West 6,714 Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 Phatal, Just curious, How many of the "1st Rd QB's won a Super Bowl for the Team that Drafted Them? w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xen 1,010,220 Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 Also curious about this... of the qb's who won more than one superbowl, how many of those were drafted in the first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhataLerror 370 Posted March 29, 2017 Author Share Posted March 29, 2017 Here's the dump. I'm sorry about the formatting. Round SBW Method Full Name Team Sup. Draft 1 Other Team Steve Young SF Undrafted 1 Other Team Kurt Warner STL 1 4 Drafting Team Terry Bradshaw PIT 1 3 Drafting Team Troy Aikman DAL 1 2 Drafting Team Ben Roethlisb. PIT 1 2 Drafting Team Bob Griese MIA 1 2 Other Team Eli Manning NYG 1 2 Other Team John Elway DEN 1 1 Drafting Team Peyton Manning IND 1 1 Drafting Team Joe Flacco BAL 1 1 Drafting Team Jim McMahon CHI 1 1 Drafting Team Aaron Rodgers GB 1 1 Drafting Team Phil Simms NYG 1 1 Other Team Len Dawson KC 1 1 Other Team Doug Williams WAS 1 1 Other Team Jim Plunkett OAK 1 1 Other Team Jim Plunkett RAI 1 1 Other Team Peyton Manning DEN 1 1 Other Team Trent Dilfer BAL 1 1 Other Team Joe Namath NYJ 2 1 Drafting Team Ken Stabler OAK 2 1 Other Team Brett Favre GB 2 1 Other Team Drew Brees NO 3 4 Drafting Team Joe Montana SF 3 1 Drafting Team Jeff Hostetler NYG 3 1 Drafting Team Russell Wilson SEA 4 1 Other Team Joe Theismann WAS 6 5 Drafting Team Tom Brady NE 6 1 Drafting Team Mark Rypien WAS 9 1 Other Team Brad Johnson TB 9 1 Other Team Johnny Unitas BAL 10 2 Drafting Team Roger Staubach DAL 17 2 Drafting Team Bart Starr GB Phatal, Just curious, How many of the "1st Rd QB's won a Super Bowl for the Team that Drafted Them? Also curious about this... of the qb's who won more than one superbowl, how many of those were drafted in the first? • 33 out 51 Super Bowls were won by a team starting a quarterback they drafted. (Add 4 to that number if you believe that John Elway and Eli Manning should be considered as players drafted by the teams for which they won a Super Bowl, although they refused to play for the teams that held their exclusive signing rights.) 16 of those 33 wins involved a quarterback drafted in the first round. Nine of those other 18 wins were by Joe Montana and Tom Brady. • 11 quarterbacks have won multiple Super Bowls. Seven of the 11 were drafted in the first round. Only six of those seven won two or more Super Bowls for the same team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eraser 722 Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 Also curious about this... of the qb's who won more than one superbowl, how many of those were drafted in the first? I bet I can help with that. I have a list of 1st round picks from 2000 to present. 1963 draft NFC 1 Terry Baker 1963 draft AFC 1964 draft NFC 5 Pete Bethard 7 Bill Munson 1964 draft AFC 1 Jim Concannon 2 Peter Bethard 1965 draft NFL 5 Craig Morton 12 Joe Namath 1965 draft AFL 1 Joe Namath * 1966 draft NFL 14 Randy Johnson 1966 draft AFL 2 Rick Norton 1967 draft 3 Steve Spurrier 4 Bob Griese ** 25 Don Horn 1968 draft 11 Greg Landry 25 Eldridge Dickey 1969 draft 5 Greg Cook 9 Marty Domres 1970 draft 1 Terry Bradshaw **** 3 Mike Phipps 1971 draft 1 Jim Plunkett ** 2 Archie Manning 3 Dan Pastorini 1972 draft 11 Jerry Tagge 14 John Reaves 1973 draft 2 Bert Jones 1974 draft 1975 draft 1 Steve Bartkowski 1976 draft 6 Richard Todd 1977 draft 19 Steve Pisarkiewicz 27 Tommy Kramer 1978 draft 17 Doug Williams 1979 draft 3 Jack Thompson 7 Phil Simms 23 Steve Fuller 1980 draft 15 Marc Wilson 28 Mark Malone 1981 draft 6 Rich Campbell 1982 draft 5 Jim McMahon 1983 draft 1 John Elway ** 7 Todd Blackledge 14 Jim Kelly 15 Tony Eason 24 Ken O'Brien 27 Dan Marino 1984 draft 1985 draft S Bernie Kosar 1986 draft 3 Jim Everett 12 Chuck Long 1987 draft 1989 draft 1 Troy Aikman *** S Steve Walsh S Timm Rosenbach 1990 draft 1 Jeff George 7 Andre Ware 1991 draft 16 Dan McGwire 24 Todd Marinovich 1992 draft 6 David Klingler 26 Tommy Maddox S Dave Brown 1993 draft 1 Drew Bledsoe 2 Rick Mirer 1994 draft 3 Heath Shuler 6 Trent Dilfer 1995 draft 3 Steve McNair 1996 draft 1997 draft 26 Jim Drunkenmiller 1998 draft 1 Peyton Manning ** 2 Ryan Leaf 1999 draft 1 Tim Couch 2 Donovan McNabb 3 Akili Smith 11 Daunte Culpepper 12 Cade McCown 2000 draft 18 Chad Pennington 2001 draft 1 Michael Vick 2002 draft 1 David Carr 3 Joey Harrington 32 Patrick Ramsey 2003 draft 1 Carson Palmer 7 Byron Leftwich 19 Ken Boller 22 Rex Grossman 2004 draft 1 Eli Manning ** 4 Philip