Should Floundering Teams Shoot the Moon for a Franchise QB?
by Bewsaf on Feb 2, 2010 2:55 PM CST
Email
Print
This post is one in a series of posts that expand on my We Have Met the Enemy and He is Us. In that post I attempted to establish the criteria for a "floundering team": a team with a .250 winning percentage or below for two consecutive years.
Historical Draft Reactions of Three Floundering Teams - A Chiefs Perspective was a follow up post that asserted that games are won in the trenches. This post examined teams that met the "floundering team" criteria and how they reacted in the next three NFL drafts. One of the teams that met the "floundering" criteria was the Oakland Raiders. In 2007, after reaching the floundering stage, the Raiders selected JaMarcus Russell (QB) in the first round.
Which begs the question: If games are won in the trenches...should teams that have reached the "floundering" stage attempt to take a franchise quarterback before developing an offensive line?
This post will examine all the quarterbacks selected with the first five pics of the NFL draft since 2000. How successful where these quarterbacks? Did they all turn out to be the franchise quarterback that each team hoped they would? Did all of them have the support of a good line and a good run game?
| QB's That Made the Transition |
||||
| Year Drafted | Player | Offensive Rushing Rank | Sacks | |
| 2008 | # pick | Matt Ryan | 2nd | 17 |
| 2004 | # pick | Eli Manning | 8th | 13 |
| 2003 | # pick |
Carson Palmer |
17th | 25 |
Stats are from the first full year of playing.
Observations from the above chart:
- The sample size is small. I usually only go back to the year 2000 to look at teams due to my belief that the NFL landscape changes frequently. Going back further might confound the data by tapping into an NFL culture that is no longer viable.
- Two of the teams that selected these more "successful" quarterbacks were, what I consider, "good" (relative term since they were picking in the top 5) teams at the time. The Falcons take Matt Ryan and Giants get Eli Manning (swapped QBs).
- Not much you can tell when looking at only 3 quarterbacks that made the transition...but the point might be that only three quarterbacks made the transition. Two of the three, Manning and Ryan, each had a good run game and low sack totals. Palmer had a middle of the road run game with a high sack total (and has been prone to injury).
- Therefore, we can say that all of the QBs in this group had at least one positive area that involved the offensive line the first year.
- All the QBs had good run games.
| QB's That Did Not Make the Transition |
||||
| Year Drafted | Player | Offensive Rushing Rank | Sacks | |
| 2007 |
#1 pick | JaMarcus Russell |
10th | 31 |
| 2006 |
# pick | Vince Young |
9th |
25 |
| 2005 |
# pick |
Alex Smith |
17th |
29 |
| 2002 |
# pick |
David Carr |
31st |
76 |
| 2002 |
# pick |
Joey Harrington |
29th |
8 |
Stats are from the first full year of playing.
Observations from the above chart:
- Every one of these quarterbacks had at least one bad area that involves the offensive line their first year in the league.
- All but one of the quarterbacks had high sack totals.
Since the 2000 NFL Draft a team selecting a quarterback in the first five pics had a 37% success rate of actually getting the franchise quarterback they wanted. These are not just some quarterbacks that teams are taking as a flyer. These are quarterbacks that everyone in the NFL thinks has skills. The best of the best in college.
So what's the problem?
The problem is that quarterbacks are delicate commodities. They need to grow, develop, and get confidence. They need, like the first group of successful QBs, a good running game to help them along. They cannot get pounded every game like the second group and have the psyche knocked out of them.
Why does it seem like bad teams always pick quarterbacks that don't pan out. They don't seem to make bad choices at the time because everyone in the NFL thinks the QBs they select are the best of the crop. Yea, I know. Patton Manning made it. I guess there will always be those quarterbacks that will end up being what they were always destined to be.
Bad teams end up with bad quarterbacks more often because they take the quarterback before developing their offensive lines. They shoot the moon before they get a good run game. As a result, they fail 63% of the time (which includes the success of the good teams)...and that just sets them back more.
So don't take a quarterback in the top five pics before developing your offensive line. And if you have to...don't start him for a couple of years.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Arrowhead Pride's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Arrowhead Pride writers or editors.
