Link: One Year Later … Stafford Over Sanchez?
In a recent column for ESPN, Mel Kiper Jr. was asked what quarterback will have a better pro career. Lions QB Matthew Stafford or Jets QB Mark Sanchez.
A: I’d take Stafford. And before you bash, consider that I think Sanchez is well on his way to a really good NFL career. He showed growth through adversity, and if you track the careers of guys with talent who do end up great, overcoming that early reality of almost certain failure is a huge step to be able to take. Sanchez made his messes out there, but he’ll improve.
So why on Stafford? Well, consider what he was working with last year. He didn’t have a great line — Sanchez played behind, arguably, the best offensive line in football — the Lions had no ability to run the ball consistently, he got hit a lot and had to play hurt, and he had really just one viable threat in the passing game. But he put up similar numbers to Sanchez, and also showed improvement and toughness. He now has some added weapons, which could dramatically change that situation for him. I still think they’ll both be very good, I just like Stafford’s overall upside better, and an improved situation will allow him to take off.
I agree with Mel that both will be very good NFL QB’s down the line. However, in the end I see Sanchez having the better career. Sanchez in his first year overcame many obstacles and ultimately led his team to the AFC Championship game. That learning experience he gained in the playoffs will speak volumes for his progress in the future.
Stafford showed some promising moments during his rookie season as well, but he missed a few games with injuries. The Lions have been horrible the last few seasons, and although the future in Detroit looks bright…they are not meant to win now. Sanchez and Stafford might be on the same level heading into this season, but I expect to see Sanchez to be the better QB when it is all said and done.
77 Responses to Link: One Year Later … Stafford Over Sanchez?
-
Dylan says:
I’m not sure which guy is going to be better. Obviously most Jets fans would say Sanchez and most Lions fans would say Stafford. I think Stafford might be a better pocket passer, but Sanchez is better at play action and is also better at throwing on the run. Sanchez has proven that he can win the big game. I don’t think its fair to hold that against Stafford though since he hasn’t had the opportunity. Both guys are also natural leaders. I think both organizations are thrilled with who they drafted. As a Jets fan I am obviously biased towards Sanchez, but I have no problem with anyone who thinks that Stafford is going to be better.
-
I agree with him but for other reasons… or other reason anywho.
Stafford’s got what I think is the strongest arm in football. And the dude’s pretty confident in it despite what he was throwing to last season.
Sanchez is my boy regardless and the “football brain” that Rex talked about is evident game by game last season. He learned from his mistakes. I’m just saying that Stafford’s got something special that doesn’t come along very often.
-
cmonleon says:
the only thing is he didnt have calvin johnson we had braylon edwards who cant catch and cotch who is GREAT and i love him buy hes no way a calvin johnson. i def say sanchez will have a better career because hes on a better team thats set for a while. but i also think hes the better QB kind he just seems like hes gonna get things done no matter what.
-
Craig says:
“Sanchez played behind, arguably, the best offensive line in football”
I thought the line was excellent with run blocking but poor on pass blocking?
-
david harris says:
Does Kiper know the difference between the best running offensive line and the best overall offensive line?
While the Jets had the best running one i don’t think they were close to being the #1 overall line because of the amount of times Sanchez would be sacked or the pocket would be broken and he’d have to scramble. Many of the interceptions that Sanchez had were because he was scrambling from the pocket so that he wouldnt get sacked and would try and let go of it.
-
JoeDog says:
FWIW, I preferred Sanchez BEFORE the draft. I had no idea he would be a Jet. Neither quarterback is tall – they’re both 6’2″ – so it’s essential they drop into passing lanes. Sanchez appears to have much better footwork. Frankly, he’d make a great tennis player. Some day Sanchez will get old in a hurry when his feet slow down, but until then he’s going to be one heckuva quarterback.
-
NJets says:
The upside might be better with Stafford from a a talent perspective. But for the Jets specifically, it has to be Sanchez over Stafford every single time.
Sanchez has the charisma, the maturity, and the leadership that has allowed him to be successful in NY. Im not sure Stafford has all those qualities.
If the Jets had to redraft a QB… it would still be Sanchez… and thats all that matters to me. We made the right move.
