Jump to content

Stormin' Norman

How good is Martin Mayhew?

Recommended Posts

I agree with your whole post, but I most agree with this part. Based on some of the arguments I've seen here, I'm convinced that if the Lions took Curry with pick #1 and Jerry with pick #20, that the same people who have been admonishing people for being upset with Stafford and Pettigrew would be in love with the selections and admonishing the group of people who would've been upset with Curry and Jerry. It's like in some cases the desire to see the Lions succeed is there so badly, that they're going to make the logic fit no matter what.

I would be much happier with the BP in the draft for sure, and two guys on defense as well. Curry and Jerry would have been a dream pick. Would have loved Mayhew to show some balls, and take Curry at #1, I'd have rather had Jerry probably at 20 as well strictly because he's a defensive player, but if Pettigrew was BPA I don't have much issue with it, I just wish they would have followed that strategy with the #1 pick also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be much happier with the BP in the draft for sure, and two guys on defense as well. Curry and Jerry would have been a dream pick. Would have loved Mayhew to show some balls, and take Curry at #1, I'd have rather had Jerry probably at 20 as well strictly because he's a defensive player, but if Pettigrew was BPA I don't have much issue with it, I just wish they would have followed that strategy with the #1 pick also.

Again, I really hate siding with Stafford fans, but they did follow BPA IMO for the first 3 picks. Stafford, for the most part, was regarded as the #1 QB. The staff, top to bottom liked the guy. That isn't common in the NFL. With that in mind, I'm OK with the Lions taking him. I think it's a mistake and will hold them accountable if he does fail, but they all were/are on the same page which can't be said for at least the last two QB picks (Harrington/Stanton).

I don't know if I would have liked Jerry at #20 even if we took Curry #1. He's not the big blob we need in the middle. Hell, he's barely taller than me and he's about 300 lbs. His frame has most of the bulk it's going to get. We need a big guy who can or is get to 330+ lbs and just take up room. Hill is that guy and we got him later in the draft. He's a project, but one of the picks I do feel good about. None of the big guys would have been a good pick at #20.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would be much happier with the BP in the draft for sure, and two guys on defense as well. Curry and Jerry would have been a dream pick. Would have loved Mayhew to show some balls, and take Curry at #1, I'd have rather had Jerry probably at 20 as well strictly because he's a defensive player, but if Pettigrew was BPA I don't have much issue with it, I just wish they would have followed that strategy with the #1 pick also.

How does taking Curry require more balls than taking Stafford? Curry was the popular pick, he was the safer pick, he was the less expensive pick. The ballsy move was taking the unpopular, expensive, junior quarterback you believe in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would be much happier with the BP in the draft for sure, and two guys on defense as well. Curry and Jerry would have been a dream pick. Would have loved Mayhew to show some balls, and take Curry at #1, I'd have rather had Jerry probably at 20 as well strictly because he's a defensive player, but if Pettigrew was BPA I don't have much issue with it, I just wish they would have followed that strategy with the #1 pick also.

The best player by far in this draft was Stafford.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would be much happier with the BP in the draft for sure, and two guys on defense as well. Curry and Jerry would have been a dream pick. Would have loved Mayhew to show some balls, and take Curry at #1, I'd have rather had Jerry probably at 20 as well strictly because he's a defensive player, but if Pettigrew was BPA I don't have much issue with it, I just wish they would have followed that strategy with the #1 pick also.

I wouldve been very angry with Jerry at #20... The last thing we need is another undersized NT.

I wouldve gone Sanchez #1. The kid has insane intangibles and pocket poise to be a great QB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldve gone Sanchez #1. The kid has insane intangibles and pocket poise to be a great QB.

He doesn't fit the scheme...round peg, square hole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's also just not as good.

Pre-Combine when all there was to evaluate was on the field tape, Stafford was considered a top 3 pick, Sanchez a top 20.

After Sanchez's Pro Day (where he threw in shorts) and his interviews - he became a top 5 QB. Says a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldve gone Sanchez #1. The kid has insane intangibles and pocket poise to be a great QB.