83 comments
|
8 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Agreed and agreed. We should be looking at a project QB right now.
Someone we can groom for a couple three years, like Aaron Rodgers. Someone with potential, while we are in a situation to where we can spend the time needed to make sure he gets the training he deserves before we throw him to the wolves.
Drafting a QB with our first rounder would be devastating. And stupid. We have plenty of needs that are much more glaring. We have Cassel and he is our guy for now. Stafford may pay off. I think Sanchez will for sure.
Josh Freeman looks like he may be the best out of the entire draft. I like the kid a lot.
I don't think
it is even in our cards to select a QB at #5.
But should the Rams?
The Redskins?
Are there lines developed?
Bewsaf
The Rams line is definitely not fully developed
But they have an elite RB in Steven Jackson, and the offense runs through him. I think you could put a rookie QB in place there and not have to worry about ruining him a la David Carr.
As for the Redskins… Jason Campbell is serviceable, but he’s lacking confidence. Can’t really blame him, but its probably more of a coaching/mentoring thing than anything. I don’t recall him taking too many sacks, and he can escape pressure pretty well. And up to this year, they’ve had a solid running game.
"The first step to penetration... must not be lateral"
-Confucius
I would think
that if a QB is going to be on his back more than 20 times (sacks) then the run game needs to be good.
I think the Rams might be ok…if…the first year the team runs the ball a whole lot.
The Redskins need o-line help.
Bewsaf
Great post! Redskins will take LT IMO
Their line was a mess and run-game is suspect. Not a great situation to bring in a QB. Also, if they did take a QB-Shannahan would HAVE to be right on that. You can’t swing and miss on a QB on your first draft and with the 4th pick.
If Campbell falters, they can find a servicable veteran to get them through a couple of years until they have stable situation for a young QB.
I think since there's no guarantees in the NFL
you have to take that Franchise guy or that QBotF when you get the chance. You won’t be able to get THAT guy next year, and any team isn’t guaranteed to draft high the next year…. so it could end up costing them more to get the next “that guy” than just 1 draft pick.
Basically what I’m trying to say is you get when the getting is good, or you could be kicking your own ass later. There always seems to be 1 or 2 “can’t miss” QB prospects in each draft, whereas there’s a much higher number of OL talent. The pool is just deeper for OL
So full of sh*t that toilet bowls have to wipe.
In the above
I listed 8 can’t miss QBs…and 5 missed.
Maybe like I suggested at the end of the post. If you think you have to take one then you sit him on the bench for 2 years while you get you line and run game better.
Hard to do if you are an owner and want to sell tickets now.
Bewsaf
Bews - excellent charts, stats and analysis as always
and of course, the bottom line is the bottom line …
… because they take the quarterback before developing their offensive lines. They shoot the moon before they get a good run game. As a result, they fail 63% of the time …
1) Okung, 2a) Iupati, 2b) Ducasse … along with Albert and someone else … we could have THE ULTIMATE OLine for a decade … and a VERY happy QB, whoever it is
hey, I can dream, right?
"I shall conquer untruth by truth" - Mahatma Gandhi
Whilock Rocks!
hi, Mo!
5 minutes!!!
And a very broken defense too.
Can’t ignore the whole team. I’d agree with 2 of the first 4 picks going to the OL, but our defense is hurting too.
My sentiments are likely to be summed up with one of these 2 quotes:
"Shut the f--- up."- Matt Cassel
"WHAT THE F---?!?!"- Todd Haley
by Red N Gold Beast on Feb 2, 2010 1:58 PM CST up reply actions
fair enough ...
1) Okung
2A) Defense … you pick
2B ) Ducasse or Iupati or Best OLineman Available
works for me!
"I shall conquer untruth by truth" - Mahatma Gandhi
Whilock Rocks!
hi, Mo!
5 minutes!!!
Nice analysis, Bewsaf.
Definitely bucks the “we suck, let’s get a QB” trend.
Did you exclude Matt Stafford due to the Lions’ ineptness, though? =)
"I don't know if I want to go to New York. They'll have to pay me a lot more money because I like it here in Kansas City." -- Roger Maris
Crap.
