Mark Sanchez, QB, USC

Name: Mark Sanchez
Position: Quarterback
School: Southern Cal
Height: 6030 E
Weight: 225 E
40 Time: 4.70 E

Athleticism: 6.5
Sanchez is a plus athlete for a quarterback, displaying good initial quickness (short-strides limit his max speed though), good balance, and adequate change of direction. Sanchez makes good use of this athleticism rolling out of the pocket (which he does quite a bit) and escaping pressure.
Quickness: 6.5
Balance: 6.5
Fluidity: 6.0

Physical Talents: 7.0
Sanchez is definitely a very talented kid, every bit as talented as Stafford though in different ways. Sanchez has good height for the position, an excellent arm, and very good mobility. While his arm is not quite in the Stafford category, it is very strong and he is capable of making every NFL throw. He has a good frame, but looks a little thin for the quarterback position – however he should have no problems adding the mass needed to absorb NFL punishment.
Body Type: 6.5
Strength: 6.0
Explosion: 6.5

Polish: 6.0
Sanchez shows a good understanding of the playbook (has responsibility as a signal caller) and has a refined drop-back. Sanchez has decent throwing mechanics, with a quick release, excellent balance, good legs, and an involved torso. However, Sanchez has a relatively low release point, which is somewhat mitigated because Sanchez has good instincts and has no problems with deflections at LOS. The big problem, however, is that Sanchez holds the ball low before he throws it – in 4 games, he fumbled the ball three times. I will say it here and later in the report – if that does not change, Sanchez will not justify a 1^st round selection being used on him.
Understands Playbook: 6.5
Proper Technique: 6.0
Instincts: 6.5

Competitiveness: 6.5
Sanchez earns high marks for his competitive spirit, and this is one of the reasons it is hard to give him a low grade. I absolutely love the toughness and effort he shows in taking hits and playing through pain. He is a consistent quarterback who improved as the season went on. I am a little concerned that I never got to see him step up in the clutch, USC was just never in the position, and you have to worry about Sanchez’ ability to overcome adversity.
Toughness: 6.5
Consistency: 6.5
Clutch Play: 6.0
Effort: 6.5

Football Character: 6.5 Hard worker who spent a lot of time studying defenses. Smart kid who should be able to handle all media, playbook, and leadership responsibilities required of a 1^st round pick.
Personal Character: 5.5 A couple red flags. USC Head Coach Pete Carroll was obviously not pleased when Sanchez declared, and that strikes me as a flag. More of a concern is a couple off-field issues, including one for sexual assault and another for allegedly breaking a window at a fraternity party.
Durability: 6.0 Has been nicked up, but has the toughness to play through minor injuries..

Release: 5.5 Release is quick, but a little low even with his good height.
Dropback: 6.5 Sanchez has a very nice dropback, and is quick in his drop which allows him to set up quickly.
Arm Strength: 6.5 Sanchez has an excellent arm and can make every NFL throw with zip.
3rd Down Conversions: 6.0 Sanchez usually ended up throwing third and long, as USC’s running game converted most third and shorts, but Sanchez looks merely decent on 3^rd down.
Short Accuracy in Pocket 6.5 Sanchez is usually very accurate in the pocket, but occasionally throws an off-target short pass.
Long Accuracy in Pocket: 6.5 Sanchez throws a very nice deep ball with good zip. Excellent accuracy.
Accuracy while moving: 7.0 Excellent throwing on the run.
Big Plays: 6.5 Sanchez is generally good at reading the safeties, and has the arm strength to hit WRs deep.
Poise in Pocket: 6.0 Can hold onto the ball too long at times, but makes up for it with his footwork and feel for the rush.
Escapes from Pocket: 6.5 Sanchez is a good athlete who does a good job escaping from the pocket while keeping his eyes downfield.
Leadership: 6.5 Will earn respect from his teammates for his toughness, good leader.
Reading Defenses: 6.5 Sanchez will develop into a good reader of defenses, rarely forces throws in college.
Big Errors: 5.5 Fumbles are a huge issue, as are occasional off-target passes.

