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.

[Basileus777]

Originally Posted by Rigodan

I posted this in another thread earlier this year:

There are a lot of really good teams that don't win a Superbowl every year. Look at the Pats last year. Possibly one of the greatest teams of all time and they lost. Look at the Steelers and Giants when they won and the Cardinals this year. Crazy stuff happens in the playoffs. For the Chiefs to win the Superbowl they're probably going to need more than one shot at it with a really good team because of the nature of the playoffs. Teams that are consistently in playoffs with good teams every year have one thing in common. They have great quaterbacks. Patriots/Brady, Colts/Manning, Steelers/Roethlisberger, Chargers/Brees/Rivers, earlier in the deacade you had Eagles/McNabb(before he couldn't decide whether to care or not).

You can also look at the great defenses this decade that didn't have franchise qbs. Baltimore and tampa bay for example. From 2003 to 2007 they finished in the top 6 in total defense every year except for Tampa Bay in 2006. Without a good quarterback those great defenses had a regular season record of 79-81, made the playoffs 4 out of 10 times and won ZERO playoff games. To repeat those defenses finished in the top 6 nine out of ten years and won 0 playoff games.

Sure we could build the defense, hope to get a qb later, and pray to god that everything falls into place like it did for Trent Dilfer. Sure it could happen, but its not likely.

Excellent post.

[kstater]

Originally Posted by Rigodan

I posted this in another thread earlier this year:

There are a lot of really good teams that don't win a Superbowl every year. Look at the Pats last year. Possibly one of the greatest teams of all time and they lost. Look at the Steelers and Giants when they won and the Cardinals this year. Crazy stuff happens in the playoffs. For the Chiefs to win the Superbowl they're probably going to need more than one shot at it with a really good team because of the nature of the playoffs. Teams that are consistently in playoffs with good teams every year have one thing in common. They have great quaterbacks. Patriots/Brady, Colts/Manning, Steelers/Roethlisberger, Chargers/Brees/Rivers, earlier in the deacade you had Eagles/McNabb(before he couldn't decide whether to care or not).

You can also look at the great defenses this decade that didn't have franchise qbs. Baltimore and tampa bay for example. From 2003 to 2007 they finished in the top 6 in total defense every year except for Tampa Bay in 2006. Without a good quarterback those great defenses had a regular season record of 79-81, made the playoffs 4 out of 10 times and won ZERO playoff games. To repeat those defenses finished in the top 6 nine out of ten years and won 0 playoff games.

Sure we could build the defense, hope to get a qb later, and pray to god that everything falls into place like it did for Trent Dilfer. Sure it could happen, but its not likely.

but, but, but, Dilfer has a ring.

[Reerun_KC]

Originally Posted by Basileus777

Excellent post.

IT was a very good post, but he better be prepared for a from the anti QB crowd...

[baitism]

Originally Posted by Reerun_KC

You can gurantee 100% fact that you know Stafford and Sanchez will end up like Dilfer or Collins? You have that much knowledge of the game to prove to everyone you can forsee the future with these two QB's?

I think you need to go back a few pages and read the context of what was being said, then you will understand why I said that.

Sanchez could not even stay healthy behind a superb offensive line at USC. He would get slaughtered behind the Chief's OL.....

[kstater]

Originally Posted by baitism

I think you need to go back a few pages and read the context of what was being said, then you will understand why I said that.

Sanchez could not even stay healthy behind a superb offensive line at USC. He would get slaughtered behind the Chief's OL.....

You know how I know you have no ****ing idea what is coming out of your mouth?

[Reerun_KC]

Originally Posted by baitism

I think you need to go back a few pages and read the context of what was being said, then you will understand why I said that.

Sanchez could not even stay healthy behind a superb offensive line at USC. He would get slaughtered behind the Chief's OL.....

What games did he miss last year because of injury?

[baitism]

Originally Posted by Reerun_KC

What games did he miss last year because of injury?

Did you watch any USC football. He hobbled around half the damn year with a knee brace on.

