NFL Draft Neither Stafford or Sanchez belong in top 10 - Page 31

**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.

ChiefsCountry · 02-22-2009, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

You should bet your life savings.

Dane's offered all of this casino cash that the Chiefs would take Sanchez with their pick and no one has bit.

Chiefshrink · 02-22-2009, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

We should trade down for more picks.

Yes I meant to preface that if we could trade down and get picks but I feel we would have a good solid C for 10yrs plus. Yes if we could trade down and get 2 firsts picking up a DE and LB and then Unger we would be looking good!

milkman · 02-22-2009, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sportsshrink

Yes I meant to preface that if we could trade down and get picks but I feel we would have a good solid C for 10yrs plus. Yes if we could trade down and get 2 firsts picking up a DE and LB and then Unger we would be looking good!

Hell with that.

I think we should down again and again, until we have all the picks in the 7th round.

We could find players to fill all of our needs.

ChiefsCountry · 02-22-2009, 10:05 PM

How are we going to get 2 first round picks by trading down?

Pioli Zombie · 02-22-2009, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

Hell with that.

I think we should down again and again, until we have all the picks in the 7th round.

We could find players to fill all of our needs.

Another idiot heard from. He never said anything close to that.
Posted via Mobile Device

Sweet Daddy Hate · 02-22-2009, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

Hell with that.

I think we should down again and again, until we have all the picks in the 7th round.

We could find players to fill all of our needs.

REP!

NickAthanFan · 02-22-2009, 10:07 PM

I come over here to get relief from the reeruns that pay me, and the reeruns over here are even dumber.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 02-22-2009, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

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.

You can't trade down when no one is going to trade up and give you fair value, especially when there aren't any good QB prospects next year, and the draft is loaded with D.

This is the year to get a quarterback, this is the year we're in position to get one.

If we trade down to 7 or 8, I guaran****ingtee someone will trade in front of us to grab Sanchez.

Then, what do we do? We're out of our QB and we've picked up another pick in a bad draft for defensive talent.

Moreover, if you do trade down, you also destroy any chance you have of drafting Stafford if Detroit does something stupid and drafts Monroe #1 overall and trades for Cassell.

milkman · 02-22-2009, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pioli Zombie

Another idiot heard from. He never said anything close to that.
Posted via Mobile Device

I never said he said anything close to that.

He was joking.
I was joking.

Thanks for playing, dumbass.

Sweet Daddy Hate · 02-22-2009, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pioli Zombie

Another idiot heard from. He never said anything close to that.
Posted via Mobile Device

My, your special brand of Gridiron Geniusness is just ON FIRE TONIGHT!

Go jump in that fire.

Coogs · 02-22-2009, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

I never said he said anything close to that.

He was joking.
I was joking.

Thanks for playing, dumbass.

Halfcan · 02-22-2009, 10:13 PM

I think we draft Sanchez.

FAX · 02-22-2009, 10:14 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

Good one.

FAX

'Hamas' Jenkins · 02-22-2009, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pioli Zombie

Another idiot heard from. He never said anything close to that.
Posted via Mobile Device

Please floss your ass crack with piano wire.

Coogs · 02-22-2009, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halfcan

I think we draft Sanchez.

I think we trade up to #1 and take Stafford. Detroit gets our 2nd and saves several million.

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

02-22-2009, 10:05 PM	#454
ChiefsCountry The Insider Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Lake of the Ozarks Casino cash: $-1571248	How are we going to get 2 first round picks by trading down?
Posts: 52,122

02-22-2009, 10:07 PM	#457
NickAthanFan Starter Join Date: Feb 2009 Casino cash: $10004900	I come over here to get relief from the reeruns that pay me, and the reeruns over here are even dumber.
Posts: 217

02-22-2009, 10:13 PM	#462
Halfcan In Search of a Life Join Date: Aug 2005 Casino cash: $7327995	I think we draft Sanchez.
Posts: 43,200