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.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

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?

Of course not. Is anyone saying otherwise?

[CrazyHorse]

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

roethlisberger started 3 years in college. go ahead and delete post

My bad. I was going from a list put up from another poster.

So then there is no example of a 1 year QB drafted in the 1st who is successful?

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

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.

No, I'm sorry, but you're now making a false assumption. A round 1 pick is not equal in value to a round 2 pick, etc..., and the rookie wage scale makes the equation even more harsh on first round misses. This does not mean that teams shouldn't draft first round picks, and it doesn't mean that teams should trade down for more and more 7th round picks. It does, however, mean that the penalty for mistakes is greater in the higher rounds, and it's greatest at the top of the first round.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Of course not. Is anyone saying otherwise?

Saying? No. Implying? Clearly.

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by CrazyHorse

My bad. I was going from a list put up from another poster.

So then there is no example of a 1 year QB drafted in the 1st who is successful?

said list was referencing spread qb's

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

No, I'm sorry, but you're now making a false assumption. A round 1 pick is not equal in value to a round 2 pick, etc..., and the rookie wage scale makes the equation even more harsh on first round misses. This does not mean that teams shouldn't draft first round picks, and it doesn't mean that teams should trade down for more and more 7th round picks. It does, however, mean that the penalty for mistakes is greater in the higher rounds, and it's greatest at the top of the first round.

And any pick we make is going to be extremely expensive at #3. Long was around 30-32 last year at 1/1 and Ryan was around 36 at 1/3, in guaranteed money.

There's no false assumption. Any missed pick at the top of the draft is going to have serious financial ramifications.

And I'm not devaluing the importance of round 1 selection.

But you don't get into the Chiefs situations by missing only in round 1, where the organization's track record is comparable to many others. The problem is that the Chiefs have fallen off a ****ing cliff in rounds 2-3, and this is where you must get solid production and, occasionally, a star.

[CrazyHorse]

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

said list was referencing spread qb's

No, it was a list of QBs taken in the 1st round over the last 10 years. But I was wrong in referencing it, so....

I would be curious to find out how many QBs have been drafted in the 1st round that were 1 year starters in school, and of those how many were successful or justified thier pick in the NFL.

[Pioli Zombie]

Name all the super bowl winning teams that didn't have a good defense. Even the colts in '06 got great defense in the playoffs. But a bunch of teams have won the sb with so so qbs.

Colts. Earl morrall
Bears. Jim mcmahon
Redskins. Williams and rypien
Ravens. Dilfer
Bucs. Johnson

Brady and warner came out of nowhere

Defense wins championships.

The 90's Chiefs did built it right and came close with montana but carl dropped the ball by going with journeymen

Had they stuck with rich Gannon who knows.........
Posted via Mobile Device

[DeezNutz]

So history has no bearing when it comes to predicting success. Just because there are higher odds of getting a franchise guy in round 1 doesn't make a player like Sanchez any better. Check.

History, however, does have bearing when it comes to arguing how unlikely it will be for him to be successful because of the extremely limited number--I don't know the figure, possibly 0--of one-year starters who have become stars. Check?

That's convenient.

[the Talking Can]

Originally Posted by Pioli Zombie

Name all the super bowl winning teams that didn't have a good defense. Even the colts in '06 got great defense in the playoffs. But a bunch of teams have won the sb with so so qbs.

Colts. Earl morrall
Bears. Jim mcmahon
Redskins. Williams and rypien
Ravens. Dilfer
Bucs. Johnson

Brady and warner came out of nowhere

Defense wins championships.

The 90's Chiefs did built it right and came close with montana but carl dropped the ball by going with journeymen

Had they stuck with rich gannon who knows.........
Posted via Mobile Device

**** me


people still aren't embarrassed to say "we did it right" in the 90's??


i can not describe how much i hate this fan base....there are no words for how much they love safe failure.....

[Pioli Zombie]

What?
Posted via Mobile Device

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

And any pick we make is going to be extremely expensive at #3. Long was around 30-32 last year at 1/1 and Ryan was around 36 at 1/3, in guaranteed money.

