NFL Draft Treatise from the "Gang of 14" (Long Read) - Page 13

'Hamas' Jenkins · 02-25-2009, 06:52 AM

Treatise from the “Gang of 14”:

I see a lot of dissent from the True Fans on the board that those of us who continually express the primacy of a franchise quarterback are not adding any kind of insight or support to our opinions, merely insults. In the interests of refutation, I am going to skip any form of attack in this post in order to demonstrate to you what our argument is, and the history that we have on the board of supporting said argument with pointed, and factual examples.

Why do we believe in obtaining a franchise QB?

It’s quite simple. It is the most important piece of a team that will successfully contend for a number of years. Look back on the last several dynasties or near-dynasties in the NFL.

The Steelers of the 70’s had Bradshaw
The 49ers of the 80’s and 90’s had Montanal who then bridged seamlessly to Steve Young
The Cowboys of the 90’s had Troy Aikman
The Bills of the 90’s had Jim Kelly
The Broncos of the 80’s and 90’s had John Elway
The Patriots of this decade have Tom Brady
The Colts of this decade have Peyton Manning
The Steelers of this decade have Ben Roethlisberger

8 teams, all of them had franchise QBs. Most of them also had good to great defenses, but none of them didn’t have a franchise quarterback.

Here is why we don’t believe in defense above all else:

The 1980s Chicago Bears
The late 80’s-early 90’s Philadelphia Eagles
The Bucs of the 1990s and 2000s
The Ravens of this decade.

Many people consider the 1985 Bears to be the greatest team of all time, with the greatest defense of all time. What people forget is that the 1986 Bears had a better defense, setting NFL records for fewest points allowed. What they didn’t have was the same level of consistent play from the quarterback position as these other teams did. In spite of one of the most impressively talented units of all time on either side of the ball, they were essentially a one-hit wonder.

The Philadelphia Eagles of the Buddy Ryan era had some of the most dominant defenders of any era. Guys like Reggie White, Jerome Brown, Clyde Simmons, Seth Joyner, Eric Allen, Wes Hopkins, and Andre Waters. They led the NFL in both passing and rushing yardage allowed in 1991, the first team to do that in 16 years, and they missed the playoffs. In fact, that team did not win a single playoff game.

The Bucs of the last 10 years are another great example. Although they had an amazingly talented unit, Warren Sapp, Simeon Rice (120 sacks), Ronde Barber, Derrick Brooks, Booger McFarland, and John Lynch (among others), they routinely flamed out in the playoffs. They eventually won one Super Bowl, but with that kind of talent on one unit, it’s positively criminal that they weren’t in the

Ch.

Game or Super Bowl every year.

The 2000 Ravens had arguably the greatest or second greatest D of all time, but with only Trent Dilfer at the helm, and no other offensive weapons aside from Jamal Lewis, they flamed out quicker than Colin Farrell.

Now, with that being said, why do we want a franchise QB this year?
It comes down to this: we see Matt Stafford and Mark Sanchez as two of the best quarterback prospects of the last five years.

Stafford has an amazing physical skillset. Here is a list of reasons I posted in support ofStafford some months ago:

He has three years of starting experience in the SEC
2. He comes from a pro offense
3. He knows how to read a defense, and can audible into advantageous plays, recognizes the blitz
4. He's willing to get pounded and get back up
5. He's mobile
6. He has good mechanics
7. He has unbelievable arm strength
8. He's played with a very marginal OL this year with three freshmen on it, and receivers who can't get separation, so he has to make NFL throws to get them the ball, he's not lobbing a rainbow up to a WR with 5 yards of separation.
9. He's a leader and he's been under intense scrutiny since he was 16 years old.
10. He's improved every year in college, despite having less and less talent around him to work with.

Combine that with reports of how teams were “blown away” by his board work, as well as the natural athleticism he showed in running the 40, and I don’t know how one wouldn’t be floored by this kid.

Why do we want Sanchez?

It’s a similar question with slightly different answers, but achieving the same result.

