Treatise from the "Gang of 14" (Long Read)

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

I'm sorry, but when I see the paucity of analysis that you bring Re: USC and compare it to one of our best football posters who has followed USC religiously for years, posts on USC boards, and keeps track of all of their moves within their program, I'm going to believe him over you, especially when combined with the rampant intellectual dishonest that you've displayed in all of your fabricated "arguing for the sake of arguing" posts, such as the fact that teams are better off searching outside of the first round.

This is exactly my point about your posts. You post complete nonsense and act as if you're handing out the Rosetta Stone. Then when you get called on it, you can't handle it. I never said that teams are better off searching outside of the first round. As for what Mecca opines, it's still OPINION. Try to get that through your head. Mecca is not, as far as I know, Pete Carroll using the ChiefsPlanet message board.

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Again, I apologize that something as impossibly simple as basic addition and how to read a number line (things like 60>40) are lost upon you, I really am. Because I wouldn't have to sit here and watch you fumble around and **** them up.

And, yet again, you can't seem to grasp simple things. Call me when 60=100 and then you'll have an ironclad case. When it's a 60/40 split, you've got shit. Which is basically what your argument is.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

This is exactly my point about your posts. You post complete nonsense and act as if you're handing out the Rosetta Stone. Then when you get called on it, you can't handle it. I never said that teams are better off searching outside of the first round. As for what Mecca opines, it's still OPINION. Try to get that through your head. Mecca is not, as far as I know, Pete Carroll using the ChiefsPlanet message board.



And, yet again, you can't seem to grasp simple things. Call me when 60=100 and then you'll have an ironclad case. When it's a 60/40 split, you've got shit. Which is basically what your argument is.

I don't know how this can be said any more plainly:

Are teams going to spend every draft pick outside of their #1 in a given draft on a quarterback?

No.

Why not?

Because its a gross misallocation of resources.

Well, for the sake of argument, let's give them extra picks in every other round other than 1, and let them use all of them on quarterbacks.

Would they, or would they not have a better chance of finding a QB from all those other picks, than they would from simply spending a first round pick on any of the top QB prospects?

They would not.

Stats bear this out
History bears this out.

And yet, in spite of all of this, you assume that because the odds of getting a SB winning QB are not 100% in round one, that somehow that justifies trying to look outside of round 1 for one.

1=60%

2+3+4+5+6+7=40% (and in many days you take n=round all the way up to 18 and it STILL DIDN'T MATTER).

This is your argument:

I put a gun to your head, if you don't win, I get to kill you. You have AA against 2 other random hands. You are basically saying, that because AA does not have a 100% chance of winning, that it's not the best course of action.

Cool, we get to blow your head off.


And as far as Carroll and Booty vs. Sanchez, I guess that the opinions of Pete Carroll outweigh those of all of his coaches. He was also proven right by the fact that USC was less successful with more offensive talent with Booty, and the fact that Booty was a 1st round draft pick, right?

Clearly Booty>Sanchez.

Obviously, Jerry Glanville was right in his assessment that Brett Favre should never start, since he's the head coach, right?

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

I don't know how this can be said any more plainly:

Are teams going to spend every draft pick outside of their #1 in a given draft on a quarterback?

No.

Why not?

Because its a gross misallocation of resources.

Well, for the sake of argument, let's give them extra picks in every other round other than 1, and let them use all of them on quarterbacks.

Would they, or would they not have a better chance of finding a QB from all those other picks, than they would from simply spending a first round pick on any of the top QB prospects?

They would not.

Stats bear this out
History bears this out.

And yet, in spite of all of this, you assume that because the odds of getting a SB winning QB are not 100% in round one, that somehow that justifies trying to look outside of round 1 for one.

1=60%

2+3+4+5+6+7=40% (and in many days you take n=round all the way up to 18 and it STILL DIDN'T MATTER).

This is your argument:

I put a gun to your head, if you don't win, I get to kill you. You have AA against 2 other random hands. You are basically saying, that because AA does not have a 100% chance of winning, that it's not the best course of action.

Cool, we get to blow your head off.


And as far as Carroll and Booty vs. Sanchez, I guess that the opinions of Pete Carroll outweigh those of all of his coaches. He was also proven right by the fact that USC was less successful with more offensive talent with Booty, and the fact that Booty was a 1st round draft pick, right?

Clearly Booty>Sanchez.

Obviously, Jerry Glanville was right in his assessment that Brett Favre should never start, since he's the head coach, right?

This is complete gibberish. Did you actually read this post before you submitted it? Let me try to be plain and, unlike yourself, actually make sense, and I'll do it in example form.

Example:

There are 30 quarterbacks to be taken. Out of those 30 quarterbacks, 1 will become a top shelf quarterback, 2-3 will become quality/above average quarterbacks and the rest will either be backups or out of the league.

Now, picking in the first round gives you the best chance to get one of the 4 quarterbacks worth picking. It does not, however, guarantee that the quarterback you pick will be one of those 4 quarterbacks.

As for the Booty argument, you keep acting as if opinion = fact. I can only suggest that you consult a dictionary and learn the difference.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Now, picking in the first round gives you the best chance to get one of the 4 quarterbacks worth picking. It does not, however, guarantee that the quarterback you pick will be one of those 4 quarterbacks.

Of course.

I don't know what you're arguing about, honestly. No one is saying that Stafford or Sanchez will be a lock. I've lost the keys to Doc's car, so I can't say definitively.

But we all know that you have the best odds to be right with these guys because they have, according to all indicators, the best talent.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Of course.

I don't know what you're arguing about, honestly. No one is saying that Stafford or Sanchez will be a lock. I've lost the keys to Doc's car, so I can't say definitively.

But we all know that you have the best odds to be right with these guys because they have, according to all indicators, the best talent.

Not everyone is in agreement that they have that "best talent", unless you're restricting the discussion strictly to this year's draft. Not a single running back broke a 4.3, for example, so that doesn't mean that the player who ran the closest to it should somehow be treated as if he did. Sometimes, the best of a bad lot is still bad. Many people here put Stafford and Sanchez in that category. They shouldn't be insulted the way these clowns have been insulting them every time they "dare" assert that opinion.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Not everyone is in agreement that they have that "best talent", unless you're restricting the discussion strictly to this year's draft. Not a single running back broke a 4.3, for example, so that doesn't mean that the player who ran the closest to it should somehow be treated as if he did. Sometimes, the best of a bad lot is still bad. Many people here put Stafford and Sanchez in that category. They shouldn't be insulted the way these clowns have been insulting them every time they "dare" assert that opinion.

So, do you think next year's QB class is going to be better?

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by milkman

So, do you think next year's QB class is going to be better?

And this raises the most important question that Pioli and co. must answer:

If not now, how and when? Because the possibilities start to become even more cloudy very quickly.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by milkman

So, do you think next year's QB class is going to be better?

I won't know until I see who declares. It should be deeper and more interesting, but as for "better", it's too soon to tell.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Not everyone is in agreement that they have that "best talent", unless you're restricting the discussion strictly to this year's draft. Not a single running back broke a 4.3, for example, so that doesn't mean that the player who ran the closest to it should somehow be treated as if he did. Sometimes, the best of a bad lot is still bad. Many people here put Stafford and Sanchez in that category. They shouldn't be insulted the way these clowns have been insulting them every time they "dare" assert that opinion.

Both have their shortcomings, there's no doubt about that.

I can understand the concerns surrounding Sanchez much more, but I'll continue to state that if anyone doesn't think that Stafford is a very, very worthy top-3 selection as a QB, that person will never find a QB prospect that he likes.