Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu
Reach for need, which is what you advocate when you say our QB isn't good enough so we need to take one immediately with our top pick, is the opposite of what the teams Clark is trying to pattern the Chiefs after do. Teams like the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Baltimore Ravens, who have combined for 4 of the last 13 Super Bowls, adhere to that dogma you're belittling because it's a better way to achieve a longer, more lasting brand of success.
|
The Packers can do that because they have a QB. The Eagles (largely) were able to do that. And that also explains the Steelers and Ravens.
I'm trying to advocate against building the San Francisco way simply because it's so damn hard to find that many talented players across the board, THEN keep them all happy contract-wise. It's a lot easier to fill one position and simply make good selections (i.e. BPA) than it is to take an Alex Smith or Matt Cassel and depend so heavily on finding that Justin Smith, five studs on the offensive line, Aldon Smith, etc.
And before you leap down my throat with "San Francisco almost won teh Super BOWL!!!" I'm talking about team BUILDING. Alex Smith may have been pretty successful with the 49ers, but who was accompanying him on that team, and how long did it take to acquire all those guys? That's a lot of drafts. It also means rolling a yahtzee on your coaches and your GM.
That's not to say that the Packers and other teams who espouse "BPA" don't require years of player acquisition and development, or that they don't have great supporting casts. They do, but there's no question who keeps those teams going. The 2011 San Francisco 49ers with just two or three injuries to crucial players on that team turn into a 90s Chiefs squad who can't ever turn the corner. The 2010 Green Bay Packers had at least double the injuries to crucial players on that roster and won the Super Bowl anyway.
I know which way I'd rather build.