PDA

View Full Version : With the 1st pick in the 2012 NFL Draft,



drstandley31
09-18-2011, 07:38 PM
The Kansas City Chiefs take...........

reded
09-18-2011, 07:41 PM
Isn't it just a little bit early for this BS?

Coach
09-18-2011, 07:41 PM
Andrew Luck.

matthewschiefs
09-18-2011, 07:43 PM
Isn't it just a little bit early for this BS?

Most times I would say yes but with the way that this team has looked so far and the injuries building up I have to say no.

azchiefsfan
09-18-2011, 07:44 PM
Kellen Moore from BSU. He does nothing but win games. His best 2 receivers go to the NFL, what happens? He then throws even more yards and TD's to EVERY other receiver on the team. He is the cleanest and most accurate 3 step drop passer in the NCAA. He can win a game by himself almost. He is a little on the small side, but write this down(or just remember I said it), he will be a Super Bowl QB within 3 years of his draft.

drstandley31
09-18-2011, 07:44 PM
It is early, I'm trying to be a little funny and not be so Pissed off. But I just saw the post that Charles is out for the season. So I guess it's really not too early.

DMN
09-18-2011, 07:45 PM
Isn't it just a little bit early for this BS?

41-7 and 48-3 in assumed "winnable games"... I say definitely not too early.

The only BS I see is the KC Chiefs

dietsch
09-18-2011, 07:45 PM
Isn't it just a little bit early for this BS?


After being outscored 89-10, is it? I don't think so. It'd be one thing if we had been competitive, but these two weeks have been embarrassing.

Coach
09-18-2011, 07:46 PM
We have lost our last 4 games by a cumulative total of 160-27. That is mindboggling.

jmlamerson
09-18-2011, 07:47 PM
The Kansas City Chiefs take...........

Andrew Luck. If it's anyone else, I am personally taking Pioli behind a barn and euthanizing him.

reded
09-18-2011, 07:49 PM
I don't care who they pick, one man isn't gonna solve what's wrong with this team. Every year it's the same thing, "Oh if we draft such and such we'll make the SB next year". It's stupid.

jmlamerson
09-18-2011, 07:54 PM
I don't care who they pick, one man isn't gonna solve what's wrong with this team. Every year it's the same thing, "Oh if we draft such and such we'll make the SB next year". It's stupid.

One man was the difference between a SB and nothing for the Colts this past decade. Luck may not be the guy. But he has a better chance than anyone else this decade.

reded
09-18-2011, 07:55 PM
So you're telling me that Manning would have won the game with this team today? No f'n way....

okikcfan
09-18-2011, 08:08 PM
Andrew Luck.

jmlamerson
09-18-2011, 08:09 PM
So you're telling me that Manning would have won the game with this team today? No f'n way....

Manning in his prime had the ability to will otherwise crappy teams to victory, just on his ability. I don't know that he would have led this team to victory today, but he could have.

dietsch
09-18-2011, 08:12 PM
I don't care who they pick, one man isn't gonna solve what's wrong with this team. Every year it's the same thing, "Oh if we draft such and such we'll make the SB next year". It's stupid.

If anybody thinks we are one player away from a SB, they are out of their minds, but andrew luck would be a great building block assuming he is as good as advertised. Like I said in another thread, if we are bad enough to have the #1 pick, we need a player who will change the face of the franchis and I also think it would be obvious by then to show cassel is not the answer.

Note: I know cassel is not the only problem we have.

matthewschiefs
09-18-2011, 08:21 PM
Before we would take Luck I would hope that we give the current rookie qb on the roster a look.

AkChief49
09-18-2011, 08:22 PM
I was against the Cassel move at first. Kind of grew to respect him a bit. Still do, he is gritty. But, you cannot build your house around a number 2. Something will always not smell right.

jmlamerson
09-18-2011, 08:40 PM
Before we would take Luck I would hope that we give the current rookie qb on the roster a look.

No, no, God no. Please, no more trying to turn low-round QBs into stars. No Chiefs QB actually drafted by the team has won a start since Todd Blackledge. Draft a blue chip QB prospect in the first round already!

Fastphilly
09-18-2011, 08:50 PM
We must take Andrew Luck...I have had enough taking other teams trash QB leftovers (with the exception of Montana and Green), every other hand-me-down QB has been a joke. ..It's time to draft one of our own.

matthewschiefs
09-18-2011, 08:53 PM
No, no, God no. Please, no more trying to turn low-round QBs into stars. No Chiefs QB actually drafted by the team has won a start since Todd Blackledge. Draft a blue chip QB prospect in the first round already!

Well IF things keep going the way they are right now I don't think it would be bad to give him a look. Maybe he will be horrible. Or maybe he will be good. It's a wasted pick if we never plan to use him. Might as well give him a shot if things don't get any better.

Fastphilly
09-18-2011, 08:56 PM
Before we would take Luck I would hope that we give the current rookie qb on the roster a look.

Great post!! It seems with three of our key skill players gone for the season then the rest of our season should be used efficiently to gauge our backup QB's to see where we stand.

Sick Dog
09-18-2011, 08:58 PM
What about Stanzi? There are some QB's drafted later that are pretty good...guy named Brady...Montana just to name a couple and how many busts in the first round or pick for that matter...Russell, Leaf there are no guarantees...we need help on the "O" line...I am not saying Cassel is perfect but he can win...Baldwin is not even playing yet Chiefs need more help in other areas they might even need a RB what is Charles going to be like coming back from an injury like that...he needs his speed...all around just frustrating I still believe they will get better:ninerssuck:

jmlamerson
09-18-2011, 10:55 PM
Well IF things keep going the way they are right now I don't think it would be bad to give him a look. Maybe he will be horrible. Or maybe he will be good. It's a wasted pick if we never plan to use him. Might as well give him a shot if things don't get any better.

The chances of Andrew Luck being a pro bowl-caliber QB are much much higher than any 4th rounder out there. Are there busts? Yes. But look at playoffs last season:

Manning - 1st rounder
Vick - 1st rounder
Cutler - 1st rounder
Flacco - 1st rounder
Rothlisberger - 1st rounder
Matt Ryan - 1st rounder
Aaron Rodgers - 1st rounder
Mark Sanchez - 1st rounder
Brees - 2nd rounder
Brady - 6th rounder
Cassel - 7th rounder (traded for 2nd rounder)
Hasselback - 7th rounder (traded for 1st rounder)

That's 8 out of 12 (with two first rounders in the SB). The year prior, it was 8 out of 12 (with the first overall pick versus the 33rd pick in the SB). The year prior, 9 out of 12, with HOFer Kurt Warner versus 1st rounder.

The QB position matters. More than any other spot on the field. By a long shot. We will never, never win anything until we address it with a real, long-term, blue-chip prospect.

DMN
09-18-2011, 11:33 PM
I don't care who they pick, one man isn't gonna solve what's wrong with this team. Every year it's the same thing, "Oh if we draft such and such we'll make the SB next year". It's stupid.

4 teams in very similar situations in recent years....

Falcons, Bucs, Lions, and Rams.

All who have turned it around and are seemingly headed the right direction...

Led by Matt Ryan, Josh Freeman, Matt Stafford, and Sam Bradford.

Look at where the chiefs are...