I like Sanchez and do think he will have a solid career in the NFL but he's not better than Stafford and definitely wasn't worthy of the #1 pick. The kid was smart and actually ran a great PR campaign leading up to the draft. The fact that he was all over the place, and saying all the right things, definitely helped jack up the hype over him and it increased his value in the draft. He had a great draft strategy but that doesn't make him a better football player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like Sanchez and do think he will have a solid career in the NFL but he's not better than Stafford and definitely wasn't worthy of the #1 pick. The kid was smart and actually ran a great PR campaign leading up to the draft. The fact that he was all over the place, and saying all the right things, definitely helped jack up the hype over him and it increased his value in the draft. He had a great draft strategy but that doesn't make him a better football player.

Its not better or worse, its different. Sanchez is a bigger overall risk (because of less games played) but he's also a more accurate passer and thus assumed to be NFL ready quicker than Stafford. Stafford had more upside but it doesn't assume he's "better."

I can see both players having longterm success and I would wager in the next five years Sanchez will be having a much better career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would be much happier with the BP in the draft for sure, and two guys on defense as well. Curry and Jerry would have been a dream pick. Would have loved Mayhew to show some balls, and take Curry at #1, .

Actually I'd argue he took the pick that took more guts to select. Drafting defense would've been "easy." But I guess since so many thought Stafford was a clear pick, I can see how one could see it the other way as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its not better or worse, its different. Sanchez is a bigger overall risk (because of less games played) but he's also a more accurate passer and thus assumed to be NFL ready quicker than Stafford. Stafford had more upside but it doesn't assume he's "better."

I can see both players having longterm success and I would wager in the next five years Sanchez will be having a much better career.

I think Sanchez will end up having the worst career of the first three QB's. Stafford is the most NFL ready QB day one - why? No, not my man love of him, but because he is vastly more experienced. Stafford has dealt with adversity. Stafford has dealt with playing teams better than his own. Stafford has dealt, mentally, with challenges that Sanchez has not faced and challenges that can't be simulated on a practice field.

Sanchez, like Josh Freeman (though for different reasons), needed a team that didn't force him to start day 1. The New York Jets may have been the worst possible scenario for Mark Sanchez. In New York he will start Day 1. New York doesn't have as many weapons as Detroit does (their number 1 receiver is a number 2. Their number 2 receiver is a number 4. Their running back is 30 years old and holding out and is spelled by a kick returner.) By the time Sanchez is ready, the major cogs of the Jets team - the Alan Faneca's, the Kris Jenkins, the Calvin Paces, the Jerricho Cotchery's - they will be past their prime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was pretty luke warm on Stafford until Mayock produced a couple clips I had not seen......Mayock was not on Staffords bandwagon but was trying to be fair....Staffords arm is what we need to get the ball to CJ down the field...I dont believe Sanchez has anywheere near the arm Stafford does....And if I ever see the Lions try the Wet Toast dink and dunk again, I will puke...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Sanchez will end up having the worst career of the first three QB's. Stafford is the most NFL ready QB day one - why? No' date=' not my man love of him,

Suuuuurrre.

but because he is vastly more experienced. Stafford has dealt with adversity.

Look how nicely he dealt with Florida and Alabama.

Oh wait, we're talking about MSU and Hawaii. Right.

Stafford has dealt with playing teams better than his own.

Dealt with? He barely survived.

Stafford has dealt, mentally, with challenges that Sanchez has not faced and challenges that can't be simulated on a practice field.

That doesn't mean anything if he still hasn't learned how to handle pressure. Sanchez simply handles pressure better than Stafford.

Sanchez, like Josh Freeman (though for different reasons), needed a team that didn't force him to start day 1. The New York Jets may have been the worst possible scenario for Mark Sanchez.

Riiiight...

I guess the fact that the Jets were pretty good last year and had to trade up to #5 to get him means nothing.

I don't buy that Sanchez can't start from day one. He's competitive, works hard, played in the most pro-style college offense, and is mature beyond his years.

Would it do him good to sit a few years? Of course. But in no way is he a bad/weak character guy ala Matt Leinart and Ryan Leaf.

