Any Stafford vs Sanchez Threads out there? (1 Viewer)

[KellysHeroes]

which QB is going to have the better career

 

[Da Guru]

which QB is going to have the better career

Whatever QB the Lions did not draft.

 

[Chase Stuart]

As a believer in draft market efficiency, there's nothing more to say than at this point, I have to think Stafford is more likely to be the better QB. I can't say the percentages -- maybe there's a 55% chance he's better, maybe it's 70% -- but it's clear that he's better positioned. Sanchez is going to the better team, but I don't think that's enough to overcompensate the perceived talent difference.

Since 1988, there have been 11 QBs drafted #1 overall. They've been named first team all pro 4 times (all Peyton Manning), made 25 pro bowls, been the team's main starter for 68 seasons and played in 1076 games.

Since 1988, there have been 13 QBs drafted in the #3 to #10 range. This is the appropriate range to compare Sanchez to, IMO. They've been named first team all pro 0 times, made 8 pro bowls, been the team's main starter for 48 seasons and played in 824 games.

The #1 picks have thrown 343 more TDs than INTs; the #3-#10 guys have thrown 55 more TDs than INTs.

The #1s have Aikman, Manning, Palmer, Bledsoe, Manning and Vick; the #3s best QBs are McNair, Collins, Philip Rivers and, uh, Trent Dilfer.

QBs selected first in the draft have been much, much better than your average first round QB. And that includes QBs drafted at #5. IMO, a QB drafted at #5 is much closer to one drafted in the mid to late first round than one drafted at #1 overall.

Considering Stafford was the #1 choice by a significant amount of people, I feel pretty comfortable in saying he's more likely to be better, even if he's not *a lot* more likely to be better. Sanchez will almost certainly win more games sooner, though.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

which QB is going to have the better career

Whatever QB the Lions did not draft.

location, location, location

 

[Buckeyedawgs]

I am on the Sanchez bandwagon myself. Judgeing from my drafts so far I am minority!

But news from rookie camps just confirm what I already knew. Sanchez will have a better career and it's going to start much sooner.

Hoss made an interesting comment during are rookie draft this weekend. No USC QB

has been sucessful in the NFL other then Carson Palmer.

There is always a first and second to everything!

 

[runner06]

Stafford will probably put up better stats because he has Calvin Johnson and Brandon Pettigrew to throw to.

 

[King of the Jungle]

As a believer in draft market efficiency, there's nothing more to say than at this point, I have to think Stafford is more likely to be the better QB. I can't say the percentages -- maybe there's a 55% chance he's better, maybe it's 70% -- but it's clear that he's better positioned. Sanchez is going to the better team, but I don't think that's enough to overcompensate the perceived talent difference.

Since 1988, there have been 11 QBs drafted #1 overall. They've been named first team all pro 4 times (all Peyton Manning), made 25 pro bowls, been the team's main starter for 68 seasons and played in 1076 games.

Since 1988, there have been 13 QBs drafted in the #3 to #10 range. This is the appropriate range to compare Sanchez to, IMO. They've been named first team all pro 0 times, made 8 pro bowls, been the team's main starter for 48 seasons and played in 824 games.

The #1 picks have thrown 343 more TDs than INTs; the #3-#10 guys have thrown 55 more TDs than INTs.

The #1s have Aikman, Manning, Palmer, Bledsoe, Manning and Vick; the #3s best QBs are McNair, Collins, Philip Rivers and, uh, Trent Dilfer.

QBs selected first in the draft have been much, much better than your average first round QB. And that includes QBs drafted at #5. IMO, a QB drafted at #5 is much closer to one drafted in the mid to late first round than one drafted at #1 overall.

Considering Stafford was the #1 choice by a significant amount of people, I feel pretty comfortable in saying he's more likely to be better, even if he's not *a lot* more likely to be better. Sanchez will almost certainly win more games sooner, though.

*I have only seen highlights and two games of which they have played.First bold point: To say that Stafford has more talent is just an opinion. IMO it is the opposite. Sanchez seems to see the field better and has more NFL-caliber tendencies (looking off safeties, progressing through reads...). I see Stafford's arm strength as the only quality that surpasses Sanchez.

Second bold point: There were reports of many NFL teams that had Sanchez at the top of there QB rankings. It would have been interesting to see where both ended up if DET took Curry. I didn't hear any buzz by a team to move up and get Stafford. The Lion's almost seemed in the minority there.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I am on the Sanchez bandwagon myself. Judgeing from my drafts so far I am minority!But news from rookie camps just confirm what I already knew. Sanchez will have a better career and it's going to start much sooner. Hoss made an interesting comment during are rookie draft this weekend. No USC QBhas been sucessful in the NFL other then Carson Palmer. There is always a first and second to everything!

Pat Haden? Matt Cassel? Rodney Peete?

 

[Chase Stuart]

As a believer in draft market efficiency, there's nothing more to say than at this point, I have to think Stafford is more likely to be the better QB. I can't say the percentages -- maybe there's a 55% chance he's better, maybe it's 70% -- but it's clear that he's better positioned. Sanchez is going to the better team, but I don't think that's enough to overcompensate the perceived talent difference.

Since 1988, there have been 11 QBs drafted #1 overall. They've been named first team all pro 4 times (all Peyton Manning), made 25 pro bowls, been the team's main starter for 68 seasons and played in 1076 games.

Since 1988, there have been 13 QBs drafted in the #3 to #10 range. This is the appropriate range to compare Sanchez to, IMO. They've been named first team all pro 0 times, made 8 pro bowls, been the team's main starter for 48 seasons and played in 824 games.

The #1 picks have thrown 343 more TDs than INTs; the #3-#10 guys have thrown 55 more TDs than INTs.

The #1s have Aikman, Manning, Palmer, Bledsoe, Manning and Vick; the #3s best QBs are McNair, Collins, Philip Rivers and, uh, Trent Dilfer.

QBs selected first in the draft have been much, much better than your average first round QB. And that includes QBs drafted at #5. IMO, a QB drafted at #5 is much closer to one drafted in the mid to late first round than one drafted at #1 overall.

Considering Stafford was the #1 choice by a significant amount of people, I feel pretty comfortable in saying he's more likely to be better, even if he's not *a lot* more likely to be better. Sanchez will almost certainly win more games sooner, though.

*I have only seen highlights and two games of which they have played.First bold point: To say that Stafford has more talent is just an opinion. IMO it is the opposite. Sanchez seems to see the field better and has more NFL-caliber tendencies (looking off safeties, progressing through reads...). I see Stafford's arm strength as the only quality that surpasses Sanchez.

Second bold point: There were reports of many NFL teams that had Sanchez at the top of there QB rankings. It would have been interesting to see where both ended up if DET took Curry. I didn't hear any buzz by a team to move up and get Stafford. The Lion's almost seemed in the minority there.

Honestly, I doubt even 1/3 of GMs would rate Sanchez ahead of Stafford. I think people didn't try to trade up for Stafford because they didn't think Detroit would trade with them.I think Stafford is much better when thinks break down and is more advanced at going through his progressions.