Chiefs fanatic
09-18-2011, 11:43 PM
I think we should take Luck. I'm a huge Kellen Moore fan and if we don't end up with the number one pick I'd love to get him but I think we have to go with Luck for a number one pick.

matthewschiefs
09-18-2011, 11:47 PM
The chances of Andrew Luck being a pro bowl-caliber QB are much much higher than any 4th rounder out there. Are there busts? Yes. But look at playoffs last season:

Manning - 1st rounder
Vick - 1st rounder
Cutler - 1st rounder
Flacco - 1st rounder
Rothlisberger - 1st rounder
Matt Ryan - 1st rounder
Aaron Rodgers - 1st rounder
Mark Sanchez - 1st rounder
Brees - 2nd rounder
Brady - 6th rounder
Cassel - 7th rounder (traded for 2nd rounder)
Hasselback - 7th rounder (traded for 1st rounder)

That's 8 out of 12 (with two first rounders in the SB). The year prior, it was 8 out of 12 (with the first overall pick versus the 33rd pick in the SB). The year prior, 9 out of 12, with HOFer Kurt Warner versus 1st rounder.

The QB position matters. More than any other spot on the field. By a long shot. We will never, never win anything until we address it with a real, long-term, blue-chip prospect.


Who has the most rings in that group. The 6th rounder. I am not saying that Stanzi is the answer. What I am saying is if we get to the point where we are going to have the number 1 pick we should see if he can be the answer before we get anther qb. If he can be and that's a big if then we can use that pick on anther hole. If not well we will no.

NJChiefs
09-18-2011, 11:50 PM
Isn't it just a little bit early for this BS?

Ummm... No, it's not.

reded
09-18-2011, 11:52 PM
4 teams in very similar situations in recent years....

Falcons, Bucs, Lions, and Rams.

All who have turned it around and are seemingly headed the right direction...

Led by Matt Ryan, Josh Freeman, Matt Stafford, and Sam Bradford.

Look at where the chiefs are...

I'm sorry, I guess I should have seen my error earlier. You've convinced me, let's draft Luck and teach him how to block for himself and catch his own passes downfield as well. If one man can do all that then I'm all for it!

rodu
09-18-2011, 11:53 PM
Take Luck, hire a run orientated OC, sign free agent o lineman to shore up that line, probably get a new RB, and build around the kid

chief31
09-18-2011, 11:55 PM
We will never, never win anything until we address it with a real, long-term, blue-chip prospect.

Warner, Brees, Dilfer, B. Johnson, Favre, Rypien, Hostetler, Theismann, Stabler, Unitas, Starr (X2), Staubach (X2), Brady (X3) and Montana (X4) make that a risky assumption.

47% of all Super Bowls have been won by QBs that were not first round picks.

Granted, It helps to have a guy that was drafted high. But it is far from a must.

chief31
09-19-2011, 12:05 AM
4 teams in very similar situations in recent years....

Falcons, Bucs, Lions, and Rams.

All who have turned it around and are seemingly headed the right direction...

Led by Matt Ryan, Josh Freeman, Matt Stafford, and Sam Bradford.

Look at where the chiefs are...

The Falcons were an already-built team, having built it around Vick.

The Rams were 8-8 last year, and are 0-1 so far this season. Not really the model of a winning franchise. Didn't The Chiefs have a better year in 2010, and even beat those Rams?

The Lions spent about a decade building what they have.

And The Bucs got beat, at home, by the same team that just beat us.

But the whole argument is largely superstition. Rather a player is drafted in the first round, or undrafted, those who are good, are good.

As I said above, it helps to get the higher rated guy coming out of college. But it is far from an amazing success rate.

DMN
09-19-2011, 01:27 AM
I am tired of the 10-6 division champion argument. We got destroyed in the playoffs. We looked like we didn't even belong there. Lets not live in the past.

If it looks like a fluke... smells like a fluke.... then must be.

4-12, 2-14, 4-12, 10-6, and now to a hopefully 4 win season... and I can't honestly see on our schedule where we even get 2 wins. Miami and Indy maybe.

Sure those teams are not elite but they are going to make us look foolish this year.

Haleys whole mantra since getting here has been "If we can just get a little better each and every day"

Bottom line this is only 2 games... but a gigantic step backwards.

If 10-6 held any water then explain to me how we are this bad right now... This team and organization have officially been exposed.

jmlamerson
09-19-2011, 01:37 AM
Warner, Brees, Dilfer, B. Johnson, Favre, Rypien, Hostetler, Theismann, Stabler, Unitas, Starr (X2), Staubach (X2), Brady (X3) and Montana (X4) make that a risky assumption.

47% of all Super Bowls have been won by QBs that were not first round picks.

Granted, It helps to have a guy that was drafted high. But it is far from a must.

Dilfer was a 1st round pick (6th overall). Brees and Favre were the 33rd picks of the draft - and were the 2nd and 3rd QB selected in their respective drafts. Citing Bart Starr and Johnny Unitas is a bit ingenuous, given that they were drafted long before the Super Bowl era began.

Only Stabler, Hostetler, Rypien, Brady, Warner, Montana, Brad Johnson, and Staubach are true diamond-in-the-rough sorts of finds. And they are exceptions, not the rules. And of those, only Brady, Warner, Staubach, and Montana are hall of famers.

If you're drafting QBs low on the hope that they'll be Brady, Warner, Staubach, and Montana, well, good luck. Because those are once-in-a-generation finds. And lucky ones too.

jmlamerson
09-19-2011, 01:40 AM
Who has the most rings in that group. The 6th rounder. I am not saying that Stanzi is the answer. What I am saying is if we get to the point where we are going to have the number 1 pick we should see if he can be the answer before we get anther qb. If he can be and that's a big if then we can use that pick on anther hole. If not well we will no.

A football team that runs on the hope that it'll luck into another Tom Brady is going to fail. Because Tom Brady - like Kurt Warner - is a once in a generation find. A perfect storm of great coaching and luck.

chief31
09-19-2011, 02:39 AM
I am tired of the 10-6 division champion argument. We got destroyed in the playoffs. We looked like we didn't even belong there. Lets not live in the past.

If it looks like a fluke... smells like a fluke.... then must be.

4-12, 2-14, 4-12, 10-6, and now to a hopefully 4 win season... and I can't honestly see on our schedule where we even get 2 wins. Miami and Indy maybe.

Sure those teams are not elite but they are going to make us look foolish this year.

Haleys whole mantra since getting here has been "If we can just get a little better each and every day"

Bottom line this is only 2 games... but a gigantic step backwards.

If 10-6 held any water then explain to me how we are this bad right now... This team and organization have officially been exposed.

So, if 10-6 over a full sixteen game schedule is a fluke, then how is two horrible games not a fluke?

It's two games. Far more susceptible to anomalies than a full sixteen game schedule.

Or do I have to abandon logic to "get it"?




Dilfer was a 1st round pick (6th overall). Brees and Favre were the 33rd picks of the draft - and were the 2nd and 3rd QB selected in their respective drafts. Citing Bart Starr and Johnny Unitas is a bit ingenuous, given that they were drafted long before the Super Bowl era began.

Only Stabler, Hostetler, Rypien, Brady, Warner, Montana, Brad Johnson, and Staubach are true diamond-in-the-rough sorts of finds. And they are exceptions, not the rules. And of those, only Brady, Warner, Staubach, and Montana are hall of famers.

If you're drafting QBs low on the hope that they'll be Brady, Warner, Staubach, and Montana, well, good luck. Because those are once-in-a-generation finds. And lucky ones too.

My mistake on Dilfer. I guess that makes it 44% of Super Bowl winning QBs not drafted in the first round.

Brees and Favre stay on my side, as they are on my side of the line you drew at the first round.

