Kiper Says Chiefs Should Take Te'o #1

[NAHSTE]

If there is such a thing as a "freak" when you are as small as Drew Brees...Drew Brees would be it.

Fuck it, full derail is in order. Short QBs thread ... GO

 

[Glenbino]

 

[Glenbino]

 

[Blick]

The Chiefs are certainly dumb enough to take a MLB #1 overall when they desperately need a QB.

Remember, this is the team that took Tyson Jackson with the 3rd pick overall.

 

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

There hasn't been a better QB in the history of the game with his mastery of the passing lanes behind an offensive line (seriously, he's an amazing quarterback in that regard).

Joe...did you see this shit ?

Uhhh yeah.....but not sure if srs ?

Me either...

OH....Its GaryWarnerRobsLiquid....hes prolly trying to bring the lulz

You better be trying to bring Lulz Gary.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Brees in that regard > Young and Montana

 

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

Brees in that regard > Young and Montana

No way dude. WCO is so heavily dependent on the short passing games and knowledge of the lanes and the timing theres no fair comparison to a deep option route type of offense Brees has run since leaving SD. Those guys did it better , in a tougher time to pass ,and in a tougher system to do it in. Only edge is Brees NO lines have not been nearly as good and certainly not as disciplined as the SF ones in the "passing lane" argument.

 

[Tailback U]

LOL my hate for USC is well known? I have no real CFB allegiance but I'm far from a USC hater. I have much love for the program but that doesn't make Matt Barkley any taller or faster or throw the ball any harder.

Good god. Because only big and fast quarterbacks who have laser rocket arms are good NFL quarterbacks that should be taken with the number 1 pick, right? All sorts of great logic here.

I've been watching this kid for 8 years since he was at Mater Dei and he's the same guy he is now that he was then. He's a great leader and person as well as a great football mind but he's not really elite at anything beyond what is going on inside that helmet.

LOL he is the same guy he is now that he was when he was 14-15 years old? Are you fucking retarded?

If you want to criticize him for something then at least break down why you don't think he is going to be a good qb due to mechanical or mental flaws. Simply saying he isn't tall enough or fast enough or doesn't have a strong arm is such a lame and lazy way to analyze a player.

Barkley does have flaws, he is far from perfect. He has gotten used to locking onto and relying on his receivers this year and has declined because of it. He really needs to get better at working through his progressions. His mechanics have declined as well, his footwork needs improvement, his pocket awareness could be a lot better as well as he's holding onto the ball way too long this year.

He has the physical tools. There is a reason he was so highly recruited out of highschool and has starting for one of the premier college football teams in the country every single year that he has been there. You telling me that he isn't big enough or doesn't have a strong enough arm is laughable considering his accomplishments and the level of football he is playing at.

If he isn't a good NFL qb it's certainly not going to be because of his height or arm strength.

 

[Glenbino]

Good god. Because only big and fast quarterbacks who have laser rocket arms are good NFL quarterbacks that should be taken with the number 1 pick, right? All sorts of great logic here.

LOL he is the same guy he is now that he was when he was 14-15 years old? Are you fucking retarded?

If you want to criticize him for something then at least break down why you don't think he is going to be a good qb due to mechanical or mental flaws. Simply saying he isn't tall enough or fast enough or doesn't have a strong arm is such a lame and lazy way to analyze a player.

Barkley does have flaws, he is far from perfect. He has gotten used to locking onto and relying on his receivers this year and has declined because of it. He really needs to get better at working through his progressions. His mechanics have declined as well, his footwork needs improvement, his pocket awareness could be a lot better as well as he's holding onto the ball way too long this year.

He has the physical tools. There is a reason he was so highly recruited out of highschool and has starting for one of the premier college football teams in the country every single year that he has been there. You telling me that he isn't big enough or doesn't have a strong enough arm is laughable considering his accomplishments and the level of football he is playing at.

