NFL Draft Neither Stafford or Sanchez belong in top 10 - Page 32

**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.

Sweet Daddy Hate · 02-22-2009, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Please floss your ass crack with piano wire.

Mecca · 02-22-2009, 10:18 PM

I think we should just trade down everytime until we have 35 7th round picks! 1 of them has to be Tom Brady!

And way to many people have listened to blowhards like Mark Schelerth on ESPN talk about how offensive linemen are more important than QB's I'm sure he'd have no interest in trying to make the position he played look more important.

FAX · 02-22-2009, 10:18 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.

That's the best idea I've heard yet, Mr. milkman. Awesome concept and addresses a lot of concerns.

There's just one problem, though. I've done some calculations based on the draft value chart (or, as we in the field call it, the DVC) and assuming that we receive comparable value when we trade down both the first and the second time, we would wind up with a total of 112 picks in the 7th round and there aren't that many.

FAX

**DeezNutz** · 02-22-2009, 10:21 PM

My favorite hypothesis this off-season has been from some posters suggesting, and seriously I mind you, that KC not turn in its card on time.

It doesn't get more chickenshit than this.

Halfcan · 02-22-2009, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coogs

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

Sancez seems to be the leader we are looking for-the new face of the Chiefs.

We need D help, but I think we take a QB.

milkman · 02-22-2009, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FAX

That's the best idea I've heard yet, Mr. milkman. Awesome concept and addresses a lot of concerns.

There's just one problem, though. I've done some calculations based on the draft value chart (or, as we in the field call it, the DVC) and assuming that we receive comparable value when we trade down both the first and the second time, we would wind up with a total of 112 picks in the 7th round and there aren't that many.

FAX

Haven't you been paying attention to chiefzilla?

Sweet Daddy Hate · 02-22-2009, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

I think we should just trade down everytime until we have 35 7th round picks! 1 of them has to be Tom Brady!

And way to many people have listened to blowhards like Mark Schelerth on ESPN talk about how offensive linemen are more important than QB's I'm sure he'd have no interest in trying to make the position he played look more important.

I think the best strategy is to just recruit and sign directly out of Haskell Native College; we can be politically correct, save a ton of money, and keep the risk factor low in the process!

I just had a conference call with Spit Bubble, and he says it's a go.

Halfcan · 02-22-2009, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

My favorite hypothesis this off-season has been from some posters suggesting, and seriously I mind you, that KC not turn in its card on time.

It doesn't get more chickenshit than this.

I bet we stay put and pay the money-we have the cap room.

Mecca · 02-22-2009, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

Haven't you been paying attention to chiefzilla?

There is no logic, these are people that act like Drew Bledsoe was never good which is stupid.

ChiefsCountry · 02-22-2009, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

Haven't you been paying attention to chiefzilla?

Draft chart is tha debil.

milkman · 02-22-2009, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

My favorite hypothesis this off-season has been from some posters suggesting, and seriously I mind you, that KC not turn in its card on time.

It doesn't get more chickenshit than this.

What?

It's a bold move and a stroke of genious(cps).

Sweet Daddy Hate · 02-22-2009, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halfcan

Sancez seems to be the leader we are looking for-the new face of the Chiefs.

We need D help, but I think we take a QB.

REP!

**DeezNutz** · 02-22-2009, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

What?

It's a bold move and a stroke of genious(cps).

Yes, Pioli is known for outside-the-box thinking, and we should embrace him pulling a Huard on draft day.

FAX · 02-22-2009, 10:28 PM

Well, one thing we could do is trade down twice, then trade up three times.

I don't know what that would leave us with position-wise, but I'll bet we wind up with quite a few quarterbacks that way.

FAX

Pioli Zombie · 02-22-2009, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

There is no logic, these are people that act like Drew Bledsoe was never good which is stupid.

He was good. But not good enough.
Posted via Mobile Device

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, 10:18 PM	#467
Mecca Hockey Town Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Kansas City, Missouri Casino cash: $-692950	I think we should just trade down everytime until we have 35 7th round picks! 1 of them has to be Tom Brady! And way to many people have listened to blowhards like Mark Schelerth on ESPN talk about how offensive linemen are more important than QB's I'm sure he'd have no interest in trying to make the position he played look more important.
Posts: 115,364

02-22-2009, 10:28 PM	#479
FAX testing ... 1, 2, 3 Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Tennessee Casino cash: $6753759	Well, one thing we could do is trade down twice, then trade up three times. I don't know what that would leave us with position-wise, but I'll bet we wind up with quite a few quarterbacks that way. FAX
Posts: 44,492