As I said, you have a higher percentage chance of winning a Super Bowl with a first rounder. But with 44% of those winners not being first rounders, it is just spouting off nonsense to claim that a team will never win without one.

Matt Cassel has been a very good NFL QB in his three seasons. I think his fall needs to be more than a couple of games (although he has been far from as horrible as his supporting cast) before attempting to declare he can't win.

matthewschiefs
09-19-2011, 02:44 AM
A football team that runs on the hope that it'll luck into another Tom Brady is going to fail. Because Tom Brady - like Kurt Warner - is a once in a generation find. A perfect storm of great coaching and luck.

Well I agree with you on that. But when you get to a point where your team is not going anywhere then you need to see what you have. If the Chiefs don't get better and they get to the point where they have 0 chance to make the playoffs then what would it really hurt to put in the current rookie to see what hes got. If he is one of those rare late round finds then we will no and can fill anther hole with the early draft pick. If he's not then we will no that we still have the hole to fill. We are not at that point yet. But should we get there I really don't see a negitive to seeing what we have on the roster and what we are going to need going forward.

matthewschiefs
09-19-2011, 02:46 AM
So, if 10-6 over a full sixteen game schedule is a fluke, then how is two horrible games not a fluke?

It's two games. Far more susceptible to anomalies than a full sixteen game schedule.

Or do I have to abandon logic to "get it"?





My mistake on Dilfer. I guess that makes it 44% of Super Bowl winning QBs not drafted in the first round.

Brees and Favre stay on my side, as they are on my side of the line you drew at the first round.

As I said, you have a higher percentage chance of winning a Super Bowl with a first rounder. But with 44% of those winners not being first rounders, it is just spouting off nonsense to claim that a team will never win without one.

Matt Cassel has been a very good NFL QB in his three seasons. I think his fall needs to be more than a couple of games (although he has been far from as horrible as his supporting cast) before attempting to declare he can't win.





Ok something has gone horribley wrong I am agreeing with you way to much and we haven't had a fight in a couple of weeks. Maybe we jinxed the team?:efpge:

DMN
09-19-2011, 02:58 AM
So, if 10-6 over a full sixteen game schedule is a fluke, then how is two horrible games not a fluke?

It's two games. Far more susceptible to anomalies than a full sixteen game schedule.

Or do I have to abandon logic to "get it"?


Maybe it is a fluke and all of a sudden after 8 straight losses... (terrible ones at that) we will all of a sudden "get it" as you say.

At which point I will gladly remove my foot from my mouth.

At the end of the day if you are going to hang your hat on a 10-6 season that ends in a first round embarrassment on a soft schedule then by all means be my guest. But that was last season... this season we are an 0-2 laughing stock on the easy end of a brutal schedule with absolutely no positives to build on. Good teams learn from successes and failures. we have grossly regressed.

We are so far from being a contending team it truly saddens me.

Fastphilly
09-19-2011, 05:11 AM
Warner, Brees, Dilfer, B. Johnson, Favre, Rypien, Hostetler, Theismann, Stabler, Unitas, Starr (X2), Staubach (X2), Brady (X3) and Montana (X4) make that a risky assumption.

47% of all Super Bowls have been won by QBs that were not first round picks.

Granted, It helps to have a guy that was drafted high. But it is far from a must.
I do not agree with alot of those names you mentioned.

Warner was on teams with exceptional receiving talent (except the Giants and his stint there was horrible).

Dilfer fell into a situation with one of the best defences in NFL history. I could have won a SB with that defence. He was shipped out the following year so that tells you something.

B. Johnson was in a similar situation like Dilfer, a great defence that can bail out even substandard QB play.

Hostetler did just enough to win and that meant for him not to turn the ball over and even then they should have lost the SB if it was'nt for a makeable Norwood FG that sailed wide. His career with the Raiders was anything but good.

Mark Rypien did win the Super Bowl, but he was AWOL soon after. I guess not having (Clark and Monk) and a lights out defence exposed him.

Any of the pre-salary cap era QBs you mentioned is'nt a fair comparison with today's QBs..Those QB's were in consistant systems with few player roster moves and had alot of depth in backup players. Still I agree they could have been an improvement with most other teams.

I do agree with Favre, Brees, and Brady. Those QB's could jumpstart the level of play with average talented casts.

AussieChiefsFan
09-19-2011, 08:42 AM
The Kansas City Chiefs take...........

I was actually thinking about this while watching the game :(

Bike
09-19-2011, 09:42 AM
At this point, the draft is irrelavent.
First and foremost - we need to find us a strong, common sense head coach.
Pioli - PULL YOUR HEAD OUT AND DO WHATS RIGHT!

pojote
09-19-2011, 10:57 AM
Besides we get first pick or not (with Charles in IR we will get it), if we want to go to a SB we need an elite QB, Cassel showed us last four games he is not, and will never be. We have a talented young team in a lot of positions, that means a lot of years to improve, add a real QB, fill with FA, use that salary cap space, and we have a contender team.

azchiefsfan
09-19-2011, 12:01 PM
Cassel is the last bright spot on a really bad team. When he has just a few good options, he wins. Look at Dan Marino. He was about as good as a QB gets, but muddled through the 80's and 90's with no chance at the playoffs most years. Yeah he went to one Super Bowls, but with the 2 best WR that year-and lost it BTW. Cassel IS the real deal, but the best in the league, like Marino, couldn't will a bad team to win.

Isawa_mo
09-19-2011, 12:28 PM
Cassel is the last bright spot on a really bad team. When he has just a few good options, he wins. Look at Dan Marino. He was about as good as a QB gets, but muddled through the 80's and 90's with no chance at the playoffs most years. Yeah he went to one Super Bowls, but with the 2 best WR that year-and lost it BTW. Cassel IS the real deal, but the best in the league, like Marino, couldn't will a bad team to win.

Wow, just wow! I was a Cassel supporter, but you are diluted. There has been nothing to support about his performances this year. He is an average quarterback at best. If you put enough pieces around him he can manage a game. You know who else could manage games with enough pieces around them? Almost any quarterback drafted in the NFL. Some can even win a Superbowl (Dilfer and B. Johnson). To compare him to Marino is really silly.

azchiefsfan
09-19-2011, 12:34 PM
Wow, just wow! I was a Cassel supporter, but you are diluted. There has been nothing to support about his performances this year. He is an average quarterback at best. If you put enough pieces around him he can manage a game. You know who else could manage games with enough pieces around them? Almost any quarterback drafted in the NFL. Some can even win a Superbowl (Dilfer and B. Johnson). To compare him to Marino is really silly.

I will sheath my sword and write with respect for a fellow Chiefs fan-though it is difficult. You Sir, completely missed(or ignored) the entire point of my post in your Cassel-hating diatribe. Never once did I say Cassel was as good as Marino. What I DID SAY is that even the best QB's cannot single-handedly win a game and make a team good. Cassel is a good QB and has proven it over and over. Funny how he and Bowe were leading the entire NFL last year, but he really sucks, isn't it? I really want to unload on you because of your dishonest response to my post and due to my frustration with the team, but I will quit now. Have a nice day.

chief31
09-19-2011, 12:40 PM
Ok something has gone horribley wrong I am agreeing with you way to much and we haven't had a fight in a couple of weeks. Maybe we jinxed the team?:efpge:

Oh yeah? Well I peed on your front door while you slept lastnight.


I do not agree with alot of those names you mentioned.

Warner was on teams with exceptional receiving talent (except the Giants and his stint there was horrible).