Summary: Sanchez really should have stayed in school for another year. Aside from teams possibly being scared off by his limited experience (16 career starts), he also needs a bit of work before he is ready to play at a high level in the NFL. Sanchez is the NFL equivalent to a five-tool prospect who can’t hit curveballs. He does most things very well, but he has one flaw (how he holds the ball) that will doom him from being a good NFL player unless it is fixed. The good news is that it doesn’t seem like something that would be difficult to teach. The bad news is that changing the way he holds the ball can change his entire throwing motion. Whoever drafts Sanchez has to believe they can fix him, because if they fix him they could end up with a very good quarterback with good leadership skills. In the end, I think he is most likely to be a good, but unspectacular, NFL quarterback if put in a situation where he is not forced to start right away.

Also, as much as I don’t like to comment on things like this, Sanchez is a great “face of the franchise”: Good looking, smart, articulate, and will likely draw a large Hispanic following for whatever team he joins. He’s a PR dream, which could help him as teams look not only to draft good football players but to draft guys who will sell jerseys and tickets.

Final Grade: 6.6 CR

Note: It is very possible I will scout more USC games, for that reason I reserve the right to change this grade.

Games Scouted: Notre Dame, UCLA, Penn State, Stanford, Ohio State, Oregon State

February 9, 2009 - Posted by rotak | Uncategorized

11 Comments »

Is he an option for Seattle?

Comment by Rob (theENGLISHseahawk) | February 9, 2009 | Reply
I believe he is currently the 4th rated player on my board, and with Sanchez I went all over the board trying to come up with a good grade. I don’t think he is top-5 material right now, honestly. But, then, I can totally understand a 6.9 grade based off of his size/mobility/arm strength.

However, given his character concerns, I’d be surprised. I am really concerned about his repeated run-ins with the law, especially for a quarterback. Seems like a good kid, but makes some bad decisions.

Comment by rotak | February 9, 2009 | Reply
Interesting Rotak. I wouldn’t have expected as high of a grade, I had it in my mind that Sanchez is more erratic than he really is.

So, are your top 5:

Stafford
Crabtree
Oher
Sanchez

I know you’re not a big Andre Smith fan, but I think, if Crabtree and Stafford are gone, Smith has immediate value at guard and long term value at RT. I feel, given his athleticism and a more rigorous conditioning staff and contract incentives, he could do RT.

Do you still feel as though he’s only G material?

Comment by Nano | February 10, 2009 | Reply
If anything, I’m debating re-evaluating my G grade for Smith and lowering it a bit. It’d still be very high. But, and this information is third-or-fourth-hand, Smith’s weight might be a bigger problem than thought previously.

I wouldn’t take Smith at guard at #4. He’s a great guard… for someone else. Don’t get me wrong, he’d be a great guard for us too. But we aren’t going to utilize his strength (easily his best skill) as much as some other teams, and I’m afraid his technique is a bigger deal for us.

I’m not convinced he can be a RT. The speed difference CAN be big between LDE and RDE, but sometimes it isn’t. Mario Williams started on the left side but moved right, Julius Peppers played primarily LDE, Orakpo is considered a possible LDE in the pros according to Rang… The LDE isn’t the slow side, as it was in the past. I see Smith struggling with those, and blitzes from LBs (where he really struggled in the games I scouted was with LBs. I’m projecting those problems to faster DEs as well). Can he play RT? Probably. But if you’re expecting an elite RT, you’ll be disappointed.

Sanchez is somewhere between a 5.9 and a 6.9, in other words a top-5 pick or a 4th rounder. If his release is easily correctable, then he is at least a 6.3 right now. Add that I think he has good intangibles, and will improve, and he jumps some more. He has to fix his throwing motion, though. In the games I watched, he didn’t seem particularly erratic. Sometimes the ball doesn’t go where he wants it to, but that’s going to happen with college QBs, and I like that he knows how to take something off the ball.