Rivers 11 Ben Roethlisberger ** 22 J P Losman 2005 draft 1 Alex Smith 24 Aaron Rodgers 25 Jason Campbell 2006 draft 3 Vince Young 10 Matt Leinart 11 Jay Cutler 2007 draft 1 JaMarcus Russell 22 Brady Quinn 2008 draft 3 Matt Ryan 18 Joe Flacco 2009 draft 1 Matthew Stafford 5 Mark Sanchez 17 Josh Freeman 2010 draft 1 Sam Bradford 25 Tim Tebow 2011 draft 1 Cam Newton 8 Jake Locker 10 Blaine Gabbert 12 Christian Ponder 2012 draft 1 Andrew Luck 2 Robert Griffin III 8 Ryan Tannehill 22 Brandon Weeden 2013 draft 16 E J Manuel 2014 draft 3 Blake Bortles 22 Johnny Manziel 32 Teddy Bridgewater 2016 draft 1 Jered Goff 2 Carson Wentz 26 Paxton Lynch Multiple Superbowl winners not drafted in 1st round Tom Brady ***** Joe Montana **** Prior to NFL/AFL drafts Roger Staubach ** Bart Star ** * Superbowl win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eraser 722 Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 130 quarterbacks were selected in the first round since 1955. I used 1955 because that was the year Johnny Unitas was drafted in round 9, and that was the earliest year a QB was drafted, and won a Superbowl. 12 quarterbacks have won the Superbowl multiple times. Of those multiple winners, 9 quarterbacks were selected in the first round. Therefore, the chance of acquiring a multiple Superbowl QB in the 1st round is 1:14.4. Super Bowl 1. Bart Starr (MVP), 2 TDsSuper Bowl 2. Bart Starr (MVP), 1 TDSuper Bowl 3. Joe Namath (MVP), 0 TDsSuper Bowl 4. Len Dawson (MVP), 1 TDSuper Bowl 5. John Unitas (Chuck Howley), 1 TDSuper Bowl 6. Roger Staubach (MVP), 2 TDsSuper Bowl 7. Bob Griese (Jake Scott), 1 TDSuper Bowl 8. Bob Griese (Larry Csonka), 0 TDsSuper Bowl 9. Terry Bradshaw (Franco Harris), 1 TDSuper Bowl 10. Terry Bradshaw (Lynn Swann), 2 TDsSuper Bowl 11. Ken Stabler (Fred Biletnikoff), 1 TDSuper Bowl 12. Roger Staubach (Harvey Martin & Randy White), 1 TDsSuper Bowl 13. Terry Bradshaw (MVP), 4 TDsSuper Bowl 14. Terry Bradshaw (MVP), 2 TDsSuper Bowl 15. Jim Plunkett (MVP), 3 TDsSuper Bowl 16. Joe Montana (MVP), 1 TDSuper Bowl 17. Joe Theismann (John Riggins), 2 TDs,Super Bowl 18. Jim Plunkett (Marcus Allen), 1 TDSuper Bowl 19. Joe Montana (MVP), 3 TDsSuper Bowl 20. Jim McMahon (Richard Dent), 0 TDsSuper Bowl 21. Phil Simms (MVP), 3 TDsSuper Bowl 22. Doug Williams (MVP), 4 TDsSuper Bowl 23. Joe Montana (Jerry Rice), 2 TDsSuper Bowl 24. Joe Montana (MVP), 5 TDsSuper Bowl 25. Jeff Hostetler (Ottis Anderson), 1 TDSuper Bowl 26. Mark Rypien (MVP), 2 TDsSuper Bowl 27. Troy Aikman (MVP), 4 TDsSuper Bowl 28. Troy Aikman (Emmitt Smith), O TDsSuper Bowl 29. Steve Young (MVP), 6 TDsSuper Bowl 30. Troy Aikman (Larry Brown), 1 TDSuper Bowl 31. Brett Favre (Desmond Howard), 2 TDsSuper Bowl 32. John Elway (Terrell Davis), 0 TDsSuper Bowl 33. John Elway (MVP), 1 TDSuper Bowl 34. Kurt Warner (MVP), 2 TDsSuper Bowl 35. Trent Dilfer (Ray Lewis), 1 TDSuper Bowl 36. Tom Brady (MVP), 1 TDSuper Bowl 37. Brad Johnson (Dexter Jackson), 2 TDsSuper Bowl 38. Tom Brady (MVP), 3 TDsSuper Bowl 39. Tom Brady (Deion Branch), 2 TDsSuper Bowl 40. Ben Roethlisberger (Hines Ward), 0 TDsSuper Bowl 41. Peyton Manning (MVP), 1 TDSuper Bowl 42. Eli Manning (MVP), 2 TDsSuper Bowl 43: Ben Roethlisberger (Santonio Holmes), 1 TDSuper Bowl 44: Drew Brees (MVP), 2 TDsSuper Bowl 45: Aaron Rogers (MVP), 3TDsSuper Bowl 46: Eli Manning (MVP), 1 TDSuper Bowl 47: Joe Flacco (MVP), 3TDsSuper Bowl 48: Russell Wilson (Malcolm Smith), 2TDsSuper Bowl 49: Tom Brady (MVP), 4TDsSuper Bowl 50: Peyton Manning (Von Miller), 0TDsSuper Bowl 51: Tom Brady (MVP), 2TDs 61 years passed since Johnny U was drafted (the first SB winner ever drafted). From that point on, 130 quarterbacks were drafted in the first round. Some years there are no quarterbacks selected in the first round. On average, 2.13 QBs have been drafted in the first round per year. Over the past ten years, that average rose to 2.4 QBs per year. It has not served them well. Only 1 QB taken in the past ten drafts have won a Superbowl. 