When to expect the Chiefs to draft a QB in the 1st round

[acesn8s]

Since the Chiefs started drafting players they have drafted 20 QBs 2 of which were in the first round (Todd Blackledge, 1983 and Steve Fuller, 1979). Only 7 QBs have been drafted in the first 3 rounds (Croyle, Blundin, Elkins, Blackledge, Fuller, Jaynes, and Livingston). By way of comparison, only 3 positions have seen less draft picks (C, K, and P). Furthermore, Jacksonville and Carolina have each drafted 2 QBs in the first round since entering the league in 1995 as well as Baltimore since 1996. Only Houston has drafted less QBs in the 1st round (1).

Total draft picks (1st round picks)
Total 523 (47)
QB 20 (2)
RB 75 (7)
WR 67 (5)
TE 26 (2)
C 17 (0)
G 35 (5)
T 50 (7)
DE 43 (5)
DT 40 (6)
LB 61 (3)
DB 80 (5)
P 5 (0)
K 4 (0)

I find it amazing that the two players that touch the ball on every play are two of the worst drafted positions.

[Chief Roundup]

"Next Year"

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by tredadda

True, but I at least give them credit for trying at QB even if it has been unsuccessful so far.

Had the team been run better I definitely think Couch could have been a franchise guy. I don't really blame him.

Quinn I'm just not sure about. He has the IQ, the arm, and the maturity. That said, in the only 2 games I can remember seeing him play he made some really $3itty decisions. I don't know if he just "Farved-it" (thinks his arm can make the throw when he can't) or if he just never adjusted to the NFL pressure a QB gets from a defense...

[tredadda]

Originally Posted by Rausch

Had the team been run better I definitely think Couch could have been a franchise guy. I don't really blame him.

Quinn I'm just not sure about. He has the IQ, the arm, and the maturity. That said, in the only 2 games I can remember seeing him play he made some really $3itty decisions. I don't know if he just "Farved-it" (thinks his arm can make the throw when he can't) or if he just never adjusted to the NFL pressure a QB gets from a defense...

That is very possible. Oh and Cleveland has drafted 3 first round QBs, not two. It didn't hit me until you mentioned Couch and Quinn. They just drafted Weeden this time.

[jspchief]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Yes, me not wanting Mark Sanchez is why we didn't draft him. It's my fault. ***** called me on the batphone and I said no. Sorry, guys.

I didn't say it was the fans' fault. I said they deserve what they've been getting.

[jspchief]

Think about the logic behind the Chiefs' approach to finding a starting QB.

They are so scared of the odds of them being able to find/develop a starting QB. So instead they put their faith in another team being able to find 2 starting QBs, and trading one to KC.

That's essentially the formula they've relied on for the past 40 years.

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by jspchief

I didn't say it was the fans' fault. I said they deserve what they've been getting.

Oh, I get it. I deserve the Chiefs never taking a QB because I didn't want them to take Sanchez. Not wanting to take that one specific guy at 3 gives me more negative karma points than wanting them to take Locker or Gebbert or Ponder or Dalton or Mallett or Clausen or Stafford or Freeman or Ryan or Flacco or Quinn or Kolb or Leinert or Cutler or Rodgers or Campbell or Rivers or Roethlisberger or Losman or Leftwich or Boller or Grossman or Harrington or Ramsey or Pennington or McNabb or Smith or Culpepper or McNown. I get what I deserve because not wanting to take a gamble on Sanchez (we can throw Tannehill in this discussion too) means that I don't ever at any point want to take a gamble on a quarterback. Because apparently it's either all or nothing, you're either a whore for quarterback bending over and grabbing your ankles shouting "I don't care who it is just just give it to me!" or you're a shy little virgin in a white dress with a chastity belt who tosses the key out the window whenever the opportunity arrives. You can't just, you know, not like a quarterback. Or something.

I'm so tired I'm not sure that whole analogy even makes sense to me.

[jspchief]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Oh, I get it. I deserve the Chiefs never taking a QB because I didn't want them to take Sanchez. Not wanting to take that one specific guy at 3 gives me more negative karma points than wanting them to take Locker or Gebbert or Ponder or Dalton or Mallett or Clausen or Stafford or Freeman or Ryan or Flacco or Quinn or Kolb or Leinert or Cutler or Rodgers or Campbell or Rivers or Roethlisberger or Losman or Leftwich or Boller or Grossman or Harrington or Ramsey or Pennington or McNabb or Smith or Culpepper or McNown. I get what I deserve because not wanting to take a gamble on Sanchez (we can throw Tannehill in this discussion too) means that I don't ever at any point want to take a gamble on a quarterback. Because apparently it's either all or nothing, you're either a whore for quarterback bending over and grabbing your ankles shouting "I don't care who it is just just give it to me!" or you're a shy little virgin in a white dress with a chastity belt who tosses the key out the window whenever the opportunity arrives. You can't just, you know, not like a quarterback. Or something.

