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.

[Rigodan]

Originally Posted by Pioli Zombie

The ones when he was screwing your sister
Posted via Mobile Device

That's funny. I remember you on your high horse earlier saying name calling was out of line.

[CrazyHorse]

Originally Posted by Brock

Without that game winning drive by the franchise QB, they lose.

Yeah. That and a 14 point swing by the defense. Without the D they are 17 points behind on that last drive.

Let's just put it this way. Without that defense, they're not in the SB. You are intimating that the #1 defense in the league was responsible than the middle of the road offense.

In the SB, Rothlesburger wasn't even the best QB on the field. the best offense was the Cards. they didn't win. The team with the best defense won.

[CanadaKC]

check it out then...and then me what you think..it sounds now as if you've never even been on that site...

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Pioli Zombie

Who needs espn, nfl.com,cbs,sporting news, nfl network, fox sports. Any publications or websites

I've got you guys who know so much more

So pathetic.
Posted via Mobile Device

Personally, I could give a rat's ass what you think of me or my opinion. We're not talking about ESPN or fox sports, we're talking about some website that puts NFL DRAFT in their name and dumbshits like you think that means something.

[FAX]

Originally Posted by Rigodan

That's funny. I remember you on your high horse earlier saying name calling was out of line.

Yes. I've noticed with some concern that El Zombo either has a double standard or none at all.

FAX

[Brock]

Originally Posted by CanadaKC

check it out then...and then me what you think..it sounds now as if you've never even been on that site...

I tried looking at it, but the ad for the FREE NINTENDO WII had me instantly disinterested. It's amateur bullshit, just like you're reading here.

[Mecca]

Only on a Chiefs forum could someone make the argument the Steelers defense won the bowl after folding like a ****ing chair at the end of the game.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Rigodan

You're right, you do need offense and defense. This year is void of elite defensive talent, has two potential franchise qbs, and really doesn't provide any elite talent at positions the chiefs need other than qb. Next year is void of franchise quarterbacks and will be loaded with defensive talent at the top of the draft. 2 years from now I'd figure Pioli will have us picking out of the top ten so you may never be in a position to get that top quaterback talent. If you concede you need a franchise qb to win a Super Bowl the "safe" thing to do is draft him this year.

There are potentially "great" defensive players on the board, too. The rest of your post is just the same argument that the Sanchez kneepad crew keeps making over and over. If Pioli thinks there's a quarterback at #3 who's a franchise QB, I expect he'll take him. If not, I expect he'll draft a defender. Of course, the 3rd option is Cassel, and that has several possible permutations, any/all of which would have some people here going apoplectic.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Mecca

Only on a Chiefs forum could someone make the argument the Steelers defense won the bowl after folding like a ****ing chair at the end of the game.

The last time I checked, a football game was 60 minutes long, barring overtime.

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

The last time I checked, a football game was 60 minutes long, barring overtime.

And without a QB they lose...just like the 90s Chiefs always did in big games.

[CrazyHorse]

Originally Posted by Mecca

Only on a Chiefs forum could someone make the argument the Steelers defense won the bowl after folding like a ****ing chair at the end of the game.

The Steelers and their all world f'n QB should have managed more than 17 poinst against a lousy defense like the Cards. The Steeler defense still held them down and gave a mediocre performance from the lesser of the 2 QBs to be good enough to win.

Since when is 17 points agains a bottom ranked defense a great performance in a SB?

You just make it up as you go.

That defense is responsible for the win. Harrison, an OLB won that game.

Warner>Rothlesburger.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Mecca

And without a QB they lose...just like the 90s Chiefs always did in big games.

Without a defense, they lose too. You're making a poor argument.

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by Mecca

Only on a Chiefs forum could someone make the argument the Steelers defense won the bowl after folding like a ****ing chair at the end of the game.

The 99 yard INT return for a TD was a game changer.

[soundmind]

Originally Posted by Mecca

Only on a Chiefs forum could someone make the argument the Steelers defense won the bowl after folding like a ****ing chair at the end of the game.

Yeah, plus that Defense had nothing to do with getting them TO the Super Bowl - it was all Ben?

QBs don't allow for teleportation to the big dance last I checked - that D was SOLID and the main reason they got there and won.

Ben & Co. got it at times, but never carried them once throughout the season really, he actually had a pretty subpar year...though they were def stricken at RB all season.

[SAUTO]

"i dont care about how you were hugged when you were little, if you got enough eatin, if this stuff's boring you that i'm tellin ya you're in the wrong sport" just heard john lott tell the guys that at the combine