If he isn't a good NFL qb it's certainly not going to be because of his height or arm strength.

You need to go back a re-read my posts and tell me where you see me even talking about Barkley's pro career. I'm pointing out reasons he will slip in the draft and have been since the beginning of the thread.

I've already pointed out that you are just throwing shit against the wall when you called me out for being a USC hater. If you want to ask Hass I've been talking about Barkley's decision making issues and problems with INTs for weeks now and was laughed at in the chatbox the whole way and then what do you know... 9 INTs in the last 4 games for the golden boy.

He has some physical tools no doubt but I'm not going to sit here and let you tell me that things like size and arm strength don't matter in a QB evaluation and then call me an idiot for thinking so when the last 20 years of NFL QB evaluations tell us otherwise.

 

[sraczk2011]

If you didn't believe it before the draft...just sit back, relax on the sideline, and enjoy the ride.

Before the draft? I've been on the bandwagon ever since I saw him ruin football powerhouse Wake Forest in 2010. I'd only give him a 99.2% shot of making the HOF though.

 

[packersfan4eva]

Is you on teh droogz?

George Blanda: 53-50-1 record
Dan Fouts: 86-84-1
Sonny Jurgenson: 69-73-7
Bobby Layne: 27-22-1 with Pittsburgh Steelers
Warren Moon: 102-101-0
Joe Namath: 62-63-4
Fran Tarkenton: 124-109-6

 

[chicubs2003]

If they Chiefs do get the first pick, which i dont think they will,

they should get an offensive player, Cassell isnt gonna cut it...

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

George Blanda: 53-50-1 record
Dan Fouts: 86-84-1
Sonny Jurgenson: 69-73-7
Bobby Layne: 27-22-1 with Pittsburgh Steelers
Warren Moon: 102-101-0
Joe Namath: 62-63-4
Fran Tarkenton: 124-109-6

What are you trying to show here? That some of these legit superstar Hall of Fame QB's weren't winners?

Fouts led one of the most potent offensive teams of all time, and took the Chargers to multiple AFC title games.

Layne won two titles and played for a third, yet you minimize his career by only counting his years as a washed up Steeler in his late 30's.

Namath won a SB!

Tarkenton played in THREE Super Bowls.

Blanda wasnt ever considered a great QB, he was a K/LB/back up QB who got a chance to start when he was well past his physical prime.

Moon was not a "great" QB either, he was very good for a few years, and despite his overall record I would hardly label him a loser because he consistently led playoff teams.

We dealt with Jurgenson earlier in the thread.

Please stop.

 

[packersfan4eva]

What are you trying to show here? That some of these legit superstar Hall of Fame QB's weren't winners?

Fouts led one of the most potent offensive teams of all time, and took the Chargers to multiple AFC title games.

Layne won two titles and played for a third, yet you minimize his career by only counting his years as a washed up Steeler in his late 30's.

Namath won a SB!

Tarkenton played in THREE Super Bowls.

Blanda wasnt ever considered a great QB, he was a K/LB/back up QB who got a chance to start when he was well past his physical prime.

Moon was not a "great" QB either, he was very good for a few years, and despite his overall record I would hardly label him a loser because he consistently led playoff teams.

We dealt with Jurgenson earlier in the thread.

Please stop.

You can groan me all you want, but you guys are blinded by the belief that Hall of Fame quarterbacks make a team good or great for a decade, as you stated earlier:

A hall of fame QB changes your team for a decade

I'm not arguing that great quarterbacks don't make teams good. The point is, a team can be average or even below average despite having an excellent quarterback. If a team has no receivers, no line, no defense, how are they supposed to win?

Fouts: Aside from a four-year period in the middle of his career from 79-83, his team made the playoffs exactly 0 times.

Layne: I am not minimizing Layne's career. He was a consistent winner with the Lions. My point was, when he was left for the Steelers, his teams did no better than average and didn't make the playoffs.