Forgot about that fluke 7-9 season they had in 2007.
I fail. =)
"I don't know if I want to go to New York. They'll have to pay me a lot more money because I like it here in Kansas City." -- Roger Maris
Don't mean to be picky...
But Michael Vick, Phillip Rivers, Matt Stafford, and Mark Sanchez were also top 5 picks in the 2000-2009 NFL Draft.
Overall, great job. However, think the jury is still out on VY. He may not have the best stats, but the guy knows how to win. Twice he has taken over a (0-5/0-6) team from Kerry Collins, and turned them into a 8-8 team. His only full season ended up with a playoff appearance.
Besides that, like the post overall.
Had to be below a .250 winning percentage for two years prior.
"I don't know if I want to go to New York. They'll have to pay me a lot more money because I like it here in Kansas City." -- Roger Maris
Thanks
Matt Stafford and Sanchez were selected last year…so I left them out because I do not know if they are flops or a jackpot.
Phillip Rivers was held out for two years and started a full season in his third year. In that year he had 27 sacks and a running game ranked 2nd.
Michael Vick was sacked 21 times and had a running game ranked 4th.
I think these still validate that QBs need a running game and protection to make it in the NFL.
Bewsaf
Michael Vick
was the Falcons running game.
Just throw him out. He messes the research up too much.
My sentiments are likely to be summed up with one of these 2 quotes:
"Shut the f--- up."- Matt Cassel
"WHAT THE F---?!?!"- Todd Haley
by Red N Gold Beast on Feb 2, 2010 2:00 PM CST up reply actions
It wasn't that long ago
That it was unheard of to start a rookie QB, they were expected to ride the bench behind a veteran while learning to offense. Part of the problem came with the huge multi million dollar rookie contracts, For the amount of money teams are paying for these guys the team and or owner wants some return on that investment now. They got that high draft pick because their offense is in trouble either the O-line or running game that’s ineffective. Now it’s draft time and there is this QB, looks like he will not only make it but will resurrect the teams offense somehow and the next stop is the super bowl. It doesn’t work this way, if it did the Raider’s would be unstoppable. I think a rookie salary cap would save many rookie QB’s from being thrown into the fire too soon and having their confidence trashed. At least one full season a rookie ought to be on clipboard duty, it helps them learn and a chance to develop.
is it me? or isn't about time the Lamar Hunt trophy belonged to His team?
This Chiefs team is closer to a new expansion team than it is a playoff contender, your expectations should match that.
I predict the Chiefs trade down from the number 5 pick.
Go ahead, say it
He’s gggggonna get punched in the kneck by me.
Ohhh Brett...One more year! One more year! One more year!
Superbowl Prediction - Colts 41 Saints 23
by craig in calgary on Feb 2, 2010 3:05 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Agreed
You develop line chemistry and your offensive weapons while the rookie rides the bench. It’s worked just about every elite QB in the league exit Peyton Manning
KRRRAKATAWAA
Slots and draft success: is it relative?
So what is the success rate, by your criteria, for QB’s picked later in the 1st round, the 2nd round, 3rd round, etc.? Any sense of that?
From what I’ve read elsewhere, my impression is that the success rate for picking QB’s falls off dramatically after the first 30-40 picks, maybe even at positions in the late 1st round. If 37% is lousy, then is picking later lousi-er?
I also wonder for a team which has such a poor record that they have a top 5 1st round position, if they pass on a QB then, how confident can they be that in a year or two they will still be picking in the top 5, and will be able to pick the QB they like? In other words, looking at all the teams (not just the ‘floundering’ ones), how does the probability of having a poor season in year ‘X’ change as a function of having a poor season in year ‘X-1’ or year ‘X-2’?
If there’s a good amount of ‘regression to the mean’ in your team’s record from year to year, it’s gonna be hard to tell yourself that you will have such a high draft position with any regularity. I suppose what I am wondering is if your concept of a ‘floundering team’ is actually statistically valid? Has anyone ever applied Monte Carlo or Markov Chain modeling to NFL team records to measure year-to-year reproducibility of win/loss records, and dependent probabilities?