-
Joe B. says:
“Well, consider what he was working with last year. He didn’t have a great line — Sanchez played behind, arguably, the best offensive line in football”
This is why Mel should stick to watching college tapes. While it’s true that Sanchez had the support of a great running game, he was not behind a good pass protecting line. I agree that both will have good careers, but Sanchez has been through the fire and nearly took us to the Super Bowl in his rookie year (with help, of course), so I’ll take him going forward.
-
Bent says: Hmmm… The Jets did give up a lot of pressure, but Sanchez caused a lot of that by holding onto the ball too long earlier in the season. Maybe a bit of a chicken/egg situation. I can’t compare it to Detroit because I only saw a couple of their games.
It’s all moot because one year is still too early.
-
D'Brickashaw Ferguson Way says:
69…
-
neauone says:
Stafford had 4 years and couldn’t win a thing at Georgia. Sanchez played his best game of his career his last game at the Rose Bowl. S anchez is by far less mechanical and more of a player who can adapt on the fly. I can’t stand it to hear how much of a rocket arm this guy has or that guy has. I’ll take a Joe Montana any day, of the limp noodle arm. Sanchez is a natural leader, and that is something you can’t teach.
-
bleedinggreen says:
As a Jet fan I hope Sanchez has a better career. I don’t quite understand why people tend to say Sanchez lead his team to the AFC title game. He was part of the team but he wasn’t the main reason we got there. That shouldn’t be a measuring stick for his talent when comparing with other quarterbacks.
-
Dave says:
Quite simply neither QB has done enough either way to dissaude any pre-draft opinions. If you liked Stafford more than Sanchez like Mel did, you should probably feel the same now.
-
mike s. says:
Stafford showed a lot more during his rookie year, than Sanchez. Sanchez flashed just enough to suggest he has long term potential, but he needs to make major strides over the next few years to deliver on that potential.
Right now, it looks like the NY Jets are far ahead of Detroit in terms of building a serious Super Bowl contender. But who knows what things will look like in 2-3 years.
If you put a gun to my head and said take Stafford or Sanchez, I’d take Stafford as he seems more advanced in his development. -
Dave,
Thats exactly right. Both guys showed flashes, but they also both played like rookies. Neither guy has reached their potential yet so its impossible to know who is better. I have no problem with Mel liking Stafford better.
-
AKA Jack says:
How did Stafford show ” a lot more” than Sanchez? He had a lower completion percentage, threw for less yards, the same number of interception, one more TD and a lower QB rating. Stafford may have played on a weaker team but he also played with some good receivers led by Calvin Johnson and he played his home games in a dome. I’d call year one a draw. They both looked like rookies to me.
-
JAY says:
SANCHEZ ALL THE WAY BABY TAKE US TO THE SUPER BOWL AND SHOW ALL THE HATERS!!!!!!!!
-
MHC2930 says:
Kiper should just stick to college, he doesnt know anythin bout the NFL
-
SackDance99 says:
I think Dave has it right, if your pre-draft opinion was that one was better than the other, then neither Stafford’s nor Sanchez’s rookie season would change your mind. I will say that I thought Stafford’s stronger arm trumped Sanchez’s better mechanics and football IQ. But, Mark’s arm is much better than advertised. He can make all the NFL throws and he is great at throwing on the run. I think Sanchez will be the better QB by a hair. Stafford has the cannon, but IMO the jury is still out as to whether he knows how to get the most out of it. I feel the same way about Henne. As Kyle Boller’s career has shown, a powerful arm does not a great QB make.
-
WW85 says:
They are both going to be excellent QBs. It is always hard to argue with Stafford’s arm & the toughness he shows. He played on an awful team & is starting to turn them around. Sanchez played in a perfect environment with our OL & running game. How would Stafford have played as a Jet? Pretty good, I think.
But I think Sanchez fits NY so well. His character is second to none, with a terrific arm. I’m not sure he has the durability, but I’m a huge fan of both of these guys. Henne’s gonna be terrific as well btw.