Sanchez is a leader of men. It’s that simple. He’s naturally charismatic, and he has the aura around him that all great QBs do. He owns the room when he walks in. That confidence bordering on cockiness (minus Jeff George dickheadedness) is a great asset.
He has textbook throwing mechanics
He has dancer’s feet. The importance of this really cannot be stressed enough. The only coaching that he is going to need when coming into the league is how to read and react to NFL defenses. He’s about as close to mechanically flawless as anyone since the Human Juggs Machine, Carson Palmer
He has very good arm strength (it’s not elite, but it’s more than good enough to make any throw).
He comes from a pro offense
He has four years of post high school experience. He’s worked on the scout team, he’s been a backup, he’s been a spot starter, and he’s been the man.
He had great production with a team that had good, but nowhere near elite, talent around him. This isn’t the 2004 Trojans. They aren’t anywhere near as talented.

Granted, both prospects have their warts. Every prospect has question marks. People employ revisionist history far too often when evaluating players after the fact.

What did Joe Montana or Tom Brady have that made them jump off the page to someone?
Peyton Manning was considered potentially maxed out as a prospect, a QB with little upside.
John Elway never even went to a bowl game, was he really a “winner”? He was also a very generously listed “6’3”. Look at him next to Peyton Manning and see if he’s really 6’3”, and yet the same questions are used to discount Stafford and Sanchez.

Many of you will beg the following question:

Why not defense in this draft?
It’s quite simple:

The draft is seven rounds. We have six other picks
This draft lacks elite talent on defense at the top
Next year’s draft has two of the most ridiculously talented freaks at DE of the last decade (Carlos Dunlap and Everson Griffen), as well as better safety, LB, DT, and CB prospects across the board. It is a draft of defense
Borrowing on 3, there is a draft after this year. The 2009 Chiefs have a 0% chance of winning anything meaningful. This is a solid 3 year rebuilding process. If you want to see this team built correctly, you should look to 2011

Why do you hate Aaron Curry?

We don’t. The fact of the matter is that Aaron Curry, for all the safety that he brings as a draft pick, and for all his physical gifts, cannot change games.

He has no history of rushing the passer. He expressed confidence in his ability to learn to do so, but he’s never done it. That makes him as big of a project at that job as any safety Carl ever tried to move to corner.

Cover backers make tackles in space and take away the 3^rd-5^th receiving options. That’s great, but it’s also like saying that middle relievers are more important than starting pitchers. Both contribute to the win, but the starter has far more chances to affect the outcome of the game.

Curry, for all his projections, has also never played Mike. That will also entail a position move.

Let’s address additional follow up questions:

“Why are you ‘QB or bust’ no matter who the QB?” and “Why do you want to reach for any QB?”

We aren’t
We don’t.

No one here is saying we should take Freeman at 3, or think that Rhett Bomar or Nate Davis are the kinds of guys who could carry a franchise. It’s folly.

“Why is the spread so bad? Look at the #s QBs put up!”

The quarterback, his pedigree, and his experience are paramount. With the proliferation of the spread in college football, it will become more and more difficult in order to properly evaluate quarterbacks and how they translate to the pro game.

The spread works for the same reason that the option worked. There is simply not enough speed on college defenses to contain it, and defense is a chain, the weakest link causes the failure of all. Given that talent is spread so thin on college defenses, most teams have to trot out fourth corners that run like NFL defensive ends. Combine that with the fact that college players don’t devote the same amount of time to film study and coaching as their pro counterparts, and college defenses run more simplistic schemes.

This leads to soft zone defenses with corners playing way off. WRs don’t get jammed at the line, and their free release, when combined with a quasi-prevent D, allows them to kill the opposing defenses by paper cut, or if a single tackle is missed or assignment blown, by guillotine.

Furthermore, college quarterbacks from the spread are running a two read system, and they do not read the defenses in front of them. Look at any spread team before the snap. Watch how the QB looks to the sideline for instructions from the offensive coaching staff on what the defense across from him is. NFL QBs need to make as many as four reads on any given passing play that isn’t a max protect situation.