The only evidence we really have so far is the one team that had the decision to make -- and that's Detroit. And they took Stafford.

 

[SproutDaddy]

I'll take Stafford all day, regardless of location. I'll also take Pat White over Sanchez.

 

[SproutDaddy]

As a believer in draft market efficiency, there's nothing more to say than at this point, I have to think Stafford is more likely to be the better QB. I can't say the percentages -- maybe there's a 55% chance he's better, maybe it's 70% -- but it's clear that he's better positioned. Sanchez is going to the better team, but I don't think that's enough to overcompensate the perceived talent difference.

Since 1988, there have been 11 QBs drafted #1 overall. They've been named first team all pro 4 times (all Peyton Manning), made 25 pro bowls, been the team's main starter for 68 seasons and played in 1076 games.

Since 1988, there have been 13 QBs drafted in the #3 to #10 range. This is the appropriate range to compare Sanchez to, IMO. They've been named first team all pro 0 times, made 8 pro bowls, been the team's main starter for 48 seasons and played in 824 games.

The #1 picks have thrown 343 more TDs than INTs; the #3-#10 guys have thrown 55 more TDs than INTs.

The #1s have Aikman, Manning, Palmer, Bledsoe, Manning and Vick; the #3s best QBs are McNair, Collins, Philip Rivers and, uh, Trent Dilfer.

QBs selected first in the draft have been much, much better than your average first round QB. And that includes QBs drafted at #5. IMO, a QB drafted at #5 is much closer to one drafted in the mid to late first round than one drafted at #1 overall.

Considering Stafford was the #1 choice by a significant amount of people, I feel pretty comfortable in saying he's more likely to be better, even if he's not *a lot* more likely to be better. Sanchez will almost certainly win more games sooner, though.

*I have only seen highlights and two games of which they have played.First bold point: To say that Stafford has more talent is just an opinion. IMO it is the opposite. Sanchez seems to see the field better and has more NFL- caliber tendencies (looking off safeties, progressing through reads...). I see Stafford's arm strength as the only quality that surpasses Sanchez.

Second bold point: There were reports of many NFL teams that had Sanchez at the top of there QB rankings. It would have been interesting to see where both ended up if DET took Curry. I didn't hear any buzz by a team to move up and get Stafford. The Lion's almost seemed in the minority there.

Everyone wanted to move up for Sanchez because it was a given that Detoit was taking Stafford. Did you honestly think they were going to take someone else? There was no doubt in my mind where he was going to end up.

 

[King of the Jungle]

As a believer in draft market efficiency, there's nothing more to say than at this point, I have to think Stafford is more likely to be the better QB. I can't say the percentages -- maybe there's a 55% chance he's better, maybe it's 70% -- but it's clear that he's better positioned. Sanchez is going to the better team, but I don't think that's enough to overcompensate the perceived talent difference.

Since 1988, there have been 11 QBs drafted #1 overall. They've been named first team all pro 4 times (all Peyton Manning), made 25 pro bowls, been the team's main starter for 68 seasons and played in 1076 games.

Since 1988, there have been 13 QBs drafted in the #3 to #10 range. This is the appropriate range to compare Sanchez to, IMO. They've been named first team all pro 0 times, made 8 pro bowls, been the team's main starter for 48 seasons and played in 824 games.

The #1 picks have thrown 343 more TDs than INTs; the #3-#10 guys have thrown 55 more TDs than INTs.

The #1s have Aikman, Manning, Palmer, Bledsoe, Manning and Vick; the #3s best QBs are McNair, Collins, Philip Rivers and, uh, Trent Dilfer.

QBs selected first in the draft have been much, much better than your average first round QB. And that includes QBs drafted at #5. IMO, a QB drafted at #5 is much closer to one drafted in the mid to late first round than one drafted at #1 overall.

Considering Stafford was the #1 choice by a significant amount of people, I feel pretty comfortable in saying he's more likely to be better, even if he's not *a lot* more likely to be better. Sanchez will almost certainly win more games sooner, though.

*I have only seen highlights and two games of which they have played.First bold point: To say that Stafford has more talent is just an opinion. IMO it is the opposite. Sanchez seems to see the field better and has more NFL-caliber tendencies (looking off safeties, progressing through reads...). I see Stafford's arm strength as the only quality that surpasses Sanchez.

Second bold point: There were reports of many NFL teams that had Sanchez at the top of there QB rankings. It would have been interesting to see where both ended up if DET took Curry. I didn't hear any buzz by a team to move up and get Stafford. The Lion's almost seemed in the minority there.

Honestly, I doubt even 1/3 of GMs would rate Sanchez ahead of Stafford. I think people didn't try to trade up for Stafford because they didn't think Detroit would trade with them.I think Stafford is much better when thinks break down and is more advanced at going through his progressions.

The only evidence we really have so far is the one team that had the decision to make -- and that's Detroit. And they took Stafford.

I hope your right (Lion's fan here). The games I saw I would say Sanchez was head and shoulders on progressing through reads. Granted I probably caught Stafford on two of his worst performances of the year (Texas Tech, MSU). He looked like he locked on a receiver and forced the ball quite a bit. The fact that Detroit made the decision on Stafford would indicate that Sanchez is the better option (historically speaking - many draft misses including QBs - Ware, Harrington, Stanton....)

 

[Chase Stuart]

The fact that Detroit made the decision on Stafford would indicate that Sanchez is the better option (historically speaking - many draft misses including QBs - Ware, Harrington, Stanton....)

What would that have to do with anything?

 

[King of the Jungle]

The fact that Detroit made the decision on Stafford would indicate that Sanchez is the better option (historically speaking - many draft misses including QBs - Ware, Harrington, Stanton....)

What would that have to do with anything?

Well, you stated:The only evidence we really have so far is the one team that had the decision to make -- and that's Detroit. And they took Stafford.So if you are using that is evidence to support your opinion, I would use Detroit's ability to draft poorly as evidence to support my opinion. Meaning historically they have not chosen the best option.

 

[Chase Stuart]

The fact that Detroit made the decision on Stafford would indicate that Sanchez is the better option (historically speaking - many draft misses including QBs - Ware, Harrington, Stanton....)

What would that have to do with anything?

Well, you stated:The only evidence we really have so far is the one team that had the decision to make -- and that's Detroit. And they took Stafford.So if you are using that is evidence to support your opinion, I would use Detroit's ability to draft poorly as evidence to support my opinion. Meaning historically they have not chosen the best option.

The people who selected Ware, Harrington and Stanton were not the people who selected Stafford. And it's not like Stanton was a 1st round pick, or there was another QB they were debating between, or that Stanton is a bust.

 

[Tau837]

I'm with Chase here. For those who think Sanchez looked better in college, I would suggest that Sanchez typically faced weaker defenses and arguably played with stronger offensive teammates.

Plus, I'm not sure where to find a source for college starts, but it appears Sanchez started 16 games and played in 3 others, whereas Stafford played in 39 games and started 30+. That is a significant experience gap, and I'm sure that contributes to Chase's opinion stated above that Stafford progresses through his reads better and also handles it better when plays break down.