(Also, Rey Maualuga, Brian Cushing, and Everett Brown are all guys I expect to earn about a 6.6. I actually have most of Maualuga and Cushing, just need to right the reports and think about it some)

Comment by rotak | February 10, 2009 | Reply
Oh wow. I’m stupid. I also have Curry to grade, and I expect him to earn a high grade as well.

Comment by rotak | February 10, 2009 | Reply
Wow. Thanks for your take hombre. You have inspired me to knock Andre down my wish list about 8 spots.

I’m stoked to see your LB grades. Our best value may be LB, but I’d have mixed feelings about picking Rivers. It seems to be a position that can be competently replaced at a more reasonable cost (assuming Hill isn’t retained). Given what the rookie salary at #4 is going to be, that would equate to a bucket of cash tied up into the linebacker position.

That was my most verbose attempt to say, “I can’t see us taking a linebacker that early.”

We all agree we need playmakers. And since you feel similarly towards the OT’s (trepid, in one way or another about all of them), would you be ill with Maclin @4 if Crabs/Staff–nice handles) are off the board?

Comment by Nano | February 10, 2009 | Reply
I’m tempted to agree about LBs, but a thought occurred to me that is worth kicking around.

LB is as big a need as OT. Actually, we’re worse off at LB, IMO.

Weird, but it makes some sense. Consider this before brushing it off. Assuming we don’t retain Hill, we could use (I’ll use Curry as an example) Curry right away, no? But what happens in a year or two, when Peterson is declining and getting paid a TON of money to do so? IIRC his cap hit this upcoming season is ~9 million. He’s also, what, 30 now? We could be parting with Peterson sooner than expected. By no means is LB a huge need, but if the BPA is at LB, it might come in handy more than is readily apparent.

Now, OT. Assuming Walter ISN’T gone, an OT would be, at best, playing out of position, and I’m not sure how many of them are capable at guard (except, ironically, Smith). And when Walter retires, we’d have his replacement. If you replace Walter with JP, it’s not too different.

Weird thought, but worth considering. For some reason, it just occurred to me. But I’m not sure we’re as good at LB as we’d like to think.

Comment by rotak | February 10, 2009 | Reply
Do you think Everette Brown can play a 4-3? From what I’ve seen of him I think… great 3-4 DE/LB with potential to be a good 4-3. But there are a couple of things that put me off, the way he got put into good matchups by Florida State and the frequency of how he was spread away from the rest of the defensive line in order to get that extra space to rush. He won’t do that in the NFL. Is he a good fit in a 4-3 for you?

Comment by Rob | February 10, 2009 | Reply
Okay Kyle, I’m with you on needing a LB, I am. I don’t disagree.

But, the more fungible nature of the position (in compared to OT) makes it less appealing.

But, there I go, straying from BPA.

BPA isn’t as simple as I want it to be. We have so many needs, and it’s a good question: are we better off in a couple years with a 1st round LB and a 2nd/3rd round OT (Rivers and, say, William Beatty) or a 1st round OT and a 2nd/3rd round LB (Monroe and Nic Harris)?

Comment by Nano | February 10, 2009 | Reply
Rivers? Nano, I think you’re looking at the wrong draft :).

I’m not convinced we need an LB. Just that taking one wouldn’t be a disaster. Sort of like the Josh Wilson pick a couple year’s back. Made no sense at first glance, but with Trufant entering the last year of his contract it ended up being a good call, especially with the trouble Jennings went through.

I personally would rather wait til the later rounds for a LB (I got done scouting Zach Follett of Cal, loved his approach to the game, very intense and just makes plays), but if we go OT 1st and LB 3rd, that doesn’t give us much room to address real needs. *sigh* We’re so full of holes it makes me very sad.

