NFL Draft Neither Stafford or Sanchez belong in top 10 - Page 13

**chiefforlife** · 02-21-2009, 09:39 AM

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.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 02-21-2009, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soundmind

This take assumes a little that we address a couple players in FA on DEF: DL and LB specifically

I'm assuming from statements much like this one, which I agree with, that you've settled on Albert as your LT for the long haul? Because, for the sake of debate, I can't say I'd have a problem with them taking Monroe with the #3 (play him @ LT), and moving Brandon across the pile to RT...unless that's not something he can do of course...

I realize and sympathize with the need for the QB, and to be honest, if either of these kids have "it" - take them...but presuming they don't, for the sake of debate...I have ZERO problem with a dominant LT.

Jesus ****. Why would you spend the #15 pick on a guy to play RT when he's already proven he can play LT and you can get RTs in the 3rd and 4th rounds? Moreover, why blow a #3 pick on an LT when you already have one and you need a quarterback and there are two elite prospects?

soundmind · 02-21-2009, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

How many right tackles and coverage linebackers who dont rush the passer were taken #3 overall?

I'm certainly not equating the guy to DT or LT, but what is all the negative buzz on Curry's pass rush abilities? That may not have been his highlight reel, but he makes a lot of plays behind the line...the guy is quick.

Clint Sintim seems to me to be the guy if you want a rushing OLB in this one, and he's certainly not that early pick...but I'm just saying, Curry looks solid.

soundmind · 02-21-2009, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Jesus ****. Why would you spend the #15 pick on a guy to play RT when he's already proven he can play LT and you can get RTs in the 3rd and 4th rounds? Moreover, why blow a #3 pick on an LT when you already have one and you need a quarterback and there are two elite prospects?

"for the sake of debate" - do these words mean something other than what I thought? Are you guys all fired up on whiskey and just angry about something?

Deberg_1990 · 02-21-2009, 09:30 PM

Its clear alot of people dont understand draft value and core postions.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 02-21-2009, 09:30 PM

Resign Tony Richardson?

soundmind · 02-21-2009, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Jesus ****. Why would you spend the #15 pick on a guy to play RT when he's already proven he can play LT and you can get RTs in the 3rd and 4th rounds? Moreover, why blow a #3 pick on an LT when you already have one and you need a quarterback and there are two elite prospects?

And I was genuinely just throwing it out for debate, we should, and will draft one of these 2 guys.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 02-21-2009, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soundmind

I'm certainly not equating the guy to DT or LT, but what is all the negative buzz on Curry's pass rush abilities? That may not have been his highlight reel, but he makes a lot of plays behind the line...the guy is quick.

Clint Sintim seems to me to be the guy if you want a rushing OLB in this one, but I'm just sayin...

Aaron Curry isn't Lawrence Taylor. It's not what he does. He's Derrick Brooks if he absolutely becomes everything he could ever hope to be.

Rush backers change games. Cover backers make it more difficult to pass to the tight end and run to the outside.

The mere fact that a guy is a LB doesn't mean he's the same as every other backer.

A 4-3 DE is far different than a 3-4 DE, and a 3-4 DT is far different from a 4-3 DT.

Pioli Zombie · 02-21-2009, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

How many right tackles and coverage linebackers who dont rush the passer were taken #3 overall?

Why are you asking? What does this have to do with anything I've said in this thread. Right tackle? I don't know wtf you are talking about. My position is this. If Pioli determines the qbs in question are good enough to warrant taking them at #3 he will and should do it. If he doesn't then he won't and shouldn't and in the long history of the nfl non quarterbacks have been taken with the #3 and making such a selection was not an act of a reerun.

That is a reasonable position taken by most fans. But the it must be qb no matter what crowd here has bonded together like a gay dance troupe. Enjoy your circle jerk. Please remember to use condoms when inserting your dicks in each others mouths

I'm still waiting to hear more about your leaders position that sanchez should be picked because his brother went to Yale.

Asswipes.
Posted via Mobile Device

soundmind · 02-21-2009, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Resign Tony Richardson?

Oh c'mon....how can you not love TRICH!?!

'Hamas' Jenkins · 02-21-2009, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soundmind

And I was genuinely just throwing it out for debate, we should, and will draft one of these 2 guys.

Ok.

Here's why you can't.

You've already given Branden Albert 10-15 million in guarantees and close to 30 overall.