28 QBs were taken in the preceding the ten years, and 4 of those won a Superbowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liquidfriend 1,151 Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 It seems like those rule changes made legacy quarterbacks arguably more valuable, seeing as they had to throw into tighter windows and had less protection in the pocket. The argument you just tried to make against those older statistics is the same argument people use in favor of Joe Montana when arguing that he is the Greatest Quarterback of All Time over Tom Brady.No, that's not what I am saying. Although I will say yes, someone like Montana and what he racked up is nore impressive compared to what QBs rack up now. I'm not making any argument against the older QB's. I am saying to gain a good perspective to charting the QB stomping grounds now, in terms of QB value and Super Bowl wins I wouldn't use pre 2004 data in my study. The rule changes changed a lot about importance of the position and the value they hold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eraser 722 Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 The point I want to make plainly clear. If you believe drafting a QB in the first round is a panacea for winning in the NFL, then you are deluding yourself. The odds are very much against it. You have to pay to play, but it involves a tremendous amount of luck. 13 out of 14 QBs taken in the first round do not win multiple Superbowls. I believe something like only 24 or 25 first round QBs have ever won a Superbowl. That is 1 Superbowl QB out of every 5.2 first round taken. On average, every 5 years about 2 Superbowl winners are drafted. It is extremely rare, and difficult to find a QB of that stature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHard 2,061 Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 I think it was a passing league before the rash of rule changes. Most 300+ yard games in a season. Gannon 2002 Marino 1984 Moon 1990 Warner 1999 Warner 2001 Fours 1980 Warner 2000 Green 2004 Bugler 2006 Bree's 2006 Brady 2007 I should have picked different stat. Seeing Gannon with the record or 10 300+ games in a season just makes me said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhataLerror 370 Posted March 30, 2017 Author Share Posted March 30, 2017 I think it was a passing league before the rash of rule changes. Most 300+ yard games in a season. Gannon 2002 Marino 1984 Moon 1990 Warner 1999 Warner 2001 Fours 1980 Warner 2000 Green 2004 Bugler 2006 Bree's 2006 Brady 2007 I should have picked different stat. Seeing Gannon with the record or 10 300+ games in a season just makes me said. A lot of those guys you listed never even played in a Super Bowl, much less won one. There's more to being able to compete in the NFL than just to have a quarterback that can chuck the ball for big yardage. It has continued to be the case that everything needs to line up: Quality of offensive line pass blocking, quality receiving targets, scheme, and game flow all determine whether a quarterback has to throw the ball enough to reach 300 yards in a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHard 2,061 Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 I didn't say anything about Super Bowls. Liquid said the rule changes changed offenses. I assumed he meant, turned it into a passing league. I suggest it was already a passing league and the rule changes were to preserve it since the defensive players have gotten so devastating to the offensive talent. Just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
West 6,714 Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 -facts are important to form a solid opinion. Phatal and E, I want to thank you for great research and analysis. I am sure we will see an article in the KC papers or one of the fan websites about just how hard it is to draft a SB QB. Well done! w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eraser 722 Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 -facts are important to form a solid opinion. Phatal and E, I want to thank you for great research and analysis. I am sure we will see an article in the KC papers or one of the fan websites about just how hard it is to draft a SB QB. Well done! w Yes, they tend to follow up on some of what we write in here. Seth Keysor @RealMNchiefsfan on Twitter is a pretty good analyst to follow. He is doing a great job on analyzing players on the team, and on the upcoming draft. It is hard to translate talent on the college level to the pros. Terez Paylor is a credit to the Star. He is definitely worth following, and posts links on Twitter. Mellinger is a good writer. The Topeka paper lost a good writer in Herbe Teope, who transferred his talents to New Orleans. His replacement at Chiefs Digest, Matt Derrick, is a good guy to follow. Matt Connor got promoted to the top position at ArrowheadAddict,com. He is also on Twitter. There are a lot of writers for the Chiefs now, and some are doing a great job. They all steal from each other. I don't think Adam Teicher would be employed if not for being able to recycle. He has taken it to a new level. Joel Thorman writes a lot of pieces on the Chiefs. Ryan Tracey does a good job on podcasts. I am going to be