Namath: So did Jeff Hostetler and Brad Johnson. Defending his entire career by saying he "won a SB!" is not a good argument. Aside from those two seasons in 68 and 69, Namath had two winning records, 6 losing records, 1 .500 record, and 0 playoff appearances. His teams were pretty bad.

Tarkenton: I love him and think he's a great quarterback, but he was a starter in the NFL for 10 years before his team finished with a winning record.
George Blanda: That's true.

Moon: I agree on that.

Point is, a quarterback can be great on a bad team. One player doesn't make or break a team: 20 or 30 do.

 

[Yawkey Way]

We're also discussing two different generations of football. You might have been able to get by 20-30 years ago with an average QB and a strong run game/defense, but to say that a team can win in today's game without a strong quarterback is borderline asinine. You might get that flash in the pan like the Jets did with Sanchiez his first two years, but how are they now? IMO, the Jets will never win a Super Bowl with Sanchez. Look at the Cardinals, great defense and nothing to show for it because they amass 64 yards on 20 completions or some crazy stat like that.

It's a QB's world today, and the only way the Chiefs get involved is if they attempt to groom a quarterback, not a MLB.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

You can groan me all you want, but you guys are blinded by the belief that Hall of Fame quarterbacks make a team good or great for a decade, as you stated earlier:



I'm not arguing that great quarterbacks don't make teams good. The point is, a team can be average or even below average despite having an excellent quarterback. If a team has no receivers, no line, no defense, how are they supposed to win?

Fouts: Aside from a four-year period in the middle of his career from 79-83, his team made the playoffs exactly 0 times.

Layne: I am not minimizing Layne's career. He was a consistent winner with the Lions. My point was, when he was left for the Steelers, his teams did no better than average and didn't make the playoffs.

Namath: So did Jeff Hostetler and Brad Johnson. Defending his entire career by saying he "won a SB!" is not a good argument. Aside from those two seasons in 68 and 69, Namath had two winning records, 6 losing records, 1 .500 record, and 0 playoff appearances. His teams were pretty bad.

Tarkenton: I love him and think he's a great quarterback, but he was a starter in the NFL for 10 years before his team finished with a winning record.
George Blanda: That's true.

Moon: I agree on that.

Point is, a quarterback can be great on a bad team. One player doesn't make or break a team: 20 or 30 do.

But look how hard you are reaching to find "great" QB's who didn't win. First of all, you can only come up with a half dozen examples, and secondly, most of your examples are total shit.

And you are minimizing Layne. You are discounting his prime seasons for some reason and focusing on the tail end of his career. You might as well put Joe Montana on your list, but only acknowledge his record with the Chiefs. Why not list Unitas, but ignore the Colts and talk about the Chargers? Dumb.

You compare Joe Namath to people like Brad Johnson which shows you have no understanding of what you are talking about beyond surface level garbage. The Jets were a nothing franchise until Namath arrived, and were a nothing franchise for decades after he left. He not only changed the course of the franchise (exactly what i'm saying a great QB does in almost every case), he changed the course of the entire league.

Going back to Layne, what have the Lions done in the 60 some years since Layne moved on, btw? Aside from a few years with Barry Sanders, do you think it's just a coincidence that the only time the Lions have ever been relevant or won championships was during the time they had the only HOF caliber QB in franchise history?

I stand by my (obvious) statement. A great QB almost always changes the course of your team.

 

[packersfan4eva]

But look how hard you are reaching to find "great" QB's who didn't win. First of all, you can only come up with a half dozen examples, and secondly, most of your examples are total shit.

And you are minimizing Layne. You are discounting his prime seasons for some reason and focusing on the tail end of his career. You might as well put Joe Montana on your list, but only acknowledge his record with the Chiefs. Why not list Unitas, but ignore the Colts and talk about the Chargers? Dumb.

