NFL Draft Neither Stafford or Sanchez belong in top 10 - Page 51

**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.

Just Passin' By · 02-23-2009, 06:50 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....

This must be why Marino and Tarkenton combined for 15 Super Bowl rings...

Rigodan · 02-23-2009, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyHorse

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

He very well might have if he had more than 40 seconds to work with after the D blew the lead.

Mecca · 02-23-2009, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

This must be why Marino and Tarkenton combined for 15 Super Bowl rings...

Are you trying to play stupid or are you dense?

Just Passin' By · 02-23-2009, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

Are you trying to play stupid or are you dense?

Ahhh.... irony.

Mecca · 02-23-2009, 06:51 PM

No one who wants a QB said we need a QB and nothing else so don't even go there with that...

**DeezNutz** · 02-23-2009, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

This must be why Marino and Tarkenton combined for 15 Super Bowl rings...

True.

Game managers are equally successful.

Trent Dilfers will do.

I must hate defense.

Mecca · 02-23-2009, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

True.

Game managers are equally successful.

Trent Dilfers will do.

I must hate defense.

I always enjoy when they go to the play stupid defense, like anyone who wants a QB thinks that's all we need.

Just Passin' By · 02-23-2009, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

True.

Game managers are equally successful.

Trent Dilfers will do.

I must hate defense.

Ehhh..... I've got no beef with you on this issue. Mecca's just being an idiot in order to justify his continued ballwashing of Sanchez.

orange · 02-23-2009, 06:53 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....

So what you're saying is they DIDN'T draft their franchise QB first then build the team around him.

Interesting.

CrazyHorse · 02-23-2009, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

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.

I'll bet there are several GMs that will disagree with you when the draf comes around.

I also feel thaht there will be plenty of inexperienced QBs left in the later rounds.

You act as though, I'm totally against draftin a QB all together. As I said earlier, if Stafford is there, take him. If not take Curry.

I really dont know why you keep making this arguement. You obviously arent listening.

For you it has nothing to do with a QB. It has everything to do with Sanchez. I dont want Sanchez, you do. I get it. Nothing you will say is going to convince me that taking big risks with the #3 is the way to go when better players less risky are there. Especially given that we have needs everywhere.

**** Sanchez.

Just Passin' By · 02-23-2009, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orange

So what you're saying is they DIDN'T draft their franchise QB first then build the team around him.

Interesting.

Careful now. You'll overload their minds and the feedback might kill them.

Mecca · 02-23-2009, 06:56 PM

Great let em disagree with me, just like they can disagree with me about picking a RB in the 1st round.

Oh I get it now people are upset with me because they just think I'm a Sanchez homer and now we're back to the USC thing...

How amusing.

Mecca · 02-23-2009, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Careful now. You'll overload their minds and the feedback might kill them.

It only took Bill Cowher 15 years to realize he needed a real QB to win, any coach of any other team would have been fired years before for that kind of stupidity.

**the Talking Can** · 02-23-2009, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orange

So what you're saying is they DIDN'T draft their franchise QB first then build the team around him.

Interesting.

is there anyone on this board who isn't a certified ****ing reerun?

what I'm saying is you have to get a ****ing QB when you have the opportunity, which they did....

we have the opportunity this year

jesus h christ

Just Passin' By · 02-23-2009, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

Great let em disagree with me, just like they can disagree with me about picking a RB in the 1st round.

Oh I get it now people are upset with me because they just think I'm a Sanchez homer and now we're back to the USC thing...

How amusing.

I'm not upset with you. You're using piss poor arguments to justify your position and I'm noting that. Despite what you seem to think, there is a difference.

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, 06:51 PM	#755
Mecca Hockey Town Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Kansas City, Missouri Casino cash: $-692950	No one who wants a QB said we need a QB and nothing else so don't even go there with that...
Posts: 115,364

02-23-2009, 06:56 PM	#762
Mecca Hockey Town Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Kansas City, Missouri Casino cash: $-692950	Great let em disagree with me, just like they can disagree with me about picking a RB in the 1st round. Oh I get it now people are upset with me because they just think I'm a Sanchez homer and now we're back to the USC thing... How amusing.
Posts: 115,364