The counter to your argument described above is that if you are a GM and need a QB, and the prospect you are looking at maybe has the best grade you’ve put on a QB for the past 3 or 4 years…. then are you going to not draft him because your O-line and running game rank poorly? But if you improve your line and your running game in the next year or two, you may not be in a position to draft a QB that good for a long time, longer they you are likely to be employed by that team. From my memory of past KC teams, having a good offensive line and running game, and a substandard QB, is a formula for repeatedly making the playoffs and then promptly losing.
Thanks for the reply Wheatboy
So what is the success rate, by your criteria, for QB’s picked later in the 1st round, the 2nd round, 3rd round, etc.? Any sense of that?
I am not sure. The risk is much less though. The reason I picked only top 5 quarterbacks is because just about every one of them are thought to be franchise quarterbacks…yet…it does not turn out that way.
But wait, it does turn out that way when the team has a good line and running game. The QBs that seem to bust are those that are on their backs alot and have poor run games their first year.
From what I’ve read elsewhere, my impression is that the success rate for picking QB’s falls off dramatically after the first 30-40 picks, maybe even at positions in the late 1st round. If 37% is lousy, then is picking later lousi-er?
I should actually revise that 37%. Of the teams that had poor lines (sacks and poor run game)…there was a 17% success rate. Of the teams that had good lines (low sacks and good run game)…there was a 100% success rate.
I don’t think the point is that your chances are less if you take a Quarterback high in the draft as apposed to low in the draft. The point is that if you take a QB high in the draft AND have a poor line…your success rate is no better than taking one low in the draft.
The counter to your argument described above is that if you are a GM and need a QB…
If I am a GM and I have a QB rated very high and I think he is a great pic…then I pick him and set him for 2 years (just like Rivers and San Diego). Because I know that team with bad run games and bad lines have shown to ruin QBs. (of course there are those like Patton that destined to be what they will be)
From my memory of past KC teams, having a good offensive line and running game, and a substandard QB, is a formula for repeatedly making the playoffs and then promptly losing.
I think we are finding in this day and age that you need to be a well rounded team (that is playing well) to get to the Super Bowl. Weaknesses will be exploited.
Thanks again for your responses.
Bewsaf
I think we can agree on some goals and criteria
A poor offensive line seriously degrades your ability to take ANY QB and make him have great success, no matter where you take him in the draft; but if you allocate a lot of financial resources and use a very high pick for the QB, even then the chance of success is seriously reduced, unless you can sit the QB and develop the line and the offensive system first.
I’ll see if I can dig up more of the statistical info re QB success and how the % declines as you go further down the draft board.
Gutt? Really?
I disagree. I don’t have a lot of faith in him from his limited play last preseason…I still think Cassel will be the QBOTF and Croyle is right behind him. Just like the current pecking order would state.
by Chiefsfan1970 on Feb 2, 2010 3:19 PM CST up reply actions
Never realized Gutt is 25
I thought he was younger.. I was talking about our developmental QB for when Cassel retires, not our QB next season. Either way I’m wrong. We’ll need to bring in a new QB to develop all of ours are too similar in age to put that tag on
KRRRAKATAWAA
Jury's Still Out On Smith And Young
Young had a pretty solid run last year once Fisher re-installed him as starter. Alex Smith looks like he may yet gain the starting QB spot in San Francisco.
Moderator - Arrowhead Pride
I Fully Agree About Bad Choices In Supporting QBs, Though
The Chiefs, in my opinion, royally screwed up last year by not going offensive line. Eugene Monroe or Michael Oher would have been as good or better picks than Tyson Jackson last season.
Moderator - Arrowhead Pride
agreed for the time being
I was pushing the Eugene Monroe wagon all pre season.. Ultimately it’s too early to tell right now whether or not we screwed up. While we had a lot of other youngsters step into the DE spot and perform well (Gilberry) we may have the makings of a solid DE in Jackson.
Still all the extra attention we’ve been giving to Jackson’s development is alarming
KRRRAKATAWAA
I Don't Know If Jackson Will Or Won't Develop
My biggest reason for saying we screwed up, though, is pretty much Matt Cassel. When your team was a complete mess at o-line the previous year and you trade for a QB that you then pay $60 million, you cannot just stand pat and give him no support. That’s how terrible teams stay terrible. The Browns went down that path with Tim Couch and the Lions went down it with Joey Harrington (and appear to be repeating history with Matt Stafford).