 

[Phurfur]

I am on the Sanchez bandwagon myself. Judgeing from my drafts so far I am minority!

But news from rookie camps just confirm what I already knew. Sanchez will have a better career and it's going to start much sooner.

Hoss made an interesting comment during are rookie draft this weekend. No USC QB

has been sucessful in the NFL other then Carson Palmer.

There is always a first and second to everything!

I guess as Fantasy players we should repeat this every year, "Never believe anything that comes out of camp".

 

[T Bell]

Sanchez made a good first impression, from today's L.A. Times:

Mark Sanchez prepares to face Jets fans' negative energyMark SanchezEmail PictureBill Kostroun / Associated PressQuarterback Mark Sanchez is the center of attention during the New York Jets' minicamp for rookies.After being drafted by the New York Jets with the No. 5 pick, the former USC quarterback is about to experience a whole new level of pressure, from one of sports' most demanding and impatient fan baseBy Sam FarmerMay 4, 2009So what's the pressure on USC's Mark Sanchez going to be like now that he's playing quarterback for the New York Jets?Boomer Esiason can give him a hint. Fifteen years ago after an especially disappointing loss to Miami, Esiason, then the Jets' quarterback, was making the seven-mile drive from the Meadowlands back to Manhattan.While he was slogging through stop-and-go traffic at the entrance to the Lincoln Tunnel, the car next to him was violently rear-ended. The quarterback threw his car into park, hopped out and ran to the woman whose car had been hit. She was wearing, of all things, an Esiason jersey, and was utterly shocked when he rapped on her window to check on her."Are you OK?" he said, trying to keep calm. "Are you OK?""Boomer? Is that you?" she asked the good Samaritan, sounding disoriented. "I think I'm OK, but . . ."But what?"But you guys sucked."Welcome to the New York Jets, Mark, where frustration is measured in decades, and quarterback grace periods are as leisurely as shotgun honeymoons. Sanchez won't be holding a clipboard for long behind Kellen Clemens, if at all, considering the way the Jets traded up to the fifth spot to draft him.Sanchez passed his first test with flying colors. At his first practice with the Jets, Friday at the team's rookie camp, he wowed his new coaches by learning all 18 plays he was shown, rather than accepting the scaled-down alternative he was offered."There was some guy who we have who got the entire offense together and installed the base offense," new Coach Rex Ryan told reporters after the first practice. "I guess you can figure out who that was. That's impressive. That's the kind of young man we brought in here."Ryan was an assistant coach in Baltimore last season, when the Ravens made the postseason behind the very capable play of first-year quarterback Joe Flacco. So this coach knows what rookies can do at the position."Up until last year, there was a stigma that you don't win with a rookie quarterback," Ryan said. "I think we proved that wrong."Spreading the newsAs a few of the franchise's former quarterbacks will attest to, however, the pressure will be on the rookie to step right into one of the unique jobs in professional sports and win. Win now."Once you get to the aspect of playing quarterback there, it's a totally different realm," said Ray Lucas, a Jets quarterback from 1997 through 2000. "It's like Frank Sinatra said: If you can make it there, you'll make it anywhere."Lucas grew up in New Jersey, as did Neil O'Donnell, a Jets quarterback who came before him. Both said they expect Sanchez to do well but emphasized this is worlds removed from the comfortable cocoon of USC."You're never prepared for it," O'Donnell said. "If you think you are, you aren't. Even when you're winning, it's still, 'But . . .' You still have to answer that, 'But . . .'"With the fans and the expectations, it's almost like they want you to fall on your face. You have to fight to even not stumble. Because it's an easy story for them -- same old Jets, same old blown draft picks, same old blown free agents. It's a broken record."O'Donnell thought he was prepared for the adjustment when he signed with the Jets as a free agent in 1996, fresh off a Super Bowl loss as quarterback of the Pittsburgh Steelers. He was pretty sure he had seen and been through it all.So it wasn't surprising to him that a large group of reporters was there for his introductory news conference. The eye opener was that same large group gathered in front of his locker after every practice."When you go to your locker after a regular Wednesday practice in the middle of the season, there are 15 beat writers wanting your time," said O'Donnell, who now lives in Tennessee, where he finished his career with the Titans."You're never prepared for that. Usually most teams have three, four, five, maybe at the most six guys that want to get a little sound bite from the starting quarterback. But in New York it's 10 to 15 guys around your locker every time you come out there."Fans never sleepAs tenacious as the New York media might be, the most scathing critiques come from the fans -- the same ones who were cheering like madmen at Radio City Music Hall when the Jets selected Sanchez.The young quarterback heard a bit of that last week while stuck in Manhattan traffic on his way to Esiason's show. Radio callers were complaining about the New York Mets so vehemently, dissecting every detail of their latest loss, some even suggesting the team was trying to lose, that Sanchez later remarked about it to Esiason.Said Esiason: "I told him, 'You haven't heard anything. The first time your ball gets caught up in a wind gust at the Meadowlands, they're going to say your arm's not strong enough. They'll be comparing you to Chad Pennington, and that you're no Joe Namath.' "Ah, Namath, the only Jets quarterback to win a Super Bowl. Like John Wooden at UCLA, Namath holds a special, untouchable, even unapproachable place in the team's history. Eventually, it seems, every Jets quarterback is compared with him. And every one falls short. He did not return phone messages to talk about Sanchez."Joe Namath has been the 40-year, 800-pound shadow that has been hanging over this franchise," Esiason said. "So get ready to deal with it, son, because it's going to be a big part of your life."All Jet fans are like" -- invoking his thickest New Jersey accent -- 'Aw, he's no Joe Namath! He'll never be Joe Namath! Only one Joe Namath!' Maybe that's true. But Jet fans are negative by nature. They're all cynical, they're all negative."That's not to say Esiason doesn't love and appreciate those fans. But it's an acquired taste. Playing at the Meadowlands, too, takes some getting used to. Esiason mentioned trying to throw passes there when the wind is swirling, and O'Donnell said some days it can be the toughest place in the NFL to complete a pass."There were times in walk-throughs I'd throw a ball and it was lucky to stay in the arena," O'Donnell said.Being a part of itFor now, in the aftermath of the draft, the only winds Sanchez has been feeling have been gentle breezes. In his first week in New York, he threw out the opening pitch at a Mets game, toured the Central Park Zoo, ate a pastrami sandwich at the famed Carnegie Deli, and caught a performance of "Wicked" on Broadway."I'm an excitable young man and I'm ready for challenges," Sanchez, 22, told New York reporters in his meet-the-media news conference. "I'm always smiling."He was asked about a variety of subjects, ranging from his playing style, to his relationship with USC Coach Pete Carroll -- formerly a Jets coach -- to a blemish on his record: Sanchez was arrested in 2006 as a USC sophomore after being accused of sexually assaulting a 19-year-old female student. Los Angeles County prosecutors decided not to file charges, citing insufficient evidence."It was simply false allegations, but in that kind of situation, you're in a huge media spotlight just like here with the Jets," he told reporters. "People know where you go, where you go to eat, who you are dating, and things like that. To be in a situation like that, it taught me so much, especially without having any of the consequences because they weren't deserved. It was crazy."But you learn the kind of spotlight, the kind of pressure you are under, how important it is to be in the right situations and to trust the people around you. I can tell that I can trust the people here, and I've learned quite a lot to bring family back into that process."Esiason, for one, thinks Sanchez has the ability and personality to succeed in his new surroundings. The rookie will graduate from USC this month with a degree in communications and is expected to receive a contract that guarantees him at least $30 million. Esiason stressed the distractions that come along with the job will add a layer of difficulty to the already daunting challenge."Twenty-two years old? [Thirty] million guaranteed? Manhattan seven miles away? Every young athlete has got to deal with the pitfalls of that," Esiason said. "And here in New York, whether it be Darryl Strawberry or Plaxico Burress, there are a lot of guys that have been swallowed up by all of that. But by the same token, there have been guys like Derek Jeter who have handled it absolutely fantastically, and they go down in history as one of the great all-time icons in the history of a New York franchise."All of us are hoping beyond hope that that's what Mark Sanchez will become for the Jets, and that in due time, 10 years from nowwhen we're talking about him, hopefully you're talking about a couple of Super Bowls under his belt and about four or five Pro Bowls, and you'll realize that that trade on draft day was certainly worth everything that you gave up for him. I just hope that he doesn't get derailed."Lucas seconds that, and says the key for Sanchez will be pouring all of his efforts and energy into the task at hand, while tuning out the static and off-the-field distractions that are always there.Asked if he had a favorite New York place to celebrate after a good day on the job, Lucas didn't hesitate."Yeah," he said. "Home."

