Field Gulls: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Around SBN: Has Kentucky Improved Since the Non-Conference Season?

You Say Mark Sanchez. I Say Ryan Leaf.

It's seems unfathomable today, but Ryan Leaf was a great college quarterback and at one time looked to be a great quarterback prospect.

A lot of scouts lost a lot of credibility talking up Leaf over Peyton Manning. But what could they do? Scouts observe tools and skills, and whatever the revisionist say, Leaf had ample of each. He wasn't winging interceptions or padding his stats against Moorehead State. He wasn't just an arm. He was a winner with intangibles and incredible upside.

The year before Manning and Leaf were drafted, Leaf had the better season. He averaged 9.7 yards an attempt to Manning's 8.0. Manning had more interceptions and fewer touchdowns per pass attempt. Leaf was a clutch performer who led a no-name Washington State team to its first Rose Bowl since 1931; Manning was the polished college kid that choked away the Orange Bowl. Peter King, when he was good, had Phil Sims, Jerry Angelo, Sid Gillman, Mike Shanahan, Bob Toledo and Bill Walsh watch tape of the two and then solicited their opinions. The consensus, Manning was better, but both were good*. However you slice it, Leaf was once considered almost Manning's equal, and even his superior by some. Manning is now a living legend. A current NFL starter already considered among the greatest quarterbacks who ever played. Leaf, of course, is a total bust.

It's not that scouts are totally incompetent or outright blind. It's simply that scouts didn't properly assess risk. They weren't wrong about Leaf's tools, and I'd wager they weren't even wrong about Leaf's skills, but they were wrong about Leaf's head. They didn't consider how Leaf would fare under adversity, how he would adapt to fame, scrutiny, failure, if he'd stay driven after becoming rich, or if maybe Leaf was just completing the best hot streak of his life.

Leaf started 24 games in college. He was great the final 13. Mark Sanchez started 16 games in college. He was great in 13. Football fans should know by the examples of Rex Grossman and Derek Anderson, 13 games isn't much more than an extended hot-streak. Leaf rose to fame during that hot streak. As a college kid leading an improbable contender, Leaf was largely spared criticism. Sanchez has suffered two losses his entire college career. Inevitably, Leaf succumbed to the pressure of the pros, proving just not capable of the workload or burden of expectation. His character undercut his ability and he rather infamously flamed out. Sanchez, well...

Sanchez was never charged with sexual assault, but he was accused. That doesn't make him guilty, and I'm not implying he is guilty, but it's ignorant to ignore the accusation. We're talking brass tacks, risk/reward, investment, not right and wrong. If we say that there's a 25 or even 10 percent chance that Sanchez did commit sexual assault, than that must be part of how we evaluate him as a prospect. How do we see that 10%? If he did do it, what then does that say about his character? If he was the exact same prospect otherwise, but we knew he was guilty of sexual assault, how would that affect his value?

It also must be considered that Sanchez used a fake ID, was caught for underage drinking and was detained for breaking a window during a fraternity party. None of that touches my exploits at that age, but again we're not talking the measure of the man, we're not judging Sanchez, we're evaluating him as a, for lack of a better word, commodity. We're attempting to project his future value. Sanchez must have known he had a legitimate chance at playing in the NFL, so the above is, if nothing else, rather stupid decision making.

It's not the commie color guard of red flags, but it's a couple and both are conspicuous and undeniable. No one knew that Ryan Leaf would fail so fantastically, but there were signposts. That's what I see in Mark Sanchez: A physically talented kid, with good skills, but frightening red flags.

*

The oft-quirky Walsh was the only one of the six experts who said he wouldn't take Manning with the first choice. "I'd pick another top player," he says, "and then I'd take [Michigan quarterback] Brian Griese in the second round. I think he could have the tools to be special."

1 recs  |  Comment 129 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Stick a fork in Sanchez to Seattle

in the hearts of the FG faithful, it is D-U-N.

by jacobstevens on Mar 25, 2009 3:19 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Where would one find college statistics?

