Draft '09: The Quarterbacks

[The Poz]

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.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by melbar

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.

Question. Singular.

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

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

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

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.

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

No, no. Risk, regression. Ruin reward.

Rhut, row.

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Even when I type the phrase "draft a QB," a little bit or urine leeks 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."

.

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

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

.

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.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

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.

[melbar]

Originally Posted by ChiefRon

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.

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?

[ChiefRon]

Originally Posted by melbar

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

How do you know?

[ChiefRon]

Originally Posted by melbar

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

BTW, I wasn't really comparing the two, although one reason I really prefer Sanchez is his relentless drive to be the best (reminds me of Manning).

My point was, even the best QB in the league right now (arguably) had questions about him when he was coming out.

Every prospect has questions.

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

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.

Not necessarily you, but what I've seen in general from the Sanchez backers the last month and a half:

- "History has no bearing on what will happen." People say that when trying to argue Sanchez's number of starts don't have a good bearing on whether he should be drafted at 3 or not. However, they will then say "history shows us spread quarterbacks suck" when trying to discredit a different QB. In other words, history matters when it supports my position.

- Before Sanchez declared it was Bradford has tons of talent around him. His receivers are always wide open. When someone says that about Sanchez it is shrugged off.

- Last year if someone dared to express the opinion that KC should draft someone that Scott Wright or Mayock had listed as the #8-10 player on their boards, people whined about what a huge reach it would be. Last I looked Wright had Sanchez at 7 or 8, which would mean it is a 4-5 space reach, but those same people no longer think it is a reach.

- A general dishonest analysis of any other player mentioned. I'll see Curry only has X sacks, he can't get to the QB. Maybe, or maybe he wasn't asked to. That would be like me saying Sanchez can't win when coming from behind. Well he wasn't in a position to play from behind on a great USC team. It doesn't mean he can't.

A majority of people who think they know so much about the draft are being the most closed minded people. It's like Voyager took possession of their soul and replaced Trevor Laws with Mark Sanchez.

[melbar]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Question. Singular.

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

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

Assault charge ...dropped but hey thats a concern.

Going against the better advise of everyone around him and coming into the NFL with so little experience is a concern also.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by melbar

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?

He's not.

He's comparing the two as prospects, when both were coming out of college.

There's no such thing as a "lock." Every single college player will have strengths and weaknesses. Unless we're friends with Doc Brown, we're going to have to jump into the pool eventually.

Either Sanchez or Stafford might suck an enormous dick in the pros. Might happen. Hell, both might be terrible. But the same could be said of Curry, or Crabtree, or any of the LT (RT on this team) prospects.

All of these players are going to command huge $ based on the draft position, so missing on any of these players will be equally damaging to the franchise.

There are 2 top QB's coming out. Both have enormous upside, and this team lacks a real option at the most important position on the field.

It's not a tough decision at this point.

[melbar]

Nationwide poll just posted on esnp

Best option for your team if you need a QB

Sanchez 9%

Stafford 28.5%

Cassel 62.4%

I mention this only to say those of us with questions are not the minority...

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

He's not.

He's comparing the two as prospects, when both were coming out of college.

There's no such thing as a "lock." Every single college player will have strengths and weaknesses. Unless we're friends with Doc Brown, we're going to have to jump into the pool eventually.

Either Sanchez or Stafford might suck an enormous dick in the pros. Might happen. Hell, both might be terrible. But the same could be said of Curry, or Crabtree, or any of the LT (RT on this team) prospects.

All of these players are going to command huge $ based on the draft position, so missing on any of these players will be equally damaging to franchise.

There are 2 top QB's coming out. Both have enormous upside, and this team lacks a real option at the most important position on the field.

It's not a tough decision at this point.

Why did the NFL advisory committee give Sanchez a 2nd round grade?

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

Why did the NFL advisory committee give Sanchez a 2nd round grade?

Link?

[melbar]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

He's not.

He's comparing the two as prospects, when both were coming out of college.

There's no such thing as a "lock." Every single college player will have strengths and weaknesses. Unless we're friends with Doc Brown, we're going to have to jump into the pool eventually.

Either Sanchez or Stafford might suck an enormous dick in the pros. Might happen. Hell, both might be terrible. But the same could be said of Curry, or Crabtree, or any of the LT (RT on this team) prospects.

All of these players are going to command huge $ based on the draft position, so missing on any of these players will be equally damaging to franchise.

There are 2 top QB's coming out. Both have enormous upside, and this team lacks a real option at the most important position on the field.

It's not a tough decision at this point.

Ya, I got that. Manning was a far better prospect with much more experience.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by melbar

Ya, I got that. Manning was a far better prospect with much more experience.

The first response was posted while I was still writing.

You didn't get it at first, or you never would have said that comparing the two is ridiculous.