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.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by 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.

It'll never happen.

He's got a 10 cent brain.

[melbar]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

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

The point is that much like Brady if you knew what they were you would take them early. Great linebacker play isnt to be ignored and again outside of Punter or Kicker, an elite player is an elite player.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Exactly.

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

I think he's Carl Peterson.

If you've seen my posts before I'm all for Stafford, I just have legitimate concerns about Sanchez. If anything Curry is being villanized to help make Sanchez' case. I'm just saying Curry is a legitimate part of the conversation at #3 if Stafford is gone.

[Mecca]

So you'd take a guard that high?

[ChiefsCountry]

Originally Posted by Mecca

So you'd take a guard that high?

Remember he was on Jake Long's cock as much as findthedouche was.

[melbar]

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

Remember he was on Jake Long's cock as much as findthedouche was.

And I won that argument.

But no, no guards...

[Mecca]

How do you figure you won that argument?

[melbar]

Originally Posted by Mecca

How do you figure you won that argument?

In the argument that Jake long was worthy of the #5 pick which was connected to the Both Longs, Dorsey, and Ryan are better choices than Gholston argument that we went round and round about last year, I think I've decidedly come out on top of to this point. Long is a franchise LT who handled the rush exceptionally for a rookie, pass blocked exceedingly well, and was a huge part of his teams improvement. If you cant concede that Jake Long has panned out pretty well for the Dolphins your just being dishonest and need to dial down on the pride a bit. The "people just voted for him because they recognized his name" argument is exceedingly lame too. If he wasnt doing his job well, the negative connotations connected to his name would have worked the same way. I have no problem admitting that I was wrong about Tashard Choice.

Things can always change, but to this point Jake Long > Gholston.

Pro-bowler whose team went worst to 1st and made playoffs or...

Roster fodder whose already being called out for his effort (I was right about that too) not matching "potential" by his new coach?

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by melbar

In the argument that Jake long was worthy of the #5 pick which was connected to the Both Longs, Dorsey, and Ryan are better choices than Gholston argument that we went round and round about last year, I think I've decidedly come out on top of to this point. Long is a franchise LT who handled the rush exceptionally for a rookie, pass blocked exceedingly well, and was a huge part of his teams improvement. If you cant concede that Jake Long has panned out pretty well for the Dolphins your just being dishonest and need to dial down on the pride a bit. The "people just voted for him because they recognized his name" argument is exceedingly lame too. If he wasnt doing his job well, the negative connotations connected to his name would have worked the same way. I have no problem admitting that I was wrong about Tashard Choice.

Things can always change, but to this point Jake Long > Gholston.

Pro-bowler whose team went worst to 1st and made playoffs or...

Roster fodder whose already being called out for his effort (I was right about that too) not matching "potential" by his new coach?

Why are you comparing Jake Long to players that play different positions to try to prove your point?

Ryan Clady and Branden Albert played just as well as Long did, if not better.

They were drafted #12, and #15 respectively.

Seeing as how there were comparable or better players available much later, it follows that Jake Long wasn't worth the #1 pick.

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Why are you comparing Jake Long to players that play different positions to try to prove your point?

Ryan Clady and Branden Albert played just as well as Long did, if not better.

They were drafted #12, and #15 respectively.

Seeing as how there were comparable or better players available much later, it follows that Jake Long wasn't worth the #1 pick.

That makes no sense. Just because another team may have found a gem in the middle of the first (or later) who should have been ranked higher, doesn't mean your pick at #1 is any worse. If you got your franchise LT with the #1 pick, then he was worth it.

That's like saying you could have grabbed Kurt Warner as a free agent so your drafting of a Carson Palmer with the #1 pick wasn't worth it.

[melbar]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

That makes no sense. Just because another team may have found a gem in the middle of the first (or later) who should have been ranked higher, doesn't mean your pick at #1 is any worse. If you got your franchise LT with the #1 pick, then he was worth it.

That's like saying you could have grabbed Kurt Warner as a free agent so your drafting of a Carson Palmer with the #1 pick wasn't worth it.

Exactly. The argument was about whether Long was worthy of top 5 if he was available. Another part of our argument was whether Gholston was a better choice.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

That makes no sense. Just because another team may have found a gem in the middle of the first (or later) who should have been ranked higher, doesn't mean your pick at #1 is any worse. If you got your franchise LT with the #1 pick, then he was worth it.

That's like saying you could have grabbed Kurt Warner as a free agent so your drafting of a Carson Palmer with the #1 pick wasn't worth it.

Yeah, like my wife and I house hunting right now.

There are two houses we're looking at in the same neighborhood, that are almost identical.

One has an asking price of $300,000, and the other is listed at $255,000.

I'd be pretty ****ing stupid to pay $45,000 more for basically the same house.

Miami paid a shit-ton more for a guy that is no more talented than guys that went in the middle of the round.

[melbar]

You still dont have rain on your head and you could have paid 300,000 for a shack that doesnt work very hard.

You still needed a LT so which one do you take? Unless you get the elusive trade down partner (your saying to 12 or so?) your paying one of those guys the same money. Its a good house. Thats the argument. Because another house is also good doesnt make your house any less a franchise LT.

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Yeah, like my wife and I house hunting right now.

There are two houses we're looking at in the same neighborhood, that are almost identical.

One has an asking price of $300,000, and the other is listed at $255,000.

I'd be pretty ****ing stupid to pay $45,000 more for basically the same house.

Miami paid a shit-ton more for a guy that is no more talented than guys that went in the middle of the round.

In your scenario the only way a top draft pick is good is if the guy pans out and all others bust. If someone taken later emerges as a good pick then in your mind your pick isn't good anymore and you should have taken someone else. That is nonsensical.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by melbar

You still dont have rain on your head and you could have paid 300,000 for a shack that doesnt work very hard.

you still needed a LT so which one do you take? Unless you get the elusive trade down partner (your saying to 12 or so?) your paying one of those guys the same money. Its a good house. Thats the argument. Because another house is also good doesnt make your house any less a franchise LT.

I need milk.

I can go to QT and pick up a gallon for $4.50, or I can go to the grocery store, which is the same distance from my house as QT is, and buy the exact same brand of milk for $3.25.

Why would I go to QT?

In the NFL, you don't draft for need, you draft for value. At least the good organizations do.

Jake Long was not a value pick at #1 overall.

They could have gotten the same results out of a later pick.

Matt Ryan would have been a value pick, because he was head and shoulders the best player at the position - and would give you results you wouldn't have gotten from a QB later in the draft.

Same with Aaron Curry this year.

He's a phenomenal talent, but he's not THAT much more valuable than Brian Cushing, who could be had in the late 1st round or early 2nd.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

In your scenario the only way a top draft pick is good is if the guy pans out and all others bust. If someone taken later emerges as a good pick then in your mind your pick isn't good anymore and you should have taken someone else. That is nonsensical.

It has nothing to do with how they "pan out." It has to do with their potential as a prospect.

There were more questions raised about Jake Long as a prospect than there were about Clady. Some argued that Clady was the better prospect.

There were a TON of people here that noticed how little the difference in talent was between these guys.