missing some people, but there are lots of people who do great local work on the Chiefs. It is a far cry from the days of Carl Peterson, where the news was controlled like the Russians did under the Soviet system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHard 2,061 Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 -facts are important to form a solid opinion. Phatal and E, I want to thank you for great research and analysis. I am sure we will see an article in the KC papers or one of the fan websites about just how hard it is to draft a SB QB. Well done! w Agreed. I enjoyed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Okiechief1 425 Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 I think it was a passing league before the rash of rule changes. Most 300+ yard games in a season. Gannon 2002 Marino 1984 Moon 1990 Warner 1999 Warner 2001 Fours 1980 Warner 2000 Green 2004 Bugler 2006 Bree's 2006 Brady 2007 I should have picked different stat. Seeing Gannon with the record or 10 300+ games in a season just makes me said. I don't know if singular games prove that it was a passing league. Just doing a quick search starting at 80 and going to 85 their was on the average only 2 to 3 guys that attempted over 600 passes in a season. Only 2 to 3 guys a year hit the 4000 yards in a season. I thought their would be some progression starting in 90 but the same holds true from 90 to 95. 2 to 3 a year attempted over 600 passes and a the same amount for 4000 yard passes. Don't have the time to see where it shifted but I looked at the last 2 years in those same categories for 2015 and 16. Both years had 6 guys that attempted over 600 passes and several more within the 580 to 600 range. 4000 yard passers were at 10 and 12. Those numbers would at least suggest that its more of a passing league now as the number of 600 passing attempts doubled and the 4000 yards passing in a season more than doubled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eraser 722 Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 The biggest change in the passing game is the actual distance the ball travels. The WO used to run a deep or intermediate pattern, and catch a pass. The running back was used to run the ball. There was sort of a separation. Now, running backs, and wide outs are almost indistinguishable. Running backs run wheel routes, but more often receive passes that are glorified hand offs. A receiver cuts off patterns more often, and takes the ball directly from the QB more often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Okiechief1 425 Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 I know its bleacher report and its old but their is alot of good data in this article. https://www.google.com/amp/s/syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/1786937-is-this-the-most-explosive-era-of-offense-in-nfl-history.amp.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kccrow 529 Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 Except that this is really only technically correct: 27 Super Bowls were won by a quarterback selected in the first round of the draft, and 24 more weren't. Even without Brady's five Super Bowl wins, 19 out of 51 is not such a small sample so as to be irrelevant. Perhaps as significant: Sixteen Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks were drafted in the first round, while fifteen Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks were not. My problem therefore with arguments for selecting a quarterback early is this: People argue on the basis of a stat that points in the direction of 51%, and then refuse to acknowledge every other pertinent piece of data. Certainly you believe that all Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks were surrounded by one of the best teams in the league in any given year, don't you? Therefore you have to conclude that there's a whole lot a franchise needs to do right so that they can eventually win a Super Bowl, whether their quarterback is the most important player on the team or not. Actually I don't. I do believe that most SB-winning QB's had a very good, and most likely top-10, defense to compliment them. The pieces surrounding a QB, offensively, IMO and from what I've seen over the years have largely been negligible. I wanted to edit this to ask you some things. While you point to "51%" as not being a substantial argument for drafting a 1st round QB, I poise the question of what other round is better? You are statistically more likely to draft a SB winning QB in the 1st round than in any other round. You cannot simply lump all other rounds together