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

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by Crush

DCS, where did you find that abomination?

Shit. Sorry.

I meant to post that here first, but I was already logged on to my WPI account.

[kcbubb]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Yes. And it has pretty much changed nothing, because in other threads, geniouses like CoMo are arguing that we should draft a freaking left tackle at 3.

hey it was a good read. But most fans don't think as highly of Sanchez as you do. It's not that they disagree about the value of a good QB, but that they don't think that Sanchez will be a good QB.

[kcbubb]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Treatise from the “Gang of 14”:


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.

Couldn't you make the same argument for the saints this year for offenses? ranked first in both rushing and passing. they didn't even make the playoffs. What about the 99 rams? one hit wonder with the best offense ever at that time???

[lazepoo]

Originally Posted by kcbubb

Couldn't you make the same argument for the saints this year for offenses? ranked first in both rushing and passing. they didn't even make the playoffs. What about the 99 rams? one hit wonder with the best offense ever at that time???

The rams had a top 10 D IIRC

The point is that you need parity for both sides of the ball and that you can't have a top offense without a top quarterback, ever.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by lazepoo

The rams had a top 10 D IIRC

The point is that you need parity for both sides of the ball and that you can't have a top offense without a top quarterback, ever.

4th in points, 6th in yards.

[Mark M]

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

I'm going to admit to playing devil's advocate here -- while I'd prefer the Chiefs to trade down, I don't see them finding anyone with which to do so. Thus, given the players out there at #3, Sanchez makes the most sense, IMHO.

With that being typed, people have, in fact, made more than cogent arguments against both of the QBs. But some come up with excuses or just ignore those arguments. For example:

-- Stafford has shown little ability to read defenses well and makes bad decisions with the ball, relying on his arm strength above making the smart play. He was on a team good enough to be a pre-season #1, yet looked average most of the season (the Ga. Tech and bowl games being the notable exceptions). Not great consistency for such a highly-touted player.

-- Sanchez has just 16 collegiate starts, and only nine QBs with 30 or fewer college starts have ever been selected in the first round. Out of those nine, only one has been moderately successful (Drew Brees). Regardless of schemes, it seems as though having so few starts leads to a lack of experience in a number of areas: clock management, how to handle repeated pressure situations, the expectations year after year, etc.

Again, I'm all good with Sanchez being the pick, and wouldn't lose my mind if the Chiefs got Stafford. There simply aren't any other options that make sense at the #3, given the Chiefs' needs.

But to say that no one has brought up good arguments is a bit of a strech, IMHO. They have been made -- some just can't manage to see them for whatever reason.

MM
~~

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by kcbubb

Couldn't you make the same argument for the saints this year for offenses? ranked first in both rushing and passing. they didn't even make the playoffs. What about the 99 rams? one hit wonder with the best offense ever at that time???

I didn't read the whole original post since I figured it was mostly name-calling, but the paragraph you quoted about the Eagles caught my attention. If the argument is that the Eagles at that time lacked a franchise quarterback, I would have to disagree with that pretty strongly. Randall Cunningham was a beast for those Eagles teams, an absolute beast. If the Eagles weren't successful, it certainly wasn't because of a lack of talent at quarterback. The problem for them was that they didn't have any talent on offense outside of quarterback, other than maybe Fred Barnett.

That's a nitpick, and may or may not be relevant to the rest of the post, but I had to mention it since I'm a big Randall Cunningham fan.

[Rain Man]

Okay, I'm reading the part about the teams with great defenses. Three of those four teams won Super Bowls. I'm fine with winning just one Super Bowl. I have no problem with that.

I agree that a franchise quarterback is the best way to get there, and to get multiple Super Bowls, but the teams with great defenses seem to do okay as well.

[kcbubb]

he was making a point by using a team that had a great defense and not a great offense as a reason not to build the defense.

I was using the same type of reasoning for not building an offense. My point is that great teams are the ones that win superbowls.

that may sound simple, but you don't get there by reaching for players and drafting them higher than they should be drafted.

Most people who claim that a QB should be drafted claim that it is impossible to trade down from for example 7 spots from #3 to #10 because by the trade chart that is the value of an entire draft. But if you reach for a player like Sanchez and take him at #3, then that's what you are giving up (an entire draft) because Sanchez will not be taken from #4 to #9. Those teams don't need QBs and he has not evaluated high enough for someone like the Jets to move up from 17 to 9 to get him.

You don't build superbowl teams by reaching. Especially when you are reaching the value of an entire draft. that's how peterson drafted on several of his busts. he drafted for need and reached for a player.

[Chiefnj2]

Sanchez is Matt Leinart with a little stronger of an arm and much less experience.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by kcbubb

he was making a point by using a team that had a great defense and not a great offense as a reason not to build the defense.

This is such a gross misrepresentation that it's not even funny.

[ChiefsCountry]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

This is such a gross misrepresentation that it's not even funny.

No kidding.

[chiefzilla1501]

Hamas, that's a really well thought-out post. As people should expect from me, I'm never satisfied with "slam dunk" arguments. That's the only place where I differ. I like the idea of drafting Stafford or Sanchez, but I don't think either are slam dunks. PS--I hope people will actually read what I write and not misinterpret and exaggerate my points, as seems to be pretty common....

Stafford has all the measurables. It's hard to find a negative on him. But most people don't think he'll fall to the Chiefs. If there was ever a negative, it's that completion %--way too low for a QB of his ability and experience level.

I actually like Sanchez better than Stafford. I think Sanchez has the fiery leadership that I don't see as much in Stafford. But you'd be hard-pressed to find an expert or scout that isn't concerned that he's under-prepared. I'm cool with drafting Sanchez, but you have to realize that it would probably be a mistake to let him start from game 1--he'll need a little more time to develop.

