Treatise from the "Gang of 14" (Long Read)

['Hamas' Jenkins]

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

[suds79]

Originally Posted by Pioli Zombie

1. Lions Matt Stafford
2. Rams Mark Sanchez
3. Chiefs ___________ ?

what then? Who?

Well if that happens, you try your best to trade down.

I'm getting the feeling we'll end up trading down anyways.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by milkman

They may not be jokes, but the fact is all three of those guys will have a huge adjustment to make to transition to the NFL, and none of them have the physical tools that Stafford or Sanchez has.

I really believe that in the right system with good coaching, Sam Bradford will have a good NFL career, but he's a guy that will have to sit and learn for two years, at the least.

But he doesn't have Sanchez's arm strength, much less Stafford's, and he has a long way to go before he can even hope to compete with Sanchez's mechanics.

The only guys I called jokes were McCoy and Tebow.

And yeah, this is an accurate assessment, IMO, of Brodie Croyle II and the black dude who tosses the javelin in Revenge of the Nerds (whom Tebow reminds me of when he launches his patented jump pass).

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Reerun_KC

But then your acting like your smarter than any College or NFL Head Coach with those comments...

Why are you right and everyone else is wrong?

What they both grade out equally by the Staff and they dont trade up and take whom is left at #3???

1.) When it comes to the skills of the 2 quarterbacks, I haven't even come down on one side or the other in any 'final' evaluation. My point has been that the ridiculous and uncalled for attacks on those who dare to opine that Sanchez and/or Stafford are not gambles worth taking at #3 in their estimation should.

2.) I don't think I'm smarter about football than Pete Carroll, other college coaches, or NFL coaches. They won't be correct all the time, and it's fun to question and compare, but I don't pretend to think I'll be right more often in the long run. However, I haven't posted anything on this subject that those coaches don't already know, and I haven't claimed to have done so.

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.

[Reaper16]

For someone who is "Just Passin' By," he sure is sticking around a long time.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by milkman

They may not be jokes, but the fact is all three of those guys will have a huge adjustment to make to transition to the NFL, and none of them have the physical tools that Stafford or Sanchez has.

I really believe that in the right system with good coaching, Sam Bradford will have a good NFL career, but he's a guy that will have to sit and learn for two years, at the least.

But he doesn't have Sanchez's arm strength, much less Stafford's, and he has a long way to go before he can even hope to compete with Sanchez's mechanics.

All quarterbacks have a huge adjustment to make when they transition to the NFL. Dan Marino is almost the sole example of a modern era quarterback who shows no real learning curve to be needed. Will players like Tebow, Bradford, et al. have more adjustments to make than they pro-style QBs? Absolutely. Does that mean they won't succeed? Only time will tell.

I will point out that sometimes the powers that be are completely wrong. It wasn't long ago, after all, that we were told that the era of the pocket passer was over, and that you needed to draft the Michael Vicks of the world if you were going to compete in the 'new' NFL. It's things like this that make message boards worthwhile.

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

All quarterbacks have a huge adjustment to make when they transition to the NFL. Dan Marino is almost the sole example of a modern era quarterback who shows no real learning curve to be needed. Will players like Tebow, Bradford, et al. have more adjustments to make than they pro-style QBs? Absolutely. Does that mean they won't succeed? Only time will tell.

I will point out that sometimes the powers that be are completely wrong. It wasn't long ago, after all, that we were told that the era of the pocket passer was over, and that you needed to draft the Michael Vicks of the world if you were going to compete in the 'new' NFL. It's things like this that make message boards worthwhile.

And its things like that that make message boards intolerable.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by suds79

Well if that happens, you try your best to trade down.

I'm getting the feeling we'll end up trading down anyways.

Just what player is it that teams will be willing to pay the price to move up to select?

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

1.) When it comes to the skills of the 2 quarterbacks, I haven't even come down on one side or the other in any 'final' evaluation. My point has been that the ridiculous and uncalled for attacks on those who dare to opine that Sanchez and/or Stafford are not gambles worth taking at #3 in their estimation should.

2.) I don't think I'm smarter about football than Pete Carroll, other college coaches, or NFL coaches. They won't be correct all the time, and it's fun to question and compare, but I don't pretend to think I'll be right more often in the long run. However, I haven't posted anything on this subject that those coaches don't already know, and I haven't claimed to have done so.

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.

1) No one is not a gamble. Why is this so hard to understand?

