Missed this comment from Clark on QBs

[ChiefsCountry]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

There have only been 27 QB's in the history of the league actually WIN a Super Bowl, out of hundreds, if not well over a thousand that have played in the league.

That's a ridiculously small sample size.

Isn't Super Bowl wins what defines QB play? Its the reason why Marino, Kelly and others arent thought of as highly as they should.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

Isn't Super Bowl wins what defines QB play? Its the reason why Marino, Kelly and others arent thought of as highly as they should.

Only by reeruns that don't know shit about football.

Christ, we're talking about 2 Hall Of Famers.

There are great QB's that have never won a SB, and less than average QB's that have.

It's reeruned to say that because a 5th round QB has never won a SB, that it will never happen.

Of the 27 QB's that HAVE won a SB, 14 of them were taken in the 1st.

That means the other 13 weren't.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Only by reeruns that don't know shit about football.

Christ, we're talking about 2 Hall Of Famers.

There are great QB's that have never won a SB, and less than average QB's that have.

It's reeruned to say that because a 5th round QB has never won a SB, that it will never happen.

Of the 27 QB's that HAVE won a SB, 14 of them were taken in the 1st.

That means the other 13 weren't.

Regardless, the odds of winning a Super Bowl are greatly increased if you have a first round QB at the helm.

That cannot be disputed.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Regardless, the odds of winning a Super Bowl are greatly increased if you have a first round QB at the helm.

That cannot be disputed.

Really?

Because of the 27 that have won a SB, only 14 (52%) were 1st round picks. I don't see how that's "greatly increased."

That stat aside, again, it's a ridiculously small sample size.

It's something people who can't back their argument up say.

"There's never been a QB drafted in the 5th round win the SB."

BFD.

There HAVE been QB's win in every other round except the 7th, including the 9th round, 10th round and an UDFA.

It all means NOTHING, because football is a TEAM sport.

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Really?

Because of the 27 that have won a SB, only 14 (52%) were 1st round picks. I don't see how that's "greatly increased."

That stat aside, again, it's a ridiculously small sample size.

It's something people who can't back their argument up say.

"There's never been a QB drafted in the 5th round win the SB."

BFD.

There HAVE been QB's win in every other round except the 7th, including the 9th round, 10th round and an UDFA.

It all means NOTHING, because football is a TEAM sport.

Probably because that 52% is more than all the other rounds combined....then you factor in that 2 guys account for 7 of the non first 1st round bowls.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by Mecca

Probably because that 52% is more than all the other rounds combined....then you factor in that 2 guys account for 7 of the non first 1st round bowls.

Well, using that theory, there should be a LOT more.

After all, a 1st round pick SHOULD be a better player than a 5th round pick, right?

Regardless, as I've pointed out, it's a pointless stat.

You're basing this on TWENTY SEVEN QB's out of over a THOUSAND that have played the game at this level.

[el borracho]

Originally Posted by Mecca

Probably because that 52% is more than all the other rounds combined....then you factor in that 2 guys account for 7 of the non first 1st round bowls.

Oops! I see I'm late to the party.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Really?

Because of the 27 that have won a SB, only 14 (52%) were 1st round picks. I don't see how that's "greatly increased."

That stat aside, again, it's a ridiculously small sample size.

It's something people who can't back their argument up say.

"There's never been a QB drafted in the 5th round win the SB."

BFD.

There HAVE been QB's win in every other round except the 7th, including the 9th round, 10th round and an UDFA.

It all means NOTHING, because football is a TEAM sport.

Whoa, Cowboy.

It absolutely means SOMETHING.

If it were a meaningless stat, why would anyone bother drafting a QB in the first round, much like guards and centers?

If it were such a meaningless stat, why are 3 out of the 4 remaining teams left in the 2008 playoffs helmed by first round QB's?

Regardless of the fact that no QB drafted in the 5th and 7th rounds have never won a Super Bowl and regardless of the fact that four Super Bowls were won by Joe Montana (a third round choice) and three were won by Tom Brady (6th rounder), the best chance of winning the Super Bowl is with a first round selection.

Brady and Montana were anomalies that skew the stats. Both weren't "System QB's" that won on flukes. It was fluke that both were overlooked by scouts. In hindsight, there's absolutely no question that both would have gone number one overall in their respective draft years.

