Well if that happens, you try your best to trade down.

I'm getting the feeling we'll end up trading down anyways.

The only guys I called jokes were McCoy and Tebow.

And yeah, this is an accurate assessment, IMO, of Brodie Croyle II and the black dude who tosses the javelin in Revenge of the Nerds (whom Tebow reminds me of when he launches his patented jump pass).

1.) When it comes to the skills of the 2 quarterbacks, I haven't even come down on one side or the other in any 'final' evaluation. My point has been that the ridiculous and uncalled for attacks on those who dare to opine that Sanchez and/or Stafford are not gambles worth taking at #3 in their estimation should.

2.) I don't think I'm smarter about football than Pete Carroll, other college coaches, or NFL coaches. They won't be correct all the time, and it's fun to question and compare, but I don't pretend to think I'll be right more often in the long run. However, I haven't posted anything on this subject that those coaches don't already know, and I haven't claimed to have done so.

3.) Pete Carroll said that Sanchez should stay in school. I'm not sure how my saying that people shouldn't be berated for not wanting Sanchez at #3 is somehow acting as if I'm smarter than any college or NFL head coach given what came out of his own head coach's mouth.

For someone who is "Just Passin' By," he sure is sticking around a long time.

All quarterbacks have a huge adjustment to make when they transition to the NFL. Dan Marino is almost the sole example of a modern era quarterback who shows no real learning curve to be needed. Will players like Tebow, Bradford, et al. have more adjustments to make than they pro-style QBs? Absolutely. Does that mean they won't succeed? Only time will tell.

I will point out that sometimes the powers that be are completely wrong. It wasn't long ago, after all, that we were told that the era of the pocket passer was over, and that you needed to draft the Michael Vicks of the world if you were going to compete in the 'new' NFL. It's things like this that make message boards worthwhile.

And its things like that that make message boards intolerable.

Just what player is it that teams will be willing to pay the price to move up to select?

1) No one is not a gamble. Why is this so hard to understand?

You aren't winning a SB without a franchise QB. You aren't getting a franchise QB out of the first round without a near miracle. These two QBs have skillsets that translate excellently into having potential to be a franchise QB.

It's about odds and skills. Odds are, if you want a franchise QB, he comes from round one. If you want a QB, he's coming from round 1. If you want a franchise QB, he better know how to read a defense, come from a pro system, have above average arm strength, and be an accurate passer. The more qualities they possess, the better.

Again, no one has ever posed any form of a cogent argument about why Stafford or Sanchez aren't elite quarterback prospects.

CP from October to December of 2008 was obsessed with denigrating Stafford, now people feel fit to bash everything about Sanchez, from false rape allegations to claims of him being stupid for hiring his brother as agent (which wasn't even true)

The biggest arguments I've heard about Sanchez are the fact that he lacks starting experience (legitimate) and that he looked bad throwing 10 passes in shorts to scrubs at the combine (ridiculous).


3) How many times has this been said? Pete Carroll wants to win for Pete Carroll. Do you think he believes he has a better chance to win with Mitch Mustain, Aaron Corp, Matt Barkley, or Mark Sanchez?

What does he have to gain from Sanchez staying? What does he have to lose from him leaving?

The difference is that the adjustment for Sanchez and Stafford isn't nearly the huge adjustment that these other QBs will have to make, and they (sanchez and Stafford) have better physical tools.

Those factors alone make this class better.

Y'know, if you built a mathematical model to predict a player's odds of success, you could then optimize your selections based on the points in the draft model.

For example, if your top QB candidate has a 60 percent chance of success and costs you 2,200 draft points, and if your fourth-favorite QB candidate has a 20 percent chance of success and costs you 480 draft points, you could then compare that to a couple of LB candidates who has a 90 percent chance of success and a 10 percent chance of success at the same draft positions. It then becomes a simple optimization to see which you should pick where.

Bradford and McCoy have similar arm strength as Sanchez.

Not even close.

Sanchez had already turned pro. What did Carroll have to gain by blowing up at a press conference? ... other than telling his real feelings, that is.

Carroll reacted emotionally.

And he could have gained a change of mind, since Sanchez had a couple of days to do just that.

The thing that makes the draft so interesting and exciting are all the "unknowables". Each class has its own "busts" and "sleepers" just sitting out there waiting to be exposed. All the predictors in the world aren't going to protect a team from making a poor choice in the draft.

Still, when I read between Pioli's lines, I repeatedly hear this notion that it is extremely important that the player be coachable by the staff in place. To me, that's the wild card in all of this.

The Kansas City Chiefs have, for a large share of the last 20 years, proven themselves either incapable or unwilling to coach up players. However, assuming that you can, in fact, select players who will respond to your existing staff and assuming that your staff is competent at maximizing a player's talent on the field, it should (theoretically) reduce draft risk significantly.

Unfortunately, since Haley's never been an HC before, there's a lot Pioli doesn't know. Couple that with the fact that Pioli may well believe that we are probably closer to being competitive on the defensive side of the ball and your QB selection better damn well be right if you're using the 3 for him.

FAX