Sanchez vs Stafford Rescout, The (not so) Great Quarterback Debate of 2009

Sanchez vs Stafford Rescout, The (not so) Great Quarterback Debate of 2009

I must say, when I started my research for this article nearly two weeks ago, it appeared far more likely that Matthew Stafford of Georgia would be available for Seattle to pick. Since then, reports have surfaced that Detroit is in negotiations with Stafford and I wouldn’t be surprised if he is signed before the draft begins. At the time I began my research, I was trying to answer a rather unlikely question: If Matthew Stafford AND Mark Sanchez were available, who would be the best choice. While I admittedly scout players as fits for the Seahawks, I do think this analysis can be applied for any team. For fun, we can ask if Detroit is making the correct choice, since asking if Stafford would be a good Seahawk appears to be a purely academic exercise.

I had scouted both Sanchez and Stafford previously (Stafford in November, Sanchez a few months later), but one lesson I have learned this season is that it is hard to compare players scouted several months apart from each other. I wasn’t truly confident that my grades (a 6.9 for Stafford, and a 6.5 for Sanchez) were “correct” representations of each player. So I decided to go back and watch four games of each player.

My goal was to get the worst game from each quarterback, the best game from each quarterback, and a couple games that were good but not perfect (seeing as how these are two elite quarterback prospects, “good but not perfect” is about average for them). For Stafford, I felt his best game was against Louisiana State University, his worst against Florida, and the “in between” games worked out as Georgia Tech and Michigan State University. I don’t have quite as large a selection of USC games, but I was able to pick up Sanchez’s Penn State blowout, his loss to Oregon State, and strong games against Ohio State and Oregon. All games were during the 2008-2009 college football season, as I am not a big fan of using tape from prior years if I can avoid it.

Now, onto the comparison!

Short Accuracy: My notes revealed both quarterbacks as quite accurate passers in the short game, but the data was interesting. To start it off, I want to clarify that accuracy is not the same as completion percentage – a well thrown ball can be dropped, bobbled, and even intercepted. I’m simply measuring their ability to read short routes and send the ball where it needs to be.

Sanchez, in 4 games, threw nearly twice as many short passing attempts as Stafford did. Another interesting note was what type of routes were thrown: Sanchez hit his TE and slot WR a lot in the middle of the field for 6 yard curls, and in fact the curl route appeared to be his “favorite” short route. Stafford, on the other hand, threw far more WR screen passes than Sanchez, and has truly mastered that throw – it’s placed for the WR to catch while on the run, and that is something I didn’t see from Sanchez’s routes. However, Sanchez did complete a higher % (86% vs 81%) and threw significantly more of them. In terms of pure accuracy, I would say Sanchez is a slightly more accurate passer in the short game; however I believe Stafford may be more effective in the short passing game due to arm strength (discussed later).

I might as well measure it here, but the level of competition faced was not even remotely similar. USC WRs often had 3-6 yards between them and the cornerback, while the Georgia WRs usually caught the ball with another player draped on top of them. This could be due to Sanchez being more decisive, but indecision is not something Stafford is known for and I feel this lends credence to the “SEC is the best conference” talk. As well, Sanchez received significantly better protection in the pocket, as Georgia’s OL was the weakest part of that team. There is no doubt in my mind that the supporting cast and competitions influenced all of these grades heavily, one reason why scouting can’t be done on a purely statistical basis.

Pocket Presence: Another interesting category was the pocket presence shown by each player. This category isn’t really as close as accuracy, Sanchez is significantly nimbler than Stafford (who has lost at least 10lbs since these games) and was much better at avoiding tacklers and using his blockers to buy extra time for himself. While Stafford was not terrible at this (indeed, he shows the ability to step up in the pocket and alter his throwing motion), Sanchez looked very impressive doing so and has a clear advantage. Sanchez also does not look like a deer in the headlights when DBs are sent on blitzes, something Stafford needs to work on.