I looked up ‘Matt Hasselbeck Boston College statistics’ and found nothing.

by LantermanC on Mar 25, 2009 3:22 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I found some great split stats at cfbstats.com

Unfortunately, it only goes back through 2004. A few other site searches doesn’t find anything that goes back to 1997, Hasselbeck’s senior year.

"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch

by crushedoptimist on Mar 25, 2009 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The article also describes Leaf as

a ‘big arm’, ‘immature’, ‘immobile’, ‘side arm(er)’ and ‘inaccurate’.

Sanchez has been described as ‘good at reading defenses, cerebral, smooth delivery, blue collar work ethic’, etc. Not to mention his great feet. If anyone’s worried about small hands, apparently he has banana hands as well, 10.5 inch hands to rival Crabtree’s.

No offense to Leaf, but I think the warning signs were there that he didn’t know what to do with the fame, and was kind of a lazy fat drunk. Sanchez may be a bit immature, but he has had a lot of praise so far. Then again, the same that people gushed about Vince Young’s leadership capabilities, not call him whiny and unprepared and overprotected.

by LantermanC on Mar 25, 2009 3:36 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

And the thing about Sanchez is that glamorous USC is a totally different environment than middle of nowhere WSU.

(No offense to any WSU students/alums). I’m sure he can handle scrutiny and the glare of a large market team.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Mar 25, 2009 3:38 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

kind of a lazy fat drunk.

Tell us how you really feel. ;)

by Misfit74 on Mar 25, 2009 3:41 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I do have questions as to whether

Sanchez is a product of small sample size, but that is the only real big red flag I see. I don’t know, the fact that a few people have said they have been blown away by Sanchez in interviews really appeals to me. It seems after Curry, Sanchez or Jason Smith have been the 2nd best interviews.

Leaf had so many red flags. Heart and desire (cliche I know, but I don’t think Leaf spent many nights watching game film unless he was accompanied by a few 6 packs). Ability to be in the limelight and face criticism while not letting money get to him. Ability to adjust when facing a higher level of competition, and then all of the above mentioned physical tools which I don’t think allowed him to be a great QB.

by LantermanC on Mar 25, 2009 4:24 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Most of the things you listed

Are post-hoc judgments, and hence wouldn’t qualify as red flags. Obviously, scouts and GMs thought he had the necessary makeup (and skills) to be successful. There are two possible explanations for why the talent evaluation system failed in this case:

1) All scouts and GMs are idiots who ignored Leaf’s major red flags
2) It’s almost impossible to predict who will be good based on information you have prior to them starting in the NFL

I think the second explanation is more likely.

by cyberwulf on Mar 25, 2009 5:57 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

That's an unsound argument

I amazed you would even present it.

So mistakes are impossible. Either general managers are idiots or the outcome is unknowable. By that logic, there’s no argument that could be made for Seattle not drafting John Parker Wilson in the first.

by John Morgan on Mar 25, 2009 6:14 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Besides being called John Parker Wilson, that is.

"Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?" - Dr. Venture

by Eegah on Mar 26, 2009 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Why does he get three names when the rest of us only get two?

"Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?" - Dr. Venture

by Eegah on Mar 26, 2009 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think theres some middle ground between those two options

Otherwise you may as well just be flipping a coin.

by Nate Dogg on Mar 25, 2009 6:14 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

No, I can give you examples of how a GM might possibly tell before the draft.

Heart and Desire. Andre Smith, no need for explanation. Vontae Davis supposedly had to be benched for a game to motivate him. Hakeem Nicks gained 14 pounds in 6 weeks due to an injury. No one’s questioning Kerney’s heart or Tatupu’s heart. Why? Because they’re workaholics and they like playing football.

Facing criticism. Yeah this is kind of hard I guess. A lot of these guys have been praised by coaches and prospective agents, it might be hard for them to take criticism. I suppose in an interview you could criticize certain aspects of their game and ask how they would improve it. Not to bash on Andre Smith, but after a terrible workout, he acted like everything was fine.