Moderator - Arrowhead Pride
That was the gamble with Cassel.
But he’d already showed his toughness in New England, and everyone expected KC’s O-Line to improve, at least slightly, and it eventually did.
That being said, I was beating the Monroe drum, too, as the most logical thing to do. Unlike others, I don’t see LT as a SAFE pick, but if a real upgrade is there @ #1 or #100, you take it.
That’s the issue with some of the T prospects I see in this draft. Are we getting clear upgrade at LT? If so, #5 is OK for LT. I’m just not so sure that the 2a pick doesn’t do KC nearly as much good on the OL.
Also, Albert made a lot of progress last season. I see little defect in his skillset, and I see him improving more from better play @ C and along the right side. A lot of his problems early were the result of 3 of the 5 guys gettin’ blown up 1-on-1 and the line constantly being rolled up, with Albert faced with a Hobson’s choice of whom to block, because there were always extra hats available to overload the weakside. I didn’t see his play improve so much as I saw the right side holding-up (thx to the play-fake Charles gave ’em), and simplifying his job.
I’m no huge college ball watcher, but I don’t see anybody comin’ up who’d be nearly certain to unseat him in open competition, like I felt Monroe would do last year. But I see plenty of young tackles who are more beastly than O’Callaghan, who I think would be a dynamite swing tackle.
Can't disagree with you there
We had an opportunity to bring in a franchise LT and QB in the same year and totally bombed.. Hopefully Albert is the LT because if we pick a LT at #5 this year Pioli will look like an asshole
KRRRAKATAWAA
Smith is an interesting example
Fails his first go around due to a possible poor team, poor line, poor run game. Is then brought back when the team has more of a run mentality and is possibly successful.
Bewsaf
Injuries Played A Big Part In That
That and having a complete douchebag as a head coach in Nolan. Nolan’s public accusations that Smith was gutless after he tried to play through a severe shoulder injury (which required reconstructive surgery) were pretty unbelieveable. Smith hasn’t justified his high draft position and I certainly won’t claim the kid’s a star in waiting, but he’s never been given much of a chance and he showed some promise last year.
Moderator - Arrowhead Pride
I'll buy that
Sticking to the theme of this post…could he have stayed more healthy if he had a better line? Less time on his back during the game might mean less time on his back in the hospital getting things fixed.
Bewsaf
Good post Bewsaf
but I don’t think that you can break down a rookie QB’s success quite this simply. It stands to reason that the better the team is that he goes to, the better his chances for success just because the team is more well rounded. How many rookie QBs could have success playing on the best teams of the NFL versus the Lions/Browns/Raiders of recent history? What you leave out of the equation is whether the kid is a player or not. Is he mentally tough enough to survive through those terrible times and still come out and win like a champ when things change. This is what Haley means when he talks about mental toughness being a part of what is necessary to be a winner. Rare are the players that can go through year after year of getting the snot beat out of them on game day and still come out with determination the next time around.
There have been far more ‘busts’ than sure things when it comes to the draft. I think that it has a lot more to do with attitude than talent and what the individual is willing to learn. All successful players in the NFL have talent, but the intangibles(IMHO)here are much more important to the future success of the player. That, and of course, the quality and intelligence of the coaching/management that can build a team to help the QB succeed.
It now occurs to me as well that randomness plays a role in any players success, right? There is only one Joe Montanna, and Jerry Rice got to catch passes from him. What if that timing had not worked out so well for either one?
Thanks for the reply Aiken
but I don’t think that you can break down a rookie QB’s success quite this simply. It stands to reason that the better the team is that he goes to, the better his chances for success
Exactly. The better the team the more the success. The question is, why?
…just because the team is more well rounded.
Bingo. The QB is the pivot man for the passing game. So, to be well rounded the team would need to be able to run the ball, no? Running the ball helps the young QB. And teams with good lines can run the ball.
How many rookie QBs could have success playing on the best teams of the NFL versus the Lions/Browns/Raiders of recent history?
