[skinster]

JoeRedskin;810911]"Franchise QB" is an amorphous term. But I grant you that a top flite QB is a guarrantee of conterderhood. I disagree that you need a P. Manning to win it all. With a solid team, a B. Roethlisberger, Matt Schaub or a J. Flacco will do.

I don't think you need a P. Manning, but a manning will ensure that you are great year in and year out. I do think that Flacco is close but on the wrong side of the line. Schaubs on my line (I can't decide where he is), and I think big ben doesn't get the credit he deserves. I don't think he's working with too many weapons and I think he produces well.

Okay, I am with you. QB's who lift mediocre teams and turn them, a' la P. Manning, into great teams are rare. However, very good QB's who can make super bowl contenders out of good teams, a' la Aaron Rogers or B. Rothlesburger, are less rare.

IMO less than a third of the league has a qb that can make them a superbowl contender. That's rare. But Aaron Rogers is elite IMO.

The only two in that fit this, that I can think of, are Elway and Manning. Even Manning was not thought to be a "guarrantee" at the time - his arm strength and "upside" were questioned. Given the number of "sure things" who have failed to pan out, I disagree with your assumption that any QB can be "almost guarranteed". As I said, who, other than Elway do you consider an almost guarrantee? Remember, in the year Elway was drafted number 1, Dan Marino was drafted 27 and Jim Kelly at 14. (Look at that, Hall of Famers for teams that didn't tank.)


The hit rate on highly drafted QB's is not particurlary great either. In the last 10 years, QB's in the number 1 slot: Alex Smith, Tim Couch, David Carr, JaMarcus Russell misses. Palmer, Vick, E. Manning hits. With the jury out on Stafford and Bradford (both likely hits with the injuries being a question for Stafford). First pick QB's are simply not a given no matter how highly rated out of college.

Bradford is a studdddddddd. Take away injury concerns and I thought he was a can't miss prospect as well....but then again, you can't do that in reality, he had those injury concerns and was not a can't miss coming out of college.

How about I mention Carr, Couch, Russell, V. Young, Matt Lienhardt, Harrington as high pick/highly rated QB's who failed and Matt Ryan, Phillip Rivers, and Sanchez as non-first-pick QB's of contending teams.

Teams reach for qbs all the time. Teams need one so they reach, and the qb ends up not good. I had no complaints with us not taking a qb high this draft. If you are not sold on him don't draft him because he's a qb. Also, most of those qb misses at 1 overall were taken in drafts with no good predictable prospects.

I think that depending on the year it is realistic to draft a franchise qb in the top third of the first round. But I believe this years draft will mirror 2004 when Eli was the "bar of gold." Unless we draft 1 overall, I believe we will have to get into a bidding war to get him. There very well might be another prospect that comes out this year's draft (landry, barkley) that has what it takes to be a franchise qb that we can get without having luck, but I doubt barkley will come out this year and I'm not sold on landry. I think landry is at best your average 50-50 success or flop first round talent while luck is a special once in a generation 90-10 guy.
P.S I don't believe in Sanchez either.

So, in essence, please don't highlight anyone who might sabotage your "Suck for Luck" campaign or highlight how you have reached your conclusion and will only accept facts which agree with your hypothesis.

My hypothesis isn't based on facts. Its based on my belief in luck. If someone believes he is a can't miss prospect like I do, then yea I do think it is short sighted to not be on board with the "Suck for Luck" campaign.

Your flaw is the 90%. It's at best 50%. Sorry, 10 years from now, and in hindsight - as people do with P. Manning - it may seem like a no brainer. but this belief that Luck is a sure thing is so ludicrous that it is laughable. The linchpin of your entire argument is the "near" surety that Luck is a generational franchise QB. An argument so speculative and counter to historicial precedent as to beyond belief that a reasonable person could accept it. Let me use your analogy - If you had a 60/40 shot that if you put up your last 50K you would get a 100k/year return for 10 years but, if you miss, you and your family would be homeless for the next five years, would you take that risk? Not me bud.

Here is the real discrepancy in out opinions. I think luck is Elway, a once in a generation can't miss prospect. You think its 50-50, I think this is a rare opportunity and Luck is a special can't miss prospect.

Your analogy doesn't make sense, not b/c it is cheesy, but b/c it fails to take into account any of risk of failure, is unrealistic in its projected success, and ignores that you can achieve a similar level of success risk with a substantially lower level of failure risk.

Like I said, I believe the risk of failure to be different than you do.

Bottom line, your being obtuse.

That's an acute statement!