-
g. JETson says:
Their stats are almost equal but they don’t tell the story of their whole seasons. Sanchez through 16 ints in5 games and 4in the other 10. He played solid down the stretch when every game had win or go home pressure. He was excellent in the playoffs with a 98.6 QB rating. People over look the playoffs or dismiss it all together. It is as if Sanchez is punished for a better team. But that better team has more pressure. and when the pressure increased his play increased. He was supposed to be the reason the Jets playoff stay was supposed to be brief but he out played Palmer and Rivers. I don’t know if Stafford will be better than what his Season numbers were or how he will respond to better personnel or pressure. But we do know that Sanchez will. How because he did get better when the stakes went up. I just think that should be mentioned in the equation. Coming into the Draft Sanchez’s lack of experience was held against him in the argument. He hadn’t played in as many games as Stafford so we didn’t know what to expect. Well now Stafford hasn’t played with payoff race pressure, hasn’t played in the playoffs, hasn’t played with talent and doesn’t play under the scrutiny of NY and microscope Sanchez has performed well under. So I would think the argument has to swing in Sanchez’s favor. Jets dont make the playoffs or Sanchez sucks in the playoffs than I would have given the nod to Stafford. But Sanchez post a 98 qb ratings on the way to the AFC title game, and 153 rating in the first half before losing his ground game and falter to peyton. That makes his year better than Stafford and his future more certain. If you can perform like that during the playoffs as a rookie you are on your way. We don’t know what Stafford will do.
-
Johnny Reefer says:
damn right g.jetson
-
sunsetmusic says:
Spacely sprocates got it right…….showing my age….
-
ml2baumann says:
im not just sayin this as a jet fan, but sanchez’s rookie year was harder because he played in the largest sports market, with tons of pressure. where stafford played in detroit, and he got praise for winning what, 2-3 games.
-
Harvlis says:
I think Wilt Chamberlain was the best basketball player of all time but, i’ll take Bill Russell’s career and rings.
-
Chamberlain wasn’t the best of all time because he went for stats over championships. Most selfish superstar in the history of the game.
-
Bent says:
Basically, most NBA players had no chance against Chamberlain, so he feasted on these and put up incredible numbers.
Russell could and did stop him, or at least slowed him down to the point where this enabled his teams to be beaten by playing superior team ball.
I’m inclined to agree with Brendan. Wilt didn’t make the most of his gifts, so I rate Russell higher. Offensively, Wilt was superior, but Russell had a better all-round game and knew how to win.
I agree though, I’d rather Sanchez has a modest career but wins some titles than becomes a legend with great numbers but never wins the big one, like Marino.
More importantly, I think Sanchez would prefer that too.
-
Pdubbs says:
Butttttt he plays for the Lions……So who cares ?
-
I don’t think Sanchez will ever be an elite passer on the level of Manning or Brees, speaking strictly in terms of ability. Don’t get me wrong, I think Sanchez will be very, very good, just not quite as good as those two are. But I also think Sanchez has something in common with them both, in that he’s a natural leader, a competitive gamer, and a winner. So he could very well be a combination of a guy like Russel (knowing when his team needed him to come up big, doing whatever it took to win, sacrificing personal fame and glory for the good of the team) and Wilt (extremely talented, capable of taking over a game single-handedly). Only time will tell, but it’s at least exciting that we finally have a QB that leads to conversations like this.
-
Darren says:
I agree completely with Kiper. Sanchez played with a superior team and was protected by the best running squad in football last season. Stafford had to put up the same stats in less games and with less talent. He has a bigger, more accurate arm. If he gets the protection and the supporting cast that Sanchez has, Stafford will probably be better. Sanchez’ upside is as a top 20 quarterback. That’s nothing to sneeze at, but he’s not the next Brees, Peyton, or Rivers.
-
Darren,
Stafford does not have a more accurate arm than Sanchez. They had basically identical completion percentages last year and Sanchez had a better % the two years he and Stafford started together in college. Top 20 QB? Sanchez is already close to that. Come on man, Sanchez has the potential to be a top 10 QB. He’s got the arm strength to make the toughest throw in the game (deep out on opposite sideline) which was the only real concern about him entering the draft. He had the benefit of the #1 rushing game, but don’t make it seem like his ceilling is Jake Delhomme pre-meltdown or something.
-
Harlan Lachman says:
Brendan, I have no idea where you get your information. I hope you are too young to have watched most of the Russell – Chamberlain games and have just been misinformed. The alternative would not bode well for you.
Both men were true champions who played as hard as they could and did what it took to win. If you swapped their teams and coaches, you likely would have swapped most of the rings.