I think that is exactly what I am showing. Bad teams have bad lines. So when they pick that “can’t miss QB” they end up beating the psyche out of him. The teams that pick high and have good run games or lines end up having success with their rookie QB (in the long term).
There have been far more ‘busts’ than sure things when it comes to the draft. I think that it has a lot more to do with attitude than talent and what the individual is willing to learn.
I will give that to you to some degree. However, it seems odd to me that Bad teams ALWAYS get the “attitude” guys while the good teams always seem to get the “tough minded” QBs. When the QBs fail at such an alarming rate, 83% of the time, then I think something else is going on.
When you look at the running game and sack totals for each group (good teams vs bad teams picking in the top 5) you find that the story might include the fact that rookie QBs need a line to be successful.
All successful players in the NFL have talent, but the intangibles(IMHO)here are much more important to the future success of the player.
Intangibles are very important. No argument there.
It now occurs to me as well that randomness plays a role in any players success, right? There is only one Joe Montanna, and Jerry Rice got to catch passes from him. What if that timing had not worked out so well for either one?
Would Joe Montanna be so great without the “system”? Would Rice be as good without Joe? I don’t know those things. But the situation a player is put in makes a big difference in how good he might be…or if he will make it at all. And that, I think, is the point of this post.
QBs put in the situation of having a poor run game and high sack totals…well…they seem to get the psyche beat out of them…and then they are ruined.
Bewsaf
I think we agree
That it is very difficult for a rookie QB to be successful on a bad team. It seems from what you have posted, that you would answer your question of whether or not a bad team should shoot the moon and take a QB by saying no. I think that I disagree to the point of saying that it depends too much on what will happen in the up coming season to try and predict what kind of draft you could have two years out. Not only do you not know where you will pick, but you will also not know who will be in the draft when you do.
It is hard to fault any team for choosing what looks like a top notch field general and trying to build around him. The draft is TODAY and has to be done. How many chances to get that one guy will you get? Don’t forget, Marino was a great QB but he couldn’t bring home the trophy even in his long career. The best scenario is a consistent plan to fill the blanks in a predetermined offense and defense, not(once again IMO)drafting to fill a 5 year plan. What happens in year 4 when the QB wasn’t there?
“But the situation a player is put in makes a big difference in how good he might be…or if he will make it at all. And that, I think, is the point of this post.”
I agree with this statement but how can you as GM/HC deny your team at least the opportunity to put that player on your team knowing that if you don’t, someone else may get the next Peyton Manning?
Thanks again for the responses Aiken
If I am a GM and I have a QB rated very high and I think he is a great pic…then I pick him and set him for 2 years (just like Rivers and San Diego). Because I know that team with bad run games and bad lines have shown to ruin QBs. (of course there are those like Patton that may be destined to be what they will be)
I think we do agree for the most part
Bewsaf
Thanks for the post
The only problem with sitting the guy for 2 years is that the fans will eat your lunch if you are stinking it up on Sundays, and we were talking about a bad team to begin with. Now the coaching comes into question by fans and media and causes owners to feel the pressure. Look out! Here comes Al Davis again! What a downward spiral losing becomes!
maybe the losing teams are like the Rams
Who knew they needed to get a QB while they had a QB and chose not to
an example only
"For what we are about to see next, we must enter quietly into the realm of genius." Scott "Young Frankenstein" Pioli
There was nothing wrong with either Bulger or Warner. Team totally missed the self-evaluation.
Clear case of putting good QBs in shitty situations, which is the gist of Bewsaf’s message.
I don't understand this
bq.The best scenario is a consistent plan to fill the blanks in a predetermined offense and defense, not(once again IMO)drafting to fill a 5 year plan. What happens in year 4 when the QB wasn’t there?
Would you not want to have a semblence of a plan based on contracts and needs in some fashion. I have a journeyman LB that fills need through 2 years hence and want to align the other LB’s so I don’t need three in any one year.
