Dibs

I pointed that out when I did the big list...the article forgot him. 1 QB didn't change the percentages much though... 72% are busts or not good enough. Only 19% get to the big game. ONLY 12.5% WIN THE SUPER BOWL!

I quite like that theory. If you combine it with the "in the trenches" theory & use 1st round picks on the lines each year then when you (eventually) strike it rich at lower round QB you will have an awesome line(theoretically) protecting him & providing a good running game.

Which raises the question again....why did the 49ers make the trade. They said they needed starters & were less interested in depth. Is it just me or does this just sound wrong considering the depth of this draft. I agree with the 49ers trading down from #6 theory(won't be to us though).

I think there is a good argument though to suggest a QB with exceptional awareness can succeed with an average O-line. Brady would be the most prominant example for this. I think a top O-line(& weapons) can make a QB look better than he is but a true Pro bowl QB(Favre, Montana, Elway, Manning, etc) makes all around him look better.

Mistake in article...Bledsoe also made the superbowl. I had a bit of time so... # of 1st round QBs from 1986-2002 = 32 2003-2005(too early to tell) COMPLETE BUST = 14 NOT GOOD ENOUGH(injuries included) = 5 PRO BOWLER = 7(4 are not really good enough to win) SUPERBOWL WINNER = 2(both pro bowlers) SUPERBOWL LOSER = 4(all pro bowlers) As you can see, 72% are busts or not good enough. Only 19% get to the big game. ONLY 12.5% WIN THE SUPER BOWL! I personally don't think it is as simple as they go to rubbish teams so therefore become busts. Some moved on to other teams to earn pro bowls & super bowls. A lot of the QBs were picked lower in the draft(by O.K. teams) & were still busts. I'm starting to think the QB position might be too difficult for scouts to analyse at the college level. Minimally, I think there is no extra reason for drafting a QB higher just because he is a QB. Too much emphasis is placed upon a 1st round QB. ()=number of pro bowls 1986 3 Jim Everett(1) - HOU 12 Chuck Long - DET 1987 1 Vinny Testaverde(2) - T.B. 6 Kelly Stouffer - St. L 13 Chris Miller(1)- ATL 26 Jim Harbaugh(1)- CHI 1988 - none 1989 1 Troy Aikman(6) - DAL 1990 1 Jeff George - IND 7 Andre Ware - DET 1991 16 Dan McGwire - SEA 24 Todd Marinovich - OAK 1992 6 David Klingler - CIN 25 Tommy Maddox - DEN 1993 1 Drew Bledsoe(4) - N.E. 2 Rick Mirer - SEA 1994 3 Heath Shuler - WAS 6 Trent Dilfer(1) - T.B. 1995 3 Steve McNair(2) - HOU 5 Kerry Collins(1) - CAR 1996 - none 1997 26 Jim Druckenmiller - S.F. 1998 1 Peyton Manning(6) - IND 2 Ryan Leaf - S.D. 1999 1 Tim Couch - CLE 2 Donovan McNabb(5) - PHI 3 Akili Smith - CIN 11 Daunte Culpepper(3) - MIN 12 Cade McNown - CHI 2000 18 Chad Pennington - NYJ 2001 1 Michael Vick(3) - ATL 2002 1 David Carr - HOU 3 Joey Harrington- DET 32 Patrick Ramsey - WAS 2003 1 Carson Palmer(1) - CIN 7 Byron Leftwich - JAX 19 Kyle Boller - BAL 22 Rex Grossman - CHI 2004 1 Eli Manning - NYG 4 Philip Rivers - S.D. 11 Ben Roethlisberger - PIT 22 J.P. Losman - BUF 2005 1 Alex Smith - S.F.

I've made comment recently about how I believe one needs a top QB to win Super Bowls. I stand by that thought though.... Where do you find said top QB? I would have thought high 1st round in the draft...hell, 1st round period. This article puts a dampner on my thoughts. Linky: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft06/colu...02=stateChanged

Clements... could still sign a multi-deal & be here for life....is a top player!!!! Henry...made 2 pro-bowls & we recouped a 3rd rounder(could get a top DT) Jennings...was considered a good starter(look how much S.F. gave him), started heaps of games for us. I don't mind TD being knocked for not looking after the lines, his bad pick of coaches, his letting go of the wrong players, his bad handling of personel etc etc etc..... but I always thought his drafting & free agent acquisitions were pretty good.

yit shes.

I think it means penis-like??

*sniff*... *sniff* Well it wasn't me.

Actually he said.... Even if he did, what's wrong with people taking in more information, reassessing something & changing their opinion?

No. True. True. I know this doesn't apply to you but... a lot of people(especially Bills fans it seems) look at things with an automatic negative slant. i.e. if something isn't fantastic/great/good it must be terrible/rubbish/crap. It is like alright/O.K./not-bad is not a part of their thought process. http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=45257

You do realize that who we draft is not determined by consensus on 'The Wall'?

Uh-Oh, we're in trouble. Everyone knows RW has no money. Woe is me...how do we pay off the refs?

tee hee

I think you made this point(about a different player) to me the other day.... You'd think I would have remembered it. I agree with the point but....the real scouts wouldn't have know just how fast he is. I think it was that speed etc that got him up into potential top 10.....mind you, a top 10 TE would be expected to have elite physical ability. Regarding Davis, I think the combine assessments rightly elevated his stock to a top 10 prospect. There you go....watch Dibs do a 180

I don't think anyone is saying Davis is a bad football player....just that his stock seemed to be greatly elevated due to the combine. It's the concept of rating a players physical abilities above their playing abilities therefore achieving an unrealistic assessment.

I suppose this isn't to say Davis won't be awesome.... perhaps at the college level with generally weaker opposition, all the TEs could show their stuff. Maybe at the pro level, only Davis really has the physical goods to stand out....which was only truly discovered at the combine. Did I just have a bite out of both sides of the apple?

I don't think they were refering to anyone in particular but as a concept it fits to a greater or lesser degree with a lot of players.

me too

I think you're right. It wasn't so long back there were several TEs all considered around the same level..... then the combine & BOOM!!!!

Glass half empty much?

Aaaah, just seeing the names on the screen....Memories

Oooooh, you're asking for it on that one.

huh?