Harlan
-
Harlan,
I am young, indeed too young to have lived through those battles. But there are ways to watch those battles, such as ESPN Classic, and countless books recount the rivalry and the games from that era.
But If you swapped the teams and coaches the Lakers would have been the dynasty. You can’t tell me for even a second that a team with Chamberlain, Jerry West and Elgin Baylor (3 of the top 12-15 players ever) couldn’t run off titles against Russel & Hondo. The difference was Russel was wired completely differently than Wilt. I wish I had some sources handy (I’m at work) but simple quotes showed the differences between the men. Russel was wired as a winner, a selfless player who only became selfish when his team needed to be. He could have concentrated on scoring and stats, but he’d rather win. Russel used to direct his block shots to start a fast break, nearly every time. Wilt would spike a ball 15 rows into the stands to look good. Both great, very different from one another, and wired completely opposite.
You give Russel a West/Baylor combo and he wins a title every season. Every one. There’s not even a question. Sorry, but Wilt wasted quite possibly the most talented big man’s body ever in a pursuit of stats. He could have gone down as the greatest ever, but instead he’s remembered more for scoring 100 points in a game than winning a two titles, one of which almost certainly happened because Russel had retired. Wilt couldn’t take over a series against a team with a 6’9″ 235 pound center (Willis Reed) and even after Reed got hurt he couldn’t win it all. Russel never let’s that happen if he’s on the Lakers. There’s a reason why Russel was an 11 time Champion and WIlt only won twice.
-
**Sorry that should read “YOu can’t tell me for even a second that a team with Russell, Jerry West & Hondo…couldn’t run off titles against Chamberlain & Hondo.
-
And I left out Bob Cousy from the Celtics side of that equation, I need another coffee my God…
-
Brendan,
They had nearly identical completion percentages last season but Stafford had a worse team supporting him and teams knew he would be throwing as the Lions were frequently trailing. He had to pass to poorer players in known passing situations while being protected by a poorer offensive line. Sanchez having a higher completion percentage in college refers more to the two systems in which they played.
-
I’m with Harlan on Chamberlain. He won NBA Championships as the focal point of the offense for 2 different teams. And, his 76er and Laker championship teams are often considered among the best teams ever. Russell never had to worry about scoring, makes playing center and guarding an elite 5 pretty easy.
Getting back to the Sanchez/Stafford debate, the Jets running game may have helped Mark, but his offense was much more complicated. I’ve beaten this dead horse before, but Sanchez did not throw much to his RBs or TEs. So, he was a rookie QB that had to throw downfield. If he had an average amount of throws to his RBs, his completion percentage would have been over 55%.
-
I just checked, well over half of the Lions’ completions (over 180!) were to RBs and TEs. Stafford had a worse OL, but had easier throws to complete.
-
That’s a ridiculous disparity between Sanchez & Stafford’s targets.
As for the Russell/Chamberlain debate, Chamberlain had that same option on the Lakers. He had two of the most prolific scorers ever as his running-mates so he could have done the same as Russell and concentrate on defense, rebounding and being a leader. Russell got his points, but he didn’t care how many as long as he got them. Wilt was notorious for being a child on the court. In one instance, he was upset that the media said he was a selfish player, so for an entire season he passed up scoring in favor of forcing assists and led the league in that category. It wasn’t out of a team-first mentality, but rather a “they say I can’t do this?” mentality. He also was famous for checking his stats at the scorer’s table before entering games so he knew how many points, rebounds, blocks, or assists he needed to reach a triple-double or a certain milestone (like 50 points). Sorry, that’s not the greatest player ever, even if he should have been.
-
Brendan,
Chamberlain was at the end of the road as a Laker. In fact, that whole team was old, but the Lakers still won. Plus, the late 60s and early 70s was an era with lots of good teams. The Knicks, Celtics, Bullets, Lakers, Bucks, and Warriors were all really good and star laden. I saw Wilt play and he played hard. He wasn’t the greatest player ever, that’s Jordan and by a pretty wide margin, but Wilt was a beast. As for 5s, I’d take a healthy Bill Walton over any other 5 that I’ve ever seen (and I didn’t see Russell or Mikan for that matter). He was like a 7-foot Larry Bird.