Dilfer fell into a situation with one of the best defences in NFL history. I could have won a SB with that defence. He was shipped out the following year so that tells you something.

B. Johnson was in a similar situation like Dilfer, a great defence that can bail out even substandard QB play.

Hostetler did just enough to win and that meant for him not to turn the ball over and even then they should have lost the SB if it was'nt for a makeable Norwood FG that sailed wide. His career with the Raiders was anything but good.

Mark Rypien did win the Super Bowl, but he was AWOL soon after. I guess not having (Clark and Monk) and a lights out defence exposed him.

Any of the pre-salary cap era QBs you mentioned is'nt a fair comparison with today's QBs..Those QB's were in consistant systems with few player roster moves and had alot of depth in backup players. Still I agree they could have been an improvement with most other teams.

I do agree with Favre, Brees, and Brady. Those QB's could jumpstart the level of play with average talented casts.

You realize that, rather you like how each guy did it, or not, they won The Super Bowl, as per the ongoing discussion, right?

Aside from the error on Dilfer's draft status (already pointed out and acknowledged) there is nothing to disagree with. These are facts, not opinions.

But I get what you are saying, and, if you prefer to discount those individuals because their teams "carried them" to Super Bowl victories, then you won't mind my eliminating guys like Terry Bradshaw and Bob Griese from the first round QBs who have won, right?

When we get right down to it, the truly successful Super Bowl winning QBs, who are not just along for the ride, tend to not be first round picks.

I take Brady, Montana, Staubach and Starr. What have you, from the first rounders?

Isawa_mo
09-19-2011, 01:20 PM
I will sheath my sword and write with respect for a fellow Chiefs fan-though it is difficult. You Sir, completely missed(or ignored) the entire point of my post in your Cassel-hating diatribe. Never once did I say Cassel was as good as Marino. What I DID SAY is that even the best QB's cannot single-handedly win a game and make a team good. Cassel is a good QB and has proven it over and over. Funny how he and Bowe were leading the entire NFL last year, but he really sucks, isn't it? I really want to unload on you because of your dishonest response to my post and due to my frustration with the team, but I will quit now. Have a nice day.

I should probably have previewed to take the edge off of my response. I am also frustrated and am in no mood to defend any of them at this point, I guess.

Having said that, I posted was far from a "Cassel hating diatribe", so i will call us even on the misrepresentation score. What I will admit to at this point, is that he is an average NFL QB. Most of the upper tier teams have/had better than that. Certainly calling him a bright spot on this team is a major stretch given his performance in two games.

I fully agree one player cannot do it alone. Having said that, my opinion of him has changed. I try to give all the players time (even Jackson I was giving the benefit of the doubt going into this year). I am going to call Cassel out for not doing his part to help lift the team up.

azchiefsfan
09-19-2011, 01:35 PM
"There has been nothing to support about his performances this year. He is an average quarterback at best. If you put enough pieces around him he can manage a game. You know who else could manage games with enough pieces around them? Almost any quarterback drafted in the NFL. Some can even win a Superbowl (Dilfer and B. Johnson). To compare him to Marino is really silly."

Diatribe: 1. archaic: a prolonged discourse. 2: a bitter and abusive speech or piece of writing . 3: ironic or satirical criticism

That is a diatribe. What I wrote was a concise response. Far from a "diatribe". I agree to disagree with you.

matthewschiefs
09-19-2011, 01:38 PM
Oh yeah? Well I peed on your front door while you slept lastnight.

Oh yeah well I left a nice stinky present on your front door. :D :meow:

PhillyChief
09-19-2011, 03:21 PM
What's disingenuous is citing QB statistics from eras where the QB position was not the position of importance it is now. Was it important? Yes, but not as much as now. It's a pass dominant league now, one with significant rule changes which favor not just offenses but passing specifically over defenses. Ignoring that and other things and simply adding up the # of 1st rounder QBs who've won a SB and using that AND THAT ALONE to determine whether having a 1st round QB is important is, to be kind, oversimplifying the issue.

Yes we need a defense with a spine, and WRs for said QB to throw to and a line to protect him but things start with having that QB, that leader out there. Not a manager, a leader. Could you get him from anything but the 1st round? Possibly, but the odds start dropping significantly. Now sure, go cite Blackledge and Leaf but if you really feel like doing statistical homework, go see what the ratio is between 1st round busts vs. non-1st round stars. Exceptions are not the rules.

Lastly, how can I make a determination of this team after just 2 losses? Aside from the personnel losses, it's the manner in which they've lost. Basic fundamentals like tackling, catching and protecting the ball aren't there. The defense looks utterly confused, looking around and pointing to one another after giving up a big play. That's all quite telling. What's also telling is living in Philly and seeing how the Eagles managed to load up on talent (forgot about their o-line, though) while Pioli apparently wallpapered his office with the $millions the team is under the cap. Put it all together and you don't really need to be a psychic to see where this season is going.

chief31
09-19-2011, 03:39 PM
What's disingenuous is citing QB statistics from eras where the QB position was not the position of importance it is now. Was it important? Yes, but not as much as now. It's a pass dominant league now, one with significant rule changes which favor not just offenses but passing specifically over defenses. Ignoring that and other things and simply adding up the # of 1st rounder QBs who've won a SB and using that AND THAT ALONE to determine whether having a 1st round QB is important is, to be kind, oversimplifying the issue.



It was brought up to show how great QBs don't always come from the first round.

Then, now, either way, the best QBs of all time have not been the first rounders, but the underdogs.

Rather it be a pass-happy league, or not, the best QBs are not always the one's that are percieved as the best, as they enter the draft.

Therefore, no matter what era we are in, suggesting that a team can't win without a first round QB is making a pretty bold prediction.

Especially since half of the last ten Super Bowls have been won without a first round QB at the helm.

Saying The Chiefs won't win is easy. The odds are very heavily in one's favor for that one.

But painting it as if the lack of a first round QB is the reason is just a cheap shot.

Other teams win without it, there's no reason this team couldn't, so long as the QB we have is good. And, despite the past couple of games, Matt Cassel has shown that he absolutely can be very good, even with a sub-par O-line, erratic WR corps, and questionable coaching.

jmlamerson
09-19-2011, 04:09 PM
It was brought up to show how great QBs don't always come from the first round.

Then, now, either way, the best QBs of all time have not been the first rounders, but the underdogs.

Rather it be a pass-happy league, or not, the best QBs are not always the one's that are percieved as the best, as they enter the draft.

Therefore, no matter what era we are in, suggesting that a team can't win without a first round QB is making a pretty bold prediction.

Especially since half of the last ten Super Bowls have been won without a first round QB at the helm.

Saying The Chiefs won't win is easy. The odds are very heavily in one's favor for that one.

But painting it as if the lack of a first round QB is the reason is just a cheap shot.

Other teams win without it, there's no reason this team couldn't, so long as the QB we have is good. And, despite the past couple of games, Matt Cassel has shown that he absolutely can be very good, even with a sub-par O-line, erratic WR corps, and questionable coaching.


The lack of a great QB has held this franchise back for decades. 1st round QBs are much more likely to be great QBs than the rest of the field. There isn't a missing step here. If Cassel keeps bombing this season, Plan B shouldn't be to groom Stanzi or some other mid-rounder/castoff and hope for the best. It's to get a blue chip QB prospect. We haven't had a homegrown QB win a start since Todd Blackledge. We haven't won a playoff game since starting a castoff Joe Montana. There are correlations here.