 

[cstu]

I'm with Chase here. For those who think Sanchez looked better in college, I would suggest that Sanchez typically faced weaker defenses and arguably played with stronger offensive teammates.Plus, I'm not sure where to find a source for college starts, but it appears Sanchez started 16 games and played in 3 others, whereas Stafford played in 39 games and started 30+. That is a significant experience gap, and I'm sure that contributes to Chase's opinion stated above that Stafford progresses through his reads better and also handles it better when plays break down.

Sure, it's better for a QB to have played a lot in college, but what did Stafford show us in all those games? That he's got a strong arm but is inconsistent on accuracy (57% career completion rate) and makes more bad decisions than he should (1.55 TD to INT ratio). I'd really like to see the Lions turn it around, but Stafford has bust written all over him.

 

[cstu]

I'll take Stafford all day, regardless of location. I'll also take Pat White over Sanchez.

Saved for posterity.

 

[jurb26]

I'm with Chase here. For those who think Sanchez looked better in college, I would suggest that Sanchez typically faced weaker defenses and arguably played with stronger offensive teammates.Plus, I'm not sure where to find a source for college starts, but it appears Sanchez started 16 games and played in 3 others, whereas Stafford played in 39 games and started 30+. That is a significant experience gap, and I'm sure that contributes to Chase's opinion stated above that Stafford progresses through his reads better and also handles it better when plays break down.

Sure, it's better for a QB to have played a lot in college, but what did Stafford show us in all those games? That he's got a strong arm but is inconsistent on accuracy (57% career completion rate) and makes more bad decisions than he should (1.55 TD to INT ratio). I'd really like to see the Lions turn it around, but Stafford has bust written all over him.

Posts like this just stink of ignorance. Just posting the states with no explanation is evidence enough as to why.

YEAR	 CMP 	ATT 	YDS 	CMP% 	YPA 	LNG 	TD 	INT 	SACK 	RAT2006 	135 	256 	1749 	52.7 	6.83 	53 	7 	13 	12 	108.992007 	194 	348 	2523 	55.7 	7.25 	84 	19 	10 	15 	128.922008 	235 	383 	3459 	61.4 	9.03 	78 	25 	10 	17 	153.54

 

[ClownDogs]

I'm with Chase here. For those who think Sanchez looked better in college, I would suggest that Sanchez typically faced weaker defenses and arguably played with stronger offensive teammates.Plus, I'm not sure where to find a source for college starts, but it appears Sanchez started 16 games and played in 3 others, whereas Stafford played in 39 games and started 30+. That is a significant experience gap, and I'm sure that contributes to Chase's opinion stated above that Stafford progresses through his reads better and also handles it better when plays break down.

Sure, it's better for a QB to have played a lot in college, but what did Stafford show us in all those games? That he's got a strong arm but is inconsistent on accuracy (57% career completion rate) and makes more bad decisions than he should (1.55 TD to INT ratio). I'd really like to see the Lions turn it around, but Stafford has bust written all over him.

Posts like this just stink of ignorance. Just posting the states with no explanation is evidence enough as to why.

YEAR	 CMP 	ATT 	YDS 	CMP% 	YPA 	LNG 	TD 	INT 	SACK 	RAT2006 	135 	256 	1749 	52.7 	6.83 	53 	7 	13 	12 	108.992007 	194 	348 	2523 	55.7 	7.25 	84 	19 	10 	15 	128.922008 	235 	383 	3459 	61.4 	9.03 	78 	25 	10 	17 	153.54

His post seem accurate to me? 57% career comp. rate, check, 1.55 td to int ratio, check. Strong arm but inconsistent, check.

 

[jurb26]

I'm with Chase here. For those who think Sanchez looked better in college, I would suggest that Sanchez typically faced weaker defenses and arguably played with stronger offensive teammates.Plus, I'm not sure where to find a source for college starts, but it appears Sanchez started 16 games and played in 3 others, whereas Stafford played in 39 games and started 30+. That is a significant experience gap, and I'm sure that contributes to Chase's opinion stated above that Stafford progresses through his reads better and also handles it better when plays break down.

Sure, it's better for a QB to have played a lot in college, but what did Stafford show us in all those games? That he's got a strong arm but is inconsistent on accuracy (57% career completion rate) and makes more bad decisions than he should (1.55 TD to INT ratio). I'd really like to see the Lions turn it around, but Stafford has bust written all over him.

Posts like this just stink of ignorance. Just posting the states with no explanation is evidence enough as to why.

YEAR	 CMP 	ATT 	YDS 	CMP% 	YPA 	LNG 	TD 	INT 	SACK 	RAT2006 	135 	256 	1749 	52.7 	6.83 	53 	7 	13 	12 	108.992007 	194 	348 	2523 	55.7 	7.25 	84 	19 	10 	15 	128.922008 	235 	383 	3459 	61.4 	9.03 	78 	25 	10 	17 	153.54

His post seem accurate to me? 57% career comp. rate, check, 1.55 td to int ratio, check. Strong arm but inconsistent, check.

So, Stafford was the same QB his freshman year as he was his junior year? These stats are the epitome of why having more than one year to go on is important for evaluating QBs. I'll leave it at that.

 

[Tau837]

I'm with Chase here. For those who think Sanchez looked better in college, I would suggest that Sanchez typically faced weaker defenses and arguably played with stronger offensive teammates.Plus, I'm not sure where to find a source for college starts, but it appears Sanchez started 16 games and played in 3 others, whereas Stafford played in 39 games and started 30+. That is a significant experience gap, and I'm sure that contributes to Chase's opinion stated above that Stafford progresses through his reads better and also handles it better when plays break down.

