick<o></o><o></o>

http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost....&postcount=129<o>
</o><o></o>
Additionally, this was done before this year’s Super Bowl, in which another 1^st round quarterback, Ben Roethlisberger, won.
<o></o><o></o>
Moreover, Scott Wright has an extensive breakdown of the profound failure rate of 2^nd and 3^rd round quarterbacks over the last 15 years on his site, NFLDraftCountdown.
<o></o><o></o>
“All you do is insult people”<o>
</o><o></o>
Actually we don’t. We insult people a lot, but a large portion of that is born out of frustration for having the same argument ad infinitum and telling the same thing to people who don’t’ listen to what we say.
<o></o>
I realize that this list is not comprehensive. It’s merely hitting the high notes of the discussions that we have previously had. If anyone else from the Gang of 14 wants to add anything, feel free.
<o></o>
Thank you for your time,
<o></o>
HJ

Wow. I must say Hamas that was truly awesome. Totally respect a well thought through presentation like that. The only thing that has ever held me back from totally agreeing with that was doubts whether or not the 2 qbs are really that good. Of course if the guy is a franchise type qb you have to take him at #3

Stafford hasn't impressed me as much as sanchez potential. That why at this I have to trust piolis talent evaluation skills on that. Its not "ballwashing" its just realizing I'm not as qualified to make that determination. But you have convinced me in this years draft with what's available IF there is a franchise qb you take him. If the qb is not that.caliber you go with curry
Posted via Mobile Device

other than "Montanal"...lmao...that is great and i completely sign off on it


rep x 10000

Good job Hamas but I have one little nitpick. Drop the True Fan line because all that is intended to do is divide people.

I would say and maybe I am wrong but I don't think anyone is arguing that we shouldn't have a franchise QB just that either one of the guys (mostly Sanchez) aren't that guy.

I have said over and over again I will put my trust in Pioli and whatever decision he makes outside of drafting a punter or kicker with the 3rd pick I will be happy about.

With that being said I fully expect them to draft a QB and Clark has made it known that is what he wants.

Time will tell.

I thank you for taking the time to post your argument and agree with the almost all of your post. I (IMHO) think that the drop off from 3 yrs starting experience in the SEC to 4 yrs of post high school experience is far greater than most on your side will admit. I don't follow the players closely enough to know all the intangibles to know who I want so I'm going to respect the decision the Chiefs make on draft day and pray that it's the right one. I also will add that just because we disagree on this board doesn't mean the discourse should drop down to 4th grade name-calling even if it is over the internet.

wrong, this is precisely what should happen

Well in all fairness






























Kill yourself! ******* Idiot!


PhilFree:arrow:
~was just joking and he does really want a QB~

If that's true Clark really wants a QB and a qb is going to be the pick then I would go for sanchez because he has more potential upside. I'm afraid stafford is just going to be a mediocre brian greise level qb. He's the "safer" pick but the chiefs need to go for great. Draft sanchez then just as happened with elway and montana, sign a garcia to be steve deberg and mentor the kid and takes the hits until the line gets improved. Just my take on it.
Posted via Mobile Device

Good stuff. I hope Stafford or Sanchez are there at #3 and we pick one of them. I really started liking Thiggy more and more as the season wore on last year. However, I still don't believe he is, or will ever be a starting caliber QB in the NFL.

I knew it was going to be long, so I wrote it in word. When I pasted it over, I got all those dumbass :p smileys, so I went in and manually removed them all. It's a vestige of that.

Why didn't you just click on 'disable smilies in text'?

Because, in the words of Roberto Di Vicenzo, "I am a stupid".

Hard to argue with this.

Here's the problem with your post:

Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, in it justifies the sort of attacks that have made on those who come to the conclusion that this is not a year to draft a QB in the top 5. Here's a simple example of why

This means that, even before you look into the individual situations involved, over 40% of all Super Bowls have been won by NON-first round quarterbacks. Clearly, then, it it not imperative that your quarterback be a first round pick in order to win a Super Bowl.

The problem with the "Gang of 14" is not that they favor taking the quarterback, it's that they're such a bunch of pricks to anyone who dares to disagree, when there is clearly no 'right' answer to the discussion. There is no magical formula for drafting a quarterback which guarantees a Super Bowl victory. Some of the greatest quarterbacks in league history played long careers without ever winning one. There are legitimate reasons to think that the particular quarterbacks in question are not the picks to make in the top 5 of the draft this year, just as there are legitimate reasons to think that the quarterbacks in question are the picks to make in the top 5 this year.