-
The Lakers didn’t win while he was there (once, and it was after Russell retired). Wilt’s selfishness knocks him down a few rungs for me, I’m not saying he didn’t try hard, but he didn’t try hard for the right reasons. He was always self-motivated, and even in his own book he admits to being statistically obsessed.
I love Bill Walton. It’d be a tough choice for me between him and Russell. Both were transcendent players and Walton’s red afro is hypnotic. Plus, he lived in a tee pee while playing in Portland. So there’s that.
-
Actually, if you look at the passing distances each quarterback attempted you see that Sanchez’ pass distribution is a lot closer to the line of scrimmage than Stafford’s.
Sanchez Stafford
Attempts % of Passes Attempts % of Passes
0-10 180 42% 100 27%
11-20 158 37% 100 27%
21-30 86 20% 96 25%
31+ 8 2% 81 21% -
Wow that chart did not paste well. Here’s a link to the data:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tqWYO6WA9uHqBkHuGatEg-g&output=html -
And so no, SackDance99, Sanchez was not a “rookie quarterback that had to throw downfield.” At least, not compared to other NFL QBs
-
Um, the number of passes Sanchez threw is too high by about 70. Might want to check for a typo or something.
And that’s not the same as throwing that many passes to the tight end and runningbacks. RB’s throws are generally either a screen or a emergency dump-off. In either case, this stat is flawed because a ball could be caught 5 yards behind the line of scrimmage and then taken for a 80 yard touchdown and it would apply to the 31+ group. Throwing an 8 yard out to a WR isn’t the same as throwing a screen to a RB, which this statistical table is basically showing.
-
One flaw is that you’re considering a throw to a wide receiver as being necessarily downfield more than a RB or TE. That apparently was not the case for the Jets and Sanchez. Even if he was throwing more to wide receivers than Stafford was, Sanchez’ receivers were located closer to the line of scrimmage.
-
Bent says:
I love Bill Walton too, but I can’t say I ever got to see him play healthy. I guess the fact he didn’t have the longevity of those other guys.
That one year in Boston where he was the sixth man (not the following year when he could barely walk), really showed what a talent that guy was. Would love to have seen him at his peak. I wish Arvydas Sabonis (a very similar player) had played in the NBA when he was at his peak too. I honestly believe he’d have been in the conversation too.
Considering he was undeniably a better shooter, rebounder, passer AND post-up player than MJ (who won all of his titles with favorable officiating and on a loaded team in a watered down league), I will never be convinced that Jordan was better than Larry Bird, but I realize I am completely on my own with that one.
To me, Wilt was just like Shaq, only Shaq played in an era where there were more guys equipped to stop him. Since Russell’s Celtics beat Wilt’s teams every single time, I have to give him the edge, even if the supporting cast was better (which is debateable). Of course I’m too young, but I’ve sought out as many Bill Russell games as I can and would take him ahead of Chamberlain. He was ahead of his time athletically, a perfect (humble and selfless) teammate and a motivational genius with high IQ (how many coaching titles did Wilt win?)
Wilt was just unstoppable…unless he faced Russell.
Sorry this is so far off topic, but I love talking about this with you guys.
-
Bent says:
Darren/Brendan – Here’s the same information from PFF for Sanchez:
and for Stafford:
I’ll leave you guys to add it up and analyze…
-
IMO, the Celtics team with Walton as a 6th man was the second best NBA “team” that I’ve ever seen. Great unselfish play all the way around. The most unselfish team ever was the Knicks championship team. It’s hard to tell kids today how great that team was because the players didn’t lead in many statistical categories, but each member of the starting 5 (and the 6th man) could have been stars on any other team. Clyde’s game 7 in 1970 was the greatest game 7 performance in NBA history and 3 of the 5 starters were 1st team ALL NBA on defense. Wilt lost twice to that team and but for Wilt’s awesome series in ’71-’72, the Knicks would’ve had a 3rd championship. So, I remember Wilt a little differently. He was at the end of the road, as was West, but he played real hard and the Knicks’ physical front line was hell on centers. Contrast his twilight with Shaq’s. Enough said.
-
Bent says:
Sack – only 2nd best? Who is better?
