With the 1st pick in the 2012 NFL Draft,

[drstandley31]

The Kansas City Chiefs take...........

[doobs_05]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

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