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.

[baitism]

Originally Posted by Darth CarlSatan

Your idiocy alone will suffice for our needs, thank you.

I don't think so. Look at it this way. If we draft a qb we have:

1. No running game
2. Mediocre offensive line
3. One decent receiver (who has alot of drops), and tony g (who might be gone)
4. A defensive line that just set a record for least number of sacks in a seaons
5. Brutal and old linebackers

You could draft the best qb to come of college in 10 years and he would be a bust with that kind of offense. There are no weapons, and you cannot expect a rookie qb to make perfect throws because their receivers can only get a half step of separation. Moreover, they will end up forcing it and throwing INTs. Also, neither of them are great runners...

A good defense can put offenses in a favorable position (TO's, 3 and outs, etc.). That will help a poor offense.

Bottomline, if we want to draft a qb, trade down. One, if not both, of those qb's will be there by pick 10.

[CanadaKC]

how do I get in on this bet? Sanchez at #3....I've alaways said Curry at #3 or trade down....

[Brock]

Originally Posted by baitism

I don't think so. Look at it this way. If we draft a qb we have:

1. No running game
2. Mediocre offensive line
3. One decent receiver (who has alot of drops), and tony g (who might be gone)
4. A defensive line that just set a record for least number of sacks in a seaons
5. Brutal and old linebackers

If you draft a quarterback you can still fix all of those things. Perhaps not in one year, but what does that matter?

[kstater]

Originally Posted by Brock

If you draft a quarterback you can still fix all of those things. Perhaps not in one year, but what does that matter?

Apparently if you draft a QB in round 1, you're not allowed to pick in any other round.

[baitism]

Originally Posted by Brock

If you draft a quarterback you can still fix all of those things. Perhaps not in one year, but what does that matter?

Because the first couple years are critical to a young quarterbacks development. Also, we haven't fixed out offensive problems since LJ's rookie season. I wouldn't expect any leaps and bounds....

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by kstater

Apparently if you draft a QB in round 1, you're not allowed to pick in any other round.

Or sign anyone in free agency.

[Hammock Parties]

So did anyone see the combine reports on Sanchez and Stafford? They're both 6-2.

[CanadaKC]

from NFL draft blitz....I keep posting shit like this every day....when are all the Sanchez pimps going to wake up?

Scott Pioli and Todd Haley will not take many risks during the early part of their Chiefs’ era. Curry may be the safest pick in the entire draft, as his ceiling his “elite” and his floor is “really good”. The Chiefs need tough, physical playmakers in that front seven and Curry can provide the needed boost that defense. Curry, Derrick Johnson, Glenn Dorsey and Brandon Flowers are a nice, young nucleus on defense.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by baitism

Because the first couple years are critical to a young quarterbacks development. Also, we haven't fixed out offensive problems since LJ's rookie season. I wouldn't expect any leaps and bounds....

We didn't fix the offensive problems because we had a coaching staff made up of third grade reeruns. That's no reason not to fill the most important position on the team and get started developing that guy.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by CanadaKC

from NFL draft blitz....I keep posting shit like this every day....when are all the Sanchez pimps going to wake up?

Scott Pioli and Todd Haley will not take many risks during the early part of their Chiefs’ era. Curry may be the safest pick in the entire draft, as his ceiling his “elite” and his floor is “really good”. The Chiefs need tough, physical playmakers in that front seven and Curry can provide the needed boost that defense. Curry, Derrick Johnson, Glenn Dorsey and Brandon Flowers are a nice, young nucleus on defense.

The ever so credible NFL draft blitz. Are you for real?

[CanadaKC]

sorry Brock...I forgot to mention all the other posts from other NFL draft sites saying the same thing...I guess they're all wrong too....right?

[Brock]

Originally Posted by CanadaKC

sorry Brock...I forgot to mention all the other posts from other NFL draft sites saying the same thing...I guess they're all wrong too....right?

There are very few interweb draft sites that know anything, and if you're even bothering with sites like the one you just posted from, you don't know what they are.

[Hammock Parties]

This guy intrigues me as a developmental prospect. 6-3, 225, good arm, good scrambler, ran a really fast 40-yard dash for a QB.

http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/...e-tab-analysis

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by baitism

Because the first couple years are critical to a young quarterbacks development. Also, we haven't fixed out offensive problems since LJ's rookie season. I wouldn't expect any leaps and bounds....

We don't. It's called kicking instant gratification the **** out the door where it belongs, and taking a smarter, long-term approach.

Originally Posted by Claythan

This guy intrigues me as a developmental prospect. 6-3, 225, good arm, good scrambler, ran a really fast 40-yard dash for a QB.

http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/...e-tab-analysis

Jesus!!! For a minute there, I thought Spit Bubble had made the draft this year!
That sneaky little 'tard...

[Rigodan]

For those of you that don't want either of these qbs, what does a college qb have to do for you to want to draft them? You guys seem too have insanely high standards. The problem is that the perfect qb prospect that you would want to draft won't be there next year (don't even say Sam Bradford). If such a prospect ever does appear he will have to be a consensus #1 to meet such high standards and do you really think a Pioli team is going to be picking anywhere near #1 after two years? Why not get our guy now while we're in a position too.

For those of you that say build the defense and o-line that is a blue print for the Minnesota Vikings. Pretty good defense, great o-line and running game, no qb, no playoff wins. No quarterback equals no playoff wins.