**** you guys saying taking a QB in the first solves everything

[Rams Fan]

Bradford's hurt again. He's played above average since he's been drafted. The Rams built around him on O and built a good D in the meantime. **** all of you guys who said drafting a QB solves everything.

[saphojunkie]

Originally Posted by Mr. Laz

1st round QB doesn't equal success, elite QB play does

There's been like one elite QB drafted in the last decade?

Tom Brady - 2000
Peyton Manning - 1998
Aaron Rodgers - 2005 (barely makes it under the decade mark)
Drew Brees - 2001, 2nd round (elite?)


Ben Roethlisburger - 2004 (even if you consider him truly elite)
Matt Ryan - no
Andrew Luck - maybe he will be
Wilson - 2nd round
Kaepernick - 2nd round
Romo - undrafted

Drafting a 1st round QB doesn't automatically mean anything. Hell most of the 1st round QB's that people around here just HAD to have are busts.

EVERY fan wants an elite QB but this fantasy that grabbing one in the 1st round means you win is bullshit.

Are you questioning whether or not Drew Brees is ELITE?

Also, he was the #32 pick - would be a first rounder now. #semantics

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

I've never argued either point.

I was using your post as a jumping off point, and not as a direct response to you. I should have made that clearer. Sorry.

The whole "Chiefs suck because they didn't draft a QB in round 1" argument has just gotten very stale to me, and I'm trying to kill it (forlorn hope, I know). Too many people around here confuse "best odds" with "only way", either directly or indirectly. It leads to having seemingly every football thread becoming an anti-Chiefs QB thread, and really lessens the football talk around here.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

Of course, who the hell is arguing that?

It's in thread after thread after thread, especially around draft time.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by OldSchool

That's why I find the argument that "Smith is average because he needs a running game. Smith sucks because he needs a good defense to win. Smith sucks because he needs a good offensive line. Smith needs good players around him in order to succeed, therefore he is a shit QB." To be absolutely ludicrous and ignorant.

No QB in the history of the game has been able to win a Superbowl without a great team around them.

Joe Montana wouldn't be Joe Montana without all of the pieces around him from the coaching staff, to the great weapons that he played with, to the 49ers defenses that were among the most dominant in the 80s and in the history of the NFL.

Dan Marino never won a Super Bowl, yet he's considered by some people as the greatest QB to ever play the game. So why did the "greatest QB to ever play the game" never win the Superbowl? Do you want to guess the primary reason given? Because he didn't have a great team around him.

Great/elite/whatever you want to call it QB play can cover up a lot of flaws, as will great defensive play.

I think of it the other way around... great QB or defensive play is a prereq for playoff success, because late in the playoffs, every other team has one or the other. You don't need a great overall team, but the other phases will obviously come into play when you're playing against equally talented QBs and defenses.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by Kaepernick

You guys are getting so technical you are starting to miss the bigger picture. Whether a guy is picked in the 1st round or 2 picks out of the 1st round is somewhat irrelevant. Whether a team drafts a QB or gets a top free agent like Denver did, is somewhat irrelevant.

The point is, is you are one of the 20 teams that doesn't have a top QB, it is imperative to seek one, and the best method of seeking one is to pick the best prospect you can identify as high in the draft as possible when you get an opportunity to do so.

There are no givens, and there are always exceptions such as Russell Wilson being taken in the 3rd round. Such people usually have some warts (Wilson is very short) that cause GMs to fall back on conventional wisdom rather than just evaluate the talent on his college tape. So it happens that a quality QB falls in the draft.

The reason it GENERALLY take a 1st round draft pick to acquire a top young QB prospect out of college, is because the collective evaluation of the NFL community tends to do a pretty good job of culling the top raw material from the rest. But the factors that go into becoming a successful NFL QB, let along a top QB, are so varied, that it is like trying to predict the weather a month from now. There are too many intangible variables once the QB prospect is on the team and being coached.

Does the young QB have adequate coaching? Are the coaches really committed to developing the young QB above all else?

You would think this would be an obvious "yes". It always baffled me how the 49ers could take Alex Smith as the top pick in the draft, showing obvious faith in his ability to be an elite QB, and give him a $50 million contract -- and then NEGLECT his early development. How on God's green earth is this possible? But it happened?

Some young QBs get eaten up because the GM never invests in offensive line protection and the young QB never gets to practice his craft under ideal conditions while he is developing. He is just running for his life back there.

Or a GM fails to get good receivers for the QB to work with, so the QB fails over and over and the coaches attribute the failure to the young QB, not the poor receivers.

Some just have bad luck and get injured over and over like Bradford. They will give up on him.

There are many factors that are needed for a young QB to become a top QB. He needs the right physical and mental attributes and drive and coach ability and commitment, right out of the gate. He needs smart, wise and committed coaches who won't cheat him on development or short cut his development to "win now", which never works anyway. He needs a strong enough supporting cast in line play and receivers and a running game, to let him execute the offense as the coaches envision.

