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.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by FAX

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

And then we'll do the hokie pokie, aaaaand turn ourselves around...

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

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.

It's not a terrible example. It is a perfect example.

The Chargers drafted Eli Manning knowing full well he had zero desire to play or sign for that team weeks before the draft. He was drafted by the Chargers only because they were unable to work out a deal with the Giants for regular draft compensation. Why? Because the Chargers were asking for reeruned draft chart compensation and the Giants thought those demands were absolutely outrageous (keep in mind... that Giants thought those demands were outrageous in spite of the fact that Eli Manning was a consensus #1 pick and as close to a surefire franchise QB as we've seen in 5-10 years).

So if the trade chart says that the trade to move up two spots for a close-to-surefire franchise QB is 200 points off value, what does that say about #1 picks who walk in with a lot less hype? I don't understand why people continue to rally around a draft chart that says that the Chargers got ripped off big time for the Eli Manning trade. The trade only happened because the Chargers were forced to move away from the draft chart because it was dealt with as a free agent swap, not a draft swap. I don't understand the logic--free agent trades are made by negotiating deals between two teams, and those trade values change every single year. Draft trades are made by a standard chart. Why?

[milkman]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

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

We could even name it, like a chess move.

The Chiefs make the Fetal Draft move.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

And then we'll do the hokie pokie, aaaaand turn ourselves around...

With carrots up our asses!

[NickAthanFan]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

It's not a terrible example. It is a perfect example.

The Chargers drafted Eli Manning knowing full well he had zero desire to play or sign for that team weeks before the draft. He was drafted by the Chargers only because they were unable to work out a deal with the Giants for regular draft compensation. Why? Because the Chargers were asking for reeruned draft chart compensation and the Giants thought those demands were absolutely outrageous (keep in mind... that Giants thought those demands were outrageous in spite of the fact that Eli Manning was a consensus #1 pick and as close to a surefire franchise QB as we've seen in 5-10 years).

So if the trade chart says that the trade to move up two spots for a close-to-surefire franchise QB is 200 points off value, what does that say about #1 picks who walk in with a lot less hype? I don't understand why people continue to rally around a draft chart that says that the Chargers got ripped off big time for the Eli Manning trade. The trade only happened because the Chargers were forced to move away from the draft chart because it was dealt with as a free agent swap, not a draft swap. I don't understand the logic--free agent trades are made by negotiating deals between two teams, and those trade values change every single year. Draft trades are made by a standard chart. Why?

Free agent trades are a great example to use. Dipshit.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

It's not a terrible example. It is a perfect example.

The Chargers drafted Eli Manning knowing full well he had zero desire to play or sign for that team weeks before the draft. He was drafted by the Chargers only because they were unable to work out a deal with the Giants for regular draft compensation. Why? Because the Chargers were asking for reeruned draft chart compensation and the Giants thought those demands were absolutely outrageous (keep in mind... that Giants thought those demands were outrageous in spite of the fact that Eli Manning was a consensus #1 pick and as close to a surefire franchise QB as we've seen in 5-10 years).

So if the trade chart says that the trade to move up two spots for a close-to-surefire franchise QB is 200 points off value, what does that say about #1 picks who walk in with a lot less hype? I don't understand why people continue to rally around a draft chart that says that the Chargers got ripped off big time for the Eli Manning trade. The trade only happened because the Chargers were forced to move away from the draft chart because it was dealt with as a free agent swap, not a draft swap. I don't understand the logic--free agent trades are made by negotiating deals between two teams, and those trade values change every single year. Draft trades are made by a standard chart. Why?

Because they knew Manning wasn't going to play for SD under any circumstances, thus effectively eliminating any leverage to negotiate.

Again, Manning essentially orchestrated the entire process, not the "archaic" nature of the draft chart.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by milkman

We could even name it, like a chess move.

The Chiefs make the Fetal Draft move.

[Mecca]

Ok I went back through this thread and I will say this, anyone and I mean anyone who thinks much of what a QB should be judged on happens at the combine they are out of their mind.

Drew Henson looked like a god throwing in his shorts, guys like JaMarcus Russell look great in those situations.

The combine means in my view very little to QB's as long as they show they don't have girly arms.

To me the only things I want to see at the combine are WR's and DB's and the intelligence tests.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

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.

You're not listening. I don't support a trade-down if the Chiefs truly believe that Sanchez should get a top 5 grade. But there seems to be at least some doubt about whether he deserves it. And the question is, if the Chiefs are concerned about Sanchez, then what's your next move?

Since people agree on a standard draft procedure that involves a standard draft chart, let me use standard terminology. Drafting a player at #3 that you graded over 5 spots lower is what they call a "reach."

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by Mecca

Ok I went back through this thread and I will say this, anyone and I mean anyone who thinks much of what a QB should be judged on happens at the combine they are out of their mind.

Drew Henson looked like a god throwing in his shorts, guys like JaMarcus Russell look great in those situations.

The combine means in my view very little to QB's as long as they show they don't have girly arms.

To me the only things I want to see at the combine are WR's and DB's and the intelligence tests.

But...but...it's the only chance True Fans get to talk a lot of ignorant and useless smack because Sanchez didn't win the "Combine Bow"l!!!

[Mecca]

Anyone that says that should then be forced to say "I would have drafted Jamarcus Russell #1" because if you're saying the combine is very important then that's where you're at.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Because they knew Manning wasn't going to play for SD under any circumstances, thus effectively eliminating any leverage to negotiate.

Again, Manning essentially orchestrated the entire process, not the "archaic" nature of the draft chart.

The fact that the Giants traded for Manning and gave up significant draft value and, arguably, reached for a QB (Rivers) that was expected to go in the bottom of the top 10 as "trade bait" suggests that the Giants very badly wanted Eli Manning. Very badly. The fact that the Chargers aggressively sought a trade before the draft and that drafted a QB they knew would never sign with the team means the Chargers really wanted to trade down at all costs.

This is a clear, clear, clear story of a team at #3 that badly wanted the top QB in the draft and a #1 pick team that didn't want that QB. It's a situation where the player in question was a close-to-surefire franchise QB was also evaluated much higher than the second pick in the draft and the second highest QB in that draft. And yet, the compensation was STILL considered too high.

If even a player as hyped up as Eli Manning isn't worth the ridiculously stupidly high trade value on the draft value chart, then why is that the same value the 49ers use to trade Alex Smith? Or that the Dolphins use to trade Jake Long?

(And for the record, I have never said that the draft chart is completely worthless or that they should take any pick they can get to trade down. Trade compensation should be based on how badly they want the best player on their board AND how confident they are that that guy will still be there when they are drafting--the confidence level increases significantly if the top 3 or 4 on your board are fairly equally valued).

[Mecca]

If course the Giants very badly wanted Manning they were coming off an awful year needed a QB and the Manning name was going to help them significantly in the NY market.

[Pioli Zombie]

From what I saw sanchez is quite capable of matching Drew Bledsoes 59 career playoff qb rating
Posted via Mobile Device

[Mecca]

I think it's funny to see anyone who supposedly followed New England rip the player that turned their franchise around.

All the down talk of Bledsoe is nothing more than the remembering of recent history and not an entire history.