The spread is a great equalizer for teams like Missouri and Kansas that don’t have elite talent but want to exploit the lack of 1-80 talent on other teams. It is not a solution to an NFL defense, where everyone is talented, and where the schemes are more exotic.

It faces the same fate as the Run-N-Shoot: Kill the Quarterback.
When these things are taken into account, as well as the fact that all spread quarterbacks need to learn how to take snaps from under center and proper footwork for 3,5, and 7 step drops, you have a huge learning curve that exponentially increases the bust rate for the prospect.

QB is the riskiest position to draft. We should draft a safer position
Aundray Bruce, Tony Mandarich, Pac Man, Robert Gallery, Leonard Davis, Troy Williamson, Charles Rogers, Ryan Sims, Wendell Bryant, the list goes on forever

No position is safe.

Why not draft Crabtree?

WRs from the spread don’t run a traditional NFL route tree. He has no experience in doing so, that increases his learning curve.

He lacks elite speed. WRs taken in the top 10 almost universally have elite speed

He lacks elite size.

He has a cracked foot

College stats are not a good predictor of NFL success. Look at Ron Dayne, Rashan Salaam, Timmy Chang, Jake Barton, Manny Hazard, or Alex Van Dyke

“Why not just draft a QB in the middle rounds?”

ChiefsCountry has compiled an impressive list of QBs who won the Super Bowl and where they were drafted.

So you want Thiggy as our quarterback.

How about these facts:
57% of the Super Bowls have been won by first round quarterbacks.
(Out of those quarterbacks only 3 were not top 10 picks)
40% of the Super Bowls won by top 5 picks.
21% have been won by 1st round quarterbacks that wasnt their original team (Dawson, Plunkett (2), Williams, Young, Dilfer)
16% of the Super Bowls were won by Montana and Brady
4% were Roger Staubuach's wins who would have went in the first if he wasnt going to Vietnam
14% were won by a 9th or lower (counting Warner who was Undrafted) and 4 of those wins were by Bart Starr & Roger Staubauch.
4% were won by second round quarterbacks
4% 3rd and 6th rounds picks that were not Montana or Brady
0% of the Super Bowls were won by a 7th round pick

http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost....&postcount=129

Additionally, this was done before this year’s Super Bowl, in which another 1^st round quarterback, Ben Roethlisberger, won.

Moreover, Scott Wright has an extensive breakdown of the profound failure rate of 2^nd and 3^rd round quarterbacks over the last 15 years on his site, NFLDraftCountdown.

“All you do is insult people”

Actually we don’t. We insult people a lot, but a large portion of that is born out of frustration for having the same argument ad infinitum and telling the same thing to people who don’t’ listen to what we say.

I realize that this list is not comprehensive. It’s merely hitting the high notes of the discussions that we have previously had. If anyone else from the Gang of 14 wants to add anything, feel free.

Thank you for your time,

HJ

**DaneMcCloud** · 02-26-2009, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

3.) Pete Carroll said that Sanchez should stay in school. I'm not sure how my saying that people shouldn't be berated for not wanting Sanchez at #3 is somehow acting as if I'm smarter than any college or NFL head coach given what came out of his own head coach's mouth.

Why do you care what Pete Carroll thinks?

I've posted quotes from big time USC Boosters that have told me that Pete was pissed because he was virtually eliminated from Title Contention the minute Sanchez declared.

Sweet Daddy Hate · 02-26-2009, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reerun_KC

Alright here is the secret handshake! Password is, "bitch you better have my money"

Secret Handshake!

That's the hand shake that gets you dropped through Porky's trap-door!

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Why do you care what Pete Carroll thinks?

I've posted quotes from big time USC Boosters that have told me that Pete was pissed because he was virtually eliminated from Title Contention the minute Sanchez declared.

Hell yes he was pissed!
It kills me that no matter how painfully obvious it is that Mark is one very talented young man who will be such a dynamic leader for a team, TF's in KC just have a really inbred mental block from 30 years of overall shite that will NOT let them see the forest for the trees!