But all of this starts with the right raw material for a QB prospect. And far and away the best odds of obtaining that raw material is to draft your own QB as high in the 1st round as is necessary to capture him. It is not a be all and end all, but it is the start NEEDED to have a franchise QB.

Exactly.

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

I was using your post as a jumping off point, and not as a direct response to you. I should have made that clearer. Sorry.

The whole "Chiefs suck because they didn't draft a QB in round 1" argument has just gotten very stale to me, and I'm trying to kill it (forlorn hope, I know). Too many people around here confuse "best odds" with "only way", either directly or indirectly. It leads to having seemingly every football thread becoming an anti-Chiefs QB thread, and really lessens the football talk around here.

Well there's no point talking KC football this season because success starts and ends with having a QB. If you don't have one that wins games for you then you better be developing one that can.

The Chiefs dont have a guy that can shoulder the team and aren't developing a guy that can either. R

So it's a wasted season.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

This is a great year to try. No excuses. I WANT THAT SHIP!

[RealSNR]

Well Rams Fan, it appears you are about to experience a little bit of why we want to TRY taking a QB high in the draft.

You'll be either trying to manage with stopgap veterans or you'll pay out the ass for a Cousins. That's what we've been doing NONSTOP since Blackledge.

I pray for you that your team loses and loses well this season so you can try again at a top QB in the draft. Because I wouldn't wish 4+ years of a Cassel on my worst enemies*

*excluding the Broncos, Raiders, Colts, Chargers, Cowboys, and Falcons because **** Pioli forever

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

I was using your post as a jumping off point, and not as a direct response to you. I should have made that clearer. Sorry.

The whole "Chiefs suck because they didn't draft a QB in round 1" argument has just gotten very stale to me, and I'm trying to kill it (forlorn hope, I know). Too many people around here confuse "best odds" with "only way", either directly or indirectly. It leads to having seemingly every football thread becoming an anti-Chiefs QB thread, and really lessens the football talk around here.

I think the confusion goes both ways. There's so much hyperbole, black and white arguments, cherry picking, focusing on agendas, and plain idiocy to really see what people are saying... and those who do have good points and aren't just pushing an agenda get lost in all of it and lumped in with one side or the other.

All I know for sure is what the Chiefs have been doing since I was old enough to remember (and several years prior, apparently) hasn't worked, and I'd like for them to try something else.

It's obviously more complicated than saying hey, draft a QB in the first round (or 2nd, or 3rd). You don't just don't pick a year to do it, especially when you're changing coaches/systems every few years. However, those complications don't hold for thirty years.

That said, you can't sit around for another Peyton Manning or Andrew Luck, either. You do still have to try, somewhere in between "for the sake of trying" and "sucking for Luck". Finding an excuse every year and looking back over two decades to see that you've only tried once in the first three rounds is bullshit.

[Kaepernick]

Originally Posted by RunKC

Dalton
Kaep
Wilson
Brady
Brees

These QB's have been regulars in the playoffs and they weren't first rd picks. That's basically HALF of the entire playoff bracket.

It's about who the QB is. But yes drafting one top 50 works best.

Dalton was 3 picks out of the 1st round. Kap, 4 picks. Brady is an aberration, an outlier. He and Bart Starr are the only QB 6th rounder to win a super bowl in the 49 year history of the NFL.

The principal still stands.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

Well there's no point talking KC football this season because success starts and ends with having a QB. If you don't have one that wins games for you then you better be developing one that can.

The Chiefs dont have a guy that can shoulder the team and aren't developing a guy that can either. R

So it's a wasted season.

That would seem more sarcastic if it wasn't for Joe Montana winning the last playoff game for the Chiefs two decades ago.

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by saphojunkie

Are you questioning whether or not Drew Brees is ELITE?

Also, he was the #32 pick - would be a first rounder now. #semantics

Did you just use a hashtag? #douchebag

[Kaepernick]

Originally Posted by SNR

Well Rams Fan, it appears you are about to experience a little bit of why we want to TRY taking a QB high in the draft.

You'll be either trying to manage with stopgap veterans or you'll pay out the ass for a Cousins. That's what we've been doing NONSTOP since Blackledge.

I pray for you that your team loses and loses well this season so you can try again at a top QB in the draft. Because I wouldn't wish 4+ years of a Cassel on my worst enemies*

*excluding the Broncos, Raiders, Colts, Chargers, Cowboys, and Falcons because **** Pioli forever

The RAMs organization is smart enough to eat the season for a top draft pick next year, while using the season to develop their young talent for a future Super Bowl push. They will suffer on with Shaun Hill and hope he doesn't win too much...

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Kaepernick

Dalton was 3 picks out of the 1st round. Kap, 4 picks. Brady is an aberration, an outlier. He and Bart Starr are the only QB 6th rounder to win a super bowl in the 49 year history of the NFL.

The principal still stands.

No, the principle does not still stand. Don't be stupid. You're tossing out example after example showing it doesn't, and then playing the "yeah, but" game with them.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by Mr. Laz

Did you just use a hashtag? #douchebag