NFL Draft Treatise from the "Gang of 14" (Long Read) - Page 18

'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

BlackHelicopters · 05-08-2014, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiTown

Here's what you can take out of this. The Draft is an inexact science. (Read: Sanchez, Mark). However, you can't sit on the sidelines and hope that your QB (The most important position on the Team) is going to just fall into your lap if you don't spend a decent draft pick to get him. At some mother****ing point, you HAVE TO draft a gawdamn QB in the first 2 rounds, preferably the first. The fact that we haven't taken one in the first round, in 3 decades, is beyond embarrassing.

Because Chiefs

Ebolapox · 05-08-2014, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PGM

So, Cleveland has 0

bernie kosar

**Buehler445** · 05-08-2014, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Count Zarth

yeeehaw

htismaqe · 05-08-2014, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ebolapox

bernie kosar

Wasn't technically drafted.

ThaVirus · 05-08-2014, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ebolapox

bernie kosar

Never mind...

htismaqe · 05-08-2014, 11:23 AM

Bernie Kosar wasn't drafted by the Cleveland Browns.

tooge · 05-08-2014, 11:30 AM

There are other mistakes as well. Citing the Bucs of 1990's and 2000's for instance. Ummm, they won a SB in that time. The Ravens also won a super bowl in the time cited, and then stayed extremely competitive for the next 10 years, despite not having a franchise QB until Flacco, and is he really one?

What about Matt Stafford? What the hell has he done? Nada.

Also, only cherry picking the 8 teams that drafted a QB and then won is not a fair argument. In the same time period cited, from the 70 Steelers to present day, there have been plenty more "franchise" QB's drafted that didn't pan out, then ones that did.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 05-08-2014, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tooge

There are other mistakes as well. Citing the Bucs of 1990's and 2000's for instance. Ummm, they won a SB in that time. The Ravens also won a super bowl in the time cited, and then stayed extremely competitive for the next 10 years, despite not having a franchise QB until Flacco, and is he really one?

What about Matt Stafford? What the hell has he done? Nada.

Also, only cherry picking the 8 teams that drafted a QB and then won is not a fair argument. In the same time period cited, from the 70 Steelers to present day, there have been plenty more "franchise" QB's drafted that didn't pan out, then ones that did.

If you want a dynasty you need to draft and develop your own QB. That's precisely why the Bucs, Bears, Ravens, and Eagles were part of the argument.

Good God.

I don't know if you didn't read the OP or didn't understand it, because your response could suggest either. What percentage of Super Bowls were won by QBs drafted high? What might that be indicative of?

"Oh hey, QBs don't pan out, too."

We obviously should have just taken Jason Smith or Aaron Curry then, Gotta love those safe picks.

tooge · 05-08-2014, 11:46 AM

Funny thing is, you are preaching to the quire. I'm with you. I'd love a franchise QB. Problem is, so many fans make it sound like you just go draft one. It's not that easy. The chiefs would have had to move up to pick anyone worth a shit in the past 20 years. Yes they could'v had Flacco, probably Rapelisberger, hell, they could have mortgaged a few drafts and had RG3. I'll pass on all three of those. The ONLY thing they did wrong was not sucking for Luck a few years ago. That is the ONE time that they had an almost sure thing sitting there and all they had to do was lose a couple of more games. I'm sure that is what Indy did.
But, my issue with the entire argument is that it simply isn't as easy as it seems. If you look at the OP, you would say that the 14 members of your group would have been happy at the time if the Chiefs had drafted Sanchez or Stafford. Here we are years later, and If that had happened, we'd be no closer to a super bowl than we are now.

Lex Luthor · 05-08-2014, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

If you want a dynasty you need to draft and develop your own QB. That's precisely why the Bucs, Bears, Ravens, and Eagles were part of the argument.

Good God.

I don't know if you didn't read the OP or didn't understand it, because your response could suggest either. What percentage of Super Bowls were won by QBs drafted high? What might that be indicative of?

"Oh hey, QBs don't pan out, too."

