Draft '09: The Quarterbacks

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

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.

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.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

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.

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.

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

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.

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.

[melbar]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

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.

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.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

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.

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.

[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.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

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.

Fair point

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

- 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.

It's shrugged off because it's bullshit, and anyone that knows anything about college football or watched USC in more than the Rose Bowl knows this.

All of their talent is on the defensive side of the ball. I'd be curious to see what Mecca thinks of this, but I don't see a single 1st round talent on that offense other than Sanchez, and I'm not sure I see any 2nd round guys either. Patrick Turner is a late round guy, Scott Wright thinks he could go undrafted. There's no one on the OL that would warrant a pick before the 4th.

Fact is, he had very little talent around him. People assume because it's USC that they were stocked at every position - far from it on offense.

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

- 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.

QB is the most important position on the field, and is subject to different rules, and you know it. As someone else pointed out recently, if you have the opportunity to draft what you think is a franchise QB at 3, and know that he won't be available at your next pick, you take him, even if it's considered a reach by fans and draft experts.

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

- 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.

That's not dishonest at all, and your comparison is completely flawed.

Regarding Curry: If the kid was a phenomenal pass rusher, wouldn't it be stupid of the coaches to make the kids play in coverage? Do the Colts ask Peyton Manning to not throw the ball downfield? Hell no. Players are asked to do things that fit what they do best.

As for what you said about Sanchez, there are completely different factors that go into getting that opportunity. No one has any control over that situation, where the WF coaching staff has all the control when it comes to putting Curry in a position to succeed.

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

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.

I don't see people being close minded, I see people that stick to their beliefs, and the way this draft is shaking out, in concert with our needs, it makes it look like people are being closed minded.

Positional value hasn't changed since last year

There are 3 positions that are generally worth a Top 5 pick: QB, LT, DE

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

There are 3 LT's that are getting a Top 10 grade. We already have our LTOTF.

There are no DE's getting a Top 10 grade.

That's what is putting the clamps on people.

[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.

- 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.