Draft '09: The Quarterbacks

[The Poz]

Interesting read on the QB's of this years draft class.

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/fea...rticleid=32164

Too much to actually post here (3 pages worth) so I'll just copy what they're saying about the top 3.

1. Mark Sanchez, Southern Cal

Height/Weight: 6'3/225
College Experience: Fourth-year junior
Projected 40: 4.70
Comparison: Aaron Rodgers
2008 Stats: 241-of-366 (65.8%), 3,207 Yds, 34 Tds, 10 Ints, 3 Rush Tds

Positives: This class is not laden with pro-ready QBs, but of those eligible Sanchez most closely resembles an NFL signal caller. He took the vast majority of his snaps from center in a pro-style offense, tore apart elite college defenses, and often stood out as the best player on the field. Sanchez is highly elusive in the pocket, throws exceptionally well on the run, and took only 17 sacks in 13 games as a junior behind an offensive line that started four underclassmen, including three sophomores. His arm strength is close to ideal and he delivers the football quickly. Sanchez is a leader, outwardly competitive, and doesn't ruffle under pressure. He has the physical makeup of a franchise QB.

Negatives: Sanchez started 16 college games, a startlingly low number. He did not beat out John David Booty, a fringe NFL player, for a starting job in 2006 or 2007. Sanchez was temporarily suspended from USC for a sexual assault accusation in April 2006. Charges were later dropped. Sanchez went against coach Carroll's recommendation to stay in school another year. Carroll has countless ties to pro teams and his disapproval reflects poorly on Sanchez.

Lewin on Sanchez: It's difficult to doubt Sanchez's ability to be a big-time QB despite his low starts total. His body of work is excellent and he demonstrated accuracy as a junior. Sanchez's production in the Steve Sarkisian system is clearly superior to Booty's. However, low-start guys have the most to gain from sitting early in their careers. Sanchez needs to be in a situation like Matt Cassel or Aaron Rodgers. If he has to play right away, there is a strong chance Sanchez will fail. Seattle at No. 4 would be a good fit. The Seahawks could start Matt Hasselbeck for 2-3 more seasons while Sanchez prepares.

Verdict: Teams that need immediate help (Detroit, Tampa, Minnesota) may shy from Sanchez because they know the long odds raw passers face. But Sanchez could be a gem for a team that can groom him (Tennessee, Chicago, Jets, Buffalo, San Francisco). Sanchez is unlikely to be ready before 2010, but his skill set smacks of star potential. Sanchez should be comfortable with an extended waiting period because he's already spent two years behind Booty and one behind Matt Leinart.

2. Josh Freeman, Kansas State

Height/Weight: 6'6/250
College Experience: Third-year junior
Projected 40: 4.68
Comparison: More athletic Jason Campbell
2008 Stats: 224-of-382 (58.6%), 2,945 Yds, 20 Tds, 8 Ints, 3.8 YPC, 14 Rush Tds

Positives: Freeman is physically stronger than any QB in the draft and it translates to the field. His arm power is superior to Sanchez and Matthew Stafford's, and Freeman is extremely difficult to bring down. Playing behind an offensive line that was devoid of pro prospects and started a 6'3 left tackle, Freeman took only 15 sacks in 2008. It led to increased experience throwing on the run, although his completion rate fell from 63.3% to 58.6%. Freeman can outrun most defensive linemen and linebackers and will be a legitimate threat for positive rushing yards at the next level. K-State's offense used spread concepts, but Freeman spent plenty of time under center and the learning curve shouldn't be steep.

Negatives: Freeman exhibits inconsistent accuracy outside the pocket and his touch on short-to-intermediate throws needs work. While he developed into a superb decision maker by his junior year, Freeman played out of control at times early in his career. He also faced loosy-goosy Big 12 defenses and needs time to adjust to NFL game speed. As an underclassman, most areas of Freeman's game need touch-up, including his footwork and defensive recognition.