We obviously should have just taken Jason Smith or Aaron Curry then, Gotta love those safe picks.

Your reasoning is spot on. The only flaw in your otherwise brilliant treatise is that it's not as easy to identify that franchise quarterback as you seem to think. Obviously Sanchez wasn't the guy. Perhaps Stafford could have been, and he sure looks great at times in Detroit, but I haven't seen Detroit in any Super Bowls since they selected Matt Stafford. So in other words, both quarterbacks identified in your treatise were failures.

Part of getting that franchise quarterback is timing and being lucky. The Colts were damn lucky TWICE because they had the #1 overall pick the year that the best quarterback of his generation was available. The Chiefs missed out on that by one stinking year. That's not a systemic organizational failure. That's bad ****ing luck, and it doesn't do any good to crucify Dorsey for (correctly) passing on Geno Smith last year and for not drafting a quarterback this year if they don't think he is truly the guy.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 05-08-2014, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tooge

Funny thing is, you are preaching to the quire. I'm with you. I'd love a franchise QB. Problem is, so many fans make it sound like you just go draft one. It's not that easy. The chiefs would have had to move up to pick anyone worth a shit in the past 20 years. Yes they could'v had Flacco, probably Rapelisberger, hell, they could have mortgaged a few drafts and had RG3. I'll pass on all three of those. The ONLY thing they did wrong was not sucking for Luck a few years ago. That is the ONE time that they had an almost sure thing sitting there and all they had to do was lose a couple of more games. I'm sure that is what Indy did.
But, my issue with the entire argument is that it simply isn't as easy as it seems. If you look at the OP, you would say that the 14 members of your group would have been happy at the time if the Chiefs had drafted Sanchez or Stafford. Here we are years later, and If that had happened, we'd be no closer to a super bowl than we are now.

You miss 100 percent of the shots you don't take.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 05-08-2014, 11:54 AM

Matt Stafford is 25 years old. He needs some work, but I'm also not going to hold Jim Schwartz against him.

However, that's also the epitome of the Chiefs' problem WRT: QBs. The fans are fine punting on one every year, preaching patience, yet any QB who isn't throwing for 4000 yards and 35 TDs on a 14-2 team out of the gate is automatically a bust.

The truth is that you're only winning consistently if you have a QB, and you have to take a risk to get one. If you don't have one, you aren't winning anything anyway, so the only "risk" is fretting over 4-12 being demonstrably worse than 8-8 when both teams were DOA anyway.

philfree · 05-08-2014, 11:57 AM

From the top!

The Gang of 14
The Gang of 14
They know what everybody knows
Until the Chiefs draft a franchise QB
They'll never win the Super Bowl

In 2009 they could of had Sanchez
And they had the 1st pick in 2013
But then they traded for Alex Smith
So we knew they'd draft Fisher he was clean

The Gang of 14
The Gang of 14
They know what everybody knows
Until the Chiefs draft a franchise QB
They'll never win the Super Bowl

tooge · 05-08-2014, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brainiac

Your reasoning is spot on. The only flaw in your otherwise brilliant treatise is that it's not as easy to identify that franchise quarterback as you seem to think. Obviously Sanchez wasn't the guy. Perhaps Stafford could have been, and he sure looks great at times in Detroit, but I haven't seen Detroit in any Super Bowls since they selected Matt Stafford. So in other words, both quarterbacks identified in your treatise were failures.

Part of getting that franchise quarterback is timing and being lucky. The Colts were damn lucky TWICE because they had the #1 overall pick the year that the best quarterback of his generation was available. The Chiefs missed out on that by one stinking year. That's not a systemic organizational failure. That's bad ****ing luck, and it doesn't do any good to crucify Dorsey for (correctly) passing on Geno Smith last year and for not drafting a quarterback this year if they don't think he is truly the guy.

This. Absolutely this.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 05-08-2014, 12:14 PM

Again, how are you so sure that QBs are busts after one year? Peyton Manning won three games and threw a rookie record for interceptions.