I'm so tired I'm not sure that whole analogy even makes sense to me.

They've been doing it for 39 years. Sanchez is hardly the only chance this organization has had to draft a QB in that span.

[acesn8s]

Originally Posted by tredadda

The bolded two have been proven wrong time and again. You don't need either to win a SB. It helps, but is not vital.

7 times since 1970 a team did not have a top 10 defense and won the SB. With one exception the winning team had a top 10 offense.

8 times since 1970 a team did not have a top 10 offense and won the SB. With one exception the winning team had a top 2 defense.

31 times the SB winning team had the top 2 ranked offense or defense. 20 times the team had the top ranked offense or defense.

Who was the one exception? The '07 Giants.

I'm not looking for the top ranked offense. I just want a coordinator that isn't a complete buffoon and a QB with enough time to manage a good game. With that said a defense is a must. If the defense is sacrificed then the offense must be able to score at will.

[acesn8s]

Originally Posted by tredadda

Seriously? Last year NE made the SB with one of the worst defenses in the league. The year before GB won it with an average defense and awful O-Line. That was just the last two years.

GB had the 2nd rank defense that year.

[KC Tattoo]

Originally Posted by jspchief

Think about the logic behind the Chiefs' approach to finding a starting QB.

They are so scared of the odds of them being able to find/develop a starting QB. So instead they put their faith in another team being able to find 2 starting QBs, and trading one to KC.

That's essentially the formula they've relied on for the past 40 years.

I call it the Todd Blackledge curse.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Rausch

Had the team been run better I definitely think Couch could have been a franchise guy. I don't really blame him.

Quinn I'm just not sure about. He has the IQ, the arm, and the maturity. That said, in the only 2 games I can remember seeing him play he made some really $3itty decisions. I don't know if he just "Farved-it" (thinks his arm can make the throw when he can't) or if he just never adjusted to the NFL pressure a QB gets from a defense...

Tim Couch was the first Division 1-A QB to play for Mr. Mike Leech...there are no coincidences...

[acesn8s]

What are the rookie QBs going to make this year compared to Cassel? Is the cost of drafting a QB in the first that significant? Nobody says that you must play the guy that you drafted. Look at Carolina. They drafted Clausen then Newton. Jimmy sat Cam played.

[Reerun_KC]

The first time this team drafts a 1 rd QB there will be a riot, fire and pitchforks in front of Arrowhead...

When the Chiefs start jeapordizing the 7--9/9-7 seasons with hope of making noise in the playoffs, fans will revolt.

Its more about the party in the parking lot than the product on the field.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by acesn8s

What are the rookie QBs going to make this year compared to Cassel? Is the cost of drafting a QB in the first that significant? Nobody says that you must play the guy that you drafted. Look at Carolina. They drafted Clausen then Newton. Jimmy sat Cam played.

With the new CBA, it's probably a good idea to draft a 1st round QB every year until you find "the one".

[tredadda]

Originally Posted by acesn8s

7 times since 1970 a team did not have a top 10 defense and won the SB. With one exception the winning team had a top 10 offense.

8 times since 1970 a team did not have a top 10 offense and won the SB. With one exception the winning team had a top 2 defense.

31 times the SB winning team had the top 2 ranked offense or defense. 20 times the team had the top ranked offense or defense.

Who was the one exception? The '07 Giants.

I'm not looking for the top ranked offense. I just want a coordinator that isn't a complete buffoon and a QB with enough time to manage a good game. With that said a defense is a must. If the defense is sacrificed then the offense must be able to score at will.

In response to your post

1. Using 1970 as a gauge for your SB statistics is misleading. The reason for that is how much the league has changed since then. Then defenses could dominate, now with all the rule changes offenses rule. It is no surprise that 5,000 yards passing went from being a superior feat to a meh thing. Not saying good defenses are not still of value, just not like they used to be.

2. With that being said, the QB position has taken on more importance. The days of a game manager carrying his team are dying. The teams that succeed are the ones that have a QB that can dominate.

3. I agree that you can't sacrifice defense completely for offense. The 2000's Chiefs are a fine example of that. But what I am saying is that a great o-line, or a great defense is not vital anymore to the success or failure of a team, especially if they have a dominant QB. The rules have just changed that much.