Reading Defenses: This is an area that was far closer than I expected. One reason this is closer is because after a couple series in the 2^nd half, I stopped the UGA v FLA game. Why? Stafford sustained an elbow injury that really hurt his game. Interestingly enough, he was one of the few players who showed up ready to play in that game and had as good a 1^st half as could be hoped for against a great Gators team, but after the elbow injury his arm strength went from very good to average. His first interception (of three, but the only one I saw) would’ve been a 20-yard completion had his arm been healthy, but due to the lack of velocity the defense had time to react to it. I did not a couple more “bad reads” for Stafford than Sanchez, but it was far closer than I expected. Both QBs do a good job locating their secondary targets but usually take too long to find their tertiary targets, the main difference being USC had more check-downs and the USC OL lasted quite a bit longer. However, I do think this is an area where Sanchez presents more value.

Proper Mechanics: Finally, Stafford wins a category! Truthfully, it isn’t even close. While Sanchez is much quicker in his drop back (and looks better doing it), once it is time to throw the ball Stafford has a clear edge. Sanchez holds the ball too low, which would’ve created a lot of fumbles if he hadn’t been extremely well protected. Holding the ball low makes it easier to strip the ball, and it also lengthens the release or makes it low to the ground. Sanchez has a very quick release, but the ball is released about 4 inches lower than Stafford’s. NFL DL are much better at getting their hands up than college DL, and I could see batted balls being an issue for Sanchez until/unless this is corrected. Sanchez also has a long release on deep tosses, whereas Stafford is able to throw the deep ball with almost the same motion he throws the 12 yard curl.

Arm Strength: Having watched Mike Holmgren’s dink-and-dunk offense for almost half my life, I believe Arm Strength is overrated. However, it does have some uses, and what is truly interesting is how Stafford’s elite arm strength influences his shorter passes. This is another area where I feel Sanchez was sheltered a little at USC. Sanchez has a strong arm when throwing over the middle, but for some reason I can’t really explain, the velocity on his passes to the sidelines lack zip. I noticed this multiple times, he could’ve gotten the ball to his WR much sooner (giving the WR more time to go upfield) but the ball took a while to get there. This was somewhat shielded by Sanchez’s talent, because he faced very little man coverage – I went through 2 games (about 45 pass attempts (I left off some I couldn’t accurately comment on) against Ohio State and Virginia) and noted 13 passes where the defense played man coverage on the receiver targeted, and 32 passes thrown into zone coverage.

I wish I had thought of this concept earlier, because it would’ve been interesting to see what the numbers said about Stafford. I didn’t even think of it until I noticed how every deep pass by Sanchez seemed to be going against zone coverage. I can say my memory tells me it would’ve been far closer to even, and that concerns me. It’s a lot easier to accurately hit a WR sitting in a soft spot in zone coverage than it is to throw to a spot, hoping your WR breaks his route to get there with a defender right next to him. Now, some of Sanchez’s passes were against zone with the defender right next to the target, and honestly reading the coverage of linebackers covering a hitch route isn’t the easiest thing in the world, but I do feel my numbers are accurate. I have some concerns about Sanchez’ ability to throw from the middle of the hash to the opposite sideline against man coverage. Ironically, Sanchez actually was more accurate on deep routes than Stafford, though Stafford threw deep with greater frequency and threw a ton of passes 12-25 yards (Intermediate passes, 67% accuracy rate) past the LOS. On fly routes, Sanchez tends to throw with a lot of arc under the ball (Stafford throws ropes), but both throw post patterns with good velocity and frankly both were better at post patterns than fly patterns.

Intangibles: This is another area I feel favors Stafford. I’ve heard great things about Sanchez’s leadership, and I believe it, but I actually see Stafford’s on the field. Both are willing to take a hit, both play with energy, I just saw more toughness from Stafford. I think this is an area where both are good picks from a leadership perspective.