and consider yourself winner of the debate because 24 is negligibly smaller than 27. No, 27 is much greater than the numbers you will get in other subsequent rounds. Without doing the math, I can pretty well guarantee that its at least twice as good of odds. For instance round 3 has 6 SB winners and 6/51 is just under 12%. Is 51% not much greater than 12%? I think that it is. You have to get substantially lucky to get a SB winning QB out of round 1, and if you don't consider Brady and Montana, the odds are significantly not in your favor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhataLerror 370 Posted March 31, 2017 Author Share Posted March 31, 2017 I didn't say anything about Super Bowls. Liquid said the rule changes changed offenses. I assumed he meant, turned it into a passing league. I suggest it was already a passing league and the rule changes were to preserve it since the defensive players have gotten so devastating to the offensive talent. Just my opinion. Right. What I meant was that in the "passing league" (and the NFL has been a "passing league" for a long time), passing yardage is hardly a determiner of which team will go on to win a Super Bowl. A team's merely accumulating high passing yardage in itself doesn't prove that the passing game is productive, meaning leading to wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHard 2,061 Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 I don't know if singular games prove that it was a passing league. Just doing a quick search starting at 80 and going to 85 their was on the average only 2 to 3 guys that attempted over 600 passes in a season. Only 2 to 3 guys a year hit the 4000 yards in a season. I thought their would be some progression starting in 90 but the same holds true from 90 to 95. 2 to 3 a year attempted over 600 passes and a the same amount for 4000 yard passes. Don't have the time to see where it shifted but I looked at the last 2 years in those same categories for 2015 and 16. Both years had 6 guys that attempted over 600 passes and several more within the 580 to 600 range. 4000 yard passers were at 10 and 12. Those numbers would at least suggest that its more of a passing league now as the number of 600 passing attempts doubled and the 4000 yards passing in a season more than doubled. Good stuff. That is a contrast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHard 2,061 Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 Right. What I meant was that in the "passing league" (and the NFL has been a "passing league" for a long time), passing yardage is hardly a determiner of which team will go on to win a Super Bowl. A team's merely accumulating high passing yardage in itself doesn't prove that the passing game is productive, meaning leading to wins. I see what you were saying. I agree with that. It could mean a lot of things including playing from behind a lot because of a poor defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhataLerror 370 Posted March 31, 2017 Author Share Posted March 31, 2017 I wanted to edit this to ask you some things. While you point to "51%" as not being a substantial argument for drafting a 1st round QB, I poise the question of what other round is better? You are statistically more likely to draft a SB winning QB in the 1st round than in any other round. You cannot simply lump all other rounds together and consider yourself winner of the debate because 24 is negligibly smaller than 27. No, 27 is much greater than the numbers you will get in other subsequent rounds. Without doing the math, I can pretty well guarantee that its at least twice as good of odds. For instance round 3 has 6 SB winners and 6/51 is just under 12%. Is 51% not much greater than 12%? I think that it is. You have to get substantially lucky to get a SB winning QB out of round 1, and if you don't consider Brady and Montana, the odds are significantly not in your favor. Actually, you are not really correct here. You are the one setting the OR condition at "First Round". Therefore it's First Round OR Any Other Round, and then you have the statistical consideration to measure against. But I think if we're focusing on this, we're splitting hairs on a very irrelevant segment of the discussion. Step out of the numbers for a moment, and let's look at the reality of drafting in the NFL. I'm not advocating the approach of exclusively drafting quarterbacks late. It's hard to get a quality talent when it's been thoroughly picked through, and by the sixth and seventh rounds, there really isn't much talent left. That being said, drafting a quarterback very early comes at a