It's not a fluke that both are Hall of Fame players.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Whoa, Cowboy.

It absolutely means SOMETHING.

If it were a meaningless stat, why would anyone bother drafting a QB in the first round, much like guards and centers?

If it were such a meaningless stat, why are 3 out of the 4 remaining teams left in the 2008 playoffs helmed by first round QB's?

Regardless of the fact that no QB drafted in the 5th and 7th rounds have never won a Super Bowl and regardless of the fact that four Super Bowls were won by Joe Montana (a third round choice) and three were won by Tom Brady (6th rounder), the best chance of winning the Super Bowl is with a first round selection.

Brady and Montana were anomalies that skew the stats. Both weren't "System QB's" that won on flukes. It was fluke that both were overlooked by scouts. In hindsight, there's absolutely no question that both would have gone number one overall in their respective draft years.

It's not a fluke that both are Hall of Fame players.

They don't skew the stats at all, because I'm only counting them once.

27 QB's have won a SB. Some multiple times.

In hindsight, Stabler, Theismann and Unitas would have gone #1 too. What's your point? They didn't.

[aturnis]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Whoa, Cowboy.

It absolutely means SOMETHING.

If it were a meaningless stat, why would anyone bother drafting a QB in the first round, much like guards and centers?

If it were such a meaningless stat, why are 3 out of the 4 remaining teams left in the 2008 playoffs helmed by first round QB's?

Regardless of the fact that no QB drafted in the 5th and 7th rounds have never won a Super Bowl and regardless of the fact that four Super Bowls were won by Joe Montana (a third round choice) and three were won by Tom Brady (6th rounder), the best chance of winning the Super Bowl is with a first round selection.

Brady and Montana were anomalies that skew the stats. Both weren't "System QB's" that won on flukes. It was fluke that both were overlooked by scouts. In hindsight, there's absolutely no question that both would have gone number one overall in their respective draft years.

It's not a fluke that both are Hall of Fame players.

b/c 3 out of 4 teams left in the hunt have the top 3 defenses? Not to mention the other did VERY well with turnovers?

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by aturnis

b/c 3 out of 4 teams left in the hunt have the top 3 defenses? Not to mention the other did VERY well with turnovers?

Exactly.

Anyone watch Inside the NFL last night?

The entire crew thinks Eli Manning is no better than the 10th-15th best QB in the league.

Three guys who played in the league, one of them as a SB winning QB, and they think he's average.

Yet, he's won a Super Bowl, so people here think he's the greatest ****ing thing since sliced bread.

[el borracho]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Really?

Because of the 27 that have won a SB, only 14 (52%) were 1st round picks. I don't see how that's "greatly increased."

That one round of the draft (the first round) exceeds all the other rounds combined. You don't see that as a statistical advantage?

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by el borracho

That one round of the draft (the first round) exceeds all the other rounds combined. You don't see that as a statistical advantage?

Not when you factor that teams aren't expecting much more than a backup out of a later round pick, where they ARE expecting a sure-fire QBOTF with a high pick.

[greyhoodie]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Regardless, the odds of winning a Super Bowl are greatly increased if you have a first round QB at the helm.

That cannot be disputed.

Odd are probably also increased if you have a shutdown corner or a future hof running back or a defensive end that leads the league in sacks. Point being that a there are plenty of areas to add a difference maker.

My philosophy (and as best I can tell it is Scott Pioli's as well) in round one particularly with the first 10 picks you want a player with minimal downside. If your choice are a guy that could be the next Tom Brady or could be the next Ryan Leaf pass on him for the guy you don't think will be a HOFer but you are absolutely certain is a 16 game starter. Guys you can get an excellent understanding of their capabilities from their college play. (that means no QBs) then in rounds 4-7 and with UDFA grab a couple of guys that could be diamonds in the rough or who could be total busts.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by greyhoodie

Odd are probably also increased if you have a shutdown corner or a future hof running back or a defensive end that leads the league in sacks. Point being that a there are plenty of areas to add a difference maker.

Exactly.

People keep forgetting that this is a TEAM sport.

Why are there 3 #1 QB's left in the playoffs?

They play on great TEAMS.

Christ, one of them is there with a ROOKIE. I think that speaks to how solid the TEAM is.