However, Intangibles involves more than just leadership. While there are some embarrassing pictures of Stafford on the internet (including a party where he drew a play on a girl’s stomach with cake frosting), he hasn’t gotten busted the same way Sanchez has. I don’t think Sanchez was guilty in the well-publicized sexual assault case, but I’ve read unverified reports that he has been in trouble for a fake ID, minor in possession, and breaking a window (what is it with USC players and broken windows?) at a party. As well, I found a very unverified rumor that Sanchez had a juvenile record, but the courts ordered it sealed so we may never know the exact details. When it comes to over $30 million in guaranteed money, Stafford is the guy I trust not to get in trouble off the field. As well, NFLDraftScout’s David Te Thomas calls Stafford a film-room junkie and Sanchez, well, not. That could be very important as well.

In the end, I feel Matthew Stafford is the better pick. I don’t like big risks, and while any quarterback is a gamble, what I saw from Stafford affirmed my 6.9 grade and what I saw from Sanchez actually made me consider lowering my 6.5 grade of him. It isn’t that either is a bad prospect, but I’d rather hitch my horse to Stafford than Sanchez. Sanchez could still wind up being the better player, one reason why scouting is so inexact is that it’s hard to tell how a guy reacts to the NFL environment (maybe Sanchez becomes a film-room junky who corrects his flaws while Stafford merely collects paychecks), especially when all of your scouting is done from a television. From what I have seen on film, however, I feel Stafford’s best comparison lies somewhere between Jay Cutler and Brett Favre, while I can’t shake images of David Carr when I watch Mark Sanchez (low release, tendency to hold onto ball too long) and that worries me quite a bit.

Other random notes: Stafford was far more likely to throw short passes (curls, outs, screens) to his right and slants/posts to his left.

Both quarterbacks showed good touch on short routes, each making almost the exact same touch throw for ~10yds (Sanchez Penn State, Stafford MSU).

Sanchez threw over the middle of the field far more often, and threw to his TE/RB more than Stafford.

Sanchez threw far more crossing routes (Stafford can elevate the ball too much when throwing them) than Stafford did.

Stafford can fit his screen pass into tight places, but needs to lead his WR a little more on them as he often throws it a foot behind the WR rather than a foot ahead.

Sanchez was less likely to throw off his back foot than Stafford.

Sanchez was involved in a lot more rollouts and threw on the run more, and does an excellent job on that (sets his feet when rolling left, which a lot of NFL QBs don’t do and pay because of it).

Stafford is a surprisingly good runner when he tucks the ball in, showing decent mobility and loose hips, and is better than Sanchez (who has more quickness than speed).

Michael Hamlin, S, Clemson

Name: Michael Hamlin
Position: S
School: Clemson
Height: 6015 E
Weight: 207E
40 Time: 4.50 E

Athleticism: 6.0
Athletically I was not terribly impressed with Hamlin. He has decent quickness, but is not an especially fluid athlete changing directions especially when supporting against the run. He’s a little high-cut, and while he seems to have good hip flip in coverage, he looks a little stiff in his lower body against the run. There is nothing “bad” here, but nothing that makes you love Hamlin either.
Quickness: 6.0
Balance: 6.0
Fluidity: 5.5

Physical Talents: 6.0
Hamlin’s frame probably does not deserve a 6.0 right now – he looks very skinny for a SS (well, Clemson called him a “CAT” back, but basically SS). However, he looks to have the ability to add weight, which should give him an advantage later on. Right now he doesn’t have the strength needed to play in the NFL but, again, can add strength. Hamlin has decent burst for the safety position but is not a truly elite safety by any means.
Body Type: 6.0
Strength: 5.5
Explosion: 6.0

Polish: 6.5
I was not especially thrilled with Hamlin the first time I scouted him, as he looked tentative attacking the pile. While there are still a few concerns (certainly not recklessly diving into the fray), he isn’t as afraid of contact as he first appeared. He has a good understanding of how to play his position, but occasionally tackles high. One of the most impressive things that stood out to me was how he switched to FS seamlessly when FS Chris Clemons got hurt early in a game – no problems at all. That indicates he has a solid understanding of the playbook.
Understands Playbook: 7.0
Proper Technique: 6.5
Instincts: 6.5