-
SD,
All kids should need to know to realize how great a team that Knicks squad was is that Willis Reed only averaged 22 points and 14 boards. I say “only” because Wilt had a 27/19/4(assists) and Lew Alcindor (pre-name change) had a 29/15/4 (assists). He wasn’t the best player, the best statistically, but he was the heart and soul of a team (and it’s enforcer, essentially knocking out the entire ’66-’67 Lakers team). That was a reward as much to the entire Knicks team as it was to Reed.
-
Well Darren,
Someone should tell the nfl.com website that Sanchez threw 364 passes last year (which they have as his yearly total) but when you add up his breakdown that you linked to, he threw 432.
-
Well Brendan,
Someone should help you work on your powers of deduction. The Jets played in the playoffs during 2009. Guess how many passes Sanchez attempted in those three games.
-
Bent says:
The guys from PFF exclude spikes and ball thrown away, so I assume NFL.com does the same.
-
Bent,
I hear you on Bird, but MJ was a superb defensive player and the greatest scorer in NBA history. I always believe that almost every NBA game between decent teams comes down to the last few minutes of the game. MJ with the ball in his hand was, by far, the most dangerous player in NBA history and many of his greatest plays were passes to open players for wide-open shots. Plus, I’d take Magic over Bird, too. Also, I don’t think Clyde has ever gotten his due as one of the greatest players of all-time. He was bypassed by all the “above-the-rim” 2s and 3s. Boy, would I have loved to see Clyde in his prime d-up on MJ or Kobe…he was like Revis on defense.
-
JesusRevis says:
If almost every game between decent teams comesdown to the last few minutes, then that just shows the value Kobe Bryant has to the Lakers. He is the most clutch player other than Jordan, and he may be passing him.
-
Bent,
Bird over Jordan?
You just blew my mind
-
Bent says:
Maybe I’m biased, but he controlled the game when he was at his best.
I hear and agree with everything you say about Jordan, Sack, but it’s not like Bird didn’t make a ton of plays in the clutch too.
Since they all play different positions, it’s tough – if not impossible – to weigh up, especially when you have biased like I do, but MJ, Magic and Bird were all, without question, the best in the world for at least a few years each, which should be celebrated.
JR – like I said, I don’t expect anyone to agree with me, but he deserves to be in the conversation. Bird was amazingly skilled.
-
Bent says:
Clyde = Walt Frazier, right?
Obviously I know all about him, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen one of his games. That good, huh?
-
Bent,
Bird was amazingly skilled, I just dont think he was enough of an athlete to be compared to players like Jordan, Magic or Kobe, who I believe are all superior to Bird.
-
Bent,
The ’85-’86 Walton season was unbelievable, but the Celtics didn’t get to beat the Lakers. My money is on the ’73-’73 Knicks Championship team with Monroe at 2 and Lucas as 6th man. It beat a 63 win Celtics team in Game 7 of the Old Garden and then took 4 of 5 from the Lakers to win the Championship. The starting 5 and 6th man all in the HOF and the only 1 not to make the NBA Top 50 at 50 was Bradley!
-
I like Chocolate Thunder…. Darrell Effing Dawkins baby !!
-
Bent says:
Sack – okay, never saw that team, so I can’t argue with you! I thought you might be going down the 72-win Bulls route, which would have set me off about level of competition again.
JR – Yeah, that’s where we differ. I put more of a premium on the skills and you obviously value athleticism. Bird was a better athlete than he gets credit for early in his career. (I’ve been watching a bunch of early 80′s stuff, recently). However, I think my favorite Bird performances were those when he could barely move, but still found a way to dominate. Obviously, by then he was no longer one of the best, but it showed what a great competitor he was.
Magic was probably not a better athlete than Bird, actually.
-
Bent,
Walt Frazier was unbelievably good. If you can, watch his game 7 in 1970. Everyone remembers Willis Reed returning to the court and hitting those first 2 shots over Wilt and forget he barely played in the game. Nobody remembers Clyde’s 36 point, 19 assist and 5 steal demolition of the Lakers. He embarassed Jerry West. And, that team started Baylor, Wilt and West.
