Because they have a good OL, position coaches and a head coach that appears to know what he is doing.

Loser is a little harsh but yea the offense needs to be scrapped. The odds of an offense like that winning a Lombardi Trophy are slim to none. It's not effective enough inside the red zone.

That and the fact that they run a realistic NFL offense. Comparing Thigpen to Ryan and Flacco is dumb. Thigpen ran the spread offense which allowed him to score more TDs due to the fact that we hardly ran the ball and we were always down.

I agree with what you're saying here, but there is a third option.

Option 1: Draft the best player on your board regardless of position and need.

Option 2: Draft the best player available that fills a position of need.

Option 3: Trade up/down until the best player on your board is at a position of need.


In my opinion, option 3 is the ideal situation. That seems to be what the Patriots have done, and it's worked out well for them. If they had a healthy Brady and a healthy Cassel and the best player on their board was a QB when it was their turn to pick, they would back up a few spots, get an extra pick or 2, and still get the player they wanted.

Conversely, if the player they really wanted likely wasn't going to fall to them, they would be willing to deal pick in order to get the right guy instead of settling for what was left.

If the Chiefs were to be totally focused on drafting a DE, let's say Brian Orakpo, but they had him as the 15th best player on their board, they would be smart to trade down to the 8-12 rage and pick up a pick. Even if they didn't get "fair value" for the pick, it wouldn't matter because they would have gotten the guy that they wanted and accumulated additional value in the process. Then, they could package their second round pick with the pick they just acquired and grab the next player that they covet.

I just think that it's a mistake to play the cards that you are dealt unless it just so happens that you are dealt a royal flush. The odds that a team just happens to be in the perfect spot based on their initial draft position are slim. Why not try to posture yourself into a better spot?

So the draft pecking order for QB is this:

1. Matt Stafford
2. Mark Sanchez
3. Sam Bradford

Am I reading everyone's opinion right?

I think that Sanchez is ahead of Stafford.
But its pretty close.

We have to have a change in the coaching on the defense. How many more first day draft picks are we going to give Gun and get virtually no return on our investment. And if we wind up stuck with this clown outfit for the next year, Krumrine should not be allowed to go on college campus evaluations where the single most important drill he seems to believe in is the hand slap drill. There has to be a better talent device than that.

A lot of posters are starting to say the same thing. I think this is a classic case of Stafford being so hyped that he gets over-scrutinized. Everyone knows his positives, so they stop really watching for those, and they start looking for the negatives.

If Sanchez comes back, the same thing will happen to him. People will hype him up, and everyone will take the pluses for granted. If you're looking for faults in a college QB, you're going to find them eventually.

I'm pretty sure that for some, if not most, of us, and certainly for me, there was a feeling throughout most of the season that sanchez would return for his senior season, while Stafford would declare, so there wasn't much point in discussing Sanchez.

But as the season wound down, there appeared to be som indicators that he might decalre, so he then entered the discusion.

I think it's gonna be harder to find too much to question in his game than it is for Stafford and Bradford.