Neither Stafford or Sanchez belong in top 10

[chiefforlife]

SOME DON’T VIEW STAFFORD, SANCHEZ AS TOP TEN PICKS
Posted by Mike Florio on February 21, 2009, 8:21 a.m.

Our initial mock draft of the year created plenty of consternation among folks who regard such matters even more importantly that some of our other readers regard their chosen religion.

And, yes, we were trying to make a point with the thing. At this stage, none of the draft experts (i.e., guys who couldn’t get or hold a scouting job with an NFL team and who instead tried to create a niche in the media for the stuff no NFL team would pay them to do) know with any degree of certainty what will occur on draft day.

Apart from the premature nature of prognosticating the events of late April is the fact that every NFL team makes its own decisions for its own reasons, especially in round one. Some draft based on need. Others take the best available player. And when 32 teams have different views on how those available players are ranked from best to worst, the stage is set for all sorts of screwy stuff.

We could have created even more consternation by dropping Georgia quarterback Matt Stafford and USC quarterback Mark Sanchez out of the top ten. In some war rooms, it’s an accurate view of the two players.

Said one source, “In other years those guys aren’t first-round picks. Stafford played well in 2007 but was horrible in 2008. He stunk in all their big games.”

The source specifically pointed to the contests against Alabama, Florida, and Tennessee. Based on the numbers, Stafford was bad against Florida, mediocre against Alabama, and decent against Tennessee.

“He is an average leader at best,” the source opined. “When you put a lot of pressure on him, he pees his pants. Detroit has a new front office, but if they take him then it’s the same old stuff. I guarantee that if he goes in the top 20 he will never play to the level he was drafted.

“What he has is physical skills,” the source added. “He has a strong arm and is athletic but he also has poor instincts and poor decision-making.”

Some might disagree with that assessment. But the point is that, when you’ve got a bunch of different folks assessing the same players, there will be significant variations from person to person.

“As far as Sanchez,” the source said, “he is a more solid choice. He played in a pro style offense. He’s accurate and has a good arm. He’s smart and a leader.

“The negative is he was a one-year starter. Tell me the last time a quarterback who was a one-year starter in college made it big in the NFL? Game time is huge with quarterbacks. Granted, from a money standpoint he made the right decision, but from the standpoint of having a top career, his decision has to be questioned.”

(And, no, our source isn’t Pete Carroll.)

So there you have it. Evidence of how the viewpoints on supposedly top players can diverge dramatically. It makes the process of predicting draft picks even more precarious. So, in the end, we think the final tally of players taken two months from now would presently seem every bit as goofy and unrealistic as some viewed our initial Pre-Combine Mock Draft.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by The Bad Guy

Yes, let's move Albert. Let's move the one good thing we had last year on the offensive line into a position we don't know how well he'll play or adjust to.

While we are at it, let's move Tony Gonzalez to RT. He can block well and it's easier to get TEs - especially with how fast they ran yesterday.

I wish someone would go Chris Brown on Pioli Zombie already.

Ok, let's take a slightly different approach. For the sake of discussion, let's say that both Stafford and Sanchez are drafted before the Chiefs pick, and the Chiefs decided to keep the pick, either because they really wanted it or because they couldn't trade out. What would be your top 3 preferred players at that point?

[kstater]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Ok, let's take a slightly different approach. For the sake of discussion, let's say that both Stafford and Sanchez are drafted before the Chiefs pick, and the Chiefs decided to keep the pick, either because they really wanted it or because they couldn't trade out. What would be your top 3 preferred players at that point?

IF it were to somehow play out like that, I'd take Jenkins, Everett Brown, or Raji.

[kstater]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

They can't exactly take them #1 when they aren't picking there. As I said, different teams take different approaches. The Patriots build from the defensive line first, so you see Wilfork, Seymour and Warren going in the first. The Cowboys trade their first round picks a lot but, when they keep the picks, they tend to focus on defense. With Manning to build around and the concept being "Get ahead and then pressure the opponent with speed", the Colts focus more on the offensive side of the ball and grab their defenders a bit later on.

It's really just a matter of team approach. The "top 15" part of the argument is a loaded question, because any team consistently drafting in the "top 15" is a team that you don't want to follow anyway, usually because they draft poorly along with everything else. Thus, the "top 15" argument really says "do teams that suck draft OL and then move them around?".

Or, to put it another way..... Irregardless of the actual player picked, when Millen was still running the show in Detroit, did you have more faith in Millen drafting in the top 10 or in NE, Pitt, Bal and Ind drafting at the bottom of the round?

Quick, what's 1 common theme between the teams you listed there, Dallas, NE Pitt and Baltimore?

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by kstater

Quick, what's 1 common theme between the teams you listed there, Dallas, NE Pitt and Baltimore?

Well, one common theme would be that they run the 3-4.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by kstater

For shits and giggles, I went and looked at the Cowboys draft history. The last time the Cowboys drafted OL in the 1st round PERIOD was 1980 and 81, with the 26th and 27th picks respectively.

The 91 and 92 Patriots selected a Tackle at 11th and 13th. However in 91 the Patriots had two 1st round picks. And the '92 pick wasn't even on the roster in 95. And the '91 pick wasn't on the roster in 96. Neither helped the Patriots reach the Super Bowl.

It's always disappointing to see otherwise good posters like kstater do some actual research and compile facts and statistics to back his argument.

This type of approach usually lends to ridiculous levels of argumentation.