The question to ask is, does an elite 4-3 OLB still get the chance to make a lot of plays, even with Lofa in the middle? I wish I had a good answer for that, in a way JPete is perfect because we can use him to get to the passer, even though he isn’t the best tackling. Because I’m not sure ANY OLB can get 100 tackles against the run on this team, unless Lofa gets hurt.

Rob: From what I’ve heard, he can. He did that at FSU, FWIW. I think he’d probably be a bit of a liability against the run, he’s not a big guy, haven’t scouted him so not sure, but from what I’ve heard he can be a 4-3 DE as well as a 3-4 LB.

Comment by rotak | February 10, 2009 | Reply
Errrr…….Curry. Doh!

Comment by Nano | February 11, 2009 | Reply

What I Do

How to Read These Scouting Reports

Chances are, if you’re reading this, you’re not an NFL Scout. And if you are an NFL Scout, that’s no guarantee that my ratings will make sense without translation. I use a slightly modified system of what Bucko Kilroy, an NFL scout with over 40 years experience, created and is used by about a dozen teams. Due to my limited financial resources, I have modified it slightly to place less emphasis on personal character (keeps his nose clean), football character (works hard), and body growth (can he add weight), with more emphasis on performance. This does not reflect a disinterest in those categories, as I believe they are important (Football character especially is a top concern of mine), but until I have the money and access to visit school and inquire about players, my ability to provide an accurate grade on these things is limited. My knowledge of this system comes from Russ Lande, who publishes GM JR which uses a scale that was the inspiration for my scale, though we have a few, mostly minor, differences.

The grading scale works on a basic 1-9 system. In general, a player with a 4 or lower in any rating has a lot to overcome to be an effective NFL player, and you will rarely see that in my grading. Again, I am focused more toward players with legitimate NFL careers because I don’t have the time to scout out every eligible player available. Those reading this without a blood relation to me are most likely interested in early-round picks, not undrafted free agents. Those reading this with a blood relation probably don’t care too much one way or another. That doesn’t mean I am going only after stars. Of the first four players graded, I’d be surprised if more than one of them went in the 1st round of the 2009 NFL Draft. What it does mean is that I only am interested in scouting players who stand a legitimate chance of playing in the National Football League.

How the grades work:

Overall player grades are a little different from individual skill grades. An 8 is the highest grade I can ever give, and it is doubtful I will give that grade to anyone anytime soon. Of course, there is a fair bit of projection with any draft choice. Some players end up in excellent situations that improve them in ways that were not expected before they were drafted. Other players might be rated highly and then be colossal busts. I am unaware of any scout who can see the future, the best we can do is project the most likely path for a player, but in no way does that mean a player cannot improve/regress in ways that were unforseen – a player assigned a “Good Starter” grade could turn out to be a HOF player if groomed by the right coach for the right system, and that same player could be a colossal bust if drafted by a defunct franchise that is a poor schematic fit. And, of course, it is possible that I am simply wrong.

8.0 = No doubt the #1 pick, no doubt a HOF player.

7.9-7.0 = Surefire multiple Pro-Bowl player. Legitimate HOF chances. Top-5 pick.

6.9-6.5 = Possible Pro-Bowler for several years. Very productive starter. Easily a first rounder.

6.4-6.3 = Good starter. Asset on the field. Late first, early second round selection.

6.2-6.1 = Above Average starter. Does a good job. Second or third round

6.0 = Acceptable starter, may be a quality backup early. Second or third round.

5.9 = Backup now. Has potential to become a starter. Third round.

5.8 = Probably a long-term backup or journeyman starter. Constantly replaced. Fourth round or lower.

5.7-5.5 = Fill out a roster types, long term project players, career special teams player. 5th round or lower.

5.4 or lower = Free Agents.

Throughout the reports, I will grade each player individually on several skills. All players will be graded based off of four factors.

