Quote:
Originally Posted by skinster
1. A franchise qb is our only ticket to contederhood. Not just anybody is capable this status, you can't just developed anybody, these players have it the capability (intangibles included) or they don't.
|
"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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skinster
2. Franchise qb's are very hard to find, and there are very true franchise qbs capable of producing a winning team year in and year out.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skinster
3. It is even more rare that a once in a generation talent is coming out of college. A guy that is almost guaranteed to be a true franchise qb is even more rare. Luck isn't just any qb we're gambling on, he's practically a shoe in to lead us to success as long as he is at the helm.
|
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.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by skinster
4. A few predictable franchise qb's get drafted late (aaron rodgers, drew brees), but that is a rarity and we can't wait around forever and hope for one of these guys to slip to us (look at 2nd round and late 1st round qbs drafted in the last 15 years, most of these guys slip for a reason, they have a very low hit rate).
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skinster
5. Please don't mention Tom Brady, that is luck, it could happen to us that we get a franchise qb later, but it is unlikely and it is never good to rely on luck (please don't mention the pun).).
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skinster
6. Please don't mention Warner/favre/any other free agent vet that has had success and could have won a superbowl. It is better to have a shot every year for 10 years than have a window of 2 (look at where the cardinals and vikings are now). Plus it is rare to find one of these guys).
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skinster
Luck is almost a sure thing. If you have a bank account of 10,000 dollars and there was a magic machine that you could give 10,000 dollars to today and you'd have a 90% chance of the machine giving you 50,000 dollars every year for 10 years, would you do it? I ****in would. Yea your year will suck, but your life will be much better for it. (I can't wait for people to make fun of this metaphor. Say what you want, as cheesy as it seems, it makes sense.)
|
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.
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.
Bottom line, your being obtuse.