Last is adversity. I had an interview a while ago, that had 3 rounds of interviews. They didn’t give a crap about your character. All they cared about was your love for competition and your ability to adjust to problems. First of all they wanted to know if I liked playing poker, competitive video games, or things like that. Then they had statistics problems, each one getting harder, and if I couldn’t give the correct answer, they might give slight clue, slowly giving more and more hints until I got the answer right. Things like visible frustration are going to happen, but acting like a little kid is obviously not what they’re looking for. The kid who throws his controller on the ground after losing in Madden and plays on easy is probably not going to like continually being challenged (which is going to happen in the NFL no matter who you are).

So yes, it’s impossible to accurately identify these red flags, but I think it’s possible to narrow it down at least.

by LantermanC on Mar 25, 2009 9:09 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The Rex Grossman analogy was great.

I was ok with Sanchez, but once you brought up Rex Grossman, my mind totally changed. I remember the year Rex was good for a bit chunk of it, heck, he was on my fantasy team for a while. Totally proves anybody can be good for a stretch, gives me more reason to have faith in the way Ruskell drafts.

Great job!

by germpod on Mar 25, 2009 3:37 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Well, you can say whatever you want.

Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.

by BrettJMiller on Mar 25, 2009 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You say Mark Sanchez

I say this exercise is futile. Here’s my conjecture:

- Say that you had an agreed-upon way to assess objectively whether or not a QB was a “bust”.
- Say that you had access to all available information about a prospect’s college and personal history

Conjecture: Consider applying any procedure based on the information available to you to determine whether or not the Top 5 rated QBs will bust or not. Then that procedure will not do better, statistically speaking, than a weighted coin toss (where the chance of heads, i.e. “bust”, is determined by the proportion of previous Top 5 rated QBs who have been previously determined to be busts).

by cyberwulf on Mar 25, 2009 4:09 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I think what JM means

is that the amount of red flags Sanchez has shows an unreasonable amount of risk for a top 5 or 10 pick. Every player has a ‘true potential’, but not everyone’s chances of reaching this potential is distributed the same. Some have normal bell curves, and some are probably very skewed. I think with this, the expected value of a player is different for each team taking Sanchez, since each situation is different, and each team has a different approach to risk’ the Seahawks are probably one of the more risk averse teams.

Personally, I think arguing the merits of drafting a QB is similar to arguing nature vs. nurture. How much does the experience affect the future outcome? I’d argue more along the lines of nature. A great QB can have experiences that make him a bust. But a not great player cannot have an experience to make him a QB.

by LantermanC on Mar 25, 2009 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I disagree

It may not be strictly provable, but I would argue that there’s ample evidence to support it.

by cyberwulf on Mar 26, 2009 1:02 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Conjecture: Statistics not your personal forte

The more information that is able to go into a statistical analysis, with a larger N, larger amount of power, and more reliable data, the more valid your final statistic will be (i.e. more representative of the population).

You are confusing “more accurate” with “completely accurate.” No statistic, for the most part, will be completely accurate, thus there is no way to say with 100% accuracy that Sanchez will be a bust or be an all-pro. However, more information will make us (in this perfect agreed-upon objective assessment world) able to more confidently predict the final outcome for said Sanchez.

"Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?" - Dr. Venture

by Eegah on Mar 26, 2009 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Umm, yeah, except...

I’m arguing that there is an upper limit to how much information one can collect about a prospect, and that the residual variability in QB performance given that information is still large. As a result, there is a corresponding limit to how reliable predictions based on that information will be.

You might want to read up about the difference between estimating a mean and predicting a future observation (say using a linear regression model) before you start making assumptions about my understanding of statistics.

by cyberwulf on Mar 26, 2009 1:08 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Actually, you appear to be now arguing something differently

Your original conjecture stated that there is no useful way to predict whether or not a quarterback will be successful that is better than previous choices. So if a top 5 quarterback has previously been found to bust at 60%, there is no way to ensure that our new quarterback choice would bust at anything better. This argument (unprovable to begin with) limits any progress on choices based off of learning that comes from previous prospects’ failures, regardless of including as many other potential variables into the analysis (underclassmen, type of offense run in college, etc, so yes, not a smart statistical analysis).

Your new “improved and sassy” conjecture appears to state that there is a limit to reliable predictions, