Draft '09: The Quarterbacks
 

Interesting read on the QB's of this years draft class.

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/fea...rticleid=32164

Too much to actually post here (3 pages worth) so I'll just copy what they're saying about the top 3.

1. Mark Sanchez, Southern Cal

Height/Weight: 6'3/225
College Experience: Fourth-year junior
Projected 40: 4.70
Comparison: Aaron Rodgers
2008 Stats: 241-of-366 (65.8%), 3,207 Yds, 34 Tds, 10 Ints, 3 Rush Tds

Positives: This class is not laden with pro-ready QBs, but of those eligible Sanchez most closely resembles an NFL signal caller. He took the vast majority of his snaps from center in a pro-style offense, tore apart elite college defenses, and often stood out as the best player on the field. Sanchez is highly elusive in the pocket, throws exceptionally well on the run, and took only 17 sacks in 13 games as a junior behind an offensive line that started four underclassmen, including three sophomores. His arm strength is close to ideal and he delivers the football quickly. Sanchez is a leader, outwardly competitive, and doesn't ruffle under pressure. He has the physical makeup of a franchise QB.

Negatives: Sanchez started 16 college games, a startlingly low number. He did not beat out John David Booty, a fringe NFL player, for a starting job in 2006 or 2007. Sanchez was temporarily suspended from USC for a sexual assault accusation in April 2006. Charges were later dropped. Sanchez went against coach Carroll's recommendation to stay in school another year. Carroll has countless ties to pro teams and his disapproval reflects poorly on Sanchez.

Lewin on Sanchez: It's difficult to doubt Sanchez's ability to be a big-time QB despite his low starts total. His body of work is excellent and he demonstrated accuracy as a junior. Sanchez's production in the Steve Sarkisian system is clearly superior to Booty's. However, low-start guys have the most to gain from sitting early in their careers. Sanchez needs to be in a situation like Matt Cassel or Aaron Rodgers. If he has to play right away, there is a strong chance Sanchez will fail. Seattle at No. 4 would be a good fit. The Seahawks could start Matt Hasselbeck for 2-3 more seasons while Sanchez prepares.

Verdict: Teams that need immediate help (Detroit, Tampa, Minnesota) may shy from Sanchez because they know the long odds raw passers face. But Sanchez could be a gem for a team that can groom him (Tennessee, Chicago, Jets, Buffalo, San Francisco). Sanchez is unlikely to be ready before 2010, but his skill set smacks of star potential. Sanchez should be comfortable with an extended waiting period because he's already spent two years behind Booty and one behind Matt Leinart.

2. Josh Freeman, Kansas State

Height/Weight: 6'6/250
College Experience: Third-year junior
Projected 40: 4.68
Comparison: More athletic Jason Campbell
2008 Stats: 224-of-382 (58.6%), 2,945 Yds, 20 Tds, 8 Ints, 3.8 YPC, 14 Rush Tds

Positives: Freeman is physically stronger than any QB in the draft and it translates to the field. His arm power is superior to Sanchez and Matthew Stafford's, and Freeman is extremely difficult to bring down. Playing behind an offensive line that was devoid of pro prospects and started a 6'3 left tackle, Freeman took only 15 sacks in 2008. It led to increased experience throwing on the run, although his completion rate fell from 63.3% to 58.6%. Freeman can outrun most defensive linemen and linebackers and will be a legitimate threat for positive rushing yards at the next level. K-State's offense used spread concepts, but Freeman spent plenty of time under center and the learning curve shouldn't be steep.

Negatives: Freeman exhibits inconsistent accuracy outside the pocket and his touch on short-to-intermediate throws needs work. While he developed into a superb decision maker by his junior year, Freeman played out of control at times early in his career. He also faced loosy-goosy Big 12 defenses and needs time to adjust to NFL game speed. As an underclassman, most areas of Freeman's game need touch-up, including his footwork and defensive recognition.

Lewin on Freeman: Freeman is big, mobile, and has a highly impressive arm. The talent surrounding him was incredibly poor last season; Kansas State's top runner averaged only 3.5 yards per carry. Freeman was second on the team in rushing. You can present the Joe Flacco argument for Freeman as a big-time talent with a big-time arm for whom it could all come together in the right situation. Having posted superior numbers with a worse supporting cast against a pretty tough schedule, Freeman is a better prospect than Matthew Stafford.