"For what we are about to see next, we must enter quietly into the realm of genius." Scott "Young Frankenstein" Pioli
Sorry Steve
All I mean is that it is very difficult not to take that fireball QB when you have the chance because you don’t know when you will have the chance again. I can’t equate any other position’s importance with that of a QB. In my opinion, that position can make or break the team easier than any other. Qbs are versatile and can play the game different ways. The QBs know what weaknesses their teams have and prepare to overcome them(or try to at least). The rest of the team most likely will not be able to overcome a poor QB(Trent Dilfers Ravens excluded).
Also
I see what you are saying about LB contracts but I think that the coaches know that they won’t be able to ever fully staff their team how they would like. Sometimes you have to run with that average player(that is very easy to replace)and scheme to cover his weakness.
Agree
and I think that is why we went with said LB’s last year and drafted DE’s x2
I guess the whole thing comes down to is there a Franchise QB available at the time of opportunity. This year would be the time but is there a QB worthy of the pick. Is the obvious pick (Blackledge) better than the discounted guy (Marino). Maybe one of the lesser QB’s would be more suitable for the Chiefs in the future. We obviously can draft one and sit him if we want to. Perfect opportunity with Cassel as the Guy of the moment. Maybe Croyle is the guy?
"For what we are about to see next, we must enter quietly into the realm of genius." Scott "Young Frankenstein" Pioli
Where did I leave my Dunce Cap :)
oh in the stall at the back of the Barn. What was I thinking.
"For what we are about to see next, we must enter quietly into the realm of genius." Scott "Young Frankenstein" Pioli
by Steve_Chiefs on Feb 2, 2010 10:14 PM CST up reply actions
Rec Bewsaf
Another fine offering.
My thought would be how do you know if you have a stud QB if he is on the bench?
Gut might be a stud if we put him in there to find out. The Chiefs have sat a number of QB’s in the past for a while and then never actually flame-tested them to see what we had. Some would put Croyle as another that we might have given up on too soon.
"For what we are about to see next, we must enter quietly into the realm of genius." Scott "Young Frankenstein" Pioli
QBs
In this post I only dealt with the top 5 picks…the ones that EVERYONE think will make it. So we assume that if you are a consensus top 5 pick by all the teams…then you should make it. Assuming you have a bad line…you sit him for 2 years to build up your run game and o-line and then you let him go for it.
So then you have a better chance, like the ones that made it above, of cultivating your QB.
Teams that are bad take the QB and ruin him. Then that sets them back another 5 years.
Croyle is a lower draft pick…he is not a “sure thing” right out of the gate.
Bewsaf
The Chiefs have only drafted 3 1st round QB's in the franchises history
Todd Blackledge at # 7 was the highest ever picked. Stve Fuller was drafted #23.
I guess the Chiefs are not a part of this dicussion.
"For what we are about to see next, we must enter quietly into the realm of genius." Scott "Young Frankenstein" Pioli
Blackledge
don’t remind me…
Blackledge or Marino
Blackledge or Marino
Blackledge or Marino
Blackledge or Marino
Blackledge or Marino
Bewsaf
Why is Eli listed as successful, but Vince Young is not?
If this is going by rookie years, that has to be a mistake. VY did just okay in the air, but he was pretty successful when considering the dual threat.
by "made the transition"
I mean they ended up being good QBs (my subjective opinion). I didn’t think anyone would care if they did good the first year and then flamed out.
So if they ended up good…then how was the run game and sacks when they came into the league? Was it good and therefore contributed to a successful future?
Bewsaf
Well, VY ended up pretty good
Two Pro Bowl appearances, even if as an injury replacement, in only four seasons. Not bad.
by burntorangehorn on Feb 2, 2010 8:10 PM CST up reply actions
I definitely agree on that
But the same goes for Matt Ryan.
by burntorangehorn on Feb 3, 2010 8:55 AM CST up reply actions
Didn't you do a similar post about crappy teams chasing QBs all the livelong day?
Seems to me this is a continuation of that.
To steve_chiefs, worrying about having a decent QB when the rest of the team is in place, when I look around the league, there always seems to be an older QB who can make a solid team click, if, by some mischance, you totally blew it with all your more modest QB picks.
Manning was brought in AFTER Polian built O-Line.