Lewin on Freeman: Freeman is big, mobile, and has a highly impressive arm. The talent surrounding him was incredibly poor last season; Kansas State's top runner averaged only 3.5 yards per carry. Freeman was second on the team in rushing. You can present the Joe Flacco argument for Freeman as a big-time talent with a big-time arm for whom it could all come together in the right situation. Having posted superior numbers with a worse supporting cast against a pretty tough schedule, Freeman is a better prospect than Matthew Stafford.

Verdict: Like any underclassman QB, Freeman needs to sit the bench for at least one year. He would've benefited immeasurably from a senior season, assuming his awful line didn't get him hurt. Freeman is not ready to play, but his ceiling is higher than any quarterback that will be taken in April. That upside makes Freeman worth drafting in the second round, ideally by a team with a starter who can hold down the fort for 1-2 seasons.

3. Matthew Stafford, Georgia

Height/Weight: 6'3/228
College Experience: Third-year junior
Projected 40: 4.78
Comparison: Kyle Boller
2008 Stats: 235-of-383 (61.4%), 3,459 Yds, 25 Tds, 10 Ints, 1 Rush Td

Positives: Stafford has as many college starts (34) as a senior who started three years. Georgia won all three bowl games Stafford played in and he comes from a balanced, pro-style offense. Stafford faced the best defenses D-I can offer playing in the SEC. He won't be a plus-yardage running threat in the pros, but is a gifted athlete (Stafford can dunk a basketball) and a dangerous on-the-run passer. Stafford's arm strength is ideal and he flashes the ability to make all the throws. He is a vocal leader, releases the football quickly, and has good pocket presence.

Negatives: Elite arm strength has covered up Stafford's flaws. He throws off his back foot often and is considered raw in his reads. Stafford tended to go in the tank for long stretches at Georgia and his teams underachieved (e.g. the Dogs were D-I's consensus top team entering 2008 but finished 13th). Stafford is prone to head-scratching under and overthrows. He was surrounded by NFL talent (Knowshon Moreno, Mohamed Massaquoi, Thomas Brown, Kregg Lumpkin, Danny Ware, Martrez Milner) in college, but never put up outstanding numbers.

Lewin on Stafford: Completing passes is the fundamental thing quarterbacks should do and Stafford is in the red-flag area with a 56.9 career completion rate. NFL starters must complete 60% of their throws. Stafford's college team was never as good as it should've been and he wasn't as good as he should've been either. D.J. Shockley and David Greene put up similar numbers in the same system and won SEC titles -- something Stafford never did. Scouts might compare Stafford to Carson Palmer and Jay Cutler physically, but he's in the Rex Grossman, Dave Ragone, and Brodie Croyle range from a production standpoint.

Verdict: Lewin noted that Stafford's college stats and success level were unimpressive with so many tools and weapons, and there's no reason to think he'll be a better pro than collegiate. While Stafford will surely be a top-ten pick, his track record says he'll be a long-term starter whose team tops out in the 9-7 range because of inconsistent quarterback play. Stafford will look like a Pro Bowler in one game, and Joey Harrington in the next.

[DrRyan]

Originally Posted by Mecca

That's nice and all but I'm not going to change my view of a guy due to Mike Mayocks mock draft, he thinks Aaron Curry is the greatest LB prospect ever, it's joke.

I think that is a little skewed to help your argument saying Maycock thinks Curry is the greatest LB prospect ever. I have not once heard that. It is pretty obvious he is everyone's #1 LB in this years draft. Also, I am not suggesting anything ridiculous like trying to trade down, or not taking the BPA at #3. Just think it is a bit funny that anyone who disagrees with your(not only you Mecca, many others) idea of what to do in the draft should be "shot in the head" because they are stupid. Get real, opinions are like....you get the picture, everyone has one, some better than others but none of them is correct. No one here is a GM. I will defer to Pioli, he is more qualified than anyone here.