There's no false assumption. Any missed pick at the top of the draft is going to have serious financial ramifications.

And I'm not devaluing the importance of round 1 selection.

But you don't get into the Chiefs situations by missing only in round 1, where the organization's track record is comparable to many others. The problem is that the Chiefs have fallen off a ****ing cliff in rounds 2-3, and this is where you must get solid production and, occasionally, a star.

I've got no problem with anything you've got here. Teams that crap out generally have failure at multiple levels: draft, free agency, player retention, etc....

But, then again, my position has never been that the Chiefs shouldn't take any QB at #3. My position has been that choosing Sanchez, or Stafford, is not such a no-brainer that the Sanchez ballwashing posse should be insulting everyone who dares to think that those two particular quarterbacks aren't the best choices to take.

I assume that Pioli is doing his homework to make damned sure that his first draft (and any draft related moves) in his new position is a successful one and, therefore, I don't think anyone should get their panties in a bunch no matter how it shakes out. If he takes Sanchez, I'd tell the "Don't draft Sanchez!" people to , give Sanchez time to develop and support the team even if Sanchez never sees the field in year one. If he skips the QB position, I'd tell the Sanchez/Stafford ballwashers to , give Pioli time to put his structure in place, and he'll find his QB when he thinks he has a comfortable fit.

This Chiefs team has a lot of problems, and they'll all need to be addressed along the way. The order is not something that fans should be fighting about as if there's only one way to do it.

[Pioli Zombie]

Originally Posted by the Talking Can

**** me


people still aren't embarrassed to say "we did it right" in the 90's??


i can not describe how much i hate this fan base....there are no words for how much they love safe failure.....

Yeah. The chiefs sure sucked back then. Marty blew it by not playing gannon, who proved in oakland the kind of qb he was. And peterson blew it by banking on bono and grbec.

But overall. The 13-3 teams. What would you have done different. Not draft DT? Or neil smith. Or that offensive line?
Posted via Mobile Device

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

So history has no bearing when it comes to predicting success. Just because there are higher odds of getting a franchise guy in round 1 doesn't make a player like Sanchez any better. Check.

History, however, does have bearing when it comes to arguing how unlikely it will be for him to be successful because of the extremely limited number--I don't know the figure, possibly 0--of one-year starters who have become stars. Check?

That's convenient.

Think about what you're trying to assert here. You're trying to mix generalized odds with a specific player and acting as if the disconnect is with the people who won't do that.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

I've got no problem with anything you've got here. Teams that crap out generally have failure at multiple levels: draft, free agency, player retention, etc....

But, then again, my position has never been that the Chiefs shouldn't take any QB at #3. My position has been that choosing Sanchez, or Stafford, is not such a no-brainer that the Sanchez ballwashing posse should be insulting everyone who dares to think that those two particular quarterbacks aren't the best choices to take.

I assume that Pioli is doing his homework to make damned sure that his first draft (and any draft related moves) in his new position is a successful one and, therefore, I don't think anyone should get their panties in a bunch no matter how it shakes out. If he takes Sanchez, I'd tell the "Don't draft Sanchez!" people to , give Sanchez time to develop and support the team even if Sanchez never sees the field in year one. If he skips the QB position, I'd tell the Sanchez/Stafford ballwashers to , give Pioli time to put his structure in place, and he'll find his QB when he thinks he has a comfortable fit.

This Chiefs team has a lot of problems, and they'll all need to be addressed along the way. The order is not something that fans should be fighting about as if there's only one way to do it.

We're not far apart in our approaches, actually.

The one thing I'll add is that, for most posters, it's not fair to paint the ballwashing with a broad brush. Most of the regulars, many of whom are very knowledgeable fans, are pro Stafford or Sanchez because it's a position arrived at after careful analysis.

Yeah, there are some bandwagoners, but you seem smart enough to distinguish between the two. Mecca, for all the heat he draws, would not be a part of the bandwagon crowd.