Competitiveness: 6.0
I love proving myself wrong (read my impressions on Matthew Stafford and then read my later scouting report for proof), and I was hoping Hamlin would show me that my concerns about his aggression were not true. Alas, I still have those concerns. It isn’t like he is Deion Sanders or anything, but he does not play with the aggression that I like to see from safeties – Chris Clemons is definitely more into the physical aspect of the game. I did appreciate his overall stead level of play and how he seamlessly played FS in a moment’s notice, but the lack of physicality is not something I like to see.
Toughness: 5.5
Consistency: 6.5
Clutch Play: 6.5
Effort: 6.0

Football Character: 6.0 Good character type with leadership credentials.
Personal Character: 6.5 Can’t find any problems, seems like a good kid.
Durability: 6.0 Has had injuries to both his feet, so that’s a concern, but in general does a good job staying healthy. If his feet aren’t expected to be a problem I’d feel comfortable taking Hamlin.

Read & React: 6.0 Good job making quick reads, but is prone to biting on play action.
Man Coverage: 6.0 – For a safety he has very good man coverage instincts.
Zone Coverage: 6.0 – I’m not sure he has the speed to play in deep coverage, but even without elite speed he should be alright. Good instincts.
Tackling Form: 6.0 – Doesn’t deliver the power behind his hits that you’d like to see, but is a reliable tackler usually.
Hit Power: 5.5 – Doesn’t blow up the ball-carrier at all, more of a drag-down type.
Blitz Ability: 5.5 Hamlin has decent burst, but lacks the elite speed to be a dominant blitzer.
Deep Speed: 6.0 – I’m not convinced he is the guy you want in deep coverage all the time, but he did perform well in the few chances he had running deep.
Block Shedding: 5.5 – Does not have the strength to disengage especially well.
Ball Skills: 6.5 – Has good hands for the interception and anticipates well.
Errors: 5.5 – Bites on play action too much.

Summary: Hamlin has two strikes against him – he’s not a physical, intimidator type safety and he is not in possession of elite speed. However, he does do several things well – he has a nose for the football, is a secure tackler, and is a decent athlete. I think Hamlin is a guy who can stick in the NFL, but I think he needs some time to add weight and work on his reads, but there is the potential he becomes a good player. If he does, however, he will do it with his coverage and decent tackling form (interestingly enough, a decent comparison is Deon Grant with better hands). While he has some value, I don’t see what people are excited for. There are a lot of safeties who become good players because they’re put in the right system and master the mental side of the game, and that will be Hamlin’s key to success, but there is nothing on tape to distinguish him from anyone else.

Final Grade: 5.8

Notes: I reserve the right to change this grade until the 2009 NFL draft.

Games Scouted: UVA, Alabama, and Nebraska

Knowshon Moreno, RB, Georgia

Name: Knowshon Moreno
Position: RB
School: Georgia
Height: 5107 E
Weight: 217 V
40 Time: 4.60 V

Athleticism: 6.5
Knowshon lacks great top-end speed, and that is a big deal at the halfback position (more likely to rip off 15-20 yard runs than 40 yard runs), but otherwise Moreno is a great athlete. He has the best balance I’ve seen from a college halfback in the years I’ve been scouting, and is a very fluid athlete who runs with good pad level and changes directions very well. I can’t stress how good the balance is, I thought last year Jonathan Stewart had great balance because he always kept his feet from underneath him, but that had more to do with his great strength than anything. Moreno just has a natural feel for how to keep himself off the ground and often gets 5+ yards more than other RBs would because he keeps his feet moving while he is being tackled.
Quickness: 6.0
Balance: 7.5
Fluidity: 7.0

Physical Talents: 6.5
Moreno has an odd frame. At 5’11, he’s the height I like from my halfbacks, but even though he played at 207lbs, he is a thick 207lbs and plays even stronger than his weight room numbers would suggest. Moreno doesn’t have great long speed, but he has very good burst after the hand-off and can accelerate past most defenders.
Body Type: 6.0
Strength: 6.5
Explosion: 6.5