Sometimes you draft a quarterback before you solidify the rest of the team and it works out (Aikman). Sometimes you draft a quarterback before you solidify the rest of the team and it doesn't (Carr, Harrington). This is all situational, and disagreement based upon that does not make someone a "****ing reerun".

Gang of 14?

1 Round has produced 60 percent of Super Bowl winners

Every other round combined has produced 40 percent.

What does that tell you?

I was wondering why I wasn't invited.

It tells me that, despite being able to pick from every single available quarterback, those choosing a QB in the first round screw up almost half the time, and that's only in regards to winning Super Bowls. The screw up rate is even higher on a success rate basis. There, it's just about a 2/3 screw up percentage.

It's a play on words from Pioli Zombie, because only 14 of us in a poll said we'd be pissed if Pioli passed on both QBs because we aren't giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Are there really many legitimate reasons to think that Stafford y Sanchez aren't top 5 material? The posters who have tried to express those reasons end up sounding like they don't know much about football. I'd love to see someone with actual football smarts make the case against the two QB's.

Who are these Gang of 14?


PhilFree:arrow:

I don't like the way their butts look in football pants. And they need beards.

Oh that poll. O.K.


PhilFree:arrow:

Curry doesn't have a beard, either!

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/images/buttons/viewpost.gif

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OTW58

You still wanna play those odds?

This has already been told to you once.

So it's like the Big (11) 10

My biggest problem with Sanchez is his 16 starts and he wasn't able to beat out Booty last year and only played because Booty was injured.

Yes, and it was misleading then, as now. It changes absolutely nothing, as you full well know.

Just a couple of thoughts here.
Both are things that I've said before.

First, when it appeared that the QBs who would be declaring for the draft were Matt Stafford and Sam Bradford, those of us who were arguing that Stafford was the better prospect were met by arguments that he wasn't ready, and that we shouldn't draft him.

Now that it has played out that Stafford and Sanchez, who no one expected to declare, are the QBs, and that sanchez will be the one available, those of us that are supporting Sanchez are met with the "Sanchez isn't ready, but we'd love to have Stafford" argument.

It just appears that there are people who simply are afraid to risk taking a QB.

Second thought here, I would argue that Stafford's physical ability makes him look like the kid with higher upside, but Sanchez's leadership and maturity, and the way he shows up in the biggest games against the better teams gives him as much upside.

I posted it elswhere, but it's worth repeating, Sanchez best games were against the best teams the Trojans faced, OSU, Oregon and Penn St., throwing for 11 Tds and only 1 pick combined.

Again, misinformed.

Every USC offensive coach told Carroll after practices in '07 that Sanchez>Booty. He overruled them.

He was going to start for them as a RS Frosh before the bogus rape allegations.

I never vote in these polls, so I guess that leaves me out.

:banghead:

The more I see of Stafford the more I'm convinced in your excellent analysis. The more I see of Sanchez, however, the less convinced I am that he can succeed at the next level. But, just as your comment that Aaron Curry can't change games is complete speculation, the general consensus forming in some circles that Stafford will succeed and Sanchez won't could be just as wrong.

So, the fact that we could draft a QB in every other round other than the first, and still have a lower rate of winning a Super Bowl than simply drafting first round QBs is somehow "misleading" and "changes nothing", and you wonder why we feel the need to insult you?

You exceed the maximum age requirement.

It's a well placed arguement. I still say thigpen will do good. We do need ol help and a good de.
Posted via Mobile Device

Those are fair points. For the record I have liked Stafford and wanted no part of Bradford.

And I really don't dislike Sanchez in fact I was giddy after watching him play in the Rose Bowl but have concerns over his lack of experience.

Sanchez doesn't look nor handle himself like a guy with no experience....the lack of starts would bother me if he did alot of stupid things and was very sloppy but he's not.

Excluding the bogus rape charge how does that change anything in 07? Carroll is the head coach he makes the final decision and thought Booty was better or maybe thought Sanchez just wasn't fully ready.