Sure, it's better for a QB to have played a lot in college, but what did Stafford show us in all those games? That he's got a strong arm but is inconsistent on accuracy (57% career completion rate) and makes more bad decisions than he should (1.55 TD to INT ratio). I'd really like to see the Lions turn it around, but Stafford has bust written all over him.

Posts like this just stink of ignorance. Just posting the states with no explanation is evidence enough as to why.

YEAR	 CMP 	ATT 	YDS 	CMP% 	YPA 	LNG 	TD 	INT 	SACK 	RAT2006 	135 	256 	1749 	52.7 	6.83 	53 	7 	13 	12 	108.992007 	194 	348 	2523 	55.7 	7.25 	84 	19 	10 	15 	128.922008 	235 	383 	3459 	61.4 	9.03 	78 	25 	10 	17 	153.54

What did Stafford show us in those games? He showed us a very nice progression across the board - completion percentage, ypa, TDs, interceptions, and rating - each year he was in school. I would imagine this type of continual improvement is a strong positive for the NFL scouts.

 

[jurb26]

I think Stafford will have the better career but that is highly dependent on how Det develops him. Sanchez is well positioned for early success though and should see more short term results. The NYJ team reminds me a lot of the Steelers team that took Big Ben and played him early. A dominant Oline and strong running game. Conservative play calling that will keep the young QB from really testing things and making mistakes. Stafford on the other hand will likely (hopefully) play very little early on and if he does see action it will be behind what is expected to be one of the worst Olines in football and for a team that will more than likely be behind in games as well.

Aside from the short term though, Stafford has elite franchise QB potential and ability. Sanchez may be better than I and many give him credit for, but it's really hard to say given his limited body of work at UCS.

 

[jurb26]

I'm with Chase here. For those who think Sanchez looked better in college, I would suggest that Sanchez typically faced weaker defenses and arguably played with stronger offensive teammates.Plus, I'm not sure where to find a source for college starts, but it appears Sanchez started 16 games and played in 3 others, whereas Stafford played in 39 games and started 30+. That is a significant experience gap, and I'm sure that contributes to Chase's opinion stated above that Stafford progresses through his reads better and also handles it better when plays break down.

Sure, it's better for a QB to have played a lot in college, but what did Stafford show us in all those games? That he's got a strong arm but is inconsistent on accuracy (57% career completion rate) and makes more bad decisions than he should (1.55 TD to INT ratio). I'd really like to see the Lions turn it around, but Stafford has bust written all over him.

Posts like this just stink of ignorance. Just posting the states with no explanation is evidence enough as to why.

YEAR	 CMP 	ATT 	YDS 	CMP% 	YPA 	LNG 	TD 	INT 	SACK 	RAT2006 	135 	256 	1749 	52.7 	6.83 	53 	7 	13 	12 	108.992007 	194 	348 	2523 	55.7 	7.25 	84 	19 	10 	15 	128.922008 	235 	383 	3459 	61.4 	9.03 	78 	25 	10 	17 	153.54

What did Stafford show us in those games? He showed us a very nice progression across the board - completion percentage, ypa, TDs, interceptions, and rating - each year he was in school. I would imagine this type of continual improvement is a strong positive for the NFL scouts.

Somebody gets it. Also, given the offensive scheme he played in in Georgia this growth curve is even more impressive.

 

[cstu]

Sure, it's better for a QB to have played a lot in college, but what did Stafford show us in all those games? That he's got a strong arm but is inconsistent on accuracy (57% career completion rate) and makes more bad decisions than he should (1.55 TD to INT ratio). I'd really like to see the Lions turn it around, but Stafford has bust written all over him.

Posts like this just stink of ignorance. Just posting the states with no explanation is evidence enough as to why.YEAR CMP ATT YDS CMP% YPA LNG TD INT SACK RAT2006 135 256 1749 52.7 6.83 53 7 13 12 108.992007 194 348 2523 55.7 7.25 84 19 10 15 128.922008 235 383 3459 61.4 9.03 78 25 10 17 153.54

What did Stafford show us in those games? He showed us a very nice progression across the board - completion percentage, ypa, TDs, interceptions, and rating - each year he was in school. I would imagine this type of continual improvement is a strong positive for the NFL scouts.

Somebody gets it. Also, given the offensive scheme he played in in Georgia this growth curve is even more impressive.

Mayock agrees with me:

Mike Mayock of the NFL Network, a man who’s made his reputation in the past few years as a straight-shooting (and accurate) analyst, will tell anyone with ears Stafford is not worth taking No. 1.“I think he’s got elite-level talent,” Mayock said last month on Dan Patrick’s radio show. “But that’s not to me, what makes a great NFL quarterback. The streets are littered with talented, former first-round quarterbacks with big arms. And the thing is … when you put the tape on, for three years he’s had elite level talent around him, yet he’s played inconsistently from week to week.”

 

[King of the Jungle]

The fact that Detroit made the decision on Stafford would indicate that Sanchez is the better option (historically speaking - many draft misses including QBs - Ware, Harrington, Stanton....)

What would that have to do with anything?

Well, you stated:The only evidence we really have so far is the one team that had the decision to make -- and that's Detroit. And they took Stafford.So if you are using that is evidence to support your opinion, I would use Detroit's ability to draft poorly as evidence to support my opinion. Meaning historically they have not chosen the best option.

The people who selected Ware, Harrington and Stanton were not the people who selected Stafford. And it's not like Stanton was a 1st round pick, or there was another QB they were debating between, or that Stanton is a bust.

I would argue that Ford has had a say in all of their picks to some degree. Maybe things have changed, but I have my doubts. Same owner, same crap IMO. Granted I am a bitter Lion's fan who has suffered with the franchise since birth.I will bump this in 5-7 years then we can agree that Stanton is a bust. We do not know if they were debating between him and Henne for example. You have your mind made up and that is fine. Like I said earlier...I hope you are right.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I'm with Chase here. For those who think Sanchez looked better in college, I would suggest that Sanchez typically faced weaker defenses and arguably played with stronger offensive teammates.Plus, I'm not sure where to find a source for college starts, but it appears Sanchez started 16 games and played in 3 others, whereas Stafford played in 39 games and started 30+. That is a significant experience gap, and I'm sure that contributes to Chase's opinion stated above that Stafford progresses through his reads better and also handles it better when plays break down.

Sure, it's better for a QB to have played a lot in college, but what did Stafford show us in all those games? That he's got a strong arm but is inconsistent on accuracy (57% career completion rate) and makes more bad decisions than he should (1.55 TD to INT ratio). I'd really like to see the Lions turn it around, but Stafford has bust written all over him.

