NFL Draft Neither Stafford or Sanchez belong in top 10 - Page 50

**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.

soundmind · 02-23-2009, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

How many times did Roethlisberger lead a 4th quarter winning drive for them?

The point is you can't sit here and say the defense is more important than Roethlisberger is.

I don't think anyone was really saying the Defense was "more important" but most definitely the outstanding strength of that team - as it has been forever.

Nor was it my point to say Ben doesn't belong somewhere amongst the elite. I love the guy's game...I think everyone would agree you need both the D and the QB to get it done.

Mecca · 02-23-2009, 06:33 PM

Sure it is....

When people say they want to draft defense to be like the Steelers pointing out how they used their picks is totally irrelevant.

soundmind · 02-23-2009, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

Sure it is....

When people say they want to draft defense to be like the Steelers pointing out how they used their picks is totally irrelevant.

Agreed, I can't recall if it was Sapp or Chucky today that said it, but they were dead on. The strength of the PIT Defense is in consistency and COACHING....they've run a similar defense for decades, and find a way over and over again to teach the new guys the nuances of their system. Well, that and a couple freaks in Troy and Hampton.

CrazyHorse · 02-23-2009, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

Sure it is....

When people say they want to draft defense to be like the Steelers pointing out how they used their picks is totally irrelevant.

Nobody says you have to be like the Steelers. You said you have to have an elite QB to win. I said the Steelers won with defense. Then the usual circle jerk ensued.

The fact is, the Steelers have been winning with defense ever since I can remember. Offense is not the backbone of that team by any means.

The point is, defense won the SB.

the high powered O lost.

Just Passin' By · 02-23-2009, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

Sure it is....

When people say they want to draft defense to be like the Steelers pointing out how they used their picks is totally irrelevant.

There are various reasons for taking a player or position at different times of the draft. Taking a kicker in the 4th round doesn't mean that you don't care about kickers. It means that you think the best combination of Kicker quality and spent draft pick was in the 4th round.

In recent years, ILBs weren't getting picked much in the first round. As one can tell just from reading this site, guards are usually able to be found in the bottom of round 1 and then down into the lower rounds, so higher picks aren't spent on them because of trends. Furthermore, if you've already got excellent players at a position, you don't need to draft the position high. The Steelers drafted Ben in the first round because they needed a quarterback and they felt Ben offered value at #11 that year.

Of course, you know all this, which is why you must know that you're making a bad argument.

Mecca · 02-23-2009, 06:41 PM

And their defense has been largely built OUT OF THE FIRST ROUND, the Steelers are a great example of why LB's aren't worth 1st round picks.

James Harrison who people jizz over wasn't even drafted.

**the Talking Can** · 02-23-2009, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyHorse

Nobody says you have to be like the Steelers. You said you have to have an elite QB to win. I said the Steelers won with defense. Then the usual circle jerk ensued.

The fact is, the Steelers have been winning with defense ever since I can remember. Offense is not the backbone of that team by any means.

The point is, defense won the SB.

the high powered O lost.

huh?

they had the same defense before Roethlisburger showed up....only now they have 2 titles since....

people still don't get it?

great QBs win Superbowls

for the love god....

CrazyHorse · 02-23-2009, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

And their defense has been largely built OUT OF THE FIRST ROUND, the Steelers are a great example of why LB's aren't worth 1st round picks.

James Harrison who people jizz over wasn't even drafted.

They are deep at LB, why would they draft one in the 1st round?

If thier defense was in the condition of the Chiefs, they very well might draft one in the 1st.

kstater · 02-23-2009, 06:45 PM

Lost in all this is probably the most insight you'll get from the Chiefs GM from here to draft day. When discussing TG, he said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pioli

“It’s a very interesting situation because sometimes veterans have a comfort zone and they want things to be a certain way. When you come in to a new situation, come into a club that was 2-14, some things are clearly going to have to change. Hopefully the veterans who are there are going to be receptive to the changes and they want to be and hopefully they will be.”

Now you can draw your own conclusions, but I think he makes it pretty clear as to what his plan is.

**SAUTO** · 02-23-2009, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kstater

Lost in all this is probably the most insight you'll get from the Chiefs GM from here to draft day. When discussing TG, he said:

Now you can draw your own conclusions, but I think he makes it pretty clear as to what his plan is.

IYO what are his plans

CrazyHorse · 02-23-2009, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the Talking Can

huh?

they had the same defense before Roethlisburger showed up....only now they have 2 titles since....

people still don't get it?

great QBs win Superbowls

for the love god....

Warner is better. Why didn't the Cards win then?

Mecca · 02-23-2009, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyHorse

They are deep at LB, why would they draft one in the 1st round?

If thier defense was in the condition of the Chiefs, they very well might draft one in the 1st.

They're deep at LB because they draft mid round guys and replace guys when their contracts are up...they let Joey Porter walk, they let Chad Brown walk..and those guys themselves weren't 1st round picks..

They used pick 20 on Lawrence Timmons and he doesn't even start for them...

Their LB's are made by their scheme, LB is like the RB of defense when it comes to what they're worth in the draft.

kstater · 02-23-2009, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

IYO what are his plans

Well, he was discussing TG, and TG has made it pretty clear that he doesn't want a QB drafted and to wait on him to develop. IMO Pioli phrased this comment to imply that TG is just going to have to deal with it.

**the Talking Can** · 02-23-2009, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyHorse

Warner is better. Why didn't the Cards win then?

because someone has to lose when 2 great QBs meet.....

are you new to sports?

**SAUTO** · 02-23-2009, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kstater

Well, he was discussing TG, and TG has made it pretty clear that he doesn't want a QB drafted and to wait on him to develop. IMO Pioli phrased this comment to imply that TG is just going to have to deal with it.

thats a pretty good take, not what i was thinking. but makes sense

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, 06:33 PM	#737
Mecca Hockey Town Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Kansas City, Missouri Casino cash: $-682950	Sure it is.... When people say they want to draft defense to be like the Steelers pointing out how they used their picks is totally irrelevant.
Posts: 115,362

02-23-2009, 06:41 PM	#741
Mecca Hockey Town Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Kansas City, Missouri Casino cash: $-682950	And their defense has been largely built OUT OF THE FIRST ROUND, the Steelers are a great example of why LB's aren't worth 1st round picks. James Harrison who people jizz over wasn't even drafted.
Posts: 115,362