Athleticism – Quickness, Balance, Flexibility, Body Control

Physical Talents – Strength, Explosiveness, Body Type

Polish – Understanding of Playbook, Proper Technique, Instincts

Competitiveness – Plays Through Pain, Consistency, Clutch Play, Effort

These are all graded on a slightly different scale. The numbers go 1-9, with 9 being the highest. Here is a general translation:

9.0 = Incredible. Rarely given out ever.

8.5 = Amazing. Rarely given out ever.

8.0 = Exceptional. Might find this a few times in my reports.

7.5 = Excellent. More easily obtainable, but still a huge plus.

7.0 = Great. Several players have this for a single attribute.

6.5 = Very good. Given out to players who have skills that are above-average.

6.0 = Good. Given out for skills that are average for a college player.

5.5 = Inconsistent. Can be improved, but needs work.

5.0 = Acceptable. It won’t ruin a career, but will hinder it unless improved.

4.5 – 3.0 = Very bad. Unlikely to success with this, but possible.

2.0 = Terrible. Rarely given out to players I grade, as these players will struggle to make it in the NFL.

1.0 = I’m out of bad adjectives to describe how bad this is. This would be the grade I would give my own NFL skills, if I scouted myself.

There are also position-specific skills. These will be graded the same way that general player attributes are graded. I don’t want to give a comprehensive list for every position because it would be boring for all involved, but things such as Hands, Concentration, Routes, After Catch Skills, are all examples of what a Wide Receiver prospect would be graded on in position-specific skills.

There are also a few symbols that I should explain.

E = Estimated – used for height/weight/40 speed primarily.

V = Verified – I have from a reliable source of information an exact number.

* = Junior (redshirt or not) who has declared for the NFL Draft.

** = Redshirt Sophomore who has declared for the NFL Draft.

CR = Character Risk – I’m liberal in applying this, though many of these guys may be fit to draft.

CP = Character Problem – I’m conservative in applying this, and I wouldn’t recommend drafting this guy early.

I = Injured – Player needs to prove his health before a team uses an early selection on him.

————————————————————————————

Welcome to my blog!

Essentially, I wanted a place to record my thoughts on the draft. I absolutely love scouting, but much of what I say is lost when wherever I say it cleans it’s archives. I’ll make sure not to clean the archives here.

My name is Kyle Rota, I’m a college student residing in Bellingham, Washington. I’m hoping to get into scouting someday, mainly because I already do it anyways and getting paid for it sounds like a good idea. That said, I have no doubt that my scouting is rudimentary at best. I’m currently working on improving my scouting, and will be doing some cool stuff by December, or so I hope.

Figuring out this site presented some difficulties. As far as the NFL goes, I try to follow all teams casually but the only team I really know in and out is the Seattle Seahawks. Because of that, both the players chosen to be scouted and what I look for is influenced. I consider this a natural extension of what real scouts do – look for the guys who fit the scheme that their team runs. So, things are presented with a Seattle slant. That said, while I may watch USC looking at Taylor Mays (given Seattle’s need for a good safety), it would be impossible for me not to notice, oh, half the defense that deserves to be drafted in the first day.

I hope that you enjoy what you read. I absolutely love discussing prospects, so by all means feel free to post responses, if I have the time (and short of this site gaining national prominence, I will eventually) I will likely reply. That said, there are a few basic things you should do if you don’t want me to delete it:

1.) Mild profanity at most. I don’t care if you swear, but if your post sounds like an Ozzie Guillen press conference it’ll be gone.

2.) Disagreements are great. It means you have an opinion you believe. Bickering and personal attacks are not. Keep it on the subject of players.

3.) No porn, no advertising, no spam. Duh.

I hope you enjoy,

Kyle Rota

Archives
Search for:

Archives
- April 2009 (4)
- March 2009 (10)
- February 2009 (15)
- January 2009 (11)
- December 2008 (8)
- November 2008 (4)
- October 2008 (7)
- September 2008 (1)
Categories
- Impressions
- Uncategorized
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS

College Talent Scout

Analyzing and Scouting the Best of the NCAA