Winner. That's what this kid is, plain and simple.

tk13 · 02-26-2009, 02:01 AM

I think it's definitely devolved to the point where all the QB lovers cut down Curry, Crabtree, and pretty much every one else who isn't a QB. And the people who are afraid of a QB cut them down while propping up the other guy.

In the end, most people get so caught up in wanting to be right that their opinion becomes way too emotional. Some of the hyperbole both ways about these guys is flat insane. People saying Sanchez is some God like leader of men or Stafford doesn't have "it"... I don't know about that. And I'm probably being kind.

It's a huge risk, this is probably the time to take it. There doesn't appear to be too many insane prospects out there. I'm not sure Curry's really worth it at 3, but I'm not sure he sucks quite as bad as some people think he does. All the other top 15-20 picks besides Stafford and Sanchez aren't going to bust, and there are guys we're propping up now who are going to fail, and guys who people think are overrated who will succeed.

The reality is that you're more likely to find a Super Bowl winning guy in the 1st round. The other reality is that picking a 1st round QB that flops will set your franchise back 4 or 5 years. So it's not a pick to be made lightly. It's not a mistake you can just fix, you have to ride it out and be patient. That is not a poor argument to make. That doesn't mean you should be afraid to take the risk, but you have to be right, and sometimes that comes down to luck, injuries, the team that's built around them, etc.. The amount of confidence people on both sides of this argument make is probably way too excessive. But that's life on a message board.

The other thing is, we're not going to be a Super Bowl team next year, but we've got high draft picks, a ridiculous amount of cap space, with a horribly weak division that's being turned over with the Raiders, a younger coach than Mangini, and Norv Turner. I think turning in a record much better than 2-14 is not far-fetched. This team could look totally different come June, Pioli really has the freedom to do whatever he wants.

Mecca · 02-26-2009, 02:07 AM

I don't think Aaron Curry sucks, I just don't think OLB's are worth top 3 picks.

And Michael Crabtree has red flags popping up everywhere he's cutting himself down.

tk13 · 02-26-2009, 02:17 AM

But it is different now with Pioli. It's not like Carl. Regardless of whether he succeeds in KC or not, the dude was a HUGE part in the evaluation and decision making process of the greatest dynasty of the salary cap era. It's very hard to second guess his decisions, or to act like you're smarter than him. Because you're not. And he will make some poor decisions, I don't doubt that one bit.

Reerun_KC · 02-26-2009, 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tk13

But it is different now with Pioli. It's not like Carl. Regardless of whether he succeeds in KC or not, the dude was a HUGE part in the evaluation and decision making process of the greatest dynasty of the salary cap era. It's very hard to second guess his decisions, or to act like you're smarter than him. Because you're not. And he will make some poor decisions, I don't doubt that one bit.

Which is funny, because people bash someone for wanting a certain player, Saying they arent smarter than NFL GM's. Then turn right around and say we wont pass on a sure fire HOF OLB... Because they are smarter than the GM...

How do you figure that?

Mecca · 02-26-2009, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reerun_KC

Which is funny, because people bash someone for wanting a certain player, Saying they arent smarter than NFL GM's. Then turn right around and say we wont pass on a sure fire HOF OLB... Because they are smarter than the GM...

How do you figure that?

Because the argument is "Pioli agrees with me" which I don't really understand but there are posters that seem to really think that.

Reerun_KC · 02-26-2009, 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

Because the argument is "Pioli agrees with me" which I don't really understand but there are posters that seem to really think that.

How do they know that Pioli agrees with them? Can they post a link or evidence to support those claims?

Mecca · 02-26-2009, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reerun_KC

How do they know that Pioli agrees with them? Can they post a link or evidence to support those claims?

They don't it just sounds good so they can call everyone else stupid or "you think you know more than Pioli does!"

tk13 · 02-26-2009, 02:42 AM

Three is probably a bit high. Although I think OLB is an impact position if you are a 3-4 team. But that said, there doesn't appear to be a Mario Williams in this draft, no Glenn Dorsey's... if you're not looking for a QB or LT then Curry looks about as good as anyone else. What do you do?

