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

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by milkman

I agree with much of what you say here, and I think if you paid close attention that many of us who are strongly in favor of drafting Sanchez (I like Sanchez better than Stafford for the same reason as you) are also in favor of allowing drafted QB to learn from the sideline.

And yes, teams win championships, but if you can find your QB and build a team around him on both sides of the ball, you improve your chances of consistently competing for years.

What we have here are two differing philosophies to team building. The draft is the draft is the draft; nobody is advocating or even attempting bring some wild, new, maverick strategy to the whole process, it simply is what it is.

Team building is the issue we're dealing with, and these are the two camps:

Group A believes that you build a team from the ground up. Linemen, LB's, CB's, and RB's comprise your core. You get this together, you get it right, and THEN you bring in the best QB you can get to lead your team.
This QB does not necessarily have to be a draft pick, and in most cases he won't be; you've built your 8-8 "powerhouse", you'll never see draft position worth a shit to get the best picks, and "why ya' gonna' bring in some n00b to lead all this experienced awesomeness, I tells 'ya"?!

Group B, the group I belong to, believes that excellence and long-term success come by building from the top down.
Ownership, General Manager, Head Coach, Coordinators, Squad Coaches, Trainers, and Quarterback.
I subscribe to this philosophy for the reason that the Quarterback is your team's leader, and that leadership should be brought as early as possible in the situation we find ourselves in, that leadership should be developed from the get-go in a major rebuild, and that leadership should be constant as time goes on and as the great players, the not-so great players, and the scrubs come and go.

As much as I loathe the Donkos, they did it the right way with Elway. Regardless of who may have played with him over the years, when you heard "Denver Broncos", the first image in your minds eye was John Elway.

It's time for Kansas City to acquire and develop it's John Elway.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Darth CarlSatan

What we have here are two differing philosophies to team building. The draft is the draft is the draft; nobody is advocating or even attempting bring some wild, new, maverick strategy to the whole process, it simply is what it is.

Team building is the issue we're dealing with, and these are the two camps:

Group A believes that you build a team from the ground up. Linemen, LB's, CB's, and RB's comprise your core. You get this together, you get it right, and THEN you bring in the best QB you can get to lead your team.
This QB does not necessarily have to be a draft pick, and in most cases he won't be; you've built your 8-8 "powerhouse", you'll never see draft position worth a shit to get the best picks, and "why ya' gonna' bring in some n00b to lead all this experienced awesomeness, I tells 'ya"?!

Group B, the group I belong to, believes that excellence and long-term success come by building from the top down.
Ownership, General Manager, Head Coach, Coordinators, Squad Coaches, Trainers, and Quarterback.
I subscribe to this philosophy for the reason that the Quarterback is your team's leader, and that leadership should be brought as early as possible in the situation we find ourselves in, that leadership should be developed from the get-go in a major rebuild, and that leadership should be constant as time goes on and as the great players, the not-so great players, and the scrubs come and go.

As much as I loathe the Donkos, they did it the right way with Elway. Regardless of who may have played with him over the years, when you heard "Denver Broncos", the first image in your minds eye was John Elway.

It's time for Kansas City to acquire and develop it's John Elway.

It's hard to say. There's also a third school: if you're going to build around a QB, it had better be the right one. I think that's the part that some people aren't all on board with--not everyone is convinced Sanchez is a guy to build around. And I think that's a pretty reasonable concern--it is most definitely a risk to go with a QB that raw.

[Rigodan]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

It's hard to say. There's also a third school: if you're going to build around a QB, it had better be the right one. I think that's the part that some people aren't all on board with--not everyone is convinced Sanchez is a guy to build around. And I think that's a pretty reasonable concern--it is most definitely a risk to go with a QB that raw.

You gotta take the big risks (pick a QB) to get the big rewards (playoff wins). Go big or go home.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by Rigodan

You gotta take the big risks (pick a QB) to get the big rewards (playoff wins). Go big or go home.

This.

For some reason, people think that any pick other than Stafford/Sanchez is a safe pick.

There is no such thing as a safe pick.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

This.

For some reason, people think that any pick other than Stafford/Sanchez is a safe pick.

There is no such thing as a safe pick.

No, but I think there will be many that believe that those two QBs are less NFL-ready than most top QBs going into the draft. Granted, the top of the class is pretty shallow in general and the Chiefs can't just cross their fingers and hope they'll get a top 5 pick next year (especially given that the QB class might be worse next year).

But to your point... QBs generally bust at the highest rate. Other positions would be safer, without a doubt. But it's about risk vs. reward. QBs are high risk, high reward.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

No, but I think there will be many that believe that those two QBs are less NFL-ready than most top QBs going into the draft. Granted, the top of the class is pretty shallow in general and the Chiefs can't just cross their fingers and hope they'll get a top 5 pick next year (especially given that the QB class might be worse next year).

But to your point... QBs generally bust at the highest rate. Other positions would be safer, without a doubt. But it's about risk vs. reward. QBs are high risk, high reward.

There may be people that don't know how to scout the QB position that think they are less NFL ready.

Scott Wright mentioned in his chat today that he thinks Stafford is a better prospect than both Cutler and Ryan.

He's admitted that Sanchez has everything you look for, but that the lack of experience may scare some teams.

QB's are going to bust at a higher rate, because they play the most important position on the field, and more is asked of them.

If a LT busts, you move him to guard. At least you're getting something out of him.

When a QB busts, you have to ride it out.

But if you're too chickenshit to take the risk, you'll never have to worry about losing playoff and championship games - you'll never get there.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Rigodan

You gotta take the big risks (pick a QB) to get the big rewards (playoff wins). Go big or go home.

I don't disagree. But again, just saying it's not a slam dunk and it's reasonable for people to be hesitant.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I don't disagree. But again, just saying it's not a slam dunk and it's reasonable for people to be hesitant.

And it's just as reasonable for people to be hesitant about taking a LB that doesn't rush the passer at the 3 slot.

Add to that what Scott Wright said this week, that Curry compares to DJ Williams, and you have another reason people would be hesitant.

DJ.

Williams.

Let that sink in.

EVERY pick has risks associated with it.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

And it's just as reasonable for people to be hesitant about taking a LB that doesn't rush the passer at the 3 slot.

Add to that what Scott Wright said this week, that Curry compares to DJ Williams, and you have another reason people would be hesitant.

DJ.

Williams.

Let that sink in.

EVERY pick has risks associated with it.

It stretches believability to try to argue that Stafford and Sanchez aren't first-round quality prospects, and this begs the obvious: If not now, when and how?

FA? We know the results this tends to bring.

Next years draft? For whom, Bradford? Ok, but he's probably going very, very early. Maybe even 1/1, and we'll likely not be *that* bad.

And I don't even want to talk seriously about a guy like McCoy. He's going to be about a 3rd rounder. Maybe he'll develop into a stud, but you're talking about a much riskier avenue.