Polish: 7.0
Moreno is a very polished player, and aside from one missed play (thought it was pass, but Stafford had called run) he played extremely smart football at UGA. Moreno plays with so much emotion that you almost wonder if he is fully in control, but I’ve seen 6+ games this year and no penalties were called on Moreno. He understands pass protection very well, and does everything you want as a runner (and bounces off the ground as soon as he hits it, which sometimes gets other players to get flagged for hitting him). As a receiver, you’d like to see him use his hands more to catch the ball (reliable, but more of a body catcher), which isn’t the end of the world, it just means he isn’t Brian Westbrook but he is a good receiver. Moreno’s instincts are excellent, as he has a sense of the 1^st down marker and reads blocks well.
Understands Playbook: 6.5
Proper Technique: 7.0
Instincts: 7.0

Competitiveness: 7.0
Moreno is one competitive player, and one reason I love him is I believe he can raise the energy of an offense. He is very physical for a smaller back (best blocker out of college I’ve seen from the HB position in 3 years of scouting), understands sometimes he just needs to get to the LOS, comes up big in the clutch, and plays with a ton of intensity. The only concern I have is if he might draw a rare flag for unsportsmanlike or jaw with defenders too often, as he is running on pure adrenaline.
Toughness: 6.5
Consistency: 7.0
Clutch Play: 7.0
Effort: 7.5

Football Character: 7.5 Good upper-body build, plays with his hair on fire.
Personal Character: 6.5 Nothing here to suggest he will be a problem, and in fact is a really likable kid.
Durability: 6.5 Has taken some pops, but is tough and finds a way to get on the field.

Run Instincts: 7.0 Great feel for rush lanes, follows blocks well and anticipates holes opening. Best I’ve scouted the past 2 years.
Tackle-Breaking: 6.5 Moreno isn’t a bruiser, but like Kenny Irons he keeps his feet moving and often manages to get 3+ yards more than you’d expect.
Cutback Ability: 6.5 Moreno is an excellent “cut-ter” (makes good cuts), but does not make the cuts across the whole LOS. When he does, he shows good balance and burst, but lacks the speed to run around a defense.
Inside Running: 7.0 Excellent inside runner due to balance, vision, and toughness.
Outside Running: 6.0 Moreno is very good on off-tackle runs, but lacks the pure speed to beat defenders around the corner.
Receiving Skills: 6.5 Moreno body-catches most of the time (shows the coordination to bring in off-target throws), but is very reliable and is a true threat.
Run After Catch: 7.0 Lacks great speed, but is very capable of moving the chains and is deadly on screen passes due to vision, patience, and open-field ability.
Open-Field: 6.5 The one thing Moreno can’t do is take a pass to the house, but he is extremely tough to tackle in the open field, even in relatively small spaces (like the backfield).
Pass Blocker: 7.5 Lacks great size, but loves blocking on WR screens (when split wide) and in pass protection for the QB. Best I’ve seen in years from a college kid.
Fumble/Errors: 6.5 No fumble problems here, overall a smart player.

Summary: I’ve made no secret that Moreno is one of my favorite players in this draft, or frankly any draft, and there is a good reason. Too often we make a big deal about size/speed, especially at the HB position, but there are tons of HOF/Pro-bowl backs who don’t have exceptional size/speed combinations but make up for it in other ways. IMO, Moreno is one of those backs. He has the best balance I’ve seen, the best pass blocking I’ve seen, and the greatest intensity I’ve seen in the few years I’ve been scouting. He’s a good all-around back capable of running any play, and as a receiver he is excellent at generating 1^st downs. Two players I am reminded of are Shaun Alexander (due to vision and inside running, but Moreno is a killer blocker and receiver where Alexander was poor at both) and Clinton Portis (the 2005+ version who is a great blocker and inside runner, not the 200lber from college), and I feel Moreno could be better than either because he truly is the best thing about each of those two backs. While I don’t recommend drafting a RB #4 overall due to money and the overall fungible nature of the RB position, Moreno had huge success behind a pretty bad Georgia OL and if given a decent OL I see pro-bowls and possibly Canton in Moreno’s future.

Final Grade: 7.1

Note: It is unlikely, but I reserve the right to change this grade up to the 2009 draft.