I think using a player's career, collegiate completion rate, without context, is an almost meaningless way to measure QB accuracy.I also don't think TD/INT ratio is a good way to measure how often he makes bad decisions; I'd look at his INT rate specifically.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I would argue that Ford has had a say in all of their picks to some degree. Maybe things have changed, but I have my doubts. Same owner, same crap IMO. Granted I am a bitter Lion's fan who has suffered with the franchise since birth.I will bump this in 5-7 years then we can agree that Stanton is a bust. We do not know if they were debating between him and Henne for example. You have your mind made up and that is fine. Like I said earlier...I hope you are right.

You really think Ford was the one deciding to choose Stafford over Sanchez?

 

[King of the Jungle]

I would argue that Ford has had a say in all of their picks to some degree. Maybe things have changed, but I have my doubts. Same owner, same crap IMO. Granted I am a bitter Lion's fan who has suffered with the franchise since birth.I will bump this in 5-7 years then we can agree that Stanton is a bust. We do not know if they were debating between him and Henne for example. You have your mind made up and that is fine. Like I said earlier...I hope you are right.

You really think Ford was the one deciding to choose Stafford over Sanchez?

Do I think Ford is making the decision by himself? No.Do I think he has influence? Absolutely.

 

[Tanner9919]

As a believer in draft market efficiency, there's nothing more to say than at this point, I have to think Stafford is more likely to be the better QB. I can't say the percentages -- maybe there's a 55% chance he's better, maybe it's 70% -- but it's clear that he's better positioned. Sanchez is going to the better team, but I don't think that's enough to overcompensate the perceived talent difference.

Since 1988, there have been 11 QBs drafted #1 overall. They've been named first team all pro 4 times (all Peyton Manning), made 25 pro bowls, been the team's main starter for 68 seasons and played in 1076 games.

Since 1988, there have been 13 QBs drafted in the #3 to #10 range. This is the appropriate range to compare Sanchez to, IMO. They've been named first team all pro 0 times, made 8 pro bowls, been the team's main starter for 48 seasons and played in 824 games.

The #1 picks have thrown 343 more TDs than INTs; the #3-#10 guys have thrown 55 more TDs than INTs.

The #1s have Aikman, Manning, Palmer, Bledsoe, Manning and Vick; the #3s best QBs are McNair, Collins, Philip Rivers and, uh, Trent Dilfer.

QBs selected first in the draft have been much, much better than your average first round QB. And that includes QBs drafted at #5. IMO, a QB drafted at #5 is much closer to one drafted in the mid to late first round than one drafted at #1 overall.

Considering Stafford was the #1 choice by a significant amount of people, I feel pretty comfortable in saying he's more likely to be better, even if he's not *a lot* more likely to be better. Sanchez will almost certainly win more games sooner, though.

not so fast, my friend. I know it's pre-1988, but:

Phil Simms, #7 overall.had a pretty good career.

Tom Brady - round 6, pick 199, 2000 draft

Big Ben - 1st round, pick #11, 2004 draft, 2-time SB champ.

Favre - 2nd round pick

Montana - 3rd round pick

Steve Young - Suppl Draft, round 1, 1984.

Boomer Esiason - 2nd round, 1984 draft

Jim Kelly - round 1, 14th pick,1984

your boy David Garrard - 4th round , 2002 draft

Drew Brees - round 2, 32nd overall, 2001 draft

D. McNabb - round 1, pick #2, 1999 draft.

Kurt Warner - undrafted in 1994.

Mark Rypien - round 6, 146th pick, 1986 draft - SB winner, SB MVP.

Doug Williams - round 1, 17th pick 1978 draft. SB XXII MVP

Warren Moon - undrafted, 1978

Roger Staubach - 10th round, 129th overall pick, SB VI MVP, 2-time SB winner.

Dan Marino - 1st round, 27th pick, 1983 draft.

my list contains QB's not drafted #1 overall, and yet, it shows that these QB's have won MORE SB's , have had more SB appearances , and more of them are HOF players, than the names on your list..

 

[kremenull]

It's called fundamentals.......Sanchez is far ahead of Stafford in the fundamentals of playing the QB position, even with his less starts. Footwork (from dropback to setup to stepping into throws to roll-outs), decision-making (where to throw the ball, and just as important, when to throw the ball), leadership (commanding presence and the confidence and trust of your teammates), these are some things that I see in abundance in Sanchez....I have to wait and see for Stafford.

Great footwork leads to better accuracy, and Sanchez has a huge edge in footwork. With more starts under his belt, I'm surprised that Stafford isn't more technically sound than Sanchez and this is a huge red flag to me. Speaks of a lack of discipline and attention to detail from Stafford, or on the other hand, maybe it's just a by-product of better coaching at USC. Add in the fact that the Jets have a much better defense and very strong running game and Sanchez will not be asked to carry the load even though he will start right away, which I don't believe Stafford will.

Right now, there are just way too many signs pointing to Sanchez being well ahead of Stafford, not to mention that he simply is better......

 

[King of the Jungle]

It's called fundamentals.......Sanchez is far ahead of Stafford in the fundamentals of playing the QB position, even with his less starts. Footwork (from dropback to setup to stepping into throws to roll-outs), decision-making (where to throw the ball, and just as important, when to throw the ball), leadership (commanding presence and the confidence and trust of your teammates), these are some things that I see in abundance in Sanchez....I have to wait and see for Stafford. Great footwork leads to better accuracy, and Sanchez has a huge edge in footwork. With more starts under his belt, I'm surprised that Stafford isn't more technically sound than Sanchez and this is a huge red flag to me. Speaks of a lack of discipline and attention to detail from Stafford, or on the other hand, maybe it's just a by-product of better coaching at USC. Add in the fact that the Jets have a much better defense and very strong running game and Sanchez will not be asked to carry the load even though he will start right away, which I don't believe Stafford will. Right now, there are just way too many signs pointing to Sanchez being well ahead of Stafford, not to mention that he simply is better......

What he said....

 

[Phurfur]

There are allot of ESPN viewers here. I am always very cautious of a player whose value sky rockets in the last weeks before the draft. How does the Kool Aid taste.

 

[Chase Stuart]

As a believer in draft market efficiency, there's nothing more to say than at this point, I have to think Stafford is more likely to be the better QB. I can't say the percentages -- maybe there's a 55% chance he's better, maybe it's 70% -- but it's clear that he's better positioned. Sanchez is going to the better team, but I don't think that's enough to overcompensate the perceived talent difference.

Since 1988, there have been 11 QBs drafted #1 overall. They've been named first team all pro 4 times (all Peyton Manning), made 25 pro bowls, been the team's main starter for 68 seasons and played in 1076 games.

Since 1988, there have been 13 QBs drafted in the #3 to #10 range. This is the appropriate range to compare Sanchez to, IMO. They've been named first team all pro 0 times, made 8 pro bowls, been the team's main starter for 48 seasons and played in 824 games.

The #1 picks have thrown 343 more TDs than INTs; the #3-#10 guys have thrown 55 more TDs than INTs.

The #1s have Aikman, Manning, Palmer, Bledsoe, Manning and Vick; the #3s best QBs are McNair, Collins, Philip Rivers and, uh, Trent Dilfer.

