Draft '09: The Quarterbacks - Page 8

The Poz · 02-06-2009, 03:17 PM

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.

**DeezNutz** · 02-13-2009, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

Carroll came out and said that Sanchez received a 2nd round grade from the advisory committee and that after speaking with his NFL contacts it was much better for Mark to return. Why would Carroll lie about that? Sanchez never refuted it. Supposedly just about everyone told Sanchez to go back to school. He didn't listen and he has now hired his brother (an attorney who has never represented NFL prospects before) to be his agent. He's making some questionable decisions.

You're completely entitled to this opinion, and nothing I say will probably make you think otherwise. Enough has already been posted to refute this line of argumentation, so I won't continue to repeat...

"The great thing is, there will be a draft. And we'll all have opinions. And there will be selections. And we'll all talk about it. It's the draft." /Herm/

**OnTheWarpath15** · 02-13-2009, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by melbar

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.

Only a concern to you.

You think Pete Carroll is looking out for his best interests?

Were talking about a guy that cost Matt Leinart MILLIONS of dollars by telling him he should stay in school. Leinart likely would have been the #1 pick that year over Alex Smith had he declared.

Pete's pissed that his chances for a NC went to the pros. Nothing more, nothing less, and when Sanchez is drafted well before the 2nd round, Sanchez's decision will be vindicated.

It's laughable to think that Mark Sanchez will be a 2nd round pick.

**DeezNutz** · 02-13-2009, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by melbar

OK. Most. Better?

Yes, get the money and more power to you. But It doesnt mean he should be a top 5 pick or that he accomplished anywhere near what Peyton did in TN.

I think it can be said that College FB better prepares you for the Pro game. There is a lot more to learn in FB than BB from high school to the pros.

Agreed. And thus you would also agree that Sanchez was in one of the best college programs to prepare him for the NFL?

He was in this system for years, plural. Therefore he's probably better prepared than a QB who was in a less sophisticated system for one, ONE, additional year.

Look, if 12 more games experience would make or break a player, he probably wasn't the answer to begin with.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 02-13-2009, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by melbar

If you look up top 100 rankings and start to go through them, especially the ones just before Bradford decided to stay in had him in the 40-50 overall rankings. Course that is before bowl games...just saying.

Link?

Most draft sites didn't even have Sanchez LISTED, because people thought he's stay in school, like every other USC QB has done since Todd Marinovich.

The common factor?

Pete Carroll.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 02-13-2009, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

And Gonzo says that Thigpen should be the starter.

Carroll has no reason, none what so ****ing ever, to have been pissed about Sanchez's decision to leave.

Think about this logically. Do you think Sanchez would have declared if he really believed, based on all the info presented to him, that he'd be a second rounder?

If this were the case, of course he would have returned to school.

This.

The lack of common sense around here amazes me.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 02-13-2009, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Agreed. And thus you would also agree that Sanchez was in one of the best college programs to prepare him for the NFL?

He was in this system for years, plural. Therefore he's probably better prepared than a QB who was in a less sophisticated system for one, ONE, additional year.

Look, if 12 more games experience would make or break a player, he probably wasn't the answer to begin with.

Again, spot on.

Chiefnj2 · 02-13-2009, 01:35 PM

OTWP:
I'm not going to keep going back and forth, but just a few quick points and I'm done:

- USC has talent on offense. Look at any of the Sanchez montage's circulating and you'll see WR's wide open time and time again. They blew out the majority of their competition and it wasn't just because of Sanchez. If a QB could make that difference himself than Georgia would have went undefeated.

- As for Curry not getting after the QB. Coaches make mistakes all the time. Look at the idiotic moves that were made in KC at the pro level and how players are consistently misused. Curry's lack of sacks is a discussion point, as would be a discussion about whether Sanchez can be a good come from behind QB.

-We'll see what Sanchez' final grades are in late April. I doubt he'll be top 10 in many (overall player rankings, not mocks) at the end of the day.

ChiefsCountry · 02-13-2009, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

-We'll see what Sanchez' final grades are in late April. I doubt he'll be top 10 in many (overall player rankings, not mocks) at the end of the day.

Bullshit on that one.

melbar · 02-13-2009, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Agreed. And thus you would also agree that Sanchez was in one of the best college programs to prepare him for the NFL?

He was in this system for years, plural. Therefore he's probably better prepared than a QB who was in a less sophisticated system for one, ONE, additional year.

Look, if 12 more games experience would make or break a player, he probably wasn't the answer to begin with.

Yes he was in a great program. I just think game experience is huge. Like I've said, I get into these debates and it looks like I hate the kid and I dont. My concern is the less you know or the more questions you have about a player, the more nervous you should be about picking him high. The risk is higher because there is less known. There is risk in every pick, but higher picks typically have less questions. I just dont want this team too draft another Blackledge. A less experienced QB behind a bad line is historically recipe for disaster.

Chiefnj2 · 02-13-2009, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Only a concern to you.

You think Pete Carroll is looking out for his best interests?

