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.

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by Mecca

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

mecca 4 nfc championship games , yeah i dont want that. you have to get there to have a shot

[Rigodan]

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. Both Pro and Anti Stafford/Sanchez people are simply going to have to trust that the new regime knows what it's doing.

You're right, you do need offense and defense. This year is void of elite defensive talent, has two potential franchise qbs, and really doesn't provide any elite talent at positions the chiefs need other than qb. Next year is void of franchise quarterbacks and will be loaded with defensive talent at the top of the draft. 2 years from now I'd figure Pioli will have us picking out of the top ten so you may never be in a position to get that top quaterback talent. If you concede you need a franchise qb to win a Super Bowl the "safe" thing to do is draft him this year.

[Mecca]

The Eagles are like a lesser known version of the Bills...would you really like to go through that?

[baitism]

Originally Posted by Mecca

His take really makes no sense to me he's acting like this is an NBA trade and a team will just give you a 1st round pick in a 3 team trade to save money.

Obviously you are a Sanchez fanboy (as if one couldn't tell by your profile), so you are inevitably going to be biased. As someone who is neither a fan of Georgia or USC, I can assure you that neither (and especially Sanchez) are worthy of a top 5 pick. I would even be in support of trading away our #3 pick altogether for something better down the line, because we sure arent competing next year....

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by Rigodan

You're right, you do need offense and defense. This year is void of elite defensive talent, has two potential franchise qbs, and really doesn't provide any elite talent at positions the chiefs need other than qb. Next year is void of franchise quarterbacks and will be loaded with defensive talent at the top of the draft. 2 years from now I'd figure Pioli will have us picking out of the top ten so you may never be in a position to get that top quaterback talent. If you concede you need a franchise qb to win a Super Bowl the "safe" thing to do is draft him this year.

That doesn't even factor in that next year has a ton of elite defensive talent and no QB's there are atleast 4-5 players that will be in next years draft that are better defensive prospects than any player in this years draft.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Let's just put the nonsense to bed and get right to the visual aid for those who obviously need one:

http://www.mywavv.com/Scripts/index.htm
Chiefs vs Broncos 1997 (Playoff)

If this doesn't convince you that a stellar defense and an "okay" QB will get you jack squat, then you are most DEFINITELY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY reerunED.

Get to class, ya' dumb ****s.

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by baitism

Obviously you are a Sanchez fanboy (as if one couldn't tell by your profile), so you are inevitably going to be biased. As someone who is neither a fan of Georgia or USC, I can assure you that neither (and especially Sanchez) are worthy of a top 5 pick.

Great that doesn't change the fact that you're trade scenario makes no sense but great job at trying to deflect that into something else.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by baitism

Obviously you are a Sanchez fanboy (as if one couldn't tell by your profile), so you are inevitably going to be biased. As someone who is neither a fan of Georgia or USC, I can assure you that neither (and especially Sanchez) are worthy of a top 5 pick.

I'm wondering how valuable your assurances are?

[CanadaKC]

Brock...you lost some cred when you say NFLdraftblitz...is a shit site...then don't back it up.....only because it says we're drafting Curry....just like Mecca saying nfldraftcountdown is a shit site for saying the same thing...where;s your argument?

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by Brock

I'm wondering how valuable your assurances are?

If they are anything like his trade scenarios I doubt he could pay people to take them.

[Pioli Zombie]

Originally Posted by Brock

Yeah, that's what I figured.

Who needs espn, nfl.com,cbs,sporting news, nfl network, fox sports. Any publications or websites

I've got you guys who know so much more

So pathetic.
Posted via Mobile Device

[baitism]

Originally Posted by CanadaKC

Brock...you lost some cred when you say NFLdraftblitz...is a shit site...then don't back it up.....only because it says we're drafting Curry....just like Mecca saying nfldraftcountdown is a shit site for saying the same thing...where;s your argument?

Because nfl.com surely does not know what they are talking about. Scrub posters on chiefsplanet must have the inside scoop!

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by CanadaKC

Brock...you lost some cred when you say NFLdraftblitz...is a shit site...then don't back it up.....only because it says we're drafting Curry....just like Mecca saying nfldraftcountdown is a shit site for saying the same thing...where;s your argument?

NFLDraftBlitz is a shit site, a few years ago it had Omar Jacobs as a top 5 pick.

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by Mecca

The Eagles are like a lesser known version of the Bills...would you really like to go through that?

mecca, once again 4 super bowls in 4 years(bills) 4 nfc championship games 1 sb yeah no one here wants that. you HAVE to get there to have ANY chance

[Brock]

Originally Posted by CanadaKC

Brock...you lost some cred when you say NFLdraftblitz...is a shit site...then don't back it up.....only because it says we're drafting Curry....just like Mecca saying nfldraftcountdown is a shit site for saying the same thing...where;s your argument?

Why don't you explain to me what gives them any credibility? Most of these draft web sites, probably all of them, are somewhere on the level of WPI.

I don't care what their take is on Sanchez or any other player, I'm saying that they're just another draft website with the same information as everybody else.