-
seanmac31 says:
Stafford had a very poor projection for a number one overall pick– his career completion percentage at Georgia was unimpressive and he actually put up worse numbers than the Georgia quarterbacks who preceded him–and he was probably the worst quarterback in football last year whose name was not Jamarcus Russell. Sanchez wasn’t much better, though he unquestionably played well in the playoffs (which is nice, but also a small sample size and therefore nothing to get unreasonably excited about).
If I had to make a guess right now, I expect Stafford to bust (though far less spectacularly than someone like Russell), while Sanchez will be a good player. But I don’t think there’s enough information right now to say much one way or the other. Both guys were rookies and both played like rookies; they only difference is that Sanchez’s team dragged him along with them while Stafford’s didn’t.
-
Darren,
It’s fair to count those extra passes when Stafford didn’t play in the playoffs? And those were Sanchez’s best games, so they would only help his side of a Sanchez vs. Stafford argument.
-
SD,
I don’t get how that Game 7 can get lost in the excitement about Reed playing 5 minutes either. It was one of the greatest clutch game 7 performances ever. Clyde essentially told the Lakers through his play “there is no F*#%ING way we’re losing this game”. Truly remarkable and it’s great when Mike Breen forces him to talk about it, because Clyde is so humble and you can see the pride he has from being part of that team start to come out. He’s also had a personal one on one recruitment of Lebron James a few times this year, if James has any sense of history and Clyde references that moment, I think it enhances the Knicks chances greatly.
As for the MJ/Bird/Magic question…MJ was the greatest (and as a Knicks fan in his twenties, MJ is the greatest villain of my lifetime, edging out Reggie Miller and a Zo/Tim Hardaway combo). Bird was truly magnificent. Everyone loves raving about Lebron James being a great passing forward, but he can’t hold a candle to Bird. He saw Steve Nash-like angles that very few people in the history of the game could see. As for being more athletic than Magic, that’s debatable. I love how people try to use the fact Bird was white and had a goofy perma-fro to say he was unathletic, but he was a tremendous athlete. But Magic was capable of playing all five positions on the basketball court, which in itself is an athletic feat. But I wish I was in my teens in the 80′s instead of the 90′s, that’s for sure.
-
Brendan,
Haha you’re discounting the argument because Sanchez looks “better” with his playoff stats included? That helps your argument. Not mine. And why wouldn’t it be fair? We’re not comparing totals. Wer’e comparing distribution. If we were comparing totals, we would be impaired by Stafford’s lesser regular season playing time.
-
I know it helps my argument, I pointed that out in my post. And by all means count them, but the stat is still very flawed in determining how many “easy” passes each player had. As I said before, a pass 2 yards in the backfield that a RB takes 50 yards counts as a 31+ yard play.
-
Sure but those stats are by where the pass is attempted not by the result of the play. If you’ll notice, the longest play for a pass Sanchez threw between 0 and 10 yards went for 80 yards.
-
I think you’re looking at nfl.com then, I was looking at PFF, which isn’t very clear with their labeling. Regardless, I say Sanchez has the better career.
-
Bent says:
Sack – yes, I’ve seen the highlights from that game, but I like to see unedited broadcasts to make a full assessment. I also think it’s funny how Reed’s heroic appearance actually overshadows Frazier’s performance, even though it was inspirational.
I wanted to ask some old school Knick fans…How highly do you rate Bernard King? Would you put him at or above the same level as say Dominique or Drexler? I just missed his peak, but have seen some of his great games.
-
Don says:
Brendan,
I’m glad you are happy with Sanchez as the NYJ QB. I’m extremely happy to have Stafford as the DET QB.
You are mistaken in comparing Stafford & Sanchez to Chamberland & Russell. Both Stafford and Sanchez are unselfish/team first type of players. A better skill set doesn’t mean that a player is selfish. You will see that both of these guys will feed off of their growing friendship and have better careers as a result of it.
I am not a Mel Kiper fan, but nobody is always wrong and nobody is always right, I believe he has picked the right QB. I wouldn’t swap Stafford for Sanchez, or most other QB’s for that matter.
BTW I like Sanchez and pull for him too, unless he’s on my opponent’s fantasy team. lol
Mel can’t get anything right, even his co-workers argue with him. Steve Young correctly picked draft picks at least a couple times during this years draft despite Mel and made Kiper look stupid. I hate seeing this guy on espn and his opinion means literally nothing to me. Sanchez FTW.