And I didn't say you couldn't win without a 1st rounde. Just that you probably wouldn't. Also that it's foolish to hope a Warner or Brady or Montana drops to you. Because those are 1-in-a-100 shots. You cannot and should not count on them.

In the battle between 1st rounders versus the field in Super Bowl wins, 1st rounder have a comfortable majority of the wins. It's even higher if you include high second rounders. And it's really high if you stop including pre-Super Bowl drafts.

bbacker51
09-19-2011, 04:20 PM
With the first pick of the 2012 draft.....................The Kansas City Chiefs take....................................(can we draft a new coach?)

chief31
09-19-2011, 04:42 PM
The lack of a great QB has held this franchise back for decades. 1st round QBs are much more likely to be great QBs than the rest of the field. There isn't a missing step here. If Cassel keeps bombing this season, Plan B shouldn't be to groom Stanzi or some other mid-rounder/castoff and hope for the best. It's to get a blue chip QB prospect. We haven't had a homegrown QB win a start since Todd Blackledge. We haven't won a playoff game since starting a castoff Joe Montana. There are correlations here.

And I didn't say you couldn't win without a 1st rounde. Just that you probably wouldn't. Also that it's foolish to hope a Warner or Brady or Montana drops to you. Because those are 1-in-a-100 shots. You cannot and should not count on them.

In the battle between 1st rounders versus the field in Super Bowl wins, 1st rounder have a comfortable majority of the wins. It's even higher if you include high second rounders. And it's really high if you stop including pre-Super Bowl drafts.

A big advantage that first round picks have oer the field is that teams tend to give them more chances.

Look at Alex Smith.

If that is a fifth round pick, he was out of the league long ago.

But, I still do not disagree that having the top pick of QBs is a good thing.

It's plain simple common sense.

Just that you overvalue the need for a first round QB, considering that the last ten Super bowl winners, half have had one, the other half hasn't.

Se, when you make exceptions to favor your case, you can make it look really good.

I listed every single Super Bowl QB, without exception, because all exceptions are going to favor one side, or the other.

I wanted a purely honest sample to work with.

It matters. Just not as much as I think you are letting on.

jmlamerson
09-19-2011, 06:33 PM
A big advantage that first round picks have oer the field is that teams tend to give them more chances.

Look at Alex Smith.

If that is a fifth round pick, he was out of the league long ago.

But, I still do not disagree that having the top pick of QBs is a good thing.

It's plain simple common sense.

Just that you overvalue the need for a first round QB, considering that the last ten Super bowl winners, half have had one, the other half hasn't.

Se, when you make exceptions to favor your case, you can make it look really good.

I listed every single Super Bowl QB, without exception, because all exceptions are going to favor one side, or the other.

I wanted a purely honest sample to work with.

It matters. Just not as much as I think you are letting on.

Here is a purely honest sample. A comfortable majority of Super Bowl winners, even with "exceptions" like the first pick of the 2nd round and pre-SB era guys, are 1st round picks. 56% to be exact. That means more 1st round QBs have won the SB than all the QBs selected in rounds 2-17 (yes, Starr was a 17th rounder) and undrafted.

Do you think this is a statistical anomoly? Do you think it's a coincidence that we haven't drafted a QB in the first round and we keep missing the playoffs? That we keep flaming out in the first round with journeymen at the helm?

I just don't understand. Do you think QB is relatively unimportant? Do you think that late round guys are as good as 1st round guys? Don't you notice that Brady and Montana and Staubach played for three of the top-5 coaches of the SB era? And that Johnson and Dilfer for two of the top-5 defenses? Average QBs can be overcome. You shouldn't set out to build a team with obstacles to be overcome.

I get liking Cassel. I like Cassel. I think if he were transplanted onto the 2000 Ravens or 2002 Bucs, he'd have won that championship instead of Dilfer or Johnson. But according to a purely honest sample, he's five regular season games worse of a QB than Tom Brady. He has a perfectly average 82.4 QBR over his career. He has a below average 79.1 QBR and 57% completion rate as a Chief. What do you think he is, exactly? Unless we somehow get the 2000 Ravens or 2002 Bucs defense transplanted onto this team, where do you think this team is heading with him except first round playoff exits (at best)?

THOMAS58
09-19-2011, 07:12 PM
Andrew Luck - QB, I have been a Chiefs fan for far too long, we need a franchise QB, I don't care if we have to give up our 1st round pick in 2013, do it!

OPLookn
09-19-2011, 07:25 PM
With the first pick of the 2012 draft.....................The Kansas City Chiefs take....................................(can we draft a new coach?)

With the first pick of the 2012 draft.....................The Kansas City Chiefs takes....................................The Wu Tang Clan....what a bold move!! Hopefully someone will get the reference there.

slc chief
09-19-2011, 09:37 PM
With the first pick of the 2012 draft.....................The Kansas City Chiefs takes....................................The Wu Tang Clan....what a bold move!! Hopefully someone will get the reference there.
chappelle show funny stuff.

but to be serious if we do get the first pick it had better be andrew luck.it is simple franchise qurterbacks get you deeper into the playoffs.name one team that has made a run deep into the playoffs without one recently.the nfl is a a pass first league now and without a solid starting quarterback.we will never see the superbowl.

2010chiefs
09-19-2011, 10:23 PM
Start Ricky Stanzi the rest of the year so that we know if he is our QB of the future. If he's not we draft ANDREW LUCK for sure. If we have a losing season with a rookie QB under center I would feel much better knowing we are grooming our future QB. GET Cassel the hell outta there allready! GO CHIEFS!

doobs_05
09-20-2011, 04:26 AM
If we don't take Luck, who else do we take (i don't follow college football hardcore,only really follow montana and montana state, so i don't know other players out there, so i want names and the school they are attending)

Fastphilly
09-20-2011, 04:35 AM
If we don't take Luck, who else do we take (i don't follow college football hardcore,only really follow montana and montana state, so i don't know other players out there, so i want names and the school they are attending)

Kellen Moore out of Boise St. is an excellent choice..I'd have to give him the nod as the most accurate passer in this years draft. He does'nt get the love like Luck since he played in the WAC for most of his college career but when he has played against division 1 schools Oregon comes to mind that was top ranked in their division he beat them. Not to mention he beat TCU in the Fiesta Bowl.

doobs_05
09-20-2011, 04:39 AM
Kellen Moore out of Boise St. is an excellent choice..I'd have to give him the nod as the most accurate passer in this years draft. He does'nt get the love like Luck since he played in the WAC for most of his college career but when he has played against division 1 schools Oregon comes to mind that was top ranked in their division he beat them. Not to mention he beat TCU in the Fiesta Bowl.

I was thinking more of any player like say we got the 2nd overall pick or they decided not to take Luck who would be the next best player (and not just QB)

Sick Dog
09-20-2011, 01:40 PM
Well we can't assume the Chiefs will have the worst record in the league and some of the other bottom feeders need a QB.

chief31
09-20-2011, 01:42 PM
Here is a purely honest sample. A comfortable majority of Super Bowl winners, even with "exceptions" like the first pick of the 2nd round and pre-SB era guys, are 1st round picks. 56% to be exact. That means more 1st round QBs have won the SB than all the QBs selected in rounds 2-17 (yes, Starr was a 17th rounder) and undrafted.

Do you think this is a statistical anomoly? Do you think it's a coincidence that we haven't drafted a QB in the first round and we keep missing the playoffs? That we keep flaming out in the first round with journeymen at the helm?