Mecca · 02-26-2009, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tk13

Three is probably a bit high. Although I think OLB is an impact position if you are a 3-4 team. But that said, there doesn't appear to be a Mario Williams in this draft, no Glenn Dorsey's... if you're not looking for a QB or LT then Curry looks about as good as anyone else. What do you do?

You take the QB?

There's a ton of defenders next year and reality is we'll be picking high again.

keg in kc · 02-26-2009, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

Because the argument is "Pioli agrees with me" which I don't really understand but there are posters that seem to really think that.

There's a lot of folks who think the chiefs are going to do exactly what they want for some reason, this attitude like 'when the chiefs take curry, i'll be vindicated, and it'll prove that sanchez sucks!'. Like they somehow know better than the rest of us what the chiefs are going to do. It's interesting.

Mecca · 02-26-2009, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

There's a lot of folks who think the chiefs are going to do exactly what they want for some reason, this attitude like 'when the chiefs take curry, i'll be vindicated, and it'll prove that sanchez sucks!'. Like they somehow know better than the rest of us what the chiefs are going to do. It's interesting.

No one knows, which is why those arguments do get on my nerves. Just like the "you don't work in the NFL" arguments are lazy.

What should we all do sit around going "they'll make the right decision" like little sheep with no opinions that'd be a real fun forum.

Goldmember · 02-26-2009, 08:18 AM

What I'd like to see is some statistic that shows the relationship of success to the quality of their offensive line. I'd say that most of those qb's you listed didn't spend a lot of time on their asses or have to hurry the majority of their throws. I still think the most important position on the team is the entire offensive line. BTW, I am not a former Big Ugly nor am I related to one whatsoever.

Sweet Daddy Hate · 02-26-2009, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goldmember

What I'd like to see is some statistic that shows the relationship of success to the quality of their offensive line. I'd say that most of those qb's you listed didn't spend a lot of time on their asses or have to hurry the majority of their throws. I still think the most important position on the team is the entire offensive line. BTW, I am not a former Big Ugly nor am I related to one whatsoever.

"The Ballad Of Fix The O-Line And Everything Will Fall In To Place"