In New York he will start Day 1. New York doesn't have as many weapons as Detroit does(their number 1 receiver is a number 2. Their number 2 receiver is a number 4.

Question- How good was Roddy White before Matt Ryan showed up? Heck, can you name any other WR they had last year?

Joe Flacco had Derrick Mason and scrubs last year.

Great WRs help, but they can't make a QB.

Their running back is 30 years old and holding out and is spelled by a kick returner.)

Correction: their RB just had 1,000 yard season and is spelled by a player who had 450 yards last year with 6 YPA...

Oh and they have a kid by the name of Shonn Greene who just won the Doak Walker award...

Not to mention they were 9th in rushing yards...

By the time Sanchez is ready, the major cogs of the Jets team - the Alan Faneca's, the Kris Jenkins, the Calvin Paces, the Jerricho Cotchery's - they will be past their prime.

Last I checked,

Faneca still has 3-4 good years left in him. Kris Jenkins is only 29, Casey Hampton was dominant last year at 31...

What about Ellis, D. Harris, Bart Scott, Nick Mangold, Darelle Reevis, and Lito Sheppard?

Heck, Eric Smith, Kerry Rhodes, D'Brickashaw Ferguson, Brad Smith and Vernon Gholston have huge potential.

I was pretty luke warm on Stafford until Mayock produced a couple clips I had not seen......Mayock was not on Staffords bandwagon but was trying to be fair....

Yeah, Mayock loves Sanchez.

Staffords arm is what we need to get the ball to CJ down the field...I dont believe Sanchez has anywheere near the arm Stafford does....

Common misconception. Sanchez is much more accurate on deep passes, especially under pressure.

A huge rocket arm isn't needed to get the ball downfield, though Sanchez does have a very good arm.

And if I ever see the Lions try the Wet Toast dink and dunk again, I will puke...

Stafford was the one running the dink and dunks... A lot of screens, short passes reliant on YAC...

Sanchez played in a pro-style high-flying offense with every kind of route imaginable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fail to understand how Lions' fans can get cocky about anything on this team. They're the first team to ever finish 0-16 and people are running around here talking about how they've got more talent than a team that just missed the playoffs.

Amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Schwartz said there's a possibility that Henry would move to safety depending on his play in camp. That's not a ringing endorsement from a coach on his new legit corner. The coaching staff isn't even sure this guy can still play the position so I'm not sure how you can be.

Could be an indicator of how bad the rest of the D is and how much he might be worried about having a full time rookie safety.

I do think it points to the flexibility that I think we'll see with Schwartz. So far that's the only thing that I know for sure is different from the Lions of last year to this year and it's a difference that I think is more current with how the NFL is run at this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name=DetroitFan;1862124[Look how nicely he dealt with Florida and Alabama.

Oh wait' date=' we're talking about MSU and Hawaii. Right.

Trying to argue that Stafford hasn't stepped up against top competition is simply foolish, but yes - even his experience at Florida and Alabama will help. Stafford is going to have a game as bad as he had against Florida at some point in his career. So will Sanchez. I would much rather have my Quarterback already experienced having his *** handed to him at least once.

Dealt with? He barely survived.

Which explains the fact the guy lead Georgia to the number 2 ranking in 2007, and in 2008 led the SEC in passing yards by near 700 yards.

That doesn't mean anything if he still hasn't learned how to handle pressure. Sanchez simply handles pressure better than Stafford.

How can you say Sanchez handles that pressure better than Stafford? For one, Stafford has never had a problem handling pressure - that's why he has led his team back from behind to win games time and time again in his career (Georgia Tech and Virgina Tech in 2006, Alabama and Vanderbilt in 2007, Kentucky in 2008). Sanchez hasn't dealt with that.

Riiiight...

I guess the fact that the Jets were pretty good last year and had to trade up to #5 to get him means nothing.

Sanchez was an overrated prospect. What else can you get from the fact that Sanchez, when evaluated on tape, was considered to be the unanimous second best QB in the draft and a top 20 talent. Sanchez was never even mentioned in the same conversation with Stafford until he started to impress people with his charisma and workouts in shorts.

I personally don't believe a player gets better during the time between the last game and the draft.