Verdict: Like any underclassman QB, Freeman needs to sit the bench for at least one year. He would've benefited immeasurably from a senior season, assuming his awful line didn't get him hurt. Freeman is not ready to play, but his ceiling is higher than any quarterback that will be taken in April. That upside makes Freeman worth drafting in the second round, ideally by a team with a starter who can hold down the fort for 1-2 seasons.

3. Matthew Stafford, Georgia

Height/Weight: 6'3/228
College Experience: Third-year junior
Projected 40: 4.78
Comparison: Kyle Boller
2008 Stats: 235-of-383 (61.4%), 3,459 Yds, 25 Tds, 10 Ints, 1 Rush Td

Positives: Stafford has as many college starts (34) as a senior who started three years. Georgia won all three bowl games Stafford played in and he comes from a balanced, pro-style offense. Stafford faced the best defenses D-I can offer playing in the SEC. He won't be a plus-yardage running threat in the pros, but is a gifted athlete (Stafford can dunk a basketball) and a dangerous on-the-run passer. Stafford's arm strength is ideal and he flashes the ability to make all the throws. He is a vocal leader, releases the football quickly, and has good pocket presence.

Negatives: Elite arm strength has covered up Stafford's flaws. He throws off his back foot often and is considered raw in his reads. Stafford tended to go in the tank for long stretches at Georgia and his teams underachieved (e.g. the Dogs were D-I's consensus top team entering 2008 but finished 13th). Stafford is prone to head-scratching under and overthrows. He was surrounded by NFL talent (Knowshon Moreno, Mohamed Massaquoi, Thomas Brown, Kregg Lumpkin, Danny Ware, Martrez Milner) in college, but never put up outstanding numbers.

Lewin on Stafford: Completing passes is the fundamental thing quarterbacks should do and Stafford is in the red-flag area with a 56.9 career completion rate. NFL starters must complete 60% of their throws. Stafford's college team was never as good as it should've been and he wasn't as good as he should've been either. D.J. Shockley and David Greene put up similar numbers in the same system and won SEC titles -- something Stafford never did. Scouts might compare Stafford to Carson Palmer and Jay Cutler physically, but he's in the Rex Grossman, Dave Ragone, and Brodie Croyle range from a production standpoint.

Verdict: Lewin noted that Stafford's college stats and success level were unimpressive with so many tools and weapons, and there's no reason to think he'll be a better pro than collegiate. While Stafford will surely be a top-ten pick, his track record says he'll be a long-term starter whose team tops out in the 9-7 range because of inconsistent quarterback play. Stafford will look like a Pro Bowler in one game, and Joey Harrington in the next.

Wow, first thing I have seen that has Freeman as the #2 QB Prospect...

Freeman at #2 LMAO.

that review of stafford is flat out reeruned....you should know something about the team if you're going to write such nonsense.....good lord, it's like WPI everywhere

Sorry Freeman at #2 ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL

I know you guys are laughing but I wouldn't be surprised to see him pass Sanchez in the draft. He has the raw tools, maybe they conclude the obvious and those coaching him at KSU didn't know their head from their ass. I'm seeing a Flaccoesk type rise for him, and a Rogers-Quinn fall for the Dirty One.

No Doubt. ROFL ROFL ROFL LMAO

Nobody but the Raiders would be dumb enough to pick him ahead of the Dirty Sanchez, and the Raiders already have Jabba JaMarcus.

Mayock has Sanchez going in the 12 to 20 range. Stafford #1 overall, but in the top 5.

I guess that pretty much locks it up that anyone who disagrees with taking Sanchez at #3 is a f***tard. Mayock is usually pretty good with his assessment. Whatever you do, don't tell anyone around here it would be a bad idea to take anyone other than Sanchez at #3(assuming Stafford is gone).

Mayock is also in the horseshit silly season part of the year, pre-combine. I don't think anyone on earth would agree that Brandon Pettigrew is the 5-6th best Senior, but that's what he had him ranked.

Is that Steve Buscemi in your avatar?

That's nice and all but I'm not going to change my view of a guy due to Mike Mayocks mock draft, he thinks Aaron Curry is the greatest LB prospect ever, it's joke.

This.

Just an observation about QBs...If a QB is good enough to draft anywhere in the first round, he is good enough to draft at any point in the first round in which he is the highest QB left on your board.

