ChiefsPlanet - View Single Post

jeffp12 · 01-28-2009, 11:23 PM

I'm not saying you can't get a great defense after you get a quarterback in the top 5. What I'm saying is this:

A great defense and solid running game will make for a consistently successful team. A great quarterback is not necessary to win. Sure it would be nice to have a peyton manning, but those guys are very rare. So if Sanchez is a peyton manning, then by all means take him, but the list of qb busts in the first round is quite long. The 90's chiefs were the winningest team of the 90's. Yes they didn't win many playoff games, but they were very close to being super bowl caliber several years, but we never quite got everything put together right. Those teams were based on defense and running the ball. We brought in an old Montana and Allen and we were a game away from the super bowl. Free agent veterans can fill big holes like Quarterback if the rest of the team is solid. The problem with the 90's was carl peterson. Had we been picking quarterbacks in later rounds and had found a gem in there, we might very well have a ring or two, but he never picked qbs after his first few years when they didn't pan out. for every peyton manning there's three Todd Blackledges.

All I'm saying is that if you look at the track records teams with great defenses are consistent winners, and teams with great quarterbacks aren't quite so much.

Even if you land a great QB it still might not do much. Look at Cincinatti. A few years ago it seemed Palmer was the next Manning, and look how terrible they've been since then. They don't have a defense.

How much better off woud Tennesse be if they hadn't picked Vince "I thought about retiring my rookie season" Young. If your quartback draft pick busts, it sets a team back a long time. What if they had picked someone else, maybe that player isn't a hall of famer, but a defensive pick or an offensive line pick, anything other than QB and that player can still contribute even if they aren't fantastic.

How about the Giants, they had Kurt Warner, who we see can still play. What if they had picked Robert Gallery or Larry Fitzgerald instead?

2002 draft. Texans take David Carr 1st, Julius Peppers goes 2nd, and then The Lions take Joey Harrington third. Quentin Jammer, Roy Williams (the safety), John Henderson, Dwight Freeney, and Albert Haynesworth are on the board. You really telling me that the texans and Lions are better off picking Qbs to put behind their terrible offensive lines than they are tacking any of those impact defensive players that are still great. What would it look like in Houston if they had Dwight Freeney back in 2002 and had just picked up a veteran free agent QB to manage games for a while?

01-28-2009, 11:23 PM	#101
jeffp12 Starter Join Date: Jan 2009 Casino cash: $10004900	I'm not saying you can't get a great defense after you get a quarterback in the top 5. What I'm saying is this: A great defense and solid running game will make for a consistently successful team. A great quarterback is not necessary to win. Sure it would be nice to have a peyton manning, but those guys are very rare. So if Sanchez is a peyton manning, then by all means take him, but the list of qb busts in the first round is quite long. The 90's chiefs were the winningest team of the 90's. Yes they didn't win many playoff games, but they were very close to being super bowl caliber several years, but we never quite got everything put together right. Those teams were based on defense and running the ball. We brought in an old Montana and Allen and we were a game away from the super bowl. Free agent veterans can fill big holes like Quarterback if the rest of the team is solid. The problem with the 90's was carl peterson. Had we been picking quarterbacks in later rounds and had found a gem in there, we might very well have a ring or two, but he never picked qbs after his first few years when they didn't pan out. for every peyton manning there's three Todd Blackledges. All I'm saying is that if you look at the track records teams with great defenses are consistent winners, and teams with great quarterbacks aren't quite so much. Even if you land a great QB it still might not do much. Look at Cincinatti. A few years ago it seemed Palmer was the next Manning, and look how terrible they've been since then. They don't have a defense. How much better off woud Tennesse be if they hadn't picked Vince "I thought about retiring my rookie season" Young. If your quartback draft pick busts, it sets a team back a long time. What if they had picked someone else, maybe that player isn't a hall of famer, but a defensive pick or an offensive line pick, anything other than QB and that player can still contribute even if they aren't fantastic. How about the Giants, they had Kurt Warner, who we see can still play. What if they had picked Robert Gallery or Larry Fitzgerald instead? 2002 draft. Texans take David Carr 1st, Julius Peppers goes 2nd, and then The Lions take Joey Harrington third. Quentin Jammer, Roy Williams (the safety), John Henderson, Dwight Freeney, and Albert Haynesworth are on the board. You really telling me that the texans and Lions are better off picking Qbs to put behind their terrible offensive lines than they are tacking any of those impact defensive players that are still great. What would it look like in Houston if they had Dwight Freeney back in 2002 and had just picked up a veteran free agent QB to manage games for a while?
Posts: 56