I don't buy that Sanchez can't start from day one. He's competitive, works hard, played in the most pro-style college offense, and is mature beyond his years.

USC's offense is no more "pro-style" than Georgia's, so you can't really pull that card. I don't deny that he his competitive, that he works hard and that he is a mature cat - but I can say the same thing about Stafford. The difference is Stafford is been in the fire much more, has been tested on the field more, and has far more experience playing against tougher defenses.

Would it do him good to sit a few years? Of course. But in no way is he a bad/weak character guy ala Matt Leinart and Ryan Leaf.

I...never said he was. I think Sanchez's problem is that he will be rushed into a situation too soon and it will hinder his development.

Question- How good was Roddy White before Matt Ryan showed up? Heck, can you name any other WR they had last year?

Joe Flacco had Derrick Mason and scrubs last year.

Great WRs help, but they can't make a QB.

Actually Roddy White was a successful WR before Matt Ryan showed up. He put up similar numbers in 2007 with Joey Harrington, Ben Leftwich and Cory Redman throwing the ball. He also happened to have the best rushing attack in football.

Joe Flacco didn't have a good year last year. His INT/TD rating was near 1-1 and threw for less than 3000 yards. The Jets defense is not the Ravens defense, no matter who is their coordinator.

Correction: their RB just had 1,000 yard season and is spelled by a player who had 450 yards last year with 6 YPA...

A RB who is at the time in his career where production tends to go down hill...fast.

Oh and they have a kid by the name of Shonn Greene who just won the Doak Walker award...

Not to mention they were 9th in rushing yards...

Don't make Shonn Greene out to be some big weapon just yet. He was a third round draft pick for a reason - it still has yet to be seen what he can do.

What about Ellis, D. Harris, Bart Scott, Nick Mangold, Darelle Reevis, and Lito Sheppard?

I never said the Jets were completely without talent.

Heck, Eric Smith, Kerry Rhodes, D'Brickashaw Ferguson, Brad Smith and Vernon Gholston have huge potential.

You know you are scratching the bottle of the barrel when you are bringing up Brad Smith and Vernon Gholston as positives.

Common misconception. Sanchez is much more accurate on deep passes, especially under pressure.

Simply not true.

Stafford was the one running the dink and dunks... A lot of screens, short passes reliant on YAC...

Again, simply false. While Georgia did use screen plays, no one can describe Georgia's offense as dinks and dunks. In fact Linehan was just on the record talking about how Georgia's offense was a very vertical offense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I fail to understand how Lions' fans can get cocky about anything on this team. They're the first team to ever finish 0-16 and people are running around here talking about how they've got more talent than a team that just missed the playoffs.

Amazing.

I never said the Lions have more talent than the Jets. I said the Lions have more talent at skill positions - which I think is hard to argue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trying to argue that Stafford hasn't stepped up against top competition is simply foolish' date=' [/quote']

How is that foolish?

Here I compare Staffords numbers against his 3 best conference rivals of each year.

Team records are in parentheses after the school name.

To prove a point, I put Staffords completions-attempts in parentheses in wins.

2006

Florida(13-1)- Loss, 0 TDs, 2 picks, 39.4 cmp pct

Kentucky(8-5)- Loss, 1 TD, 3 picks, 57.1 cmp pct.

Auburn(11-2)- Win, 1 TD, 0 picks(14-20)

2007-

Tennessee(10-4)- Loss, 2 TDs, 1 pick 48.5 cmp pct

Florida(9-4)- Win, 3 TDs, 1 pick, (11-18)

Auburn(9-4)- Win, 2 TDs, 1 pick (11-19)

2008-

Alabama(12-2)- Loss, 2 TDs, 1 pick, 57 cmp pct

Florida(13-1)- Loss, 0 TDs, 3 picks, 54.5 cmp pct

LSU(8-5, worst passing defense in conference)- Win, 2 TDs, 0 picks (17-26)

Not exactly great numbers, and in his wins he's had 20 or fewer passes every game(except LSUs last rank passing Defense)

I also don't buy that every SEC defense is a powerhouse. Maybe on paper, sure, but if you put a lot of them in the Big 12 where they pass twice as much as the SEC, those numbers will greatly change.