For the sake of argument, let's say that Stafford goes number 1. If the Chiefs would be willing to take Sanchez if they had the 20th pick, they should take him with the #3 pick. Either he's your franchise QB, and he's worth more than any other player in the draft, or he's a bust. If you don't think he's a potential franchise QB, you don't take him at all. If you think he has a legitimate shot at being THE guy, you take him regardless of your spot.

If the Chiefs draft him at 3 and he pans out, it's a great pick. If the Cardinals draft him at 31 and he flops, it's a blown pick. The Chiefs won't wish that they had traded down if Sanchez makes it big, and the Cardinals wouldn't be celebrating about not picking him earlier if he flops.

I think that is a little skewed to help your argument saying Maycock thinks Curry is the greatest LB prospect ever. I have not once heard that. It is pretty obvious he is everyone's #1 LB in this years draft. Also, I am not suggesting anything ridiculous like trying to trade down, or not taking the BPA at #3. Just think it is a bit funny that anyone who disagrees with your(not only you Mecca, many others) idea of what to do in the draft should be "shot in the head" because they are stupid. Get real, opinions are like....you get the picture, everyone has one, some better than others but none of them is correct. No one here is a GM. I will defer to Pioli, he is more qualified than anyone here.

When you have a LB as a top 3 player on your board you think he is one of the greatest OLB prospects that ever lived...the last LB to go that high was a decade ago.

So ranking a LB as a top 3 player means you think he is one of the greatest OLB prospects ever. Not sure how you connect those dots, but ok, guess that is what it means. Does ranking an OL or WR in the top three mean that they are one of the greatest prospect ever too? I don't follow your rationale. To me, it would mean that he his the third best prospect in this draft.

Are you trying to get on my nerves or do you really not understand?

LB is a devalued position it is not as important as say LT or QB or DE or CB something like that..

Putting a non pass rushing LB in your top 3 would be like putting a TE in your top 3, to say a guy is that good that means you think he's one of the best prospects ever.

Got it? Or do I have to go into an explanation of positional value.

I would disagree with you completely. I would not call Ray Lewis a pass rushing LB, but he would obviously be a top 3 worthy pick from what we know now. Not saying Curry is anything like Ray Lewis, but you are making it completely black and white. Any position(aside from I suppose TE, C or G) could merit a top 3 pick. Saying a LT, QB or pass rusher are the only positions that could merit a top three pick, I cannot agree with you there.

Then you don't understand how the draft works.

Nope, I understand. I just disagree with you. Are you suggesting that knowing what you know about Ray Lewis now, he would not be worthy of a top three selection? Saying certain positions are the end all be all only options to draft in the top three is just ridiculous. I am not saying going QB at three is wrong, I am however saying only allowing yourself to draft certain positions in the top three does is not how it works. AJ Hawk(non pass rushing LB)Cedric Benson, Caddy Williams and Sean Taylor in the top 5 goes against the grain of your only certain positions theory.

All I am saying if you do not have to draft position "x" in the top 3 or top 5. Let's just agree to disagree.

I think the occasional safety can slip into the top 5...I would have no issue taking Taylor Mays that high.

But I would never in a million years take a RB or a non rush LB in the top 5, guys like Lewis are a good example of why it's not needed. To many productive LB's are found at the bottom of the 1st and out of the 1st round.

It's basically overkilling a position by overdrafting it.

Taylor Mays....he doesn't play for USC does he? :D

I had no idea Stafford is the proud owner of a 56% career completion percentage. Tyler Thigpen thinks that's a terrible stat.

Here's some stats on Stafford from Stats inc. Stafford did complete over 60% of his passes this past year. I think that qualifies him as a legit prospect.


[Finished 6-2 as a true freshman starter in 2006. Started 34 games in three seasons at Georgia. As a junior in 2008, completed 61.4-percent of his throws for 3,459 yards with 25 TDs and 10 INTs. Finished career completing 57.1-percent of his attempts for 7,731 yards with 51 TDs and 33 INTs.]


PhilFree:arrow:

Sorry, I just can't see this happening. Freeman may turn out to be decent, but right now he's lacking a lot of polish.

Good post Big Cat. For the most part I agree with that. Each year is different, but you've made a good point.