You don't know if passing on Geno Smith or EJ Manuel was the right move yet; thinking you can close the book on a QB after a year is why it's always a good business move for the Chiefs to pass on them: their fans will always rationalize the decision.

02-25-2009, 06:52 AM
'Hamas' Jenkins Now you've pissed me off! Join Date: Jan 2006 Casino cash: $7959572	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: 74,848

05-08-2014, 11:23 AM	#261
htismaqe 'Tis my eye! Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Chiefsplanet Casino cash: $10269900	Bernie Kosar wasn't drafted by the Cleveland Browns.
Posts: 100,022

05-08-2014, 11:30 AM	#262
tooge MVP Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Liberty, MO Casino cash: $3734112	There are other mistakes as well. Citing the Bucs of 1990's and 2000's for instance. Ummm, they won a SB in that time. The Ravens also won a super bowl in the time cited, and then stayed extremely competitive for the next 10 years, despite not having a franchise QB until Flacco, and is he really one? What about Matt Stafford? What the hell has he done? Nada. Also, only cherry picking the 8 teams that drafted a QB and then won is not a fair argument. In the same time period cited, from the 70 Steelers to present day, there have been plenty more "franchise" QB's drafted that didn't pan out, then ones that did.
Posts: 15,130

05-08-2014, 11:46 AM	#264
tooge MVP Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Liberty, MO Casino cash: $3734112	Funny thing is, you are preaching to the quire. I'm with you. I'd love a franchise QB. Problem is, so many fans make it sound like you just go draft one. It's not that easy. The chiefs would have had to move up to pick anyone worth a shit in the past 20 years. Yes they could'v had Flacco, probably Rapelisberger, hell, they could have mortgaged a few drafts and had RG3. I'll pass on all three of those. The ONLY thing they did wrong was not sucking for Luck a few years ago. That is the ONE time that they had an almost sure thing sitting there and all they had to do was lose a couple of more games. I'm sure that is what Indy did. But, my issue with the entire argument is that it simply isn't as easy as it seems. If you look at the OP, you would say that the 14 members of your group would have been happy at the time if the Chiefs had drafted Sanchez or Stafford. Here we are years later, and If that had happened, we'd be no closer to a super bowl than we are now.
Posts: 15,130

05-08-2014, 11:54 AM	#267
'Hamas' Jenkins Now you've pissed me off! Join Date: Jan 2006 Casino cash: $7959572	Matt Stafford is 25 years old. He needs some work, but I'm also not going to hold Jim Schwartz against him. However, that's also the epitome of the Chiefs' problem WRT: QBs. The fans are fine punting on one every year, preaching patience, yet any QB who isn't throwing for 4000 yards and 35 TDs on a 14-2 team out of the gate is automatically a bust. The truth is that you're only winning consistently if you have a QB, and you have to take a risk to get one. If you don't have one, you aren't winning anything anyway, so the only "risk" is fretting over 4-12 being demonstrably worse than 8-8 when both teams were DOA anyway. __________________ "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: 74,848

05-08-2014, 11:57 AM	#268
philfree Indian Twitter Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Free Agency Casino cash: $1366198	From the top! The Gang of 14 The Gang of 14 They know what everybody knows Until the Chiefs draft a franchise QB They'll never win the Super Bowl In 2009 they could of had Sanchez And they had the 1st pick in 2013 But then they traded for Alex Smith So we knew they'd draft Fisher he was clean The Gang of 14 The Gang of 14 They know what everybody knows Until the Chiefs draft a franchise QB They'll never win the Super Bowl __________________ [/SIGPIC]
Posts: 15,030

05-08-2014, 12:14 PM	#270
'Hamas' Jenkins Now you've pissed me off! Join Date: Jan 2006 Casino cash: $7959572	Again, how are you so sure that QBs are busts after one year? Peyton Manning won three games and threw a rookie record for interceptions. You don't know if passing on Geno Smith or EJ Manuel was the right move yet; thinking you can close the book on a QB after a year is why it's always a good business move for the Chiefs to pass on them: their fans will always rationalize the decision. __________________ "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: 74,848