Aikman, career shortened by concussions, came in before O-Line. That seemed to work out pretty good, and there was something special about a QB who’d been through the wars with the young, developing O-Line they DID build in front of Emmitt and him. QB DOES set the tone for a team. And you maybe DO have to throw one to the wolves, just to kick-start your team. But it’s costly.
Personally, I feel that the QBs are out there, if you can make a pocket for ‘em and run the ball. And you can always get aggressive at QB, if you have to. It’s just a question of when to do so. Chiefs went after a guy who knows what tone to set, and how to practice. A guy who was as productive or more productive than ’most any top 5 pick is likely to do outta the gate, and who costs less, with few worries of career-ending injury, despite not getting it done up front (and I seriously believe they thought they had more up front than they DID – and that might be the thing to worry most about with the new regime).
Similar
Not to long it was not uncommon for a drafted QB to sit and watch for a while. Like you said, there is always another older QB a GM can bring in for a year or two while your highly drafted QB gets his feet under him…and the GM improves the line and run game.
Bewsaf
re
I think the Chiefs have to build the line, definately. But there is one arguement out there that has some merit. If Sam Bradford falls to #5, you know they have to think about it. He’s about as talented as I have ever seen. off the charts accurate. Reminds me of Joe Montana because he has a knack for hitting his receivers in stride. I don’t think, really, I don’t think many with his talent come around that often.
The Chiefs CAN upgrade the oline in the 2nd round…. might not be at every postition but as we all know, there is another draft a year from now.
It they did that...
then they are in the perfect position to let him sit for two years and let Cassel go do his thing. In the mean time the Chiefs can be upgrading their line and getting better defenders in key areas.
Bewsaf
Ah I see what you did there :)
That would maybe make my McClain man-crush subside.
"For what we are about to see next, we must enter quietly into the realm of genius." Scott "Young Frankenstein" Pioli
Sometimes you have to take what's available
Yeah everyone wants to think the next QB will be the one to get us back to the Super Bowl, but does that mean because we have a high draft position we have to pick one? No, Yes the O-Line needs help, as well as the Defense even special teams needs help. But with a second round draft pick we were able to get a QB that has played a season in the NFL verses a kid just out of school. And with that pick we also got one hell of a LB/on field coach, not a bad deal no matter how you look at it. The other choice was to stick with Brodie or draft someone and throw them into the fire and hope they can swim.
At this time last year AP was screaming for a pass rush and a defense, the Chiefs saw this as a priority as well thus they drafted as they did instead of using that high pick to grab a QB. Well we got a pass rush not where we want it yet but getting there, No one was complaining about the O-Line before last years draft, other than to suggest some back-ups. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to get just what you need, when you need it, and for the right price, Hell yeah but that just doesn’t happen then your forced to try to get the best value out of the pick and look for ways to improve your team.
is it me? or isn't about time the Lamar Hunt trophy belonged to His team?
This Chiefs team is closer to a new expansion team than it is a playoff contender, your expectations should match that.
I predict the Chiefs trade down from the number 5 pick.
by KC Fanatic on Feb 3, 2010 11:21 AM CST reply actions 1 recs
rec
"For what we are about to see next, we must enter quietly into the realm of genius." Scott "Young Frankenstein" Pioli
by Steve_Chiefs on Feb 3, 2010 11:50 AM CST up reply actions
I liked the discusion we all had last year about the time it takes to develope the
defensive players vs the seeming plug and play at the offensive line. Many Offensive lineman if they are good will come right in on there rookie year and play. The Defensive guys take a little more time to make that difference on game day. SO we went D I guess that means we should address the O-lineman if we are ready to say the D is set except for more game experience. Hopefully all the players gel in the same time-frame. I think that was the plan?
"For what we are about to see next, we must enter quietly into the realm of genius." Scott "Young Frankenstein" Pioli
Let's say that Pioli thinks that way also
And lets also say he thought this year would be bad regardless of what he did.
The first year he gets defenders that take a year to develope…
The second year he takes o-line who can come in the first year….
Everyone is ready to go that second year
Bewsaf
Maybe the coaching group sees that too
or maybe 2011 is the Chiefs year. I am all for either one.
"For what we are about to see next, we must enter quietly into the realm of genius." Scott "Young Frankenstein" Pioli
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
