NFL Draft Let's put all the QB talk right here - Page 18

Mecca · 09-24-2008, 03:48 AM

Seeing how all the draft threads turn into QB talk lets use this thread as the QB draft thread....I'll start by putting up some videos.

**Tribal Warfare** · 09-24-2008, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

Oher is about as sure thing at LT as possible. Would I take him over Stafford, yes but that is bc I dont think Stafford will be very good. Would I take him over Bradford. Hell no. Would I take him over Sanchez. Nope.

I'm not a big Sanchez guy, but I do concur on Bradford.

ChiefsCountry · 09-24-2008, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

The Chiefs, during the 90s, had the best O-Line in the league next to the Boys, and what exactly did they win with the scrub QBs they trotted out there?

We could have had Elway, Aikman, Young or Favre and Marty still would have found a way to screw up.

SBK · 09-24-2008, 04:04 PM

Using 2 G's that were drafted in the first round as proof you should do it is stupid. That's like saying you shouldn't take a DE #1 ever because Cortney Brown was drafted there.

Like it or not the QB is the most important position on the field. We need one. We have a LT that looks like he's going to be a stud. Why on earth would you pass on a position you need (and that actually makes sense to take at #1) to draft at #1 a position you don't? And don't give me the "Oher grades higher" because we all know Stafford is going to grade top 5 anyway. Your strategy doesn't hold water, although I do like your passion.

**Tribal Warfare** · 09-24-2008, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SBK

Using 2 G's that were drafted in the first round as proof you should do it is stupid. That's like saying you shouldn't take a DE #1 ever because Cortney Brown was drafted there.

They are both all-pros dominate all-pros, and that's my point. If one can pick a player that is dominate at their position on offense or defense you take them those two players presented are.

Pablo · 09-24-2008, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribal Warfare

They are both all-pros dominate all-pros, and that's my point. If one can pick a player that is dominate at their position on offense or defense you take them those two players presented are.

We already picked up a LT that could be an all-pro and dominate the position.

Do you have any faith in Brandon Albert? Or do you just see a shiny new toy dangling in front of your face and throw down the one you have in your hand?

Pablo · 09-24-2008, 04:13 PM

Albert wasn't projected to be a G in the NFL. He was projected to be a LT. That's why he was drafted so high. The Eagles were looking at him for an LT. We got him. He's an LT now. He could have been in college. He has the size, speed, feet and power to be a great LT in the league.

ChiefsCountry · 09-24-2008, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GonzoRox88

Do you have any faith in Brandon Albert? Or do you just see a shiny new toy dangling in front of your face and throw down the one you have in your hand?

Thats the same argument findthedouche had last year with Dorsey and Ellis bc we had Tank and Turk.

Sure-Oz · 09-24-2008, 04:14 PM

How is Ellis doing anyway?

milkman · 09-24-2008, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

We could have had Elway, Aikman, Young or Favre and Marty still would have found a way to screw up.

I can't argue that.

However, Joe Montana, a shadow of the former great QB he once was, almost overcame Martyocrity.

milkman · 09-24-2008, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

Thats the same argument findthedouche had last year with Dorsey and Ellis bc we had Tank and Turk.

TW and FtD are almost like twins.

Pablo · 09-24-2008, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

Thats the same argument findthedouche had last year with Dorsey and Ellis bc we had Tank and Turk.

Were Tank and Turk first round picks that had showed they could handle their respective positions exceedingly well in three games?

Negative.

Did we give Tank and Turk an ass-load of money and make them starters from day one?

Negative.

milkman · 09-24-2008, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

TW and FtD are almost like twins.

However, in spite of FtD's single minded focus, he did provide a lot of great info.

**Tribal Warfare** · 09-24-2008, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SBK

Like it or not the QB is the most important position on the field.

Where have I said that QB isn't? I think it's funny people say draft a 1st round QB, with the 1st overall pick even though he was major concerns. I'm all for BPA, and this year it's either Oher or Rey-Rey. Unless Bradford comes out, their isn't QB I would look at the #1 overall pick.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 09-24-2008, 04:38 PM

People are taking this shit way too personally. It's almost like they are defending their own family members from personal attack.