For the record, I would really like to draft a qb, im not even arguing that. I just think we should trade down to draft one. I would rather get two first round picks and get a QB than one....

[Reerun_KC]

Originally Posted by baitism

Did you watch any USC football. He hobbled around half the damn year with a knee brace on.

For the record, I would really like to draft a qb, im not even arguing that. I just think we should trade down to draft one. I would rather get two first round picks and get a QB than one....

I watched plenty actually, I enjoy watching Carrols teams... But I must of missed where he hobbled around while he showed great mobility and pocket presence...

[Pioli Zombie]

Originally Posted by Crush

Picking the "safest" choice has done nothing this team in the last twenty years.

Look who was doing the picking
Posted via Mobile Device

[baitism]

Originally Posted by Reerun_KC

I watched plenty actually, I enjoy watching Carrols teams... But I must of missed where he hobbled around while he showed great mobility and pocket presence...

... Suffered a dislocated left knee cap prior to the season opener and his mobility was limited.

Right off nfl.com

http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/...e-tab-analysis

[Pioli Zombie]

Originally Posted by soundmind

Zombie - for the love of god, come to terms with the idea that we're drafting a QB, unless the sky falls and they acquire Cassel. It's THE logical decision given this year's draft class, the current roster and the kind of compensation demanded of a top 5 selection.

ALL - don't Detroit's activities weigh pretty heavily on us in this? Think about it, if they acquire Cassel, they're likely to draft Curry or an OT...meaning they'd leave us "pick of the litter" which really fires up the Leak/Manning, er Stafford/Sanchez debate....if they don't get Cassel as some have presumed, they're likely to pull the trigger on anyone, QB-OT-OLB-hell it's Detroit-WR...

Who's the consensus #1 this year if there is one? And what do you see Detroit doing?

*all to be prefaced by STL taking an OT to relieve Pace. I'd suggest Raji or QB here, but they just have too much in Bulger, and their OL is strugglin.

Please God, for the entertainment value alone, let them pick anything but a qb.
Posted via Mobile Device

[kstater]

In the last 2 days, I've learned that Sanchez is, a rapist, immature, being taken advantage by his brother, not a good player, inaccurate, weak armed, and injury prone.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

There are plenty of steak houses in Kansas City that do "okay" too, but I never ate at them.
Why the **** would I go to the 'Sizzler' when I've got 10 places that are superior?

[Rigodan]

Originally Posted by baitism

... Suffered a dislocated left knee cap prior to the season opener and his mobility was limited.

Right off nfl.com

http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/...e-tab-analysis

If he was hobbled this year and still showed excellent mobility then just think how much more mobile he will be when we draft him

[CrazyHorse]

Originally Posted by Rigodan

I posted this in another thread earlier this year:

There are a lot of really good teams that don't win a Superbowl every year. Look at the Pats last year. Possibly one of the greatest teams of all time and they lost. Look at the Steelers and Giants when they won and the Cardinals this year. Crazy stuff happens in the playoffs. For the Chiefs to win the Superbowl they're probably going to need more than one shot at it with a really good team because of the nature of the playoffs. Teams that are consistently in playoffs with good teams every year have one thing in common. They have great quaterbacks. Patriots/Brady, Colts/Manning, Steelers/Roethlisberger, Chargers/Brees/Rivers, earlier in the deacade you had Eagles/McNabb(before he couldn't decide whether to care or not).

You can also look at the great defenses this decade that didn't have franchise qbs. Baltimore and tampa bay for example. From 2003 to 2007 they finished in the top 6 in total defense every year except for Tampa Bay in 2006. Without a good quarterback those great defenses had a regular season record of 79-81, made the playoffs 4 out of 10 times and won ZERO playoff games. To repeat those defenses finished in the top 6 nine out of ten years and won 0 playoff games.

Sure we could build the defense, hope to get a qb later, and pray to god that everything falls into place like it did for Trent Dilfer. Sure it could happen, but its not likely.

Um....the Steelers had the #1 defense in the league.