02-25-2009, 06:52 AM
'Hamas' Jenkins Now you've pissed me off! Join Date: Jan 2006 Casino cash: $7139572	Treatise from the "Gang of 14" (Long Read) Treatise from the “Gang of 14”: I see a lot of dissent from the True Fans on the board that those of us who continually express the primacy of a franchise quarterback are not adding any kind of insight or support to our opinions, merely insults. In the interests of refutation, I am going to skip any form of attack in this post in order to demonstrate to you what our argument is, and the history that we have on the board of supporting said argument with pointed, and factual examples. Why do we believe in obtaining a franchise QB? It’s quite simple. It is the most important piece of a team that will successfully contend for a number of years. Look back on the last several dynasties or near-dynasties in the NFL. The Steelers of the 70’s had Bradshaw The 49ers of the 80’s and 90’s had Montanal who then bridged seamlessly to Steve Young The Cowboys of the 90’s had Troy Aikman The Bills of the 90’s had Jim Kelly The Broncos of the 80’s and 90’s had John Elway The Patriots of this decade have Tom Brady The Colts of this decade have Peyton Manning The Steelers of this decade have Ben Roethlisberger 8 teams, all of them had franchise QBs. Most of them also had good to great defenses, but none of them didn’t have a franchise quarterback. Here is why we don’t believe in defense above all else: The 1980s Chicago Bears The late 80’s-early 90’s Philadelphia Eagles The Bucs of the 1990s and 2000s The Ravens of this decade. Many people consider the 1985 Bears to be the greatest team of all time, with the greatest defense of all time. What people forget is that the 1986 Bears had a better defense, setting NFL records for fewest points allowed. What they didn’t have was the same level of consistent play from the quarterback position as these other teams did. In spite of one of the most impressively talented units of all time on either side of the ball, they were essentially a one-hit wonder. The Philadelphia Eagles of the Buddy Ryan era had some of the most dominant defenders of any era. Guys like Reggie White, Jerome Brown, Clyde Simmons, Seth Joyner, Eric Allen, Wes Hopkins, and Andre Waters. They led the NFL in both passing and rushing yardage allowed in 1991, the first team to do that in 16 years, and they missed the playoffs. In fact, that team did not win a single playoff game. The Bucs of the last 10 years are another great example. Although they had an amazingly talented unit, Warren Sapp, Simeon Rice (120 sacks), Ronde Barber, Derrick Brooks, Booger McFarland, and John Lynch (among others), they routinely flamed out in the playoffs. They eventually won one Super Bowl, but with that kind of talent on one unit, it’s positively criminal that they weren’t in the Ch. Game or Super Bowl every year. The 2000 Ravens had arguably the greatest or second greatest D of all time, but with only Trent Dilfer at the helm, and no other offensive weapons aside from Jamal Lewis, they flamed out quicker than Colin Farrell. Now, with that being said, why do we want a franchise QB this year? It comes down to this: we see Matt Stafford and Mark Sanchez as two of the best quarterback prospects of the last five years. Stafford has an amazing physical skillset. Here is a list of reasons I posted in support ofStafford some months ago: He has three years of starting experience in the SEC 2. He comes from a pro offense 3. He knows how to read a defense, and can audible into advantageous plays, recognizes the blitz 4. He's willing to get pounded and get back up 5. He's mobile 6. He has good mechanics 7. He has unbelievable arm strength 8. He's played with a very marginal OL this year with three freshmen on it, and receivers who can't get separation, so he has to make NFL throws to get them the ball, he's not lobbing a rainbow up to a WR with 5 yards of separation. 9. He's a leader and he's been under intense scrutiny since he was 16 years old. 10. He's improved every year in college, despite having less and less talent around him to work with. Combine that with reports of how teams were “blown away” by his board work, as well as the natural athleticism he showed in running the 40, and I don’t know how one wouldn’t be floored by this kid. Why do we want Sanchez? It’s a similar question with slightly different answers, but achieving the same result. Sanchez is a leader of men. It’s that simple. He’s naturally charismatic, and he has the aura around him that all great QBs do. He owns the room when he walks in. That confidence bordering on cockiness (minus Jeff George dickheadedness) is a great asset. He has textbook throwing mechanics He has dancer’s feet. The importance of this really cannot be stressed enough. The only coaching that he is going to need when coming into the league is how to read and react to NFL defenses. He’s about as close to mechanically flawless as anyone since the Human Juggs Machine, Carson Palmer He has very good arm strength (it’s not elite, but it’s more than good enough to make any throw). He comes from a pro offense He has four years of post high school experience. He’s worked on the scout team, he’s been a backup, he’s been a spot starter, and he’s been the man. He had great production with a team that had good, but nowhere near elite, talent around him. This isn’t the 2004 Trojans. They aren’t anywhere near as talented. Granted, both prospects have their warts. Every prospect has question marks. People employ revisionist history far too often when evaluating players after the fact. What did Joe Montana or Tom Brady have that made them jump off the page to someone? Peyton Manning was considered potentially maxed out as a prospect, a QB with little upside. John Elway never even went to a bowl game, was he really a “winner”? He was also a very generously listed “6’3”. Look at him next to Peyton Manning and see if he’s really 6’3”, and yet the same questions are used to discount Stafford and Sanchez. Many of you will beg the following question: Why not defense in this draft? It’s quite simple: The draft is seven rounds. We have six other picks This draft lacks elite talent on defense at the top Next year’s draft has two of the most ridiculously talented freaks at DE of the last decade (Carlos Dunlap and Everson Griffen), as well as better safety, LB, DT, and CB prospects across the board. It is a draft of defense Borrowing on 3, there is a draft after this year. The 2009 Chiefs have a 0% chance of winning anything meaningful. This is a solid 3 year rebuilding process. If you want to see this team built correctly, you should look to 2011 Why do you hate Aaron Curry? We don’t. The fact of the matter is that Aaron Curry, for all the safety that he brings as a draft pick, and for all his physical gifts, cannot change games. He has no history of rushing the passer. He expressed confidence in his ability to learn to do so, but he’s never done it. That makes him as big of a project at that job as any safety Carl ever tried to move to corner. Cover backers make tackles in space and take away the 3^rd-5^th receiving options. That’s great, but it’s also like saying that middle relievers are more important than starting pitchers. Both contribute to the win, but the starter has far more chances to affect the outcome of the game. Curry, for all his projections, has also never played Mike. That will also entail a position move. Let’s address additional follow up questions: “Why are you ‘QB or bust’ no matter who the QB?” and “Why do you want to reach for any QB?” We aren’t We don’t. No one here is saying we should take Freeman at 3, or think that Rhett Bomar or Nate Davis are the kinds of guys who could carry a franchise. It’s folly. “Why is the spread so bad? Look at the #s QBs put up!” The quarterback, his pedigree, and his experience are paramount. With the proliferation of the spread in college football, it will become more and more difficult in order to properly evaluate quarterbacks and how they translate to the pro game. The spread works for the same reason that the option worked. There is simply not enough speed on college defenses to contain it, and defense is a chain, the weakest link causes the failure of all. Given that talent is spread so thin on college defenses, most teams have to trot out fourth corners that run like NFL defensive ends. Combine that with the fact that college players don’t devote the same amount of time to film study and coaching as their pro counterparts, and college defenses run more simplistic schemes. This leads to soft zone defenses with corners playing way off. WRs don’t get jammed at the line, and their free release, when combined with a quasi-prevent D, allows them to kill the opposing defenses by paper cut, or if a single tackle is missed or assignment blown, by guillotine. Furthermore, college quarterbacks from the spread are running a two read system, and they do not read the defenses in front of them. Look at any spread team before the snap. Watch how the QB looks to the sideline for instructions from the offensive coaching staff on what the defense across from him is. NFL QBs need to make as many as four reads on any given passing play that isn’t a max protect situation. The spread is a great equalizer for teams like Missouri and Kansas that don’t have elite talent but want to exploit the lack of 1-80 talent on other teams. It is not a solution to an NFL defense, where everyone is talented, and where the schemes are more exotic. It faces the same fate as the Run-N-Shoot: Kill the Quarterback. When these things are taken into account, as well as the fact that all spread quarterbacks need to learn how to take snaps from under center and proper footwork for 3,5, and 7 step drops, you have a huge learning curve that exponentially increases the bust rate for the prospect. QB is the riskiest position to draft. We should draft a safer position Aundray Bruce, Tony Mandarich, Pac Man, Robert Gallery, Leonard Davis, Troy Williamson, Charles Rogers, Ryan Sims, Wendell Bryant, the list goes on forever No position is safe. Why not draft Crabtree? WRs from the spread don’t run a traditional NFL route tree. He has no experience in doing so, that increases his learning curve. He lacks elite speed. WRs taken in the top 10 almost universally have elite speed He lacks elite size. He has a cracked foot College stats are not a good predictor of NFL success. Look at Ron Dayne, Rashan Salaam, Timmy Chang, Jake Barton, Manny Hazard, or Alex Van Dyke “Why not just draft a QB in the middle rounds?” ChiefsCountry has compiled an impressive list of QBs who won the Super Bowl and where they were drafted. So you want Thiggy as our quarterback. How about these facts: 57% of the Super Bowls have been won by first round quarterbacks. (Out of those quarterbacks only 3 were not top 10 picks) 40% of the Super Bowls won by top 5 picks. 21% have been won by 1st round quarterbacks that wasnt their original team (Dawson, Plunkett (2), Williams, Young, Dilfer) 16% of the Super Bowls were won by Montana and Brady 4% were Roger Staubuach's wins who would have went in the first if he wasnt going to Vietnam 14% were won by a 9th or lower (counting Warner who was Undrafted) and 4 of those wins were by Bart Starr & Roger Staubauch. 4% were won by second round quarterbacks 4% 3rd and 6th rounds picks that were not Montana or Brady 0% of the Super Bowls were won by a 7th round pick http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost....&postcount=129 Additionally, this was done before this year’s Super Bowl, in which another 1^st round quarterback, Ben Roethlisberger, won. Moreover, Scott Wright has an extensive breakdown of the profound failure rate of 2^nd and 3^rd round quarterbacks over the last 15 years on his site, NFLDraftCountdown. “All you do is insult people” Actually we don’t. We insult people a lot, but a large portion of that is born out of frustration for having the same argument ad infinitum and telling the same thing to people who don’t’ listen to what we say. I realize that this list is not comprehensive. It’s merely hitting the high notes of the discussions that we have previously had. If anyone else from the Gang of 14 wants to add anything, feel free. Thank you for your time, HJ
Posts: 75,083

