NFL Draft Neither Stafford or Sanchez belong in top 10 - Page 29

**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.

Chiefshrink · 02-22-2009, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

Just who the **** do you think is going to want to trade up, and who the hell do you think they will want to trade up for?

Left Tackles!!

Mr. Laz · 02-22-2009, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth CarlSatan

I don't have a subscription to NFL Network.

sucks to be you, bitch

chiefzilla1501 · 02-22-2009, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sportsshrink

Hell no it doesn't and quite frankly with only 7 picks and no surefire Franchise QB's sitting there I hope the hell Pioli trades down to acquire more picks either picking up another 1st or a couple of 2nds or 3rds.

It's a tricky thing to measure with a guy like Sanchez because you're largely grading him on potential. I agree with the idea of trading down if you don't like Sanchez, and I think there's got to be at least some reasonable doubt that the Chiefs might not take him. But I also know the workout is a small part of the equation--Ryan didn't look sharp in workouts last year either. I don't know the answer to whether Sanchez or Stafford is a franchise QB. Just trying to point out that it's not a slam dunk top 5 pick.

milkman · 02-22-2009, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sportsshrink

Left Tackles!!

Yeah, cause there's such a shortage of LT propspects in this draft.

JFC!

Sweet Daddy Hate · 02-22-2009, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laz

sucks to be you, bitch

Right back at ya' you pussy sack of shit.

Mr. Laz · 02-22-2009, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth CarlSatan

Right back at ya' you pussy sack of shit.

maybe you can call your buddy Dirty Sanchez and suck his dick for some extra money so you can get NFL Network

'Hamas' Jenkins · 02-22-2009, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sportsshrink

Left Tackles!!

When there are 5-7 OTs who will carry a first round grade, no one is going to trade up to 3, forfeiting nearly their entire draft, to take one when the difference between the top tier tackles is razor thin.

This is what happens when dumbasses post about the draft when they've never watched any college football or studied team needs and positional value.

Sweet Daddy Hate · 02-22-2009, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laz

maybe you can call your buddy Dirty Sanchez and suck his dick for some extra money so you can get NFL Network

Or maybe I can send him to Kansas to **** your old lady in the ass while I make you watch, and then knock your teeth down your ****ing throat for shits and giggles afterwards!

How'd THAT be, mother****er?

Chiefshrink · 02-22-2009, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

Yeah, cause there's such a shortage of LT propspects in this draft.

JFC!

You are right there probably 6 that will probably go 1st rd and there is the upper tier of that grp (2-3 guys) that will go in the top 10. You start playing the poker with the upper tier LT's and Sanchez cards you have with those teams that are interested in those players in hopes to acquire picks by trading down.

chiefzilla1501 · 02-22-2009, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

Just who the **** do you think is going to want to trade up, and who the hell do you think they will want to trade up for?

Given who's behind us?
Seattle could look for a LT given that Walter Jones will be 36 going into 2009, which makes Eugene Monroe or Jason Smith potential trade targets. They'll definitely highly consider a WR like Crabtree or Maclin, whomever grades higher.Any one of the teams behind us could get hot and heavy over Aaron Curry. Any team that badly needs a nose tackle could be willing to give up a ton of picks as well if that could get them a guy like BJ Raji. The Raiders, Bengals, and Jaguars are three teams that could be interested in leapfrogging Seattle for one of those guys.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 02-22-2009, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sportsshrink

You are right there probably 6 that will probably go 1st rd and there is the upper tier of that grp (2-3 guys) that will go in the top 10. You start playing the poker with the upper tier LT's and Sanchez cards you have with those teams that are interested in those players in hopes to acquire picks by trading down.

They don't have to trade up when 7 OTs went in the first round last year, and there are 5-7 who will go this year.

It's a flooded market. Supply outpaces demand. No one is going to trade up for these guys when they can stand pat, Keep several other high picks, and get an LT who is, at worst, 95% of the player as the guy they would have traded up for.

chiefzilla1501 · 02-22-2009, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

When there are 5-7 OTs who will carry a first round grade, no one is going to trade up to 3, forfeiting nearly their entire draft, to take one when the difference between the top tier tackles is razor thin.

This is what happens when dumbasses post about the draft when they've never watched any college football or studied team needs and positional value.

The Giants traded up for Eli Manning when they could have easily taken Philip Rivers in a draft class that was one of the deepest QB classes of all time. If you want the best, you get the best. Given how important the LT position is, if Monroe or Smith grade out very high relative to other tackles, why wouldn't you want the best in the business?

Christ, for all the people talking about "taking risks", you guys sure play the draft completely by the book.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 02-22-2009, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Given who's behind us?
Seattle could look for a LT given that Walter Jones will be 36 going into 2009, which makes Eugene Monroe or Jason Smith potential trade targets. They'll definitely highly consider a WR like Crabtree or Maclin, whomever grades higher.Any one of the teams behind us could get hot and heavy over Aaron Curry. Any team that badly needs a nose tackle could be willing to give up a ton of picks as well if that could get them a guy like BJ Raji. The Raiders, Bengals, and Jaguars are three teams that could be interested in leapfrogging Seattle for one of those guys.

1 cover backer taken in the top 3 in the last 20 years, and people are not only going to draft him at 3, but trade up to draft him at 3, and make him the highest paid LB in the league?

1 team in the top 11 runs a 3-4 and needs a NT. No one is trading their whole draft for BJ Raji.

No one is trading up to 3 for a 6'1" WR with a broken foot and speed ?s who comes from a spread offense, and Jeremy Maclin isn't going anywhere near 3.

ChiefsCountry · 02-22-2009, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

The Giants traded up for Eli Manning when they could have easily taken Philip Rivers in a draft class that was one of the deepest QB classes of all time. If you want the best, you get the best. Given how important the LT position is, if Monroe or Smith grade out very high relative to other tackles, why wouldn't you want the best in the business?

Christ, for all the people talking about "taking risks", you guys sure play the draft completely by the book.

Giants did draft Phillp Rivers.

**DeezNutz** · 02-22-2009, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

Giants did draft Phillp Rivers.

Are you going to put the ****ing hat on, Eli? Put the ****ing hat on!

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