I would say that the examples you gave prove Mecca's point. If you were somehow able to know that Curry was going to be as good as or better than Ray Lewis, you would take him top three. That would make him the single best linebacker prospect in history. Anything less would be a reach.

AJ Hawk, Cedric Benson, Sean Taylor, and Cadillac Williams were drafted top 5. Taking Taylor out of the equation, if those teams could have a do over, do you think that any of them would even consider drafting any of those players again?

I doubt they take them again, but as you know, hindsight is 20/20. There are tons of players every team could look back on and would not draft again if they had the chance, so it really is irrelevant if they would take them again or not. The disagreement I had with Mecca's argument is that only positions x, y and z that are draft-able in the top three or top five. I think any position aside from TE, and probably G or C could and do get taken that early. Saying that only certain positions are able to be drafted at certain points of the draft is a much too black and white way of looking at things. IF, you feel the BPA is not one of those positions, you still take him. I agree, you take the best player available at #3. Just not yet convinced one way or the other that that player is Sanchez.

I agree with you in general, but if you're seriously arguing that you would take Mays in the top 5, but not Ray Lewis, you are taking it way too far. Taking a MLB in the top 5 is rarely (almost neer) worth it, but for someone like Lewis it certainly is, especially since in this hypothetical we have the benefit of hindsight. Safeties shouldn't be taken the high anyway, Mays at 5 is a reach.

Great LB's don't come around as often as Safeties.

Not to get cute but its 2001. You are standing there with a top 3 pick. Who do you pick?

You got to be looking at LT twice because despite being a RB he has been that franchise for pretty much his entire career.

In hindsight you would have to say LT. Only other reasonable option would be Seymour.

I wouldn't have taken LT, I believe the RB position is a dime a dozen.

Exactly, and that's why people talking about Sanchez or Stafford being reaches are ri-goddamn-diculous.

Pioli took this approach LAST year.

Jarod Mayo was considered a late 1st to mid 2nd guy.

Rick Gosselin's final mock, which is annually the most accurate in the business, had him going to the Steelers at 23

Pioli was sold on him, knew he wasn't going to make it to their next pick at #62. So they took him.

How does the drafting of Mayo support the position that KC may draft Sanchez? If anything, it would support Curry. The Pats identified the best player and took him regardless of whether the "experts" had him ranked so high.

He also said Flacco was a reach at #17 too, so I wouldn't put much credence in his analysis when he acts like he pegged Flacco all along.

I'm not trying to support the position that we're definitely taking Sanchez.

Only pointing out that Pioli is going to take his guy at 3, even if the mouthbreathers here think he's a reach.

That goes for anyone, Stafford, Sanchez, Curry, whoever.

dcprosportsreport.com/MockDraft.htm


i posted this on a Boldin thread. It is a site that has a pretty nice compile of mocks

If a guy is the most talented guy that year you take him. You take a QB that high, he better be ready to play in the near future especially for the jack you are gonna have to pay him. I know LBs are totally useless as evidenced by the Steelers. Curry comes up because 95% of the evaluators out there say he is an exceptional football player. Period. Thats why he is part of the discussion. Sanchez is young, has had an off the field issue, left his team early despite contrary advise from everyone, and was unable to beat out JD Booty. Thats why people are a little nervous picking him #3. Thats valid. Nobody is a f--kin idiot or needs a bullit in his head for feeling that way. If you cant see the validity of those issues your letting your heart rule your head.

It will be hilarious if Freeman ends up being the best out of this class.

All the experts on here will be saying they called it 3 years from now.

No they won't. Folks generally admit when their opinions don't pan out.

Sometime ask how many people wanted Wendell Bryant instead of Ryan Sims, or how many people were happy at the time that we took Sims instead of Henderson or Haynesworth. You'll probably be surprised.

Yeah, because Harrison was a first rounder. So was Woodley.

:shake:

The Steelers are a great example of how they cycle new LB's in and don't miss a beat, while walking away from big name players in the position.

Exactly.

Mel keeps bringing up ridiculous comparisons and reasons why the Chiefs shouldn't draft a QB.

I think he's Carl Peterson.

It'll never happen.

He's got a 10 cent brain.

The point is that much like Brady if you knew what they were you would take them early. Great linebacker play isnt to be ignored and again outside of Punter or Kicker, an elite player is an elite player.