Here is another perfect example of the problem. Dirk is not misinformed at all. He's absolutely correct. Your response is an attempted explanation of WHY it happened, not proof that it didn't.

Because Pete Carroll was always loyal to Booty to a fault, you can go pull up any message board dedicated to SC at that time and see a huge number of posts dedicated to Carrolls man love of Booty and how it cost the Trojans national titles.

No, I don't wonder why at all. I understand that you can't deal successfully with someone who presents the arguments logically, so you insult them in an attempt to shout down the opposition. Since I don't give a damn who the Chiefs pick in any round this year, I don't have any emotional investment in Sanchez/Not Sanchez. Your arguments are all based upon looking at numbers from a myopic point of view, which is why you have gotten so much of it wrong.

Really disagree about Stafford. I don't post often, so consider this an important enough point for me to step out of anonymity and make a point:

Although not a huge Georgia fan, I have lived in Atlanta the past 5 years and have watched a lot of Georgia football with Georgia alums. Stafford is soft physically and soft in the head. He is a doughy primadonna. If there is an "it" factor he has the opposite of that.

And the amazing thing is that every Georgia fan I know, agrees with this. He is not a winner, he is not a team guy, he does not inspire fellow players or fans, he feels that he is entitled to greatness, he is not tough, and he is not very smart. Can he throw a deep ball - yes, but that's it. How this guy is perceived as a top pick is way beyond me. Any person who touts this guy as special either has not watched him play more than just casually or has fallen in love with his arm strength. That includes all the so called draft gurus at the major media outlets. This guy will set back any team that drafts him with a top pick for years. Do not want.

Franchise quarterbacks are great, unfortunately this guy is not one of them.

thats all i was trying say :clap::clap::clap: until i got into it too and...sorta.....started swearin too :cuss:

then i started to think about it :hmmm:

I wish i hadnt done it.

and i wish I had put it as eloquently as you just did it. :banghead:


kudos to you!!! :clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

Again.... opinion, not fact. Now, pull out the quote where Carroll says "Sanchez is definitely the better quarterback, and he gives us the best chance to win, but I'm going with Booty because of my loyalty." and you've got a case. It won't change the "experience" argument, but it will at least strengthen the pointless "why so little experience" argument.

Are you suggesting that Pete Carroll cared more about starting Booty then winning?

It's not explanation, it's empirical fact.

Mark Sanchez was demonstrably better than JD Booty in all Spring Practices, and all the coaches told Carroll he should be #1.

The mere fact that Carroll can recruit does not mean he knows how to coach at all. Look at his stint in the NFL, FFS.

Very nice post, 'Hamas'.

I'm surprised this qualified as your thesis, but I guess it might have been a tier-5 university.

Your username is hereby changed to 'Hamas' Jefferson, due to the documents you've labored to pen on behalf of the notorious gang of 14.

Thanks for the insight and input. You should post more and don't be such a lurker. :)

I'm suggesting that Pete Carroll is a stubborn coach that wanted to start his older 5 star QB over his younger one for recruiting purposes...

Booty was the #1 QB in the nation his recruiting year and I do think the effect it would possibly have on QB recruiting played in I also think he thought he would get 2 years out of Sanchez playing this out and when that didn't happen he got upset about it.

Pete Carroll was literally the only person on that coaching staff or at that school that thought Booty deserved to start.

I agree totally ( i know that will probably worry you)

Im more concerned with leadership, poise, maturity, work habits,competitiveness, and rising up to the occassion in big moments than i am in raw physical talent.

before anyone says it, yes, you need physical skills, but the Montanas and Bradys and Roethlisburgers have that certain intangible that Jeff George didnt, you know?

Bledsoe was tall, had the strong arm, but Brady walked in and you just saw his poise in the pocket and could see he was better.

so ive determined that if they go for the Qb id much rather have Sanchez.

There have been Georgia fans on this very board who have registered and posted just to tell us how good of a player, a teammate, and a leader Stafford is, so your axiomatic "Every Georgia fan" is completely fabricated bullshit.

No worries.

Your sash, with the embroidered "**** True Fans" is in the mail.

Ok, so you don't know the difference between "fact" and "opinion"? The "fact" is that Booty beat out Sanchez for the job. The "opinion" is that he didn't do so based upon performance and/or the chance to win games.