As for the rest of the arguments, I think a lot of it underestimates how difficult it is to find a franchise QB. While you talk a lot about "success rates", there's little talk of failure rates. I mentioned this in a thread a few weeks ago and got blasted, but ChiefsCountry's stats are flawed in that it fails to mention that 100% of first round QBs get a chance to start in the NFL. And probably well over half of them get 2-3 years to develop, even if they struggle. I would venture to guess that under 25% of 2nd rounders and below are given a chance to start, and well under 10% are given more than 2-3 years to develop. As I said in that earlier thread, first round QBs deservedly get more chances to start because they are scouted as having more talent and even if they were given the same opportunities as a 4th rounder, they'd still have a far higher success rate, but the statistic above assumes that all 2nd round QBs and below are given an opportunity to start and that they're allowed more than 2-3 years to truly develop. We all know that's far from the case. The appropriate answer is: if all QBs were given the same chances to start and the same 2-3 years to develop, first round QBs would likely succeed at a higher rate. However, because that doesn't happen, there is no way for us to know how MUCH higher that rate would be. We can only speculate. Those numbers above are flawed because it assumes that all things are equal.

I agree to some extent on the spread, but I don't agree that we know just yet what Thigpen is capable of in a pro-style offense. I completely agree that if he can't run a pro-style offense in at about half of the offensive sets, then we can give up on him completely. Either way, I think most scouts will tell you that Stafford or Sanchez shouldn't be starting from game 1 anyway--so I think Tyler has a chance to prove if he deserves to keep that job and he will have a LOT to prove.

As for the point about defense, I think a major part that you're leaving out is that many franchise QBs are built because of the defense that supports them. I don't think Eli would be a franchise QB if he didn't have an insane amount of talent on the defensive line to support his team, and I don't think Roethlisberger would have made it that far in 2009 had he had a poor defense to support him. Those teams benefited big time from having elite defenses--I think there's a good reason why Brees and Manning have struggled to make Super Bowls in spite of being the best QBs in the league.

Those are my thoughts. Again, let me say that I like the idea of Sanchez as a QB. But I'm arguing against the idea that it's a slam dunk decision.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Hamas, that's a really well thought-out post. As people should expect from me, I'm never satisfied with "slam dunk" arguments. That's the only place where I differ. I like the idea of drafting Stafford or Sanchez, but I don't think either are slam dunks. PS--I hope people will actually read what I write and not misinterpret and exaggerate my points, as seems to be pretty common....

Stafford has all the measurables. It's hard to find a negative on him. But most people don't think he'll fall to the Chiefs. If there was ever a negative, it's that completion %--way too low for a QB of his ability and experience level.

I actually like Sanchez better than Stafford. I think Sanchez has the fiery leadership that I don't see as much in Stafford. But you'd be hard-pressed to find an expert or scout that isn't concerned that he's under-prepared. I'm cool with drafting Sanchez, but you have to realize that it would probably be a mistake to let him start from game 1--he'll need a little more time to develop.

As for the rest of the arguments, I think a lot of it underestimates how difficult it is to find a franchise QB. While you talk a lot about "success rates", there's little talk of failure rates. I mentioned this in a thread a few weeks ago and got blasted, but ChiefsCountry's stats are flawed in that it fails to mention that 100% of first round QBs get a chance to start in the NFL. And probably well over half of them get 2-3 years to develop, even if they struggle. I would venture to guess that under 25% of 2nd rounders and below are given a chance to start, and well under 10% are given more than 2-3 years to develop. As I said in that earlier thread, first round QBs deservedly get more chances to start because they are scouted as having more talent and even if they were given the same opportunities as a 4th rounder, they'd still have a far higher success rate, but the statistic above assumes that all 2nd round QBs and below are given an opportunity to start and that they're allowed more than 2-3 years to truly develop. We all know that's far from the case. The appropriate answer is: if all QBs were given the same chances to start and the same 2-3 years to develop, first round QBs would likely succeed at a higher rate. However, because that doesn't happen, there is no way for us to know how MUCH higher that rate would be. We can only speculate. Those numbers above are flawed because it assumes that all things are equal.

I agree to some extent on the spread, but I don't agree that we know just yet what Thigpen is capable of in a pro-style offense. I completely agree that if he can't run a pro-style offense in at about half of the offensive sets, then we can give up on him completely. Either way, I think most scouts will tell you that Stafford or Sanchez shouldn't be starting from game 1 anyway--so I think Tyler has a chance to prove if he deserves to keep that job and he will have a LOT to prove.

As for the point about defense, I think a major part that you're leaving out is that many franchise QBs are built because of the defense that supports them. I don't think Eli would be a franchise QB if he didn't have an insane amount of talent on the defensive line to support his team, and I don't think Roethlisberger would have made it that far in 2009 had he had a poor defense to support him. Those teams benefited big time from having elite defenses--I think there's a good reason why Brees and Manning have struggled to make Super Bowls in spite of being the best QBs in the league.

Those are my thoughts. Again, let me say that I like the idea of Sanchez as a QB. But I'm arguing against the idea that it's a slam dunk decision.

I agree with much of what you say here, and I think if you paid close attention that many of us who are strongly in favor of drafting Sanchez (I like Sanchez better than Stafford for the same reason as you) are also in favor of allowing drafted QB to learn from the sideline.

And yes, teams win championships, but if you can find your QB and build a team around him on both sides of the ball, you improve your chances of consistently competing for years.

[Go Mizzou & Chiefs]

gang of 14?