I also don't buy Staffords 3-0 record in bowl games. He averaged 150 yards per game against mediocre teams.

but yes - even his experience at Florida and Alabama will help. Stafford is going to have a game as bad as he had against Florida at some point in his career. So will Sanchez. I would much rather have my Quarterback already experienced having his *** handed to him at least once.
So the fact that Stafford was terrible 2 or 3 times last year is better than the fact that Sanchez was solid the entire year?

I don't question Sanchezs ability to bounce back from a bad loss, he played on one leg and had 330 yards.

In his worst game of the season, he had 1 TD and 3 picks. In his final 8 games after that, he had 20 TDs and 4 picks...

His mental toughness isnt an issue.

Which explains the fact the guy lead Georgia to the number 2 ranking in 2007, and in 2008 led the SEC in passing yards by near 700 yards.

Led? It was Morenos team. Stafford helped.

And who else would be competing for the SEC passing title? I mean had 60 more attempts than Jevan Snead and 85 more attempts than Tebow.

How can you say Sanchez handles that pressure better than Stafford?

Film. But then again, you probably haven't really watched Sanchez play, being so caught up in Stafford.

For one, Stafford has never had a problem handling pressure - that's why he has led his team back from behind to win games time and time again in his career (Georgia Tech and Virgina Tech in 2006, Alabama and Vanderbilt in 2007, Kentucky in 2008).

Stafford was still awful against VA Tech, so what? Georgia Tech was 9-5 in a mediocre ACC.

Vanderbilt was 5-7. Bama and Kentucky were 7-6.

Sanchez hasn't dealt with that.

I guess the problem with Sanchez is he doesn't really let inferior teams hang around to the point where he has to make a comeback.

Sanchez was an overrated prospect. What else can you get from the fact that Sanchez, when evaluated on tape, was considered to be the unanimous second best QB in the draft and a top 20 talent.

Top 20? He was possibly a top 10 prospect coming out of college.

Sanchez was never even mentioned in the same conversation with Stafford until he started to impress people with his charisma and workouts in shorts.

Scouts liked Stafford because he had a cannon arm. Give him Sanchez's arm and he's easily a second rounder or worse.

The fact that Sanchez's intangibles made at least ten teams fall in love with him means a lot, not to mention he out performed Stafford in everything except the wonderlic and arm strength drills..

He played better than Stafford, albeit against lesser competition, but he was dominant as can be.

He's a lot better and NFL-ready than you give him credit for.

I personally don't believe a player gets better during the time between the last game and the draft.

Question- what more could Sanchez have done to improve his stock in that last game?

Nothing. He played as well as you could ask.

Its not like Sanchez was awful, then blew everyone away in the combine.

He was consistently one of the best QBs in college football, week to week.

USC's offense is no more "pro-style" than Georgia's, so you can't really pull that card.

A lot of Georgias offense relied on shorter passes, while USC is absolutely the most pro-style offense around. Its their calling card.

I don't deny that he his competitive, that he works hard and that he is a mature cat - but I can say the same thing about Stafford. The difference is Stafford is been in the fire much more, has been tested on the field more, and has far more experience playing against tougher defenses.

That's your opinion. I see Sanchez as a much more poised, mature, fiery player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually Roddy White was a successful WR before Matt Ryan showed up. He put up similar numbers in 2007 with Joey Harrington, Ben Leftwich and Cory Redman throwing the ball. He also happened to have the best rushing attack in football.

Joe Flacco didn't have a good year last year. His INT/TD rating was near 1-1 and threw for less than 3000 yards. The Jets defense is not the Ravens defense, no matter who is their coordinator.

A RB who is at the time in his career where production tends to go down hill...fast.

Don't make Shonn Greene out to be some big weapon just yet. He was a third round draft pick for a reason - it still has yet to be seen what he can do.

Its all debatable but either way, Sanchez still has a great supporting cast, better than the Lions. I like his chances.

You know you are scratching the bottle of the barrel when you are bringing up Brad Smith and Vernon Gholston as positives.

They certainly have potential. Brad Smith lines up anywhere on the field and Vernon Gholston was the 6th overall pick a year ago.