You compare Joe Namath to people like Brad Johnson which shows you have no understanding of what you are talking about beyond surface level garbage. The Jets were a nothing franchise until Namath arrived, and were a nothing franchise for decades after he left. He not only changed the course of the franchise (exactly what i'm saying a great QB does in almost every case), he changed the course of the entire league.

Going back to Layne, what have the Lions done in the 60 some years since Layne moved on, btw? Aside from a few years with Barry Sanders, do you think it's just a coincidence that the only time the Lions have ever been relevant or won championships was during the time they had the only HOF caliber QB in franchise history?

I stand by my (obvious) statement. A great QB almost always changes the course of your team.

And you just proved my point. NOT ALWAYS. That's what I've been saying the entire time. It's not a guarantee that a Hall of Fame quarterback changes a team, which is exactly what I'm saying. Sure, many great teams have great quarterbacks, but not all great quarterbacks are on great teams.

As I already said, I'm not discounting Layne's career with the Lions. He was successful. I'm saying when he started with another team, the team was total garbage. The Lions had other players on their roster during this time. I don't think it's a coincidence that 9 other NFL Hall of Famers played on the Lions from 50-59. Is it a coincidence that the Lions were only good while their only two offensive lineman in the Hall of Fame played there? You are acting as if Layne was the reason they did it. He had a part, but football is a team game. The quarterback might be the most important position, but it's not the only thing that factors in to winning.

Along with that, talk to the Pro Football Hall of Fame about them being total shit. All of those players made it in.

And with Joe Namath, saying he turned the team from nothing to something is rather unfair because the team had been around for only six years when he joined. Do you think Matt Schaub is the reason the Texans are good now? No. It's a team effort. After the Super Bowl season, the Jets fell by the wayside, and the Jets went nowhere. The Jets finally kicked him out after he led them to an astounding 4-17 record over two seasons. He was a part of the team that was great, and he put them on the map with his prediction and actually followed through with a career day to win the game, but after that? Nothing.

Also, I just want to point out that Layne is the second quarterback from the Lions to be in the Hall of Fame. Earl "Dutch" Clark was the first.

 

[Yawkey Way]

Groaned simply because of your last "Earl Dutch Clark" statement. I've got some more straws if you want to keep grasping.

 

[G-men]

And you just proved my point. NOT ALWAYS. That's what I've been saying the entire time. It's not a guarantee that a Hall of Fame quarterback changes a team, which is exactly what I'm saying. Sure, many great teams have great quarterbacks, but not all great quarterbacks are on great teams.

As I already said, I'm not discounting Layne's career with the Lions. He was successful. I'm saying when he started with another team, the team was total garbage. The Lions had other players on their roster during this time. I don't think it's a coincidence that 9 other NFL Hall of Famers played on the Lions from 50-59. Is it a coincidence that the Lions were only good while their only two offensive lineman in the Hall of Fame played there? You are acting as if Layne was the reason they did it. He had a part, but football is a team game. The quarterback might be the most important position, but it's not the only thing that factors in to winning.

Along with that, talk to the Pro Football Hall of Fame about them being total shit. All of those players made it in.

And with Joe Namath, saying he turned the team from nothing to something is rather unfair because the team had been around for only six years when he joined. Do you think Matt Schaub is the reason the Texans are good now? No. It's a team effort. After the Super Bowl season, the Jets fell by the wayside, and the Jets went nowhere. The Jets finally kicked him out after he led them to an astounding 4-17 record over two seasons. He was a part of the team that was great, and he put them on the map with his prediction and actually followed through with a career day to win the game, but after that? Nothing.

Also, I just want to point out that Layne is the second quarterback from the Lions to be in the Hall of Fame. Earl "Dutch" Clark was the first.

So your point is that there is an exception to every rule?

Groundbreaking stuff there, Watson.

 

[packersfan4eva]

So your point is that there is an exception to every rule?

Groundbreaking stuff there, Watson.

Yes. And most people didn't think there was.

If you recall, the response to my OP was "Is you on teh droogz?"