QBs selected first in the draft have been much, much better than your average first round QB. And that includes QBs drafted at #5. IMO, a QB drafted at #5 is much closer to one drafted in the mid to late first round than one drafted at #1 overall.

Considering Stafford was the #1 choice by a significant amount of people, I feel pretty comfortable in saying he's more likely to be better, even if he's not *a lot* more likely to be better. Sanchez will almost certainly win more games sooner, though.

not so fast, my friend. I know it's pre-1988, but:

Phil Simms, #7 overall.had a pretty good career.

Tom Brady - round 6, pick 199, 2000 draft

Big Ben - 1st round, pick #11, 2004 draft, 2-time SB champ.

Favre - 2nd round pick

Montana - 3rd round pick

Steve Young - Suppl Draft, round 1, 1984.

Boomer Esiason - 2nd round, 1984 draft

Jim Kelly - round 1, 14th pick,1984

your boy David Garrard - 4th round , 2002 draft

Drew Brees - round 2, 32nd overall, 2001 draft

D. McNabb - round 1, pick #2, 1999 draft.

Kurt Warner - undrafted in 1994.

Mark Rypien - round 6, 146th pick, 1986 draft - SB winner, SB MVP.

Doug Williams - round 1, 17th pick 1978 draft. SB XXII MVP

Warren Moon - undrafted, 1978

Roger Staubach - 10th round, 129th overall pick, SB VI MVP, 2-time SB winner.

Dan Marino - 1st round, 27th pick, 1983 draft.

my list contains QB's not drafted #1 overall, and yet, it shows that these QB's have won MORE SB's , have had more SB appearances , and more of them are HOF players, than the names on your list..

Obviously your list will contain more great QBs. But the question isn't "Would you take Matt Stafford over the field?", in which case the answer is obviously no. The question was "Would you take Matt Stafford over Mark Sanchez", which is a less convincing (but still clear, IMO) yes.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I would argue that Ford has had a say in all of their picks to some degree. Maybe things have changed, but I have my doubts. Same owner, same crap IMO. Granted I am a bitter Lion's fan who has suffered with the franchise since birth.I will bump this in 5-7 years then we can agree that Stanton is a bust. We do not know if they were debating between him and Henne for example. You have your mind made up and that is fine. Like I said earlier...I hope you are right.

You really think Ford was the one deciding to choose Stafford over Sanchez?

Do I think Ford is making the decision by himself? No.Do I think he has influence? Absolutely.

I think trying to predict Matt Stafford's career based on Ware or Harrington's career is ridiculous.

 

[Reaper]

I would argue that Ford has had a say in all of their picks to some degree. Maybe things have changed, but I have my doubts. Same owner, same crap IMO. Granted I am a bitter Lion's fan who has suffered with the franchise since birth.I will bump this in 5-7 years then we can agree that Stanton is a bust. We do not know if they were debating between him and Henne for example. You have your mind made up and that is fine. Like I said earlier...I hope you are right.

You really think Ford was the one deciding to choose Stafford over Sanchez?

Do I think Ford is making the decision by himself? No.Do I think he has influence? Absolutely.

I think trying to predict Matt Stafford's career based on Ware or Harrington's career is ridiculous.

Chase - I think trying to predict a career based on "Market efficiency" or the history of 1st round QB's is almost as bad and pretty much on the same level....Reminds me of back in the day when everyone was stuck on the whole notion that "Wr's that change teams... blah blah blah" and they would post all these stats for the past 30 years of WR's.It all depends on the individual talent, opportunity and staying healthy - Not so much the history of QB's or WR's.... Draft picks are also influenced by Team need as well as draft class.And yeah, I think Owners have an influence - I think Woody had an influence on the move for Sanchez.

 

[ScottyFargo]

I think Detroit is not a bad place for Stafford, and I thought the general thought was talent > location? I'm not thinking Sanchez is that bad either, but right now I'm leaning Stafford long haul.

 

[T Bell]

I do believe that the expectations in Detroit are lower and that Stafford has the luxury of more time, to grow as his team grows around him. I don't know if that will ultimately prove to be the difference, but I would imagine that being a QB in NYC is going to have a lot of extra pressure associated with it.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I would argue that Ford has had a say in all of their picks to some degree. Maybe things have changed, but I have my doubts. Same owner, same crap IMO. Granted I am a bitter Lion's fan who has suffered with the franchise since birth.

I will bump this in 5-7 years then we can agree that Stanton is a bust. We do not know if they were debating between him and Henne for example.

You have your mind made up and that is fine. Like I said earlier...I hope you are right.

You really think Ford was the one deciding to choose Stafford over Sanchez?

Do I think Ford is making the decision by himself? No.Do I think he has influence? Absolutely.

I think trying to predict Matt Stafford's career based on Ware or Harrington's career is ridiculous.

Chase - I think trying to predict a career based on "Market efficiency" or the history of 1st round QB's is almost as bad and pretty much on the same level....

Reminds me of back in the day when everyone was stuck on the whole notion that "Wr's that change teams... blah blah blah" and they would post all these stats for the past 30 years of WR's.

It all depends on the individual talent, opportunity and staying healthy - Not so much the history of QB's or WR's.... Draft picks are also influenced by Team need as well as draft class.

And yeah, I think Owners have an influence - I think Woody had an influence on the move for Sanchez.

Ford and Woody are not the same type of owner.That said, people tend to be way overconfident on things they are not experts in and in situations where they have limited knowledge. At this point, we only know for sure that one professional* team had a choice to make between the two players, had access to information that none of us have, and chose Stafford.

Further, the majority of experts, Bloom included, have Stafford ahead of Sanchez.

This is just playing the percentages. There's obviously a good chance Sanchez will be better than Stafford. Maybe it's 40%, maybe it's 45%. But I don't think it's 50%.

You chide market efficiency, but we simply don't have much else to go on here. I think mock drafts and other expert rankings are useful, too, and in some cases, I would feel comfortable using that to override draft results (say, Crabtree >>> DHB). The same reason Stafford projects as a better pro than Nate Davis is the reason Carson Palmer projected as a better pro than Drew Henson; and those reasons are the things NFL scouts and GMs saw to make Stafford and Palmer #1 picks and Davis and Henson late round picks. Are GMs always right? Of course not. On average, are 1st round picks better than 2nd round picks? Of course. Are 2nd round picks better than 3rd round picks? Absolutely. And are #1 picks better than #5 picks? Yes, to that too.

Not that I think you're disagreeing with me much here. You said it all depends on talent, opportunity and staying healthy. I think Stafford is more talented than Sanchez, they'll have equal opportunity, and who knows who will stay healthy.

*technically

 

[Chase Stuart]

I do believe that the expectations in Detroit are lower and that Stafford has the luxury of more time, to grow as his team grows around him. I don't know if that will ultimately prove to be the difference, but I would imagine that being a QB in NYC is going to have a lot of extra pressure associated with it.

But some players perform better under pressure. So if Sanchez is one of those guys (see the most recent Rose Bowl), being in NYC would be a plus for him.