Again, simply false. While Georgia did use screen plays, no one can describe Georgia's offense as dinks and dunks. In fact Linehan was just on the record talking about how Georgia's offense was a very vertical offense.

Still, the offense was based on short-medium passes reliant on YAC.

This isn't an argument you can win. USC has the most pro-style in college. Period. Its a fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thus assumed to be NFL ready quicker than Stafford.

I hear that over and over but the kid just hasn't played enough games make assumptions like that. Stafford definitely has the leg up on experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't know how people can say either is more NFL ready. We won't know that until they get into pads and practice.

Stafford definitely has the edge in experience. Thus, more tape to see the pros and cons. In the one year we've gotten to see Sanchez, his one year was far better than any of Stafford years, IMO. But, he played in a so-so conference. I don't think a guy has to start for 2+ years in college for him to be more NFL ready. It's a person by person basis. I honestly haven't seen a ton on Sanchez since he never really appeared to be an option for us so I can't say. In the handful of games I've seen and footage from the pro day and combine, I like him better. I hope Stafford is the more NFL ready QB since we have him and ends up with the better NFL career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How is that foolish?

Here I compare Staffords numbers against his 3 best conference rivals of each year.

Team records are in parentheses after the school name.

To prove a point, I put Staffords completions-attempts in parentheses in wins.

2006

Florida(13-1)- Loss, 0 TDs, 2 picks, 39.4 cmp pct

Kentucky(8-5)- Loss, 1 TD, 3 picks, 57.1 cmp pct.

Auburn(11-2)- Win, 1 TD, 0 picks(14-20)

2007-

Tennessee(10-4)- Loss, 2 TDs, 1 pick 48.5 cmp pct

Florida(9-4)- Win, 3 TDs, 1 pick, (11-18)

Auburn(9-4)- Win, 2 TDs, 1 pick (11-19)

2008-

Alabama(12-2)- Loss, 2 TDs, 1 pick, 57 cmp pct

Florida(13-1)- Loss, 0 TDs, 3 picks, 54.5 cmp pct

LSU(8-5, worst passing defense in conference)- Win, 2 TDs, 0 picks (17-26)

Not exactly great numbers, and in his wins he's had 20 or fewer passes every game(except LSUs last rank passing Defense)

Stats can be manipulated, and the stats aren't bad anyway. The game of football runs deeper than merely numbers on paper. For example, the Alabama stats don't reflect the fact Alabama dominated Georgia's offensive line eliminating the run game and forcing Stafford to throw quickly. It does not reflect the fact going into Auburn in 2006, Georgia was a defeated team that just came off losses to Kentucky and Vanderbilt that rallied behind its Quarterback.

I also don't buy that every SEC defense is a powerhouse. Maybe on paper, sure, but if you put a lot of them in the Big 12 where they pass twice as much as the SEC, those numbers will greatly change.

Actually the reverse is actually true. The Big 12 is able to get away with passing twice as much as the SEC because the defenses can't stop it. When the Big 12 participated in bowls, passing stats decreased greatly. The SEC, top to bottom, have by far the best defenses in the country - its the reason why the SEC has the last three national championships and a 5-0 record in the National Championship (all other conferences have a 6-11 record).

I also don't buy Staffords 3-0 record in bowl games. He averaged 150 yards per game against mediocre teams.

He was also named game MVP in two of those games, including leading his team back from 18 points back. But again, lets ignore Stafford's recognition as a leader.

So the fact that Stafford was terrible 2 or 3 times last year is better than the fact that Sanchez was solid the entire year?

Solid the entire year? You mean like his performance against Arizona where he had a 3:1 INT/TD ration and 50% completion?

I don't question Sanchezs ability to bounce back from a bad loss, he played on one leg and had 330 yards.

Of course you don't.

In his worst game of the season, he had 1 TD and 3 picks. In his final 8 games after that, he had 20 TDs and 4 picks...

His mental toughness isnt an issue.

We don't know if his mental toughness is an issue. Again, his team was beating people 68-0, 38-3 and 56-0. It's easy to look good when your team has ever advantage and when everything is going right.