You aren't winning a SB without a franchise QB. You aren't getting a franchise QB out of the first round without a near miracle. These two QBs have skillsets that translate excellently into having potential to be a franchise QB.

It's about odds and skills. Odds are, if you want a franchise QB, he comes from round one. If you want a QB, he's coming from round 1. If you want a franchise QB, he better know how to read a defense, come from a pro system, have above average arm strength, and be an accurate passer. The more qualities they possess, the better.

Again, no one has ever posed any form of a cogent argument about why Stafford or Sanchez aren't elite quarterback prospects.

CP from October to December of 2008 was obsessed with denigrating Stafford, now people feel fit to bash everything about Sanchez, from false rape allegations to claims of him being stupid for hiring his brother as agent (which wasn't even true)

The biggest arguments I've heard about Sanchez are the fact that he lacks starting experience (legitimate) and that he looked bad throwing 10 passes in shorts to scrubs at the combine (ridiculous).


3) How many times has this been said? Pete Carroll wants to win for Pete Carroll. Do you think he believes he has a better chance to win with Mitch Mustain, Aaron Corp, Matt Barkley, or Mark Sanchez?

What does he have to gain from Sanchez staying? What does he have to lose from him leaving?

[milkman]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

All quarterbacks have a huge adjustment to make when they transition to the NFL. Dan Marino is almost the sole example of a modern era quarterback who shows no real learning curve to be needed. Will players like Tebow, Bradford, et al. have more adjustments to make than they pro-style QBs? Absolutely. Does that mean they won't succeed? Only time will tell.

I will point out that sometimes the powers that be are completely wrong. It wasn't long ago, after all, that we were told that the era of the pocket passer was over, and that you needed to draft the Michael Vicks of the world if you were going to compete in the 'new' NFL. It's things like this that make message boards worthwhile.

The difference is that the adjustment for Sanchez and Stafford isn't nearly the huge adjustment that these other QBs will have to make, and they (sanchez and Stafford) have better physical tools.

Those factors alone make this class better.

[Rain Man]

Y'know, if you built a mathematical model to predict a player's odds of success, you could then optimize your selections based on the points in the draft model.

For example, if your top QB candidate has a 60 percent chance of success and costs you 2,200 draft points, and if your fourth-favorite QB candidate has a 20 percent chance of success and costs you 480 draft points, you could then compare that to a couple of LB candidates who has a 90 percent chance of success and a 10 percent chance of success at the same draft positions. It then becomes a simple optimization to see which you should pick where.

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by milkman

The difference is that the adjustment for Sanchez and Stafford isn't nearly the huge adjustment that these other QBs will have to make, and they (sanchez and Stafford) have better physical tools.

Those factors alone make this class better.

Bradford and McCoy have similar arm strength as Sanchez.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

Bradford and McCoy have similar arm strength as Sanchez.

Not even close.

[orange]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

3) How many times has this been said? Pete Carroll wants to win for Pete Carroll. Do you think he believes he has a better chance to win with Mitch Mustain, Aaron Corp, Matt Barkley, or Mark Sanchez?

What does he have to gain from Sanchez staying? What does he have to lose from him leaving?

Sanchez had already turned pro. What did Carroll have to gain by blowing up at a press conference? ... other than telling his real feelings, that is.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by orange

Sanchez had already turned pro. What did Carroll have to gain by blowing up at a press conference? ... other than telling his real feelings, that is.

Carroll reacted emotionally.

And he could have gained a change of mind, since Sanchez had a couple of days to do just that.

[FAX]

The thing that makes the draft so interesting and exciting are all the "unknowables". Each class has its own "busts" and "sleepers" just sitting out there waiting to be exposed. All the predictors in the world aren't going to protect a team from making a poor choice in the draft.

Still, when I read between Pioli's lines, I repeatedly hear this notion that it is extremely important that the player be coachable by the staff in place. To me, that's the wild card in all of this.

The Kansas City Chiefs have, for a large share of the last 20 years, proven themselves either incapable or unwilling to coach up players. However, assuming that you can, in fact, select players who will respond to your existing staff and assuming that your staff is competent at maximizing a player's talent on the field, it should (theoretically) reduce draft risk significantly.

Unfortunately, since Haley's never been an HC before, there's a lot Pioli doesn't know. Couple that with the fact that Pioli may well believe that we are probably closer to being competitive on the defensive side of the ball and your QB selection better damn well be right if you're using the 3 for him.

FAX