Games Scouted: Florida, LSU, Michigan State, Georgia Tech

James Davis, RB, Clemson

Name: James Davis
Position: RB
School: Clemson
Height: 5104 E
Weight: 218 E
40 Time: 4.60 E

Athleticism: 6.0
Because Davis is not CJ Spiller, it is easy to think he is slow or unathletic, but I don’t believe that is the case. While he lacks eye-popping athleticism, he has a decent bit of speed (can challenge the corner occasionally) with good balance and change of direction. There is nothing eye-popping and he certainly isn’t LeSean McCoy, Knowshon Moreno, or Beanie Wells, but he has enough athleticism to succeed in the NFL.
Quickness: 6.0
Balance: 6.0
Fluidity: 6.0

Physical Talents: 6.0
Davis gave me a bit of trouble when attempting to give him a grade here. There might be some disagreement over his body type, but I personally like my backs short and stocky (the only thing he could do better would be to add some upper-body weight, as 5’10 225 is my ideal), so a 6.5 seems fair. Davis has enough strength to run inside at a high level, and he has enough burst to hit the hole, but both grades may be closer to 6.0 than 6.5 and 5.5, respectively.
Body Type: 6.5
Strength: 6.5
Explosion: 5.5

Polish: 6.5
It doesn’t require a rocket scientist to understand technique at the halfback position, but Davis has an above-average understanding of blocking, body lean, and interior running. He could improve his pad level on outside runs, but it isn’t bad. He does a good job finding the hole and rarely makes a bad read when running inside.
Understands Playbook: 6.5
Proper Technique: 6.5
Instincts: 6.5

Competitiveness: 6.5
I saw nothing really extraordinary about Davis. He was very consistent and earns a high grade here, and clearly enjoys the physical aspect of the game, but overall he did not do anything out of the ordinary (good or bad) to stand out.
Toughness: 6.5
Consistency: 7.0
Clutch Play: 6.0
Effort: 6.5

Football Character: 6.0 Can’t find anything to distinguish him, looks solid.
Personal Character: 6.5 Squeaky clean reputation.
Durability: 6.5 Has taken a lot of hits over the years and has remained relatively healthy.

Run Instincts: 6.5 Does a good job finding the hole and getting through it.
Tackle-Breaking: 6.0 While Davis has good strength and sheds arm tackles easily, he does not truly play as powerful as his “thunder” nickname implies.
Cutback Ability: 6.0 Davis has good vision and sees the hole well, with enough burst to make cuts when needed.
Inside Running: 6.0 Does a good job finding his hole and getting through it, but lacks the strength or wiggle to make astonishing plays.
Outside Running: 5.5 While Davis can run outside well enough at the college level, he lacks the elite speed to beat defenders and is not especially dangerous in the open field.
Receiving Skills: 6.0 While Davis is a body-catcher, he does do a decent job looking the ball in and has enough burst to get a few yards.
Run After Catch: 6.0 Nothing special, but can pick up first downs.
Open-Field: 5.5 He lacks the elite speed you’d like to see, but he does have enough COD to work angles and is tough enough to get yardage after contact.
Pass Blocker: 6.0 Does a good job here, I read concerns about his blocking but more than once he took on DEs and bought enough time for his QB to make a dumb mistake.
Fumble/Errors: 6.5 No fumble problems here, overall a smart player.

Summary: James Davis is BORING. That’s both a good and a bad thing. There is really nothing remarkable about him. Good size, average speed, good instincts, decent 3^rd down value, good character. The only thing he is deficient in is, well, excitement. You don’t oow and aww watching him run, but he does a good job at most aspects of the game – doesn’t offer a lot on tosses, but you can run them with him if you have good blocking. While Davis is the kind of back that is easy to find (reminds me of Tashard Choice), there is value in what he brings to the table and he would be a great choice if Seattle does not address running back earlier, but is not the kind of back you select before the 4^th or 5^th round.

Final Grade: 5.8

Note: There is a high probability that I will watch more Clemson games in the future, and for that reason I reserve the right to change this grade up until the 2009 NFL Draft.

Games Scouted: Virginia, Nebraska, Alabama