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?