I just don't understand. Do you think QB is relatively unimportant? Do you think that late round guys are as good as 1st round guys? Don't you notice that Brady and Montana and Staubach played for three of the top-5 coaches of the SB era? And that Johnson and Dilfer for two of the top-5 defenses? Average QBs can be overcome. You shouldn't set out to build a team with obstacles to be overcome.

I get liking Cassel. I like Cassel. I think if he were transplanted onto the 2000 Ravens or 2002 Bucs, he'd have won that championship instead of Dilfer or Johnson. But according to a purely honest sample, he's five regular season games worse of a QB than Tom Brady. He has a perfectly average 82.4 QBR over his career. He has a below average 79.1 QBR and 57% completion rate as a Chief. What do you think he is, exactly? Unless we somehow get the 2000 Ravens or 2002 Bucs defense transplanted onto this team, where do you think this team is heading with him except first round playoff exits (at best)?

Get over yourself already.

I have said nothing to the effect of QB not being important. Most of what I have said is the exact opposite.

I have not said that late round QBs are better than first round QBs. I have clearly pointed out that first round QBs have won more SBs than all others

No need to post that first round QBs have won more Super Bowls than others. I know that, as I posted that before you.

The key element to this is how the "other QBs" have won over 40%, as opposed to 0%.



You made a bold insenuation that you can't win Super Bowls without a first round QB, and the facts disprove it.

And, since pointing out your overstatement, you have done everything in your power to make some argument about how 1st Rd QBs are better than others...

That was never actually disputed. But you keep trying to argue it anyway.

What is disputed is the degree of importance of a first round QB.

There is actually more than just black and white here.

Just because I know that QBs not taken in the first can win Super Bowls, which is exactly what this discussion is, does not mean that I think all first round QBs are the devil, nor that QB is a meaningless position.

But, instead of just easing back on the black-and-white mentality, you prefer to double-down on it, and start arguing something that nobody disagrees with.

You made a simple overstatement of the importance of first round QBs, just acknowledge that almost half of all Super Bowls have been won by guys who were not "Payton Manning", but less than "Blue-chip" in stock.

It's facts, that discount your exagerrative stance.


Its plain and common sense not to get the best qb prospect one has seen since probably peyton manning?

What is this?

What's going on here?

Are you talking to me? Asking a question, or making some kind of exageration?

I have no idea what you are trying to do here.

Are you trying to debate me on rather or not to draft Luck, when I suggested that we should?

If so, you are doing it wrong.


Who cares about past number 1 picks, what does that have to do with Luck?

Am I to assume this is a joke?

What does the history of 1st round QBs have to do with drafting a QB in the first round?

Is that really a question that you need someone to answer for you?




What if hes god's second coming.

Then good news for whoever drafts him.


I dont know if you have ever seen him play but hes got everything you want. Hes very smart, unreal arm, tremendous work ethic, runs a pro style offense and was taught under Jim Harbaugh.

You want some lists of active first pick qb's?

Philip rivers/eli manning
Sam Bradford
Matt Staffrod
Peyton manning
Vick
Alex smith


With the exception of alex smith, thats a damn good list. But I am sure you would rather have another Defensive tackle from LSU

Can you provide me with a list of innactive 1st rd QBs?

It is really pretty.

And even the list you brought is a failure.

You name seven guys, with a combined two Super Bowl victiories.

You could have just said Roethlisberger and accomplished the same task with six fewer names.

Just a bit premature to be crowning Bradford and Stafford yet.

jmlamerson
09-20-2011, 03:58 PM
Get over yourself already.

*You* are saying this?


I have said nothing to the effect of QB not being important. Most of what I have said is the exact opposite.

I didn't say you did. Hence the sentence in the form of a question.


I have not said that late round QBs are better than first round QBs. I have clearly pointed out that first round QBs have won more SBs than all others.

No need to post that first round QBs have won more Super Bowls than others. I know that, as I posted that before you.

You don't seem to understand why it's important. A QB taken in the first round is selected because people believe he is better than the other QBs in the draft. Sometimes the front office is wrong (see Couch, Tim).



The key element to this is how the "other QBs" have won over 40%, as opposed to 0%.

Because the QB was overlooked. Brady, Warner, Montana, Staubach, etc. would be overall 1st round picks if people knew how good they could be.



You made a bold insenuation that you can't win Super Bowls without a first round QB, and the facts disprove it.

You see, I didn't say that. I didn't imply it. I didn't insinuate it. You are making that up because you can't argue against the real facts.

Teams can win without a 1st round QB. Teams can even win a SB without a great QB. THEY PROBABLY WILL NOT.


And, since pointing out your overstatement, you have done everything in your power to make some argument about how 1st Rd QBs are better than others...

Huh? What are you talking about?


That was never actually disputed. But you keep trying to argue it anyway.

Huh? What are you talking about?


What is disputed is the degree of importance of a first round QB.

No, what is being disputed is the value of a great QB, and whether you are more likely to get a great QB with a first round pick. The answer is, of course you are. You are much more likely to be a championship team with Andrew Luck at the helm than Ricky Stanzi.

Who on earth disputes this?


There is actually more than just black and white here.

Really? Because I thought you wanted "a purely honest sample."


Just because I know that QBs not taken in the first can win Super Bowls, which is exactly what this discussion is, does not mean that I think all first round QBs are the devil, nor that QB is a meaningless position.

No, it's what you want this discussion to become because you've lost the previous one.


But, instead of just easing back on the black-and-white mentality, you prefer to double-down on it, and start arguing something that nobody disagrees with.

Huh? What are you talking about?


You made a simple overstatement of the importance of first round QBs, just acknowledge that almost half of all Super Bowls have been won by guys who were not "Payton Manning", but less than "Blue-chip" in stock.

A sizable minority of Super Bowl-winning QBs have not been blue-chip prospects out of college. That is correct.

A sizable majority of Super Bowl-winning QBs have been blue-chip prospects out of college. That is correct.

Just because guys like Brady, Montana, and Warner have been diamonds-in-the-rough doesn't mean that we should really, really hope that we can stumble on a QB like those. Because the odds are infentesimal that we will.


It's facts, that discount your exagerrative stance.

Here are the facts. Tell me which ones you disagree with.

1. Quarterback is the most important position on the field.

2. A team with a great quarterback, no matter where he is drafted, is more likely to win a Super Bowl than a team without a great quarterback.

3. You are more likely to find a great quarterback in the 1st round of the NFL draft than in the later rounds or undrafted.

If you agree that the three points I wrote above are correct, then your only argument is that Cassel is a great QB. I don't think he is. And if you think he is, well, then there really isn't much I can say to dissuade you. The stats and scoreboard don't back you up.

matthewschiefs
09-20-2011, 04:56 PM
Correct.

The facts are most of the good teams or teams going in the right direction have picked qbs in the first round.

Pitt
GB
St louis
NYG
SD
Indy
Balt
Atlanta
Phili kinda combined with atlanta i guess they had mcnabb for so long and did well
TB
Det

You have to pick the best available player Chief, and Luck coming out of this years draft is the best without a doubt. He is that franchise qb everyone wants, he is what we need. He is the qb that can step in and make a great impact right away

UMMMM you do no that St louis is 0-2 as well and ummm we beat them last year. You are aware of this right?

OPLookn
09-20-2011, 05:05 PM
UMMMM you do no that St louis is 0-2 as well and ummm we beat them last year. You are aware of this right?