tremendous cost. Drafting 27th overall as they are this year, the Chiefs have 1303.4 Draft Pick Value Points (an amount improved upon by the awarding of compensatory selections), the equivalent of one tenth-overall pick. One pick. What talent could the Chiefs see at tenth-overall at quarterback that would be worth giving up an entire draft class for? Of course, that also raises this question: How do you objectively value what a draft pick is actually worth. There are more than a few mathematical studies that suggest that Jimmy Johnson got it all wrong, and that the earliest draft picks are largely overvalued, but all such studies still require that you buy in to algorithms that are at best questionable in their validity. Really, because a player doesn't get any better just because you drafted them earlier, the bottom line is that best player available presents the best option for acquiring the talent needed to field a Super Bowl-contending team. As for when a team should actually draft a quarterback, that decision really comes back to determining what's most important out of a list of competing objectives: • Do you leverage the roster to win today, or do you leverage the roster to win tomorrow? • At a given pick, is quarterback the position that can be projected to be upgraded more so than any other position? • When a decision is made, what is the opportunity cost? These are not simple questions. In fact, they are so complex that at times, despite all of their advance preparation with mocks and boards and evaluations, teams actually pass on a draft selection because they couldn't manage their selection process. The Chiefs have enough issues remaining on their roster (including having far too much future cap money assigned to players under-performing due to injury), that it wouldn't surprise me to see at the end of April that the Chiefs still believe Alex Smith is better than anything they would get out of the draft, and failing that, that dedicating an inordinate share of draft capital to the quarterback position would leave gaps in the roster that would expose said successor to development in a situation inconducive to quarterback development. It's not what certain fans want to hear, but given the Chiefs' success during the past four years (and going from the league's 32nd-best team to a perennial playoff contender generally falls under a franchise's definition of "success"), it seems to be most pragmatic for the Chiefs to pursue using the draft to seal the very significant gaps in their roster: LG, ILB, NT, RB, and LE, not necessarily in that order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhataLerror 370 Posted March 31, 2017 Author Share Posted March 31, 2017 Actually I don't. I do believe that most SB-winning QB's had a very good, and most likely top-10, defense to compliment them. The pieces surrounding a QB, offensively, IMO and from what I've seen over the years have largely been negligible. Well, yes, if the defense is amazing, a quarterback doesn't need the world around him on offense. In fact, that's the team Alex Smith had in 2011 with the 49ers. The problem? Two special teams fumbles. Per drive, Smith's offense outscored Manning's offense in that 2011 NFC Championship Game. The Chiefs' defense hasn't been amazing, or even great. They've been good. The highlight plays made them look far better than they actually are. And the offensive talent? Give me an offensive line that can pass block, receivers that can catch, and a runningback that can be explosive through the lane and not put the ball on the ground. You know, a team like the Steelers. Really, if you're truly objective about the Chiefs, look past the quarterback at the other 21 starters. Collectively, they have not demonstrated consistency with regard to playing like a Super Bowl-winning team. It's hard to imagine a team like the Chiefs getting hot for three post-season games in a row just to stand up to the likes of the Patriots, who play winning ball week-in-and-week-out, and go 16-1 in games not started by a rookie quarterback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eraser 722 Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 Well, yes, if the defense is amazing, a quarterback doesn't need the world around him on offense. In fact, that's the team Alex Smith had in 2011 with the 49ers. The problem? Two special teams fumbles. Per drive, Smith's offense outscored Manning's offense in that 2011 NFC Championship Game. The Chiefs' defense hasn't been amazing, or even great. They've been good. The highlight plays made them look far better than they actually are. And the