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.

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by missinDThomas

Singletary already said he likes his young guys to battle it out. Rex Ryan said the same.

Yea they're just gonna tell you what they're doing...

This is not fantasy land. Josh Freeman falls no lower than 22.

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by kstater

Oh, he's totally the wrong fit for the Chiefs. I think he'll do well in the league. But not until after holding a clipboard for a while.

i agree the chiefs cant take that chance IMO

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Brady's not a poor argument, as you well know. You don't like it as an example because the he tends to kill all your weak arguments.

Using a winning lottery ticket as an example of how to do things doesn't kill any argument. At all.

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Brady's not a poor argument, as you well know. You don't like it as an example because the he tends to kill all your weak arguments.

Arguing exceptions to the rule is always a brilliant plan....playing to be the exception is how you get your ass kicked.

That's like people who think Scott Pioli really believes he can pull a QB out of his ass in the 6th round.

[DeezNutz]

I'm starting to hate Tom Brady.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Brock

Using a winning lottery ticket as an example of how to do things doesn't kill any argument. At all.

Arguing that Brady is the only example or is like hitting the lottery is silly, though. He's simply the most current example and the easiest to point to. Warner, Montana, many of the all time greats.... they all fit the example.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Mecca

Arguing exceptions to the rule is always a brilliant plan....playing to be the exception is how you get your ass kicked.

That's like people who think Scott Pioli really believes he can pull a QB out of his ass in the 6th round.

Let's try this again.... comfortably less than half of the "franchise" quarterbacks taken in the top 5 pan out as truly great picks.

In other words, they are exceptions to the rule. Seriously, this shouldn't be hard. Did you take any kind of mathematics in school?

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Arguing that Brady is the only example or is like hitting the lottery is silly, though. He's simply the most current example and the easiest to point to. Warner, Montana, many of the all time greats.... they all fit the example.

Warner, yes. Montana, not so much, being a day 1 pick. Outside of round 1, I grant you.

Posters have run the numbers to see where a team is most likely to acquire a franchise QB. We need to see these statistics again.

[kstater]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Let's try this again.... comfortably less than half of the "franchise" quarterbacks taken in the top 5 pan out as truly great picks.

In other words, they are exceptions to the rule. Seriously, this shouldn't be hard. Did you take any kind of mathematics in school?

I'll counter that "comfortably less" than 5% of QB's taken outside round one pan out as truly great picks.

[DeezNutz]

How many times do we need to rehash the argument about where you have the best odds to locate a franchise guy?

It's not the *only* way, but it provides the best odds.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Warner, yes. Montana, not so much, being a day 1 pick. Outside of round 1, I grant you.

Posters have run the numbers to see where a team is most likely to acquire a franchise QB. We need to see these statistics again.

I'll sum it up for you....

The most likely place to draft a franchise, or at least top shelf, quarterback is in the first round. That "chance" is about 1-in-3, even with the ability to choose from every available quarterback (or every QB still available in round 1 at the drafting position).

This makes sense because 1st round picks are choosing from the entire pool of prospects, whereas lower rounds are choosing from a smaller pool of prospects passed over for quarterbacks thought to be better.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by kstater

I'll counter that "comfortably less" than 5% of QB's taken outside round one pan out as truly great picks.

So what? How does a higher failure rate of QBs in round two or below somehow prove that the chiefs should take either Stafford or Sanchez?

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

I'll sum it up for you....

The most likely place to draft a franchise, or at least top shelf, quarterback is in the first round. That "chance" is about 1-in-3, even with the ability to choose from every available quarterback (or every QB still available in round 1 at the drafting position).

This makes sense because 1st round picks are choosing from the entire pool of prospects, whereas lower rounds are choosing from a smaller pool of prospects passed over for quarterbacks thought to be better.

Very good. Thanks.

This sounds like a risk, though. Once again, unfortunately, a small sampling of urine has leaked from my hanglow.

We should take one of those bust-proof positions, like DT.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Very good. Thanks.

This sounds like a risk, though. Once again, unfortunately, a small sampling of urine has leaked from my hanglow.

We should take one of those bust-proof positions, like DT.

All picks have risks. However, let's pretend that 90% of all quarterbacks taken in round 1 turned into franchise quarterbacks.


Now, does that change in the data somehow make either Stafford or Sanchez a better quarterback?

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

So what? How does a higher failure rate of QBs in round two or below somehow prove that the chiefs should take either Stafford or Sanchez?

It means that it's even more foolish, however, to start firing in rounds 2-3, drafts positions where an organization must consistently hit.

I've said it before, and I'll keep repeating. The biggest problem with the Chiefs isn't round 1 busts, it's all the misses in rounds 2-3.

Anyone who wouldn't take a Stafford/Sanchez at #3 but would take a Davis/Freeman in the second round should urinate on an electrified Roberto Alomar shrub.