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.

[RustShack]

Originally Posted by Basileus777

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.

Great LB's don't come around as often as Safeties.

[mylittlepony]

Originally Posted by Mecca

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.

Not to get cute but its 2001. You are standing there with a top 3 pick. Who do you pick?

You got to be looking at LT twice because despite being a RB he has been that franchise for pretty much his entire career.

[DrRyan]

Originally Posted by mylittlepony

Not to get cute but its 2001. You are standing there with a top 3 pick. Who do you pick?

You got to be looking at LT twice because despite being a RB he has been that franchise for pretty much his entire career.

In hindsight you would have to say LT. Only other reasonable option would be Seymour.

[Mecca]

I wouldn't have taken LT, I believe the RB position is a dime a dozen.

[OnTheWarpath15]

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.

Exactly, and that's why people talking about Sanchez or Stafford being reaches are ri-goddamn-diculous.

Pioli took this approach LAST year.

Jarod Mayo was considered a late 1st to mid 2nd guy.

Rick Gosselin's final mock, which is annually the most accurate in the business, had him going to the Steelers at 23

Pioli was sold on him, knew he wasn't going to make it to their next pick at #62. So they took him.

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Exactly, and that's why people talking about Sanchez or Stafford being reaches are ri-goddamn-diculous.

Pioli took this approach LAST year.

Jarod Mayo was considered a late 1st to mid 2nd guy.

Rick Gosselin's final mock, which is annually the most accurate in the business, had him going to the Steelers at 23

Pioli was sold on him, knew he wasn't going to make it to their next pick at #62. So they took him.

How does the drafting of Mayo support the position that KC may draft Sanchez? If anything, it would support Curry. The Pats identified the best player and took him regardless of whether the "experts" had him ranked so high.

[Tribal Warfare]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Mayock is also in the horseshit silly season part of the year, pre-combine. I don't think anyone on earth would agree that Brandon Pettigrew is the 5-6th best Senior, but that's what he had him ranked.

He also said Flacco was a reach at #17 too, so I wouldn't put much credence in his analysis when he acts like he pegged Flacco all along.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

How does the drafting of Mayo support the position that KC may draft Sanchez? If anything, it would support Curry. The Pats identified the best player and took him regardless of whether the "experts" had him ranked so high.

I'm not trying to support the position that we're definitely taking Sanchez.

Only pointing out that Pioli is going to take his guy at 3, even if the mouthbreathers here think he's a reach.

That goes for anyone, Stafford, Sanchez, Curry, whoever.

[missinDThomas]

dcprosportsreport.com/MockDraft.htm


i posted this on a Boldin thread. It is a site that has a pretty nice compile of mocks

[melbar]

If a guy is the most talented guy that year you take him. You take a QB that high, he better be ready to play in the near future especially for the jack you are gonna have to pay him. I know LBs are totally useless as evidenced by the Steelers. Curry comes up because 95% of the evaluators out there say he is an exceptional football player. Period. Thats why he is part of the discussion. Sanchez is young, has had an off the field issue, left his team early despite contrary advise from everyone, and was unable to beat out JD Booty. Thats why people are a little nervous picking him #3. Thats valid. Nobody is a f--kin idiot or needs a bullit in his head for feeling that way. If you cant see the validity of those issues your letting your heart rule your head.

[doomy3]

It will be hilarious if Freeman ends up being the best out of this class.

All the experts on here will be saying they called it 3 years from now.

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by doomy3

All the experts on here will be saying they called it 3 years from now.

No they won't. Folks generally admit when their opinions don't pan out.

Sometime ask how many people wanted Wendell Bryant instead of Ryan Sims, or how many people were happy at the time that we took Sims instead of Henderson or Haynesworth. You'll probably be surprised.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by melbar

If a guy is the most talented guy that year you take him. You take a QB that high, he better be ready to play in the near future especially for the jack you are gonna have to pay him. I know LBs are totally useless as evidenced by the Steelers.

Yeah, because Harrison was a first rounder. So was Woodley.

[Mecca]

The Steelers are a great example of how they cycle new LB's in and don't miss a beat, while walking away from big name players in the position.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Mecca

The Steelers are a great example of how they cycle new LB's in and don't miss a beat, while walking away from big name players in the position.

Exactly.

Mel keeps bringing up ridiculous comparisons and reasons why the Chiefs shouldn't draft a QB.

I think he's Carl Peterson.