If you've seen my posts before I'm all for Stafford, I just have legitimate concerns about Sanchez. If anything Curry is being villanized to help make Sanchez' case. I'm just saying Curry is a legitimate part of the conversation at #3 if Stafford is gone.

So you'd take a guard that high?

Remember he was on Jake Long's cock as much as findthedouche was.

And I won that argument.

But no, no guards...

How do you figure you won that argument?

In the argument that Jake long was worthy of the #5 pick which was connected to the Both Longs, Dorsey, and Ryan are better choices than Gholston argument that we went round and round about last year, I think I've decidedly come out on top of to this point. Long is a franchise LT who handled the rush exceptionally for a rookie, pass blocked exceedingly well, and was a huge part of his teams improvement. If you cant concede that Jake Long has panned out pretty well for the Dolphins your just being dishonest and need to dial down on the pride a bit. The "people just voted for him because they recognized his name" argument is exceedingly lame too. If he wasnt doing his job well, the negative connotations connected to his name would have worked the same way. I have no problem admitting that I was wrong about Tashard Choice.

Things can always change, but to this point Jake Long > Gholston.

Pro-bowler whose team went worst to 1st and made playoffs or...

Roster fodder whose already being called out for his effort (I was right about that too) not matching "potential" by his new coach?

Why are you comparing Jake Long to players that play different positions to try to prove your point?

Ryan Clady and Branden Albert played just as well as Long did, if not better.

They were drafted #12, and #15 respectively.

Seeing as how there were comparable or better players available much later, it follows that Jake Long wasn't worth the #1 pick.

That makes no sense. Just because another team may have found a gem in the middle of the first (or later) who should have been ranked higher, doesn't mean your pick at #1 is any worse. If you got your franchise LT with the #1 pick, then he was worth it.

That's like saying you could have grabbed Kurt Warner as a free agent so your drafting of a Carson Palmer with the #1 pick wasn't worth it.

Exactly. The argument was about whether Long was worthy of top 5 if he was available. Another part of our argument was whether Gholston was a better choice.

Yeah, like my wife and I house hunting right now.

There are two houses we're looking at in the same neighborhood, that are almost identical.

One has an asking price of $300,000, and the other is listed at $255,000.

I'd be pretty ****ing stupid to pay $45,000 more for basically the same house.

Miami paid a shit-ton more for a guy that is no more talented than guys that went in the middle of the round.

You still dont have rain on your head and you could have paid 300,000 for a shack that doesnt work very hard.

You still needed a LT so which one do you take? Unless you get the elusive trade down partner (your saying to 12 or so?) your paying one of those guys the same money. Its a good house. Thats the argument. Because another house is also good doesnt make your house any less a franchise LT.

In your scenario the only way a top draft pick is good is if the guy pans out and all others bust. If someone taken later emerges as a good pick then in your mind your pick isn't good anymore and you should have taken someone else. That is nonsensical.

I need milk.

I can go to QT and pick up a gallon for $4.50, or I can go to the grocery store, which is the same distance from my house as QT is, and buy the exact same brand of milk for $3.25.

Why would I go to QT?

In the NFL, you don't draft for need, you draft for value. At least the good organizations do.

Jake Long was not a value pick at #1 overall.

They could have gotten the same results out of a later pick.

Matt Ryan would have been a value pick, because he was head and shoulders the best player at the position - and would give you results you wouldn't have gotten from a QB later in the draft.

Same with Aaron Curry this year.

He's a phenomenal talent, but he's not THAT much more valuable than Brian Cushing, who could be had in the late 1st round or early 2nd.

It has nothing to do with how they "pan out." It has to do with their potential as a prospect.

There were more questions raised about Jake Long as a prospect than there were about Clady. Some argued that Clady was the better prospect.

There were a TON of people here that noticed how little the difference in talent was between these guys.

I posted this in the other thread, but there's only 5 gazillion posts about QB...

Funny how so many people are using the argument that he would be a reach at #3 while many mock drafts are going back & forth between Sanchez & Stafford being #1 overall.

Scouts Inc now has Sanchez rated as the best QB in the draft.

You are completely full of it. This board was full of people who despised Clady because everyone watched one game against Hawaii where he didn't look very good.

