NFL Draft Neither Stafford or Sanchez belong in top 10 - Page 45

**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.

Rigodan · 02-23-2009, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pioli Zombie

Look who was doing the picking
Posted via Mobile Device

Pioli also always had a great qb. Whos to say he won't pick one now that he doesn't have one?

Mecca · 02-23-2009, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baitism

I don't think so. Look at it this way. If we draft a qb we have:

1. No running game
2. Mediocre offensive line
3. One decent receiver (who has alot of drops), and tony g (who might be gone)
4. A defensive line that just set a record for least number of sacks in a seaons
5. Brutal and old linebackers

You could draft the best qb to come of college in 10 years and he would be a bust with that kind of offense. There are no weapons, and you cannot expect a rookie qb to make perfect throws because their receivers can only get a half step of separation. Moreover, they will end up forcing it and throwing INTs. Also, neither of them are great runners...

A good defense can put offenses in a favorable position (TO's, 3 and outs, etc.). That will help a poor offense.

Bottomline, if we want to draft a qb, trade down. One, if not both, of those qb's will be there by pick 10.

Adam Teicher posts on the forum ladies and gentlemen.

Pioli Zombie · 02-23-2009, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock

There are very few interweb draft sites that know anything, and if you're even bothering with sites like the one you just posted from, you don't know what they are.

Of course. None of them have the knowledge of the einsteins that inhabit chiefs planet.
Posted via Mobile Device

soundmind · 02-23-2009, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pioli Zombie

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

I'm not going to freak if they don't - but you have to think that's where they're leaning, it just makes sense.

Just Passin' By · 02-23-2009, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crush

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

Quote:

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.

Patriots have finished outside the top 10 defensively twice. Once was 2002, when they didn't make the playoffs. The other time was 2005, where the team went 10-6. So, the two worst seasons defensively were the two worst seasons record-wise. In the 3 Super Bowl winning years, the team was #6, #1 and #2 on defense.

The Colts with Manning are under .500 in the playoffs.

The Steelers 2 Super Bowl wins had defenses ranked #1 and #3.

The Eagles defenses since 2000 and early in the decade: #4, #2, #2, #7, #2, #27 (6-10)

Chargers: #11, #13, #7, #5, #15, and the only year they got to the AFCCG was the year with the best defense.

In order to be a consistently top tier team, you need both the offense AND the defense. Both Pro and Anti Stafford/Sanchez people are simply going to have to trust that the new regime knows what it's doing.

Mecca · 02-23-2009, 05:56 PM

Quote:

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

This is a great example of why reading shit on the net and actually watching a guy play are not the same thing.

chiefs1111 · 02-23-2009, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

Adam Teicher posts on the forum ladies and gentlemen.

Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Mecca · 02-23-2009, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Patriots have finished outside the top 10 defensively twice. Once was 2002, when they didn't make the playoffs. The other time was 2005, where the team went 10-6. So, the two worst seasons defensively were the two worst seasons record-wise. In the 3 Super Bowl winning years, the team was #6, #1 and #2 on defense.

The Colts with Manning are under .500 in the playoffs.

The Steelers 2 Super Bowl wins had defenses ranked #1 and #3.

The Eagles defenses since 2000 and early in the decade: #4, #2, #2, #7, #2, #27 (6-10)

Chargers: #11, #13, #7, #5, #15, and the only year they got to the AFCCG was the year with the best defense.

In order to be a consistently top tier team, you need both the offense AND the defense.

I don't think the Eagles are really what people want to be, being a consistent playoff loser isn't my bag.

soundmind · 02-23-2009, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rigodan

Pioli also always had a great qb. Whos to say he won't pick one now that he doesn't have one?

DING!

If you were to take an objective look at the combination of Pioli/Haley and think that they'll roll into 09 without a QB they trust, you've jumped on a different train than most.

Rigodan · 02-23-2009, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyHorse

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

Um... they also had a franchise quarterback that led them to several 4th quarter game winning drves this year, including one in the Super Bowl.

Mecca · 02-23-2009, 05:58 PM

Quote:

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....

You're not getting 2 1st round picks and a QB, the only team with 2 is the Eagles and both of their picks are so late it wouldn't happen.

So how about you rethink that take and come back logically?

baitism · 02-23-2009, 05:58 PM

Alright, I am going to drop the Sanchez issue. If, and when, we draft him, I hope you will all come back for your lumps when he is a bust (just like I will if he pans out). As a closing argument I will say this.

He put up rather pedestrian numbers in a conference that was having a down year on a team that has the most skilled offensive players in the NCAA. Finally, our defense is horrid, and I think we all remember 2003 and how painful it was to watch them. We have a developing secondary, but we need a pass rush to keep them from getting stuck in coverage too long.

baitism · 02-23-2009, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

You're not getting 2 1st round picks and a QB, the only team with 2 is the Eagles and both of their picks are so late it wouldn't happen.

So how about you rethink that take and come back logically?

2 picks (one of which is a QB). Such as trading down and getting the 10th pick and a late first rounder.

Reerun_KC · 02-23-2009, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

This is a great example of why reading shit on the net and actually watching a guy play are not the same thing.

He was pretty clear a few posts ago that he does watch USC football and witnessed Sanchez hobbling all year long...

Mecca · 02-23-2009, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyHorse

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

Quick answer this how many 1st round picks do the Steelers have on defense compared to offense and who is the highest drafted player on their roster?

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

02-23-2009, 05:58 PM	#672
baitism Starter Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Overland Park, KS Casino cash: $3589551	Alright, I am going to drop the Sanchez issue. If, and when, we draft him, I hope you will all come back for your lumps when he is a bust (just like I will if he pans out). As a closing argument I will say this. He put up rather pedestrian numbers in a conference that was having a down year on a team that has the most skilled offensive players in the NCAA. Finally, our defense is horrid, and I think we all remember 2003 and how painful it was to watch them. We have a developing secondary, but we need a pass rush to keep them from getting stuck in coverage too long.
Posts: 273