02-26-2009, 02:01 AM	#183
tk13 ... Join Date: Nov 2001 Casino cash: $-1887500	I think it's definitely devolved to the point where all the QB lovers cut down Curry, Crabtree, and pretty much every one else who isn't a QB. And the people who are afraid of a QB cut them down while propping up the other guy. In the end, most people get so caught up in wanting to be right that their opinion becomes way too emotional. Some of the hyperbole both ways about these guys is flat insane. People saying Sanchez is some God like leader of men or Stafford doesn't have "it"... I don't know about that. And I'm probably being kind. It's a huge risk, this is probably the time to take it. There doesn't appear to be too many insane prospects out there. I'm not sure Curry's really worth it at 3, but I'm not sure he sucks quite as bad as some people think he does. All the other top 15-20 picks besides Stafford and Sanchez aren't going to bust, and there are guys we're propping up now who are going to fail, and guys who people think are overrated who will succeed. The reality is that you're more likely to find a Super Bowl winning guy in the 1st round. The other reality is that picking a 1st round QB that flops will set your franchise back 4 or 5 years. So it's not a pick to be made lightly. It's not a mistake you can just fix, you have to ride it out and be patient. That is not a poor argument to make. That doesn't mean you should be afraid to take the risk, but you have to be right, and sometimes that comes down to luck, injuries, the team that's built around them, etc.. The amount of confidence people on both sides of this argument make is probably way too excessive. But that's life on a message board. The other thing is, we're not going to be a Super Bowl team next year, but we've got high draft picks, a ridiculous amount of cap space, with a horribly weak division that's being turned over with the Raiders, a younger coach than Mangini, and Norv Turner. I think turning in a record much better than 2-14 is not far-fetched. This team could look totally different come June, Pioli really has the freedom to do whatever he wants.
Posts: 56,712

02-26-2009, 02:07 AM	#184
Mecca Hockey Town Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Kansas City, Missouri Casino cash: $-702950	I don't think Aaron Curry sucks, I just don't think OLB's are worth top 3 picks. And Michael Crabtree has red flags popping up everywhere he's cutting himself down.
Posts: 115,380

02-26-2009, 02:17 AM	#185
tk13 ... Join Date: Nov 2001 Casino cash: $-1887500	But it is different now with Pioli. It's not like Carl. Regardless of whether he succeeds in KC or not, the dude was a HUGE part in the evaluation and decision making process of the greatest dynasty of the salary cap era. It's very hard to second guess his decisions, or to act like you're smarter than him. Because you're not. And he will make some poor decisions, I don't doubt that one bit.
Posts: 56,712

02-26-2009, 02:42 AM	#190
tk13 ... Join Date: Nov 2001 Casino cash: $-1887500	Three is probably a bit high. Although I think OLB is an impact position if you are a 3-4 team. But that said, there doesn't appear to be a Mario Williams in this draft, no Glenn Dorsey's... if you're not looking for a QB or LT then Curry looks about as good as anyone else. What do you do?
Posts: 56,712

02-26-2009, 08:18 AM	#194
Goldmember You GOTTA get it done! Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Northern California Casino cash: $9856738	What I'd like to see is some statistic that shows the relationship of success to the quality of their offensive line. I'd say that most of those qb's you listed didn't spend a lot of time on their asses or have to hurry the majority of their throws. I still think the most important position on the team is the entire offensive line. BTW, I am not a former Big Ugly nor am I related to one whatsoever.
Posts: 2,044