I almost hate to do this and by this I mean jump in on the side of KC td. :lol:

BUT, St. Louis is 0-2 and we beat them last year, so what? Denial isn't just a river in Egypt and that's where you're at if you're saying that Bradford isn't a stud. Yes he listed off teams but in the end it was a list of teams that have good QB's.

matthewschiefs
09-21-2011, 05:36 PM
They were 1-15 the previous year and then they draft sam bradford and he leads them to 7-9 the next year in his rookie year. You are aware of this right?

Wait doesn't he play in the same divison that you said made us flukes for winning games? So when it fits your argument those wins should be considered legit but when it doesn't suit your argument there just fluke wins? Got it.

matthewschiefs
09-21-2011, 05:39 PM
I almost hate to do this and by this I mean jump in on the side of KC td. :lol:

BUT, St. Louis is 0-2 and we beat them last year, so what? Denial isn't just a river in Egypt and that's where you're at if you're saying that Bradford isn't a stud. Yes he listed off teams but in the end it was a list of teams that have good QB's.


I wasn't saying that Bradford isn't a stud. But he listed them as a team that is going in the right direction when they are in the EXACT same spot as us. And we are coming off a better year then them. The facts don't say they are clearly going in a better direction then us. Just because they drafted more the way Kc touchdown doesn't make them clearly going in a better direction then us when we are both sitting at 0-2

jmlamerson
09-21-2011, 05:48 PM
I wasn't saying that Bradford isn't a stud. But he listed them as a team that is going in the right direction when they are in the EXACT same spot as us. And we are coming off a better year then them. The facts don't say they are clearly going in a better direction then us. Just because they drafted more the way Kc touchdown doesn't make them clearly going in a better direction then us when we are both sitting at 0-2

Eh, I get what your saying but I think the Rams are clearly on the right track right now. They lost a couple close games against two good teams. And while we have the same record, they're healthier with legit superstars on the offense and defense. They'll probably win their (admittedly pathetic) division this season. The Chiefs front office would trade places with them in a second.

drstandley31
09-22-2011, 01:08 AM
The funny part of this is, I started this post just to lighten the mood (didn't work) and get over my frustration of the first two games. Although, maybe it's worked. damn this blows...... I'd rather be talking about how bad we're going to kick their butts this weekend. Oh well.

matthewschiefs
09-22-2011, 05:21 PM
Eh, I get what your saying but I think the Rams are clearly on the right track right now. They lost a couple close games against two good teams. And while we have the same record, they're healthier with legit superstars on the offense and defense. They'll probably win their (admittedly pathetic) division this season. The Chiefs front office would trade places with them in a second.

See that's the thing we beat the and have every meeting since they moved to St.Louis they couldn't even win that bad divison a year ago while the Chiefs won a slighty tougher divison and we are both 0-2 this year so how are they clearly going in a much better direction then us? We were pretty bad like them around the same time. Our worst year was 2-14 I think they went 1-15 the same season. I just don't think that since they have a 1st round qb there going in a much better direction then us. Or even at all.

TopekaRoy
09-22-2011, 07:09 PM
The Rams went from 1-15 to 7-9 an improvement of 6 wins, but still a losing record. The Chiefs went from 4-12 to 10-6, won the division and made the playoffs, which is also an improvement of 6 wins. I would argue that the Chiefs improved more than the Rams because it's harder to win 10 games than it is to win 7.

I think Lamerson is arguing that in his opinion the Rams are a better team than the Chiefs are this year based on just the last 2 games. He thinks the rams are continuing to improve while the Chiefs are regressing. That may be true, but if it is then what happened 2 years ago is irrelevant to the discussion.

doobs_05
09-23-2011, 02:29 AM
rams have a better defense and offense then the chiefs.....but i think everyone does :(

DMN
09-23-2011, 03:40 AM
doobs I love how not only your name rhymes with boobs but I get to see them every time you post.....

Its like even if I don't agree with what you are saying the twin boob action of your posts lulls me into submission.

not fair... but totally awesome!

chief31
09-23-2011, 11:07 AM
*You* are saying this?

That's right. Get over yourself.

There is no prize. There is no competition here. You made a flawed statment, and I simply tried to show you why it is not factual.




You don't seem to understand why it's important. A QB taken in the first round is selected because people believe he is better than the other QBs in the draft. Sometimes the front office is wrong (see Couch, Tim).

And the sky is blue too. Completely irrelevant.



Because the QB was overlooked. Brady, Warner, Montana, Staubach, etc. would be overall 1st round picks if people knew how good they could be.

Overloked, or just underrated. Not that it matters. But these guys were not really overlooked. They just were not rated as "blue chips"



You see, I didn't say that. I didn't imply it. I didn't insinuate it. You are making that up because you can't argue against the real facts.

Teams can win without a 1st round QB. Teams can even win a SB without a great QB. THEY PROBABLY WILL NOT.

And THAT is why your origional statment received a response.

Because you did not say "probably", you said "will never, never win anything"


Huh? What are you talking about?


I am not going to slow it down that far. But you insist on winning some argument, instead of admitting that the origional statement is an overstatement of "blue-chip" QB values, you must win the argument, so you change the terms of the argument to somehow try and argue that 1st round QBs are better than others.

Nobody has denied that, yet you insist upon winning that argument.

Have fun.



No, what is being disputed is the value of a great QB, and whether you are more likely to get a great QB with a first round pick. The answer is, of course you are. You are much more likely to be a championship team with Andrew Luck at the helm than Ricky Stanzi.

Who on earth disputes this?



Nobody.

This is just where you prefer to argue, so you are on a side that you can win.

I'm just not on the other side, so your self-proclaimed victory is actually a victory over nobody.

The only thing that I have said is that the most successful QBs of all time have not been your "blue chips".

They have been the late round picks.

And, what that means is that teams absolutely can win without "blue chips".

Why mention that?

Because it is facts that shoot down your overstatment about teams winning without "blue chips".


No, it's what you want this discussion to become because you've lost the previous one.

Lost? Lost what?

Let's look at it again....

You said "We will never, never win anything until we address it with a real, long-term, blue-chip prospect."

If that is to be taken literally, then you were wrong as soon as the staement was made.

We have won games and division crowns without a "blue chip" prospect.




Huh? What are you talking about?


So, that argument "won" itself.

Now, since the statement likely wasn't meant literally, then it has to be meant generally.

In which case, the insenuatiuon is that teams can't win championships without "blue chip" prospects.

So, Tom Brady means you have "lost" that argument too.

Whichever way you want to go, you "lose".

But seriously, this isn't about winning some argument.

It is about my pointing out that you overstated the value, to suggest that one can't win without a highly drafted QB.

If you didn't intend that statment to be generalized, then it was just flat out wrong.

Take your pick.


Huh? What are you talking about?

Again...

This is the statmement that was made..."We will never, never win anything until we address it with a real, long-term, blue-chip prospect."

And if last year's divisional championship does not defeat that, then Tom Brady does.


Huh? What are you talking about?

"We will never, never win anything until we address it with a real, long-term, blue-chip prospect."

OR........

"Teams can win without a 1st round QB. Teams can even win a SB without a great QB. THEY PROBABLY WILL NOT."


Which is it?

But please, again, insist upon how you "won" something again.

Pat yourself on the back some more.

And then wonder how someone would feel the need to tell you to get over yourself.

chief31
09-23-2011, 11:08 AM
Luck will be a number 1 pick, I was talkinga bout number 1 qb choices not first round. Dont worry, I am sure they will select another LSU defensive tackle.