offensive talent? Give me an offensive line that can pass block, receivers that can catch, and a runningback that can be explosive through the lane and not put the ball on the ground. You know, a team like the Steelers. Really, if you're truly objective about the Chiefs, look past the quarterback at the other 21 starters. Collectively, they have not demonstrated consistency with regard to playing like a Super Bowl-winning team. It's hard to imagine a team like the Chiefs getting hot for three post-season games in a row just to stand up to the likes of the Patriots, who play winning ball week-in-and-week-out, and go 16-1 in games not started by a rookie quarterback. Matt Cassel, and Jimmy Garoppolo looked good playing for the Patriots. But, let's just continue believing the myth that all you have to do is to find the magic quarterback. Bullets fall off his chest. He mysteriously makes the walk on receiver catch every pass. It's like Jack, and the magical bean stock. Reality is much harder to believe in. There are 32 teams trying to beat each for a common goal. Right now, the Patriots are the superior team. They do a better job. However, Belichick is approaching the twilight of his career. Surely, he can't coach for another fifteen seasons. Tom Brady wants to be the next Blanda, but Blanda sucked at 48. So, everything turns full circle. The Chiefs will earn a shot if they can be better than the Patriots or the Broncos, or whatever team is hot. A good QB is mandatory. A great quarterback comes around every fifty years or so. That would be nice too. I will tell you what the Chiefs lack. Unless Conley, Maclin, Hill, or any of the other receivers get a dose of Grown UP, they don't have a receiver that can take over a game. Maybe Hill can be that man. I remember Steve Smith, Sr. lighting teams up. It takes a Grown Ass Man to make big plays. We have nice receivers, fast and elusive receivers. We need a shove down your throat, and have your mom hate me kind of receiver. Don't see that dude yet. Some potential candidates in the draft. and Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhataLerror 370 Posted March 31, 2017 Author Share Posted March 31, 2017 I will tell you what the Chiefs lack. Unless Conley, Maclin, Hill, or any of the other receivers get a dose of Grown UP, they don't have a receiver that can take over a game. Maybe Hill can be that man. I remember Steve Smith, Sr. lighting teams up. It takes a Grown Ass Man to make big plays. We have nice receivers, fast and elusive receivers. We need a shove down your throat, and have your mom hate me kind of receiver. Don't see that dude yet. Is Wide Receiver what you think the Chiefs need most? It seems like you and I generally seem to feel the same in principle about the quarterback position in relation to the roster (even if you and I don't see eye-to-eye on what Smith is relative to NFL quarterbacks), but I have thought that the assortment of receivers that the Chiefs have are pretty good. If progress continues at a rate suggested by the improvement from 2015 to 2016, and if we can assume that Maclin will be healthy and have his head on right, the Chiefs have a top-ten receiver corps. They do need an eventual replacement for Maclin, but I wasn't certain this was the year for that. I wouldn't be upset if the Chiefs went for a wide receiver in the first round, but the Chiefs appear to have nothing more than a fig leaf at inside linebacker and a part-time little-engine-that-could/part-time matador at left guard, and those situations disturb me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHard 2,061 Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 Very good points. I see the possibility of a Steve Smith in Hill but the jury is out. I think Maclin has (although not taking over a game) shown legit stud status at times getting separation and making the catch. This year was very un-Maclin. I hope it was an aboration and not the start of a sharp decline. He and Hill with Kelce could be a force. I reread this whole thread again (because it might be the best thread I have ever read on QBs) and looked at these guys. Pretty much after pick 18 only one first round QB has won a Supr Bowl. Rogers. Marino was a complete stud at pick 27, but I am thinking they have to really be in love with a guy to pick a QB here. I am thinking the guy left will not be the guy they love. We will just have to see, but I will not jump off a bridge if they don't take a guy until round 3 or 4. I feel like with nothing to back it up that they will go round 2 or 3 for a QB to develop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.