NFL Draft Neither Stafford or Sanchez belong in top 10 - Page 30

**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.

Chiefshrink · 02-22-2009, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

If you want the best, you get the best. Given how important the LT position is, if Monroe or Smith grade out very high relative to other tackles, why wouldn't you want the best in the business?

Christ, for all the people talking about "taking risks", you guys sure play the draft completely by the book.

Thankyou

milkman · 02-22-2009, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

Giants did draft Phillp Rivers.

Before the draft, Manning was considered the best QB prospect by a wide margin.

The difference between the top LTs in this draft, as Hamas has already pointed out, is razor thin.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 02-22-2009, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

The Giants traded up for Eli Manning when they could have easily taken Philip Rivers in a draft class that was one of the deepest QB classes of all time. If you want the best, you get the best. Given how important the LT position is, if Monroe or Smith grade out very high relative to other tackles, why wouldn't you want the best in the business?

Christ, for all the people talking about "taking risks", you guys sure play the draft completely by the book.

Matt Light
Max Starks
David Diehl

vs.

Willie Pace
Walter Jones
Anthony Munoz

The top 3 played the 2nd most position on the 0, and won the Super Bowl. The bottom 3 are among the 5 greatest to ever play their position, and have won 0.

Which position is more important?

Why might the Giants want to trade up in their situation?

Rivers had huge ?s surrounding his sidearm/funky throwing motion. Eli Manning was as polished of a product as you'd find.

You don't need an elite LT to win a Super Bowl. Hell, he doesn't even have to be anything more than good. You need a franchise QB to win the Super Bowl, and that's why NY made their move.

**DeezNutz** · 02-22-2009, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

Before the draft, Manning was considered the best QB prospect by a wide margin.

The difference between the top LTs in this draft, as Hamas has already pointed out, is razor thin.

Hell, the top prospect by many accounts just shit all over himself this weekend.

Chiefshrink · 02-22-2009, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Hell, the top prospect by many accounts just shit all over himself this weekend.

Yes he did but don't be surprised if he is still the 1st taken he is 'that' good. You play that card if he is there and you know you don't want him.

Chiefshrink · 02-22-2009, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Matt Light
Max Starks
David Diehl

vs.

Willie Pace
Walter Jones
Anthony Munoz

The top 3 played the 2nd most position on the 0, and won the Super Bowl. The bottom 3 are among the 5 greatest to ever play their position, and have won 0.

Which position is more important?

Why might the Giants want to trade up in their situation?

Rivers had huge ?s surrounding his sidearm/funky throwing motion. Eli Manning was as polished of a product as you'd find.

You don't need an elite LT to win a Super Bowl. Hell, he doesn't even have to be anything more than good. You need a franchise QB to win the Super Bowl, and that's why KC made their move.

Willie Anderson or Orlando Pace?

chiefzilla1501 · 02-22-2009, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

1 cover backer taken in the top 3 in the last 20 years, and people are not only going to draft him at 3, but trade up to draft him at 3, and make him the highest paid LB in the league?

1 team in the top 11 runs a 3-4 and needs a NT. No one is trading their whole draft for BJ Raji.

No one is trading up to 3 for a 6'1" WR with a broken foot and speed ?s who comes from a spread offense, and Jeremy Maclin isn't going anywhere near 3.

But again. Why are we so stuck on this idea that a team has to give up their entire draft to move up to a top 3 in a weak draft class and reluctantly take a guy they knew they could get 4 or 5 spots down? ESPECIALLY when there are maybe 3 or 4 guys that you would be fairly equally happy with?

I don't get it. If you don't like either Sanchez or Stafford, chances are that if you trade down to 5 or 6, you probably still get a guy you highly covet. And you get picks on the side.

Again, for a board that keeps complaining about never taking risks, I don't understand why there is such a fear to move a little away from the draft chart if you don't like what you have on your plate. Can I again bring up that the only trade into the top 3, Rivers-Eli only happened because San Diego knocked off a huge chunk of trade compensation value? Think San Diego regrets that trade? I sure don't. The Giants don't either.

Pioli Zombie · 02-22-2009, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth CarlSatan

I think it's time to just torch this ****ing thread. You three are goddamned idiots.

instead of swearing at people perhaps you would like to actually add something to the football conversation
Posted via Mobile Device

Chiefshrink · 02-22-2009, 09:51 PM

If I'm a betting man which I am not but if forced to I would say either we will take Curry or trade down at this point. And please fellow Chieftains who are sooooooooooooo desperate for QB pick with our 3rd pick pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease don't be surprised if Pioli trades down or takes Curry.

**DeezNutz** · 02-22-2009, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Again, for a board that keeps complaining about never taking risks, I don't understand why there is such a fear to move a little away from the draft chart if you don't like what you have on your plate. Can I again bring up that the only trade into the top 3, Rivers-Eli only happened because San Diego knocked off a huge chunk of trade compensation value? Think San Diego regrets that trade? I sure don't. The Giants don't either.

This is a terrible example to use to prove anything.

Manning told the people in that organization to go **** themselves. They possessed zero leverage, and thus this was a special case.

milkman · 02-22-2009, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pioli Zombie

instead of swearing at people perhaps you would like to actually add something to the football conversation
Posted via Mobile Device

Oh....The irony.

milkman · 02-22-2009, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sportsshrink

If I'm a betting man which I am not but if forced to I would say either we will take Curry or trade down at this point. And please fellow Chieftains who are sooooooooooooo desperate for QB pick with our 3rd pick pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease don't be surprised if Pioli trades down or takes Curry.

You should bet your life savings.

Chiefshrink · 02-22-2009, 09:54 PM

Hey what about Max Unger with our 2nd rd pick if he is there?

Pioli Zombie · 02-22-2009, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth CarlSatan

Or maybe I can send him to Kansas to **** your old lady in the ass while I make you watch, and then knock your teeth down your ****ing throat for shits and giggles afterwards!

How'd THAT be, mother****er?

Uncle Leo????
Posted via Mobile Device

milkman · 02-22-2009, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sportsshrink

Hey what about Max Unger with our 2nd rd pick if he is there?

We should trade down for more picks.

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