I think Chief 31 forgot to take his meds today

And, again , for those who can't comprehend what they are reading, I support the idea of drafting a QB, should we happen to draft first.

So, how long do you want to argue against a ghost?

Because you are arguing that I am against, and that is is just untrue.

OPLookn
09-23-2011, 12:15 PM
And, again , for those who can't comprehend what they are reading, I support the idea of drafting a QB, should we happen to draft first.

So, how long do you want to argue against a ghost?

Because you are arguing that I am against, and that is is just untrue.

Uh oh, Chief thinks he's a ghost now. He really is off his meds... :lol:

Couldn't resist. :yahoo:

chief31
09-23-2011, 01:15 PM
Uh oh, Chief thinks he's a ghost now. He really is off his meds... :lol:

Couldn't resist. :yahoo:

You can't see me. :lol:

jmlamerson
09-23-2011, 06:09 PM
That's right. Get over yourself.

There is no prize. There is no competition here. You made a flawed statment, and I simply tried to show you why it is not factual.

Buddy, I hate to break it to you, but I'm talking football because I like to talk football. Not because your opinion is worth anything to me. Keep it polite or put me on ignore.


And the sky is blue too. Completely irrelevant.

If you can't understand why some QBs are 1st rounders and others aren't, then there isn't much point in our conversing.


Overloked, or just underrated. Not that it matters. But these guys were not really overlooked. They just were not rated as "blue chips"

That's what "overlooked" means. They were blue-chip QB prospects who were not recognized as such.


And THAT is why your origional statment received a response.


Because you did not say "probably", you said "will never, never win anything"

No, my statement received a response because you have a man-crush on an average QB and are going to any lengths to defend any perceived slight to him.

And we will never win a Super Bowl until we have a top, blue-chip QB at the position. Plus several other things like a real OL and defense. That is a statement I feel very comfortable in making. I guess I could have said unless we get the 2000 Ravens or 2002 Bucs defense, but I didn't think I needed too.


I am not going to slow it down that far. But you insist on winning some argument, instead of admitting that the origional statement is an overstatement of "blue-chip" QB values, you must win the argument, so you change the terms of the argument to somehow try and argue that 1st round QBs are better than others.

I can't tell if you're accidentally or purposefully misunderstanding me.

Here's an easy one - how many Super Bowls have the Chiefs won without a top-QB? A blue-chip QB? A 1st round QB? By the way, "blue chip" and "1st round" don't mean identical things.


Nobody has denied that, yet you insist upon winning that argument.

What argument? What are you talking about?


Have fun.

Always do.


Nobody.


This is just where you prefer to argue, so you are on a side that you can win.

I prefer to write statements that I can back up (or "win"), that is correct. I know, I know, I'm a rebel like that.


I'm just not on the other side, so your self-proclaimed victory is actually a victory over nobody.

You see, the value of a question is that it seeks information. If you and I agree with what I wrote, your disagreement is just you being disagreeable.


The only thing that I have said is that the most successful QBs of all time have not been your "blue chips".

Again, you're confusing the terms "blue-chip" and "1st rounder."


They have been the late round picks.

Chalk that up to bad GMs and scouts. Not because the player was average.


And, what that means is that teams absolutely can win without "blue chips".

No, you need excellent, blue-chip players to win Super Bowls. You aren't going to make it with a bunch of average guys, no matter how well they're coached or how badly they want it.


Why mention that?

Mention what?


Because it is facts that shoot down your overstatment about teams winning without "blue chips".

I really think your misunderstanding of the tertm blue chip is holding you back here. Its a term for an excellent prospect. Montana, Brady, and Warner were excellent prospects which no one realized pre-draft.


Lost? Lost what?

Your mind, apparently.


Let's look at it again....

OK


You said "We will never, never win anything until we address it with a real, long-term, blue-chip prospect."

A statement of fact.


If that is to be taken literally, then you were wrong as soon as the staement was made.

You can disagree if you want. When Brady, Roethlisberger, Rivers, Rodgers, or some other top-6 QB wins the SB this year, you'll feel foolish.


We have won games and division crowns without a "blue chip" prospect.

We haven't won a playoff game in decades. We haven't drafted a great QB in decades. You really think this is an accident?


So, that argument "won" itself.


Now, since the statement likely wasn't meant literally, then it has to be meant generally.

My statement was meant literally. We will never win anything without a top QB.


In which case, the insenuatiuon is that teams can't win championships without "blue chip" prospects.

A statement of fact.


So, Tom Brady means you have "lost" that argument too.

You know, this vocabulary confusion should have been cleared up when you noticed that Brady, Montana, Staubach, and Warner were being designated as blue-chips.


Whichever way you want to go, you "lose".

Uh huh.


But seriously, this isn't about winning some argument.

So you're posting out of some form of masochism?


It is about my pointing out that you overstated the value, to suggest that one can't win without a highly drafted QB.

Except I never said that . . .


If you didn't intend that statment to be generalized, then it was just flat out wrong.

If by generalized, you mean that I intended my statement to be read accurately, then you're correct.


Take your pick.

I'm very comfortable standing by my statement that the Chiefs won't win anything without a great QB.


Again...

This is the statmement that was made..."We will never, never win anything until we address it with a real, long-term, blue-chip prospect."

Again, you're confusing blue-chip with first-round. We need to draft and groom a great QB. That will almost certainly have to be a first rounder, and a high one at that. Hoping that the Brodie Croyles and Ricky Stanzis of the world turn into Tom Bradys and Joe Montanas is delusional.


And ivf last year's divisional championship does not defeat that, then Tom Brady does.

Huh? What are you talking about?


"We will never, never win anything until we address it with a real, long-term, blue-chip prospect."

Again, a statement of fact.


OR........

"Teams can win without a 1st round QB. Teams can even win a SB without a great QB. THEY PROBABLY WILL NOT."

Unless we get the 2000 Ravens defense, we won't. And we aren't getting the 2000 Ravens defense.


Which is it?

Figure it out.


But please, again, insist upon how you "won" something again


Pat yourself on the back some more.

Sure, why not? *pats self on back* Felt good.


And then wonder how someone would feel the need to tell you to get over yourself.

Losing arguments sure puts you in a bad mood.

chief31
09-23-2011, 07:46 PM
So then, when you said that this team will never, never win anything without a blue-chip prospect at the helm, was that literal, and already wrong because they have won games?

Or was it a generalized statement about teams being unable to win without one?

Either way is wrong. But you are pretty unclear about which ground you are on.

And now, you are including sixth round picks as blue-chip prospects?

Seeing as how the term "blue chip" is based on a general perception of the prospect, then those who are drafted in the sixth round are incapable of being considered as blue chips as the general perception was of a late round pick, not a blue chip.

The term "blue chip" is all about how a prospect is rated. And players drafted in late rounds are not rated as blue chips.

But then, for a guy who refuses to admit a minor overstatement, inventing new meanings for terms like that should be expected.

Either way though, the statement was erroneous. the Chiefs have already won the division without what you consider a blue chip prospect.

Unless you want to change the terms of the discussion again, and suggest that Dorsey, or Bowe qualifies.

If you meant to include all positions, then you are right.

No team has likely ever won a game without some player that was a blue chip prospect.

Or, by "never, never", did you just mean that day?

doobs_05
09-24-2011, 12:34 AM
doobs I love how not only your name rhymes with boobs but I get to see them every time you post.....

Its like even if I don't agree with what you are saying the twin boob action of your posts lulls me into submission.

not fair... but totally awesome!

lol, just trying to brighten up the forum with the pics :smile