[Mecca]

When you have a LB as a top 3 player on your board you think he is one of the greatest OLB prospects that ever lived...the last LB to go that high was a decade ago.

[DrRyan]

Originally Posted by Mecca

When you have a LB as a top 3 player on your board you think he is one of the greatest OLB prospects that ever lived...the last LB to go that high was a decade ago.

So ranking a LB as a top 3 player means you think he is one of the greatest OLB prospects ever. Not sure how you connect those dots, but ok, guess that is what it means. Does ranking an OL or WR in the top three mean that they are one of the greatest prospect ever too? I don't follow your rationale. To me, it would mean that he his the third best prospect in this draft.

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by DrRyan

So ranking a LB as a top 3 player means you think he is one of the greatest OLB prospects ever. Not sure how you connect those dots, but ok, guess that is what it means. Does ranking an OL or WR in the top three mean that they are one of the greatest prospect ever too? I don't follow your rationale. To me, it would mean that he his the third best prospect in this draft.

Are you trying to get on my nerves or do you really not understand?

LB is a devalued position it is not as important as say LT or QB or DE or CB something like that..

Putting a non pass rushing LB in your top 3 would be like putting a TE in your top 3, to say a guy is that good that means you think he's one of the best prospects ever.

Got it? Or do I have to go into an explanation of positional value.

[DrRyan]

I would disagree with you completely. I would not call Ray Lewis a pass rushing LB, but he would obviously be a top 3 worthy pick from what we know now. Not saying Curry is anything like Ray Lewis, but you are making it completely black and white. Any position(aside from I suppose TE, C or G) could merit a top 3 pick. Saying a LT, QB or pass rusher are the only positions that could merit a top three pick, I cannot agree with you there.

[Mecca]

Then you don't understand how the draft works.

[DrRyan]

Nope, I understand. I just disagree with you. Are you suggesting that knowing what you know about Ray Lewis now, he would not be worthy of a top three selection? Saying certain positions are the end all be all only options to draft in the top three is just ridiculous. I am not saying going QB at three is wrong, I am however saying only allowing yourself to draft certain positions in the top three does is not how it works. AJ Hawk(non pass rushing LB)Cedric Benson, Caddy Williams and Sean Taylor in the top 5 goes against the grain of your only certain positions theory.

All I am saying if you do not have to draft position "x" in the top 3 or top 5. Let's just agree to disagree.

[Mecca]

I think the occasional safety can slip into the top 5...I would have no issue taking Taylor Mays that high.

But I would never in a million years take a RB or a non rush LB in the top 5, guys like Lewis are a good example of why it's not needed. To many productive LB's are found at the bottom of the 1st and out of the 1st round.

It's basically overkilling a position by overdrafting it.

[DrRyan]

Taylor Mays....he doesn't play for USC does he?

[Skyy God]

I had no idea Stafford is the proud owner of a 56% career completion percentage. Tyler Thigpen thinks that's a terrible stat.

[philfree]

Originally Posted by Pittsie

I had no idea Stafford is the proud owner of a 56% career completion percentage. Tyler Thigpen thinks that's a terrible stat.

Here's some stats on Stafford from Stats inc. Stafford did complete over 60% of his passes this past year. I think that qualifies him as a legit prospect.


[Finished 6-2 as a true freshman starter in 2006. Started 34 games in three seasons at Georgia. As a junior in 2008, completed 61.4-percent of his throws for 3,459 yards with 25 TDs and 10 INTs. Finished career completing 57.1-percent of his attempts for 7,731 yards with 51 TDs and 33 INTs.]


PhilFree

[Danman]

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy

I know you guys are laughing but I wouldn't be surprised to see him pass Sanchez in the draft. He has the raw tools, maybe they conclude the obvious and those coaching him at KSU didn't know their head from their ass. I'm seeing a Flaccoesk type rise for him, and a Rogers-Quinn fall for the Dirty One.

