NFL Draft We are not taking a QB in the first round - Page 21

TheGuardian · 01-01-2010, 10:32 AM

Just the official thread stating it. I'm not sure why some of you are already blowing this horn.

Just keep reading the title of this thread until it ****ing sinks in.

And I'm not even a Cassel fan, but he's going to be given more than 1 season to show he is or is not the guy.

I know all the bullshit arguments that will come forth.

"He's not a rookie, he's a seasoned vet" blah blah ****ing blah. I don't give a shit. I'm talking about reality. They gave him 60 mil. Even if Cassel never improves on this season (which I actually think he will, even if I'm not a fan), GM's don't admit to failures that quickly. Pioli will give him every chance to prove that he's right. He drafted him, he signed him to a 60 million dollar contract. Those of you you think that Pioli is going to turn right around and draft a QB with our first pick are ****ing morons. Yes, you are. It's ENTIRELY out of the question so please stop wasting discussion time with it.

Thank you and have a nice new years day.

Pioli Zombie · 01-02-2010, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

You should look at how Cassel put up those numbers, if you are a fan of throwing WR screens all game, he's the ticket.

Yes. that's exactly what happened every game, every play in 2008. WR screens. He never ever completed any pass downfield. Duh. Clearly you didn't watch any Patriots games in 2008. He had back to back 400 yard games throwing WR screens. Sure.
Posted via Mobile Device

Titty Meat · 01-02-2010, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sweet Dick Willy

Stafford has completely exceeded Sweet Dick's expectations. Sweet Dick was wrong about Matthew Stafford.
Sweet Dick wants a Matthew Stafford on this team.

Welcome back Raised On Riots

Sweet Dick Willy · 01-02-2010, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billay

Welcome back Raised On Riots

Don't be givin' Sweet Dick the evil eye, boy.

Mecca · 01-02-2010, 05:57 PM

Basically Chiefs fans don't want to draft QB's unless they are perfect prospects and there are no perfect prospects, even Manning wasn't.

I mean really if I use Guardian's post as the foundation, you wouldn't draft Rivers or Roethlisberger.

keg in kc · 01-02-2010, 06:14 PM

Roethlisberger was drafted right where he should have been, if not higher. Major talent, minor school. So no, I wouldn't have taken him at 3 based on what I knew at the time.

Rivers is a different story.

Sanchez started one year at USC and was coming out as a Junior. That's not the pedigree for a top-5 pick in my book. He should've stayed in school another year. And I think his performance in New York reflects that. He just didn't have the foundation of a successful rookie starter like Ryan or Flacco. I think he's somebody that should have gone in the 20s, if not later, and in a stronger QB class, or a stronger draft, he certainly would have. He's like Aaron Curry in that regard.

Clausen is a risk I might take. A pro style quarterback with three years as a starter in a major program (which is the reason I don't think he's there at 3). Bradford, on the other hand, is not. Spread QB injured for a whole year? Not touching that.

Either way, I think it'll be a great day when you finally get away from this idea that everybody who disagrees with you is some kind of brain-dead idiot who doesn't have any concrete reasoning behind what they think. People have different opinions, that's okay and it's not any kind of slam against you.

Mecca · 01-02-2010, 06:16 PM

Don't mention that Roethlisberger was in a spread and had very limited starting experience.

philfree · 01-02-2010, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGuardian

If we were talking about a 5th year senior who had started for 4 years and broke a million records, had no mechanics issues, and no injury history then it'd be good enough. In other words, if Manning was out there yeah. But the fact is most juniors that come out fail and fail miserably. No junior is ever worth taking as far as I am concerned because the failure rate in junior QB's is so high.

The number of starts is a big thing. I think it's showed with Sanchex this year. He's looked immature and done some immature things too. Will he pan out? Only time will tell. So I guess you could make 'number of starts' and 'only a jr' the same thing. Maybe. I'm not on the Clausen wagon but the situation does hold a little intrigue for the fans. And that includes me. (I didn't say true fans either so don't start.)

PhilFree

keg in kc · 01-02-2010, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

Don't mention that Roethlisberger was in a spread and had very limited starting experience.

His 'very limited starting experience' was the same as Clausen's was it not? 3 years?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there.

Mecca · 01-02-2010, 06:22 PM

OK he did start 1 more year than I thought, confused him with someone else there, my mistake.

I didn't think he was a 3 year starter since he declared as a junior.

philfree · 01-02-2010, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

His 'limited starting experience' was the same as Clausen's was it not? 3 years?

Isn't it like 30 starts or something as the cut off for success and failure? I don't mean always of course but as a bench mark.

PhilFree

Mecca · 01-02-2010, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philfree

Isn't it like 30 starts or something as the cut off for success and failure? I don't mean always of course but as a bench mark.

PhilFree

I mean that's nice and all but there are so many different ways to knock a QB there aren't even bench marks anymore.

Rivers had basically all of the stats all this all that, he got knocked because he throws the ball funny.

keg in kc · 01-02-2010, 06:28 PM

Roethlisberger was a redshirt, too, as I recall. So he was in the Miami program for 4 years, starting 3. Whereas I think Clausen is a true junior. But while he is a junior, he's an experienced one and clearly the pick of the 2010 litter. His leaving makes sense to me, too, with a new coaching regime coming in; odds are he can't do anything but hurt his draft status by staying another year.

I hope he's there at 3, because it would open up all kind of possibilities. My guess is the Rams take him, however.

After him, there's nobody at QB I'd take at 3. Bradford's too big a risk and I think Mallet needs another year.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 01-02-2010, 06:28 PM

Stafford and Sanchez have nearly identical stats this year.

Stafford was a 3 year starter, and Sanchez started 1 year.

Stafford has the better weapons to throw to, while Sanchez has the better OL and running game.

I don't think college starts really has THAT much to do with it - both guys have played like rookies this year.

And that's what everybody seems to forget - Rothlisberger, Ryan, etc are the exception, not the rule.

Peyton sucked his rookie year. So did Aikman. So did Elway. Fact is, almost ALL rookie QB's have a learning curve.

Christ, it took Eli Manning 4 years to play to his potential, and once he did, he won a Championship.

Mecca · 01-02-2010, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Stafford and Sanchez have nearly identical stats this year.

Stafford was a 3 year starter, and Sanchez started 1 year.

Stafford has the better weapons to throw to, while Sanchez has the better OL and running game.

I don't think college starts really has THAT much to do with it - both guys have played like rookies this year.

And that's what everybody seems to forget - Rothlisberger, Ryan, etc are the exception, not the rule.

Peyton sucked his rookie year. So did Aikman. So did Elway. Fact is, almost ALL rookie QB's have a learning curve.

Christ, it took Eli Manning 4 years to play to his potential, and once he did, he won a Championship.

Someone is going to come into this thread and berate you saying that every single one of those guys looked better than Sanchez.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 01-02-2010, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Roethlisberger was a redshirt, too, as I recall. So he was in the Miami program for 4 years, starting 3. Whereas I think Clausen is a true junior. But while he is a junior, he's an experienced one and clearly the pick of the 2010 litter. His leaving makes sense to me, too, with a new coaching regime coming in; odds are he can't do anything but hurt his draft status by staying another year.

I hope he's there at 3, because it would open up all kind of possibilities. My guess is the Rams take him, however.

Granted, it's early, but everything I've heard from my guy here in town is that they're going to have to come up with a damn good reason NOT to take Suh.

They think that with better OL play, Boller can be serviceable, and they are intrigued by Craig Nall.

Time will tell, I guess.

01-01-2010, 10:32 AM
TheGuardian MVP Join Date: Mar 2009 Casino cash: $6305299	We are not taking a QB in the first round Just the official thread stating it. I'm not sure why some of you are already blowing this horn. Just keep reading the title of this thread until it **ing sinks in. And I'm not even a Cassel fan, but he's going to be given more than 1 season to show he is or is not the guy. I know all the bullshit arguments that will come forth. "He's not a rookie, he's a seasoned vet" blah blah ing blah. I don't give a shit. I'm talking about reality. They gave him 60 mil. Even if Cassel never improves on this season (which I actually think he will, even if I'm not a fan), GM's don't admit to failures that quickly. Pioli will give him every chance to prove that he's right. He drafted him, he signed him to a 60 million dollar contract. Those of you you think that Pioli is going to turn right around and draft a QB with our first pick are **ing morons. Yes, you are. It's ENTIRELY out of the question so please stop wasting discussion time with it. Thank you and have a nice new years day.
Posts: 9,563

01-02-2010, 05:57 PM	#304
Mecca Hockey Town Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Kansas City, Missouri Casino cash: $-612950	Basically Chiefs fans don't want to draft QB's unless they are perfect prospects and there are no perfect prospects, even Manning wasn't. I mean really if I use Guardian's post as the foundation, you wouldn't draft Rivers or Roethlisberger.
Posts: 115,301

01-02-2010, 06:14 PM	#305
keg in kc oxymoron Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: OP/KC/Whatever Casino cash: $9556299	Roethlisberger was drafted right where he should have been, if not higher. Major talent, minor school. So no, I wouldn't have taken him at 3 based on what I knew at the time. Rivers is a different story. Sanchez started one year at USC and was coming out as a Junior. That's not the pedigree for a top-5 pick in my book. He should've stayed in school another year. And I think his performance in New York reflects that. He just didn't have the foundation of a successful rookie starter like Ryan or Flacco. I think he's somebody that should have gone in the 20s, if not later, and in a stronger QB class, or a stronger draft, he certainly would have. He's like Aaron Curry in that regard. Clausen is a risk I might take. A pro style quarterback with three years as a starter in a major program (which is the reason I don't think he's there at 3). Bradford, on the other hand, is not. Spread QB injured for a whole year? Not touching that. Either way, I think it'll be a great day when you finally get away from this idea that everybody who disagrees with you is some kind of brain-dead idiot who doesn't have any concrete reasoning behind what they think. People have different opinions, that's okay and it's not any kind of slam against you.
Posts: 58,682

01-02-2010, 06:16 PM	#306
Mecca Hockey Town Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Kansas City, Missouri Casino cash: $-612950	Don't mention that Roethlisberger was in a spread and had very limited starting experience.
Posts: 115,301

01-02-2010, 06:22 PM	#309
Mecca Hockey Town Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Kansas City, Missouri Casino cash: $-612950	OK he did start 1 more year than I thought, confused him with someone else there, my mistake. I didn't think he was a 3 year starter since he declared as a junior.
Posts: 115,301

01-02-2010, 06:28 PM	#312
keg in kc oxymoron Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: OP/KC/Whatever Casino cash: $9556299	Roethlisberger was a redshirt, too, as I recall. So he was in the Miami program for 4 years, starting 3. Whereas I think Clausen is a true junior. But while he is a junior, he's an experienced one and clearly the pick of the 2010 litter. His leaving makes sense to me, too, with a new coaching regime coming in; odds are he can't do anything but hurt his draft status by staying another year. I hope he's there at 3, because it would open up all kind of possibilities. My guess is the Rams take him, however. After him, there's nobody at QB I'd take at 3. Bradford's too big a risk and I think Mallet needs another year.
Posts: 58,682

01-02-2010, 06:28 PM	#313
OnTheWarpath15 MVP Join Date: Sep 2005 Casino cash: $2111115	Stafford and Sanchez have nearly identical stats this year. Stafford was a 3 year starter, and Sanchez started 1 year. Stafford has the better weapons to throw to, while Sanchez has the better OL and running game. I don't think college starts really has THAT much to do with it - both guys have played like rookies this year. And that's what everybody seems to forget - Rothlisberger, Ryan, etc are the exception, not the rule. Peyton sucked his rookie year. So did Aikman. So did Elway. Fact is, almost ALL rookie QB's have a learning curve. Christ, it took Eli Manning 4 years to play to his potential, and once he did, he won a Championship.
Posts: 60,750