I said every GA fan "I know" I don't know those GA fans. But there are stupid GA fans just like there are stupid Chief fans, and they're all entitled to their opinions.

Does this mean I can sign the treatise with my

John Hancock

Me too.

I'm sorry, but when I see the paucity of analysis that you bring Re: USC and compare it to one of our best football posters who has followed USC religiously for years, posts on USC boards, and keeps track of all of their moves within their program, I'm going to believe him over you, especially when combined with the rampant intellectual dishonest that you've displayed in all of your fabricated "arguing for the sake of arguing" posts, such as the fact that teams are better off searching outside of the first round.

Again, I apologize that something as impossibly simple as basic addition and how to read a number line (things like 60>40) are lost upon you, I really am. Because I wouldn't have to sit here and watch you fumble around and **** them up.

Not to discredit you or your friends, but there are otherwise very intelligent posters on this very site who will tell you, emphatically, that a football team should be fully constructed before adding the QB, the final piece of the puzzle.

Everyone can have a particular blind spot, and it's usually the highest profile player on any given team that draws the most unfair criticism. Why? Because he has the talent. He's the one who is supposed to be carrying the team.

It's a lot easier to sharp shoot this guy than some ****ing scrub who sucks the penis.

Hey, dude, you keep that shit in your pants.

This is a family board.

It's HERBIE Hancock.

http://videodetective.com/photos/815/003424_16.jpg

This is exactly my point about your posts. You post complete nonsense and act as if you're handing out the Rosetta Stone. Then when you get called on it, you can't handle it. I never said that teams are better off searching outside of the first round. As for what Mecca opines, it's still OPINION. Try to get that through your head. Mecca is not, as far as I know, Pete Carroll using the ChiefsPlanet message board.

And, yet again, you can't seem to grasp simple things. Call me when 60=100 and then you'll have an ironclad case. When it's a 60/40 split, you've got shit. Which is basically what your argument is.

All football coaches are stubborn so that is no surprise. I can understand the argument that he probably figured Sanchez would stay for 2 more years and I also can understand the argument that the rape allegation might have hurt him as far as Carroll trusting him.

But he still only has 16 starts and my biggest concern is his experience and being a 1-hit wonder.

I don't know how this can be said any more plainly:

Are teams going to spend every draft pick outside of their #1 in a given draft on a quarterback?

No.

Why not?

Because its a gross misallocation of resources.

Well, for the sake of argument, let's give them extra picks in every other round other than 1, and let them use all of them on quarterbacks.

Would they, or would they not have a better chance of finding a QB from all those other picks, than they would from simply spending a first round pick on any of the top QB prospects?

They would not.

Stats bear this out
History bears this out.

And yet, in spite of all of this, you assume that because the odds of getting a SB winning QB are not 100% in round one, that somehow that justifies trying to look outside of round 1 for one.

1=60%

2+3+4+5+6+7=40% (and in many days you take n=round all the way up to 18 and it STILL DIDN'T MATTER).

This is your argument:

I put a gun to your head, if you don't win, I get to kill you. You have AA against 2 other random hands. You are basically saying, that because AA does not have a 100% chance of winning, that it's not the best course of action.

Cool, we get to blow your head off.


And as far as Carroll and Booty vs. Sanchez, I guess that the opinions of Pete Carroll outweigh those of all of his coaches. He was also proven right by the fact that USC was less successful with more offensive talent with Booty, and the fact that Booty was a 1st round draft pick, right?

Clearly Booty>Sanchez.

Obviously, Jerry Glanville was right in his assessment that Brett Favre should never start, since he's the head coach, right?

This is complete gibberish. Did you actually read this post before you submitted it? Let me try to be plain and, unlike yourself, actually make sense, and I'll do it in example form.

Example:

There are 30 quarterbacks to be taken. Out of those 30 quarterbacks, 1 will become a top shelf quarterback, 2-3 will become quality/above average quarterbacks and the rest will either be backups or out of the league.

Now, picking in the first round gives you the best chance to get one of the 4 quarterbacks worth picking. It does not, however, guarantee that the quarterback you pick will be one of those 4 quarterbacks.

As for the Booty argument, you keep acting as if opinion = fact. I can only suggest that you consult a dictionary and learn the difference.

I went back 5 years and looked at every QB that was drafted in the first round and found out how many years they started in college.

Not one had less than 2 years of starting experience.