If you moved him to RT that makes him one of the highest paid RTs in the league, which is a far less important position than LT, a position at which he has shown pro bowl potential, and at which he isn't even paid that much.

Plus, most RTs in this league are mid rounders.

So if you move Albert to RT you do several things--

You significantly decrease his draft value
You significantly hamper your cap because you are far above the average pay scale for the position at which he'll play
You move him to a less important position on the OL which he is not as well suited to play.

Moreover, you've created a hole at the most important position on the offensive line.

So, would you rather pay Branden Albert 30 mil to protect your blindside, and someone like Feneki Tupou 3 million, and draft a guy like Sanchez or Stafford to be your franchise QB...

or,

Would you rather pay Eugene Monroe 55 million, Albert 30, and have Tyler Thigpen as your franchise QB, while paying Nate Davis or Rhett Bomar 3-5 million?

It doesn't make any sense.

Sweet Daddy Hate · 02-21-2009, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pioli Zombie

Why are you asking? What does this have to do with anything I've said in this thread. Right tackle? I don't know wtf you are talking about. My position is this. If Pioli determines the qbs in question are good enough to warrant taking them at #3 he will and should do it. If he doesn't then he won't and shouldn't and in the long history of the nfl non quarterbacks have been taken with the #3 and making such a selection was not an act of a reerun.

That is a reasonable position taken by most fans. But the it must be qb no matter what crowd here has bonded together like a gay dance troupe. Enjoy your circle jerk. Please remember to condoms when inserting your dicks in each others mouths

I'm still waiting to hear more about your leaders position that sanchez should be picked because his brother went to Yale.

Asswipes.
Posted via Mobile Device

You are a complete ****ing cum rag.

soundmind · 02-21-2009, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Aaron Curry isn't Lawrence Taylor. It's not what he does. He's Derrick Brooks if he absolutely becomes everything he could ever hope to be.

Rush backers change games. Cover backers make it more difficult to pass to the tight end and run to the outside.

The mere fact that a guy is a LB doesn't mean he's the same as every other backer.

A 4-3 DE is far different than a 3-4 DE, and a 3-4 DT is far different from a 4-3 DT.

Definitely, there's no denying any of that, but hell, Brooks changed a lot of games too. No doubt there's a lot to be said for schemes and specific talents of individuals...

unothadeal · 02-21-2009, 09:42 PM

We need to get Michael Johnson with our 1st because he might not make it to when we draft in the 2nd.

**DeezNutz** · 02-21-2009, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Would you rather pay Eugene Monroe 55 million, Albert 30, and have Tyler Thigpen as your franchise QB, while paying Nate Davis or Rhett Bomar 3-5 million?

Of course! Because it's safer!

The only position that has ever busted--there's that mother****ing word, again-- in round 1 in the history of the NFL draft is QB.

ChiefsCountry · 02-21-2009, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pioli Zombie

Why are you asking? What does this have to do with anything I've said in this thread. Right tackle? I don't know wtf you are talking about. My position is this. If Pioli determines the qbs in question are good enough to warrant taking them at #3 he will and should do it. If he doesn't then he won't and shouldn't and in the long history of the nfl non quarterbacks have been taken with the #3 and making such a selection was not an act of a reerun.
Posted via Mobile Device

Because this explains why QB should be our pick.

02-21-2009, 09:39 AM
chiefforlife Colorado Chief Fan Join Date: Feb 2006 Casino cash: $5493147	Neither Stafford or Sanchez belong in top 10 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.
Posts: 5,717

02-21-2009, 09:30 PM	#184
Deberg_1990 In Search of a Life Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: San Antonio Tx. Casino cash: $134454	Its clear alot of people dont understand draft value and core postions. __________________ Originally Posted by Cassel's Reckoning: Matt once made a very nice play in Seattle where he spun away from a pass rusher and hit Bowe off his back foot for a first down. One of the best plays Matt has ever made.
Posts: 68,652

02-21-2009, 09:30 PM	#185
'Hamas' Jenkins Now you've pissed me off! Join Date: Jan 2006 Casino cash: $7149572	Resign Tony Richardson? __________________ "When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”--Abraham Lincoln
Posts: 75,083

02-21-2009, 09:42 PM	#193
unothadeal HOF 20?? Join Date: Dec 2006 Casino cash: $3206120	We need to get Michael Johnson with our 1st because he might not make it to when we draft in the 2nd.
Posts: 6,146