Were talking about a guy that cost Matt Leinart MILLIONS of dollars by telling him he should stay in school. Leinart likely would have been the #1 pick that year over Alex Smith had he declared.

Pete's pissed that his chances for a NC went to the pros. Nothing more, nothing less, and when Sanchez is drafted well before the 2nd round, Sanchez's decision will be vindicated.

It's laughable to think that Mark Sanchez will be a 2nd round pick.

If Sanchez isn't taken to #10 how many millions would he have lost if he returned to school and was the #1 pick in 2010?

**OnTheWarpath15** · 02-13-2009, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

OTWP:
I'm not going to keep going back and forth, but just a few quick points and I'm done:

- USC has talent on offense. Look at any of the Sanchez montage's circulating and you'll see WR's wide open time and time again. They blew out the majority of their competition and it wasn't just because of Sanchez. If a QB could make that difference himself than Georgia would have went undefeated.

Ever hear of busted coverage? I'm not the one who needs a 3 minute You Tube clip to judge a QB, I've actually seen his games, in their entirety.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

- As for Curry not getting after the QB. Coaches make mistakes all the time. Look at the idiotic moves that were made in KC at the pro level and how players are consistently misused. Curry's lack of sacks is a discussion point, as would be a discussion about whether Sanchez can be a good come from behind QB.

So now WF's coaching staff is reeruned, that way you can make your point. Got it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

-We'll see what Sanchez' final grades are in late April. I doubt he'll be top 10 in many (overall player rankings, not mocks) at the end of the day.

Uh, no you won't.

TEAMS don't disclose their grades on players. (unless they happen to mention a player in passing in a book or article)

I could care less how Mel Kiper Jr. grades him, or any other experts.

That's why they are sitting behind computers or TV stages COMMENTING on the draft, and not making the selections.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 02-13-2009, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

If Sanchez isn't taken to #10 how many millions would he have lost if he returned to school and was the #1 pick in 2010?

How many millions would he have lost if he went back to USC and blew out his knee?

We can do this all day.

USC QB's don't leave early, even when they are more than capable of doing so.

The common factor?

Pete Carroll.

Chiefnj2 · 02-13-2009, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Ever hear of busted coverage? I'm not the one who needs a 3 minute You Tube clip to judge a QB, I've actually seen his games, in their entirety.

So now WF's coaching staff is reeruned, that way you can make your point. Got it.

Uh, no you won't.

TEAMS don't disclose their grades on players. (unless they happen to mention a player in passing in a book or article)

I could care less how Mel Kiper Jr. grades him, or any other experts.

That's why they are sitting behind computers or TV stages COMMENTING on the draft, and not making the selections.

Now you don't care where Kiper or other experts grade him, but 20 minutes ago you used it as a basis to draft him:

"There is 1 QB that is consistently getting a Top 5 grade, and one that is getting a grade anywhere from 1-10."

**OnTheWarpath15** · 02-13-2009, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

Now you don't care where Kiper or other experts grade him, but 20 minutes ago you used it as a basis to draft him:

"There is 1 QB that is consistently getting a Top 5 grade, and one that is getting a grade anywhere from 1-10."

God, you're an idiot.

My basis for drafting him is that he's as good a prospect coming out as past QB's I've personally rated highly - Ben Roethlisberger and Jay Cutler, to be specific.

He has every physical tool you look for in a QB, delivers the ball precisely under pressure, has a tremendous work ethic, is accurate, throws well on the run, is intelligent, played in a pro-style system that will make his transition to the NFL much easier, the list goes on and on.

Unlike the majority of this board, I don't need Mel Kiper, or Mike Mayock to tell me which prospects I should like, and which one's I shouldn't.

I watch the games for myself, and come to my own conclusions.

ChiefRon · 02-13-2009, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

He has every physical tool you look for in a QB, delivers the ball precisely under pressure, has a tremendous work ethic, is accurate, throws well on the run, is intelligent, played in a pro-style system that will make his transition to the NFL much easier, the list goes on and on..

JFC, with our current Qb situation, what else do you need to know?

We should feel thrilled if he falls to #3 because he "lacks experience".

02-06-2009, 03:17 PM
The Poz Enjoyer of things Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Toronto Casino cash: $10012210	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.
Posts: 2,178

02-13-2009, 01:35 PM	#112
Chiefnj2 In Search of a Life Join Date: Mar 2007 Casino cash: $6654388	OTWP: I'm not going to keep going back and forth, but just a few quick points and I'm done: - USC has talent on offense. Look at any of the Sanchez montage's circulating and you'll see WR's wide open time and time again. They blew out the majority of their competition and it wasn't just because of Sanchez. If a QB could make that difference himself than Georgia would have went undefeated. - As for Curry not getting after the QB. Coaches make mistakes all the time. Look at the idiotic moves that were made in KC at the pro level and how players are consistently misused. Curry's lack of sacks is a discussion point, as would be a discussion about whether Sanchez can be a good come from behind QB. -We'll see what Sanchez' final grades are in late April. I doubt he'll be top 10 in many (overall player rankings, not mocks) at the end of the day. __________________ Mismanaging the clock.
Posts: 22,541