Sorry, I just can't see this happening. Freeman may turn out to be decent, but right now he's lacking a lot of polish.

Originally Posted by Saul Good

Just an observation about QBs...If a QB is good enough to draft anywhere in the first round, he is good enough to draft at any point in the first round in which he is the highest QB left on your board.

For the sake of argument, let's say that Stafford goes number 1. If the Chiefs would be willing to take Sanchez if they had the 20th pick, they should take him with the #3 pick. Either he's your franchise QB, and he's worth more than any other player in the draft, or he's a bust. If you don't think he's a potential franchise QB, you don't take him at all. If you think he has a legitimate shot at being THE guy, you take him regardless of your spot.

If the Chiefs draft him at 3 and he pans out, it's a great pick. If the Cardinals draft him at 31 and he flops, it's a blown pick. The Chiefs won't wish that they had traded down if Sanchez makes it big, and the Cardinals wouldn't be celebrating about not picking him earlier if he flops.

Good post Big Cat. For the most part I agree with that. Each year is different, but you've made a good point.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by DrRyan

Nope, I understand. I just disagree with you. Are you suggesting that knowing what you know about Ray Lewis now, he would not be worthy of a top three selection? Saying certain positions are the end all be all only options to draft in the top three is just ridiculous. I am not saying going QB at three is wrong, I am however saying only allowing yourself to draft certain positions in the top three does is not how it works. AJ Hawk(non pass rushing LB)Cedric Benson, Caddy Williams and Sean Taylor in the top 5 goes against the grain of your only certain positions theory.

All I am saying if you do not have to draft position "x" in the top 3 or top 5. Let's just agree to disagree.

I would say that the examples you gave prove Mecca's point. If you were somehow able to know that Curry was going to be as good as or better than Ray Lewis, you would take him top three. That would make him the single best linebacker prospect in history. Anything less would be a reach.

AJ Hawk, Cedric Benson, Sean Taylor, and Cadillac Williams were drafted top 5. Taking Taylor out of the equation, if those teams could have a do over, do you think that any of them would even consider drafting any of those players again?

[DrRyan]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

I would say that the examples you gave prove Mecca's point. If you were somehow able to know that Curry was going to be as good as or better than Ray Lewis, you would take him top three. That would make him the single best linebacker prospect in history. Anything less would be a reach.

AJ Hawk, Cedric Benson, Sean Taylor, and Cadillac Williams were drafted top 5. Taking Taylor out of the equation, if those teams could have a do over, do you think that any of them would even consider drafting any of those players again?

I doubt they take them again, but as you know, hindsight is 20/20. There are tons of players every team could look back on and would not draft again if they had the chance, so it really is irrelevant if they would take them again or not. The disagreement I had with Mecca's argument is that only positions x, y and z that are draft-able in the top three or top five. I think any position aside from TE, and probably G or C could and do get taken that early. Saying that only certain positions are able to be drafted at certain points of the draft is a much too black and white way of looking at things. IF, you feel the BPA is not one of those positions, you still take him. I agree, you take the best player available at #3. Just not yet convinced one way or the other that that player is Sanchez.

[Basileus777]

Originally Posted by Mecca

I think the occasional safety can slip into the top 5...I would have no issue taking Taylor Mays that high.

But I would never in a million years take a RB or a non rush LB in the top 5, guys like Lewis are a good example of why it's not needed. To many productive LB's are found at the bottom of the 1st and out of the 1st round.

It's basically overkilling a position by overdrafting it.

I agree with you in general, but if you're seriously arguing that you would take Mays in the top 5, but not Ray Lewis, you are taking it way too far. Taking a MLB in the top 5 is rarely (almost neer) worth it, but for someone like Lewis it certainly is, especially since in this hypothetical we have the benefit of hindsight. Safeties shouldn't be taken the high anyway, Mays at 5 is a reach.