Like I've said earlier, people almost become pot committed to their arguments, and they'll make asinine assumptions and conclusions in order to back them up.

The fact of the matter is that if you are looking at raw physical ability, Matt Stafford has more than Sam Bradford. No one knows if he has the intangibles because they are intangible, they aren't measurable. You haven't been in the huddle with either of them, and you haven't interviewed them.

Bradford may end up being a Tom Brady-like pro. However, he's surrounded by a ton of talent, with three legit NFL lineman blocking for him, including two late first-early second rounders this year.

People forget that Roethlisberger, Matt Ryan, Cutler, Rivers, and Carson Palmer (for his first 2 years) did not have a lot of talent around them. None of them put up all world stats, but they had the raw physical ability, and aside from Rivers, all of them had at least serviceable mechanics (I'm looking at you, Tim Tebow).

If you are that worried about decision making, why did Roethlisberger throw almost 35 picks against MAC competition in college? Stafford doesn't continually lob the ball into double and triple coverage.

Just because a QB has a strong arm doesn't mean he's a gunslinger. It means he has a strong arm. That's about as intelligent as saying Black QB=running threat who should be a WR.

Pablo · 09-24-2008, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Just because a QB has a strong arm doesn't mean he's a gunslinger. It means he has a strong arm. That's about as intelligent as saying Black QB=running threat who should be a WR.

Haven't you heard?

Having a strong arm means you're stupid as sh*t, and the only reason you have that arm strength is to make up for what you lack in your head.

09-24-2008, 03:48 AM
Mecca Hockey Town Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Kansas City, Missouri Casino cash: $-682950	Let's put all the QB talk right here Seeing how all the draft threads turn into QB talk lets use this thread as the QB draft thread....I'll start by putting up some videos.
Posts: 115,363

09-24-2008, 04:04 PM	#258
SBK Curry is the pick??? Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Georgia Casino cash: $10004900	Using 2 G's that were drafted in the first round as proof you should do it is stupid. That's like saying you shouldn't take a DE #1 ever because Cortney Brown was drafted there. Like it or not the QB is the most important position on the field. We need one. We have a LT that looks like he's going to be a stud. Why on earth would you pass on a position you need (and that actually makes sense to take at #1) to draft at #1 a position you don't? And don't give me the "Oher grades higher" because we all know Stafford is going to grade top 5 anyway. Your strategy doesn't hold water, although I do like your passion.
Posts: 8,153

09-24-2008, 04:13 PM	#261
Pablo Ultrabanned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Northland Casino cash: $-1860644	Albert wasn't projected to be a G in the NFL. He was projected to be a LT. That's why he was drafted so high. The Eagles were looking at him for an LT. We got him. He's an LT now. He could have been in college. He has the size, speed, feet and power to be a great LT in the league.
Posts: 43,917

09-24-2008, 04:38 PM	#269
'Hamas' Jenkins Now you've pissed me off! Join Date: Jan 2006 Casino cash: $7149572	People are taking this shit way too personally. It's almost like they are defending their own family members from personal attack. Like I've said earlier, people almost become pot committed to their arguments, and they'll make asinine assumptions and conclusions in order to back them up. The fact of the matter is that if you are looking at raw physical ability, Matt Stafford has more than Sam Bradford. No one knows if he has the intangibles because they are intangible, they aren't measurable. You haven't been in the huddle with either of them, and you haven't interviewed them. Bradford may end up being a Tom Brady-like pro. However, he's surrounded by a ton of talent, with three legit NFL lineman blocking for him, including two late first-early second rounders this year. People forget that Roethlisberger, Matt Ryan, Cutler, Rivers, and Carson Palmer (for his first 2 years) did not have a lot of talent around them. None of them put up all world stats, but they had the raw physical ability, and aside from Rivers, all of them had at least serviceable mechanics (I'm looking at you, Tim Tebow). If you are that worried about decision making, why did Roethlisberger throw almost 35 picks against MAC competition in college? Stafford doesn't continually lob the ball into double and triple coverage. Just because a QB has a strong arm doesn't mean he's a gunslinger. It means he has a strong arm. That's about as intelligent as saying Black QB=running threat who should be a WR. __________________ "When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”--Abraham Lincoln
Posts: 75,083