But on the flip side having started alot in college doesn't necessarily equal success in the NFL.

Your statistic would support us signing a 1st round QB that has been cut. If we are going by that stat, why not just sign David Carr or Joey Harrington or Micheal Vick? I say this to make a point, not to support that conclusion. Your stat is not a good stat to base selecting a QB in the first round.

The stat does not account for great QBs like Dan Marino that were great 1st round pics. Why should the Dolphins selecting Dan Marino add to the statistic of not taking a QB? Taking Marino was obviously a good choice but the fact that he never won a superbowl supports the statistical analysis of not taking a QB in round 1.

Trent Dilfer was also a first round pick and the Ravens won a superbowl with him. He was not drafted by the Ravens. He was a castoff of another team. The defense won that superbowl, but your statistics will use Trent Dilfer as support for taking a QB in round 1.

The statistical analysis of superbowl winning QBs is hard to rely on when taking into account who to draft because Superbowls are won by teams. You would probably be better off with using a statistic that shows the percentage of top 5 offenses with QBs that were drafted in the first round and still play on the team that drafted them.

That's what we are really looking for right? Picking a QB that can lead a successful offense. The QB can't control the defense. Your stat should only account for offensive production, not team production.

Of course.

I don't know what you're arguing about, honestly. No one is saying that Stafford or Sanchez will be a lock. I've lost the keys to Doc's car, so I can't say definitively.

But we all know that you have the best odds to be right with these guys because they have, according to all indicators, the best talent.

....

Anyone have the link to the gang of 14?

Neck beards. You can't intimidate people and command respect in the huddle without a raging neck beard.

ok, this is where i should have asked the question i just posed in the "should we bring in a mentor thread" but i'll ask here too.

since the gang of 14 has trashed the idea of ever drafting any other position at #3

say Stafford gets picked by the Lions and the Rams gobble up Sanchez

who would you pick at #3?

its not literal.. at the time 14 people in the poll said it had to be a QB.

it kinda stuck, so now its more a symbolic thing.

you know....

Not everyone is in agreement that they have that "best talent", unless you're restricting the discussion strictly to this year's draft. Not a single running back broke a 4.3, for example, so that doesn't mean that the player who ran the closest to it should somehow be treated as if he did. Sometimes, the best of a bad lot is still bad. Many people here put Stafford and Sanchez in that category. They shouldn't be insulted the way these clowns have been insulting them every time they "dare" assert that opinion.

Regardless of how you feel about Stafford or Sanchez, there's no arguing the fact that most super bowl winning QBs come from the first round. It's not even like the first round gave a merely a plurality of super bowl winning QBs; when one round accounts for 60% of all winners, that's pretty compelling evidence, and it's over a very long period of time, so it's not like this is a coincidence.

For those of you that still believe this isn't a significant enough sample size, how many QBs have started more than 8 games for more than 6 seasons in the NFL? Of those consistent, starting-quality QBs, which have had the most success? I don't know the answers or have the inclination to find them, but I would be shocked to find that a round outside of the first was responsible for the most successful starting QBs.

It isn't like drafting players is some sort of lottery ticket. Teams make or lose money based on the people that they draft, and teams spend the entire year figuring out who to bring in based on those observations. To think that you'll have a better chance at finding a more talented player after every team in the league has taken their shot at a best guess at least once is asinine, and even moreso when you consider that QB is universally regarded as the most important position on the field and that teams are willing to take ridiculous chances on guys that just might fit the bill whether past performances bear that out or not.

So, do you think next year's QB class is going to be better?

Both have their shortcomings, there's no doubt about that.

I can understand the concerns surrounding Sanchez much more, but I'll continue to state that if anyone doesn't think that Stafford is a very, very worthy top-3 selection as a QB, that person will never find a QB prospect that he likes.

And this raises the most important question that Pioli and co. must answer:

If not now, how and when? Because the possibilities start to become even more cloudy very quickly.

I won't know until I see who declares. It should be deeper and more interesting, but as for "better", it's too soon to tell.

I think I was one of those 14, was just wanting to verify it...:D

Let's assume Bradford goes 1/1 like a lot of mocks from this year had him tabbed. The rest of the "top" guys are a joke. McCoy and Tebow.

From here, you start to talk about projects, as if these top guys aren't this already.