Led? It was Morenos team. Stafford helped.

So it was Moreno's team when Stafford drove Georgia down the field with less than two minutes left to beat Kentucky?

And who else would be competing for the SEC passing title? I mean had 60 more attempts than Jevan Snead and 85 more attempts than Tebow.

Snead and Tebow are both damn good QB's.

Film. But then again, you probably haven't really watched Sanchez play, being so caught up in Stafford.

Actually as a College Football enthusiast I have watched as much Sanchez as Stafford. Sanchez's offensive line, however, was far better than Stafford and were going up against inferior defensive lines. There are no Terrance Cody's in the Pac 10. Sanchez never faced the pressure Stafford did consistently.

Stafford was still awful against VA Tech, so what?

No he was not. He had a shoddy first half and came back to lead his team to victory, earning him MVP numbers. Stats are not the only indication of success.

Georgia Tech was 9-5 in a mediocre ACC.

You also can't blame Georgia Tech's loss on Stafford. He threw 5 TD's for 400 yards. He doesn't play defense.

Vanderbilt was 5-7. Bama and Kentucky were 7-6.

Guess what, their records wouldn't have changed the fact the losses counted just as much. During a game, a teams record is irrelevant.

I guess the problem with Sanchez is he doesn't really let inferior teams hang around to the point where he has to make a comeback.

Stafford doesn't play defense.

Top 20? He was possibly a top 10 prospect coming out of college.

He was projected to go around pick 17 before the combine.

Scouts liked Stafford because he had a cannon arm. Give him Sanchez's arm and he's easily a second rounder or worse.

That's not true. Scouts like Stafford's intelligence. Scouts like Stafford's maturity. Scouts liked Stafford's Football IQ. Scouts also did like Stafford's arm. IF you took away all of that, he may be worse than a second rounder - but if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his rear.

The fact that Sanchez's intangibles made at least ten teams fall in love with him means a lot, not to mention he out performed Stafford in everything except the wonderlic and arm strength drills..

Out performed Stafford how? Again, when people analyzed the tape, they liked Stafford more. Sanchez's charisma is what made teams fall in love with him.

He played better than Stafford, albeit against lesser competition, but he was dominant as can be.

He's a lot better and NFL-ready than you give him credit for.

Again, I have never said Sanchez can't be a quality NFL. I simply don't believe he is ready day 1. His lack of experience is a significant handicap. Playing a season in the Pac 10, playing Scout Team QB against Brian Cushing - this doesn't prepare you for the NFL nearly as well as playing three years in the SEC. If Sanchez was as NFL ready as you give him credit for, he wouldn't have been riding the bench behind Booty for those years.

Question- what more could Sanchez have done to improve his stock in that last game?

Nothing. He played as well as you could ask.

Its not like Sanchez was awful, then blew everyone away in the combine.

He was consistently one of the best QBs in college football, week to week.

What more could Sanchez have done to improve his stock? Well lets look at when he improved his stock: his Pro Day and during interviews. So looking good in shorts and speaking well.

A lot of Georgias offense relied on shorter passes, while USC is absolutely the most pro-style offense around. Its their calling card.

Guess what - a lot of Pro Offenses throw short passes from time to time. Even USC!

That's your opinion. I see Sanchez as a much more poised, mature, fiery player.

I think Sanchez is poised, mature and firery as well. However that does not change the fact he doesn't have half of Stafford's experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, this thread is giving me a huge headache. Sounds like there are those that are wishing for Stafford to fail, just to say "I told you so..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry, this thread is giving me a huge headache. Sounds like there are those that are wishing for Stafford to fail, just to say "I told you so..."

I agree Cruzer, that is definitely what it seems, which I don't get unless those people don't want the Lions to succeed, which they may not really care.

Initially I wished they would have picked Curry. No matter what, I'm disappointed/surprised they paid Stafford so much. But they picked him and he is signed and I sure hope he is as good as they think he is as the offense will be in good shape for a long time if he is. And it doesn't really matter to me if Sanchez fails for NY or if he performs as well or better than Stafford. What matters to me is that Stafford succeeds for Detroit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...