|
Hamas, that's a really well thought-out post. As people should expect from me, I'm never satisfied with "slam dunk" arguments. That's the only place where I differ. I like the idea of drafting Stafford or Sanchez, but I don't think either are slam dunks. PS--I hope people will actually read what I write and not misinterpret and exaggerate my points, as seems to be pretty common....
Stafford has all the measurables. It's hard to find a negative on him. But most people don't think he'll fall to the Chiefs. If there was ever a negative, it's that completion %--way too low for a QB of his ability and experience level.
I actually like Sanchez better than Stafford. I think Sanchez has the fiery leadership that I don't see as much in Stafford. But you'd be hard-pressed to find an expert or scout that isn't concerned that he's under-prepared. I'm cool with drafting Sanchez, but you have to realize that it would probably be a mistake to let him start from game 1--he'll need a little more time to develop.
As for the rest of the arguments, I think a lot of it underestimates how difficult it is to find a franchise QB. While you talk a lot about "success rates", there's little talk of failure rates. I mentioned this in a thread a few weeks ago and got blasted, but ChiefsCountry's stats are flawed in that it fails to mention that 100% of first round QBs get a chance to start in the NFL. And probably well over half of them get 2-3 years to develop, even if they struggle. I would venture to guess that under 25% of 2nd rounders and below are given a chance to start, and well under 10% are given more than 2-3 years to develop. As I said in that earlier thread, first round QBs deservedly get more chances to start because they are scouted as having more talent and even if they were given the same opportunities as a 4th rounder, they'd still have a far higher success rate, but the statistic above assumes that all 2nd round QBs and below are given an opportunity to start and that they're allowed more than 2-3 years to truly develop. We all know that's far from the case. The appropriate answer is: if all QBs were given the same chances to start and the same 2-3 years to develop, first round QBs would likely succeed at a higher rate. However, because that doesn't happen, there is no way for us to know how MUCH higher that rate would be. We can only speculate. Those numbers above are flawed because it assumes that all things are equal.
I agree to some extent on the spread, but I don't agree that we know just yet what Thigpen is capable of in a pro-style offense. I completely agree that if he can't run a pro-style offense in at about half of the offensive sets, then we can give up on him completely. Either way, I think most scouts will tell you that Stafford or Sanchez shouldn't be starting from game 1 anyway--so I think Tyler has a chance to prove if he deserves to keep that job and he will have a LOT to prove.
As for the point about defense, I think a major part that you're leaving out is that many franchise QBs are built because of the defense that supports them. I don't think Eli would be a franchise QB if he didn't have an insane amount of talent on the defensive line to support his team, and I don't think Roethlisberger would have made it that far in 2009 had he had a poor defense to support him. Those teams benefited big time from having elite defenses--I think there's a good reason why Brees and Manning have struggled to make Super Bowls in spite of being the best QBs in the league.
Those are my thoughts. Again, let me say that I like the idea of Sanchez as a QB. But I'm arguing against the idea that it's a slam dunk decision.
|