 

[T Bell]

I do believe that the expectations in Detroit are lower and that Stafford has the luxury of more time, to grow as his team grows around him. I don't know if that will ultimately prove to be the difference, but I would imagine that being a QB in NYC is going to have a lot of extra pressure associated with it.

But some players perform better under pressure. So if Sanchez is one of those guys (see the most recent Rose Bowl), being in NYC would be a plus for him.

In NYC, you don't just perform under pressure, you prepare under pressure every day. You're never really away from it. Even assuming game day is the equivalent of certain things he experienced in college (which may be debateable), he's not going to be used to anything like the rabid NYC press corps crowding around his locker every day, the equally rabid sports talk radio, etc., etc. Now, he may flourish in this environment- some guys do - but even so it's hard to characterize such things as an asset to him rather than a liability.

 

[King of the Jungle]

:throwingintowel:

Time will give us the answers we seek.

 

[Steelfan7]

It's called fundamentals.......Sanchez is far ahead of Stafford in the fundamentals of playing the QB position, even with his less starts. Footwork (from dropback to setup to stepping into throws to roll-outs), decision-making (where to throw the ball, and just as important, when to throw the ball), leadership (commanding presence and the confidence and trust of your teammates), these are some things that I see in abundance in Sanchez....I have to wait and see for Stafford. Great footwork leads to better accuracy, and Sanchez has a huge edge in footwork. With more starts under his belt, I'm surprised that Stafford isn't more technically sound than Sanchez and this is a huge red flag to me. Speaks of a lack of discipline and attention to detail from Stafford, or on the other hand, maybe it's just a by-product of better coaching at USC. Add in the fact that the Jets have a much better defense and very strong running game and Sanchez will not be asked to carry the load even though he will start right away, which I don't believe Stafford will. Right now, there are just way too many signs pointing to Sanchez being well ahead of Stafford, not to mention that he simply is better......

Lots of college qbs look great when playing in a defensive challenged conference and with a team littered with 1st rd picks. I'm leery of 1 yr starters who have not proven whether they can make correct split second decisions while under pressure. Sanchez in his short college career has had some injury concerns as well. Sanchez looks the part in shorts, we'll see when he comes under fire when he is being harassed by the defender lined up opposite the turnstile known as Faneca.

 

[Kiddnets]

I didn't see too much of either in college - but it is nice to see a solid young QB from a winning program with leadership skills that was thrilled to come to NY. I think Sanchez is in a MUCH better situation than Stafford. The Jets are a playoff team now....where Detroit is looking at the cellar again.

From all I have seen - Rex will let the defense dictate, pound the ball and just let sanchez run the offense. Sounds like a formula that has done well with young QBs - Ben, Flacco, Ryan.....I don't expect Sanchez to be that good right away - we can expect serious growing pains - but Sanchez is the perfect choice for the Jets. I honstly believe he was #1 on their board and they would have taken him over Stafford.

I do think Stafford is the right fit for Detroit though - stronger arm to pair with Calvin will help as they need to come from behind in most games. He won't have the NY scrutiny and negativity which will give him a little more time as Sanchez will get baptized by fire in the NY media.

Both teams and QBs win IMO.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I didn't see too much of either in college - but it is nice to see a solid young QB from a winning program with leadership skills that was thrilled to come to NY. I think Sanchez is in a MUCH better situation than Stafford. The Jets are a playoff team now....where Detroit is looking at the cellar again. From all I have seen - Rex will let the defense dictate, pound the ball and just let sanchez run the offense. Sounds like a formula that has done well with young QBs - Ben, Flacco, Ryan.....I don't expect Sanchez to be that good right away - we can expect serious growing pains - but Sanchez is the perfect choice for the Jets. I honstly believe he was #1 on their board and they would have taken him over Stafford. I do think Stafford is the right fit for Detroit though - stronger arm to pair with Calvin will help as they need to come from behind in most games. He won't have the NY scrutiny and negativity which will give him a little more time as Sanchez will get baptized by fire in the NY media. Both teams and QBs win IMO.

That was the formula for Ben and Flacco, but it wasn't the formula with Ryan. Ryan was the centerpiece of that team, IMO, or at the very least, 1B to Turner. The defense was a distant third.

 

[RockHard]

It's called fundamentals.......Sanchez is far ahead of Stafford in the fundamentals of playing the QB position, even with his less starts. Footwork (from dropback to setup to stepping into throws to roll-outs), decision-making (where to throw the ball, and just as important, when to throw the ball), leadership (commanding presence and the confidence and trust of your teammates), these are some things that I see in abundance in Sanchez....I have to wait and see for Stafford. Great footwork leads to better accuracy, and Sanchez has a huge edge in footwork. With more starts under his belt, I'm surprised that Stafford isn't more technically sound than Sanchez and this is a huge red flag to me. Speaks of a lack of discipline and attention to detail from Stafford, or on the other hand, maybe it's just a by-product of better coaching at USC. Add in the fact that the Jets have a much better defense and very strong running game and Sanchez will not be asked to carry the load even though he will start right away, which I don't believe Stafford will. Right now, there are just way too many signs pointing to Sanchez being well ahead of Stafford, not to mention that he simply is better......

Sanchez didnt become the full time starter until his fourth season at USC, Stafford didnt have that luxury as he started as a true freshman. All of Stafford's mistakes were made in front the camera while Sanchez's learning happened in practice. Who is to say that Stafford wouldnt have displayed better fundamentals as a 4th year player. Furthermore, Stafford had to spend majority of his time in college preparing for opponents while Sanchez had more time to refine his game as a reserve.

 

[Tau837]

It's called fundamentals.......Sanchez is far ahead of Stafford in the fundamentals of playing the QB position, even with his less starts. Footwork (from dropback to setup to stepping into throws to roll-outs), decision-making (where to throw the ball, and just as important, when to throw the ball), leadership (commanding presence and the confidence and trust of your teammates), these are some things that I see in abundance in Sanchez....I have to wait and see for Stafford. Great footwork leads to better accuracy, and Sanchez has a huge edge in footwork. With more starts under his belt, I'm surprised that Stafford isn't more technically sound than Sanchez and this is a huge red flag to me. Speaks of a lack of discipline and attention to detail from Stafford, or on the other hand, maybe it's just a by-product of better coaching at USC. Add in the fact that the Jets have a much better defense and very strong running game and Sanchez will not be asked to carry the load even though he will start right away, which I don't believe Stafford will. Right now, there are just way too many signs pointing to Sanchez being well ahead of Stafford, not to mention that he simply is better......

Sanchez didnt become the full time starter until his fourth season at USC, Stafford didnt have that luxury as he started as a true freshman. All of Stafford's mistakes were made in front the camera while Sanchez's learning happened in practice. Who is to say that Stafford wouldnt have displayed better fundamentals as a 4th year player. Furthermore, Stafford had to spend majority of his time in college preparing for opponents while Sanchez had more time to refine his game as a reserve.

Another illustration of why it is important to consider the numbers in context.

 

[Reaper]

Decent video of Phil Simms opinions from before the draft CBS SPORTS

Simms liked Sanchez' footwork, intensity and the fact that he throws a great ball.....