[soundmind]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Ok, let's take a slightly different approach. For the sake of discussion, let's say that both Stafford and Sanchez are drafted before the Chiefs pick, and the Chiefs decided to keep the pick, either because they really wanted it or because they couldn't trade out. What would be your top 3 preferred players at that point?

Originally Posted by kstater

IF it were to somehow play out like that, I'd take Jenkins, Everett Brown, or Raji.

There's absolutely no way you take Raji if you're the Chiefs. For a myriad of reasons, but most being that you already spent that pick last year on Dorsey. That's the nearly the same argument against drafting an OT in this position.

I read this morning as well that Haynesworth is not being offered what he wants, I guess something like $9M per, when his thoughts are more in the neighborhood of $12-13...sounds a lot like top 5 money...I know there are some questions, particularly Dorsey-related ones, but ESPECIALLY if we go to the 3-4, how do you not call him if you're considering Raji?

[The Bad Guy]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Ok, let's take a slightly different approach. For the sake of discussion, let's say that both Stafford and Sanchez are drafted before the Chiefs pick, and the Chiefs decided to keep the pick, either because they really wanted it or because they couldn't trade out. What would be your top 3 preferred players at that point?

1) Aaron Curry
2) BJ Raji
3) Everette Brown

[The Bad Guy]

Originally Posted by soundmind

There's absolutely no way you take Raji if you're the Chiefs. For a myriad of reasons, but most being that you already spent that pick last year on Dorsey. That's the nearly the same argument against drafting an OT in this position.

I read this morning as well that Haynesworth is not being offered what he wants, I guess something like $9M per, when his thoughts are more in the neighborhood of $12-13...sounds a lot like top 5 money...I know there are some questions, particularly Dorsey-related ones, but ESPECIALLY if we go to the 3-4, how do you not call him if you're considering Raji?

If his asking price is under 30 mill guaranteed, I call him.

However, I think due to Haynesworth character concerns, and injury history, that he's not nearly as motivated once he gets his money.

I'm not taking a RT 3rd overall. No how, no way. The Chiefs could draft Wood, sign a Jason Brown and keep Herb Taylor at RT and have a pretty good line.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Ok, let's take a slightly different approach. For the sake of discussion, let's say that both Stafford and Sanchez are drafted before the Chiefs pick, and the Chiefs decided to keep the pick, either because they really wanted it or because they couldn't trade out. What would be your top 3 preferred players at that point?

1. Raji
2. Brown
3. Curry

With the possibility of needing to revise.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by soundmind

There's absolutely no way you take Raji if you're the Chiefs. For a myriad of reasons, but most being that you already spent that pick last year on Dorsey. That's the nearly the same argument against drafting an OT in this position.

I read this morning as well that Haynesworth is not being offered what he wants, I guess something like $9M per, when his thoughts are more in the neighborhood of $12-13...sounds a lot like top 5 money...I know there are some questions, particularly Dorsey-related ones, but ESPECIALLY if we go to the 3-4, how do you not call him if you're considering Raji?

Because if the team does switch to the 3-4, you don't have a DT beside Tank, and the Dorsey selection might be effectively burned anyway.

Why? Youth, and if you're taking him #3, you better think he has all the talent in the world.

[kstater]

Originally Posted by soundmind

There's absolutely no way you take Raji if you're the Chiefs. For a myriad of reasons, but most being that you already spent that pick last year on Dorsey. That's the nearly the same argument against drafting an OT in this position.

I read this morning as well that Haynesworth is not being offered what he wants, I guess something like $9M per, when his thoughts are more in the neighborhood of $12-13...sounds a lot like top 5 money...I know there are some questions, particularly Dorsey-related ones, but ESPECIALLY if we go to the 3-4, how do you not call him if you're considering Raji?

If they switch to a 3-4, Raji is the NT. DL switch out much more often than OL as well.

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by The Bad Guy

If his asking price is under 30 mill guaranteed, I call him.

However, I think due to Haynesworth character concerns, and injury history, that he's not nearly as motivated once he gets his money.

I'm not taking a RT 3rd overall. No how, no way. The Chiefs could draft Wood, sign a Jason Brown and keep Herb Taylor at RT and have a pretty good line.

my thoughts exactly, our line might just go from major weakness to somewhat strength

[kstater]

It's a moot point anyway. The scenario of both QB's going 1,2 is setting at about 1% right now.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by kstater

It's a moot point anyway. The scenario of both QB's going 1,2 is setting at about 1% right now.

Perhaps, but I framed it that way just to get the "SANCHEZ!!!!!!!" people out of the equation. The same question would apply if the Chiefs decided that Sanchez wasn't worth taking at #3.

[soundmind]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Because if the team does switch to the 3-4, you don't have a DT beside Tank, and the Dorsey selection might be effectively burned anyway.

Why? Youth, and if you're taking him #3, you better think he has all the talent in the world.

Originally Posted by kstater

If they switch to a 3-4, Raji is the NT. DL switch out much more often than OL as well.

Originally Posted by kstater

It's a moot point anyway. The scenario of both QB's going 1,2 is setting at about 1% right now.

That was exactly why I brought up Haynesworth, no matter which front we decide on, we need help up front on defense too...we're taking a QB IMO, and that would mean no Raji....

But I was curious reading some of the responses, would you prefer BJ Raji over Albert Haynesworth?

For the record though, if I can't take the QB, I'm taking Raji b/c I think he's the BPA that's not OT.