Just because a Jared Allen may emerge from day 2 of the draft doesn't mean that if you used a top 3 pick on a DE that ends up being a Pro Bowl player for many years, that you made a bad pick. If you draft the #1 ranked player at the #3 spot at a position for what most people would say is one of the 3 golden spots (QB, LOT, pass rusher) then you made a good pick. Just because somebody else ends up with a great value, doesn't mean you shouldn't have taken your player.

That's why rankings at this point in time are a joke. Nothing has happened since the Rose Bowl to flip Stafford and Sanchez.

Again, you completely miss the point, or are purposely missing the point because you're the board's contrarian.

There were just as many, if not more people that despised Long because he was abused by Gholston. People thought he'd struggle with speed rushers, and that's still true - if you watched any Miami games they gave him help against speed guys.

This is how they were projected as pro's going in. Clady and Long were viewed equally in the eyes of many.

Anyway, I'm done arguing with you, because this is becoming a common occurrence for you. I'll wait until the next time you pop into a thread to remind us that Snachez will be a bust because Akili Smith was.

Should be within the hour, knowing you.

I know what your saying WP, but again unless you get a trade down partner your not getting a great player in the 2nd round. They picked the highest ranked player and he's everything they could have wanted. Some later guys also did well. Good for them. But the original argument that Long couldnt handle NFL DE's and wouldnt be a successfull LT isnt true.

Ryan and Flacco had comperable stats. Was Ryan a bad pick for the Falcons because Flacco had a great year too? Why didnt the Falcons just trade down and get a QB later in round 1? Thats the logic your using here.

You asked for an example of a top pick with one year experience who busted. I gave you Smith and now you are all butt hurt over it.

Just because I question whether Sanchez should be a top 3 pick, doesn't mean I'm the board contrarian. I can't help it if the Sanchezites are being extremely hypocritical and closed minded when it comes to the discussion on any draft pick other than Sanchez. Goose step or you are an idiot has been the mantra in the Draft Planet the last month or so.

:clap:

Thank you. I'm tired of being told I'm a f---ing idiot or I need a bullit in the head for discussing anyone but Sanchez.

I'm not butt hurt over it at all, it makes you look like a fool.

If Sanchez and Smith had anywhere NEAR the same level of talent, I'd be willing to at least listen.

But I have a hard time respecting someone's opinion who thinks the two are comparable. The ONLY thing they have in common is the college starts stat.

Even if they WERE comparable in talent, your argument is flawed.

History has no bearing on what will happen. You can't assume that just because past QB's have failed with limited college starts does not guarantee, or even should suggest that someone else will fail.

Different levels of talent, different sets of circumstances.

But please, keep up the good work. We enjoy hearing the same argument daily against him - it's the only one you have.

And FWIW, I'd be perfectly content with Stafford as well. Sanchez is just my preference.

You mean except the fact that they now have time to more closely study game film?

That only took about 30 minutes b/c Sanchez only started 2 games. lolallarlarrazz.

It's not that I'm AGAINST the selection, it's just that it's risky. Risk makes me piss myself. This organization could regress (how, I have no ****ing clue) if it blows (not sexually, I think) the #3 overall pick.

Gimme a break, risk for this team? Anybody would be an upgrade over Huard/Croyle/Thigpen

I'm in the same boat, but I keep getting dragged into the arguments against him because there is a croud that doesnt seem to acknowledge that there are some serious questions about him.

No, no. Risk, regression. Ruin reward.

Rhut, row.

Every prospect has questions. Peyton Manning had questions surrounding him.

**** that, I want a franchise QB, someone that wants to be the best and can will his team, our team, to victory.

His name is Sanchez.

But really, as long as I don't have to see another play being run by Thigpen or Croyle, at least that will be progress.

Even when I type the phrase "draft a QB," a little bit or urine leaks from my hanglow.

If the prospect is a "can't miss lock," we should maybe consider him (or her). Maybe. It would be tougher to blow a "her."

Question. Singular.

There's ONE question about Sanchez. His limited starts in college.

Please, enlighten us as to what these other concerns are.

LMAO.

You're almost more Penz than Penz is...

I almost feel guilty when I type "risk makes me piss myself" in the middle of a post, and then I get agreement.

Almost takes the fun out of it and makes me feel like a jerk.

LMAO

Comparing Manning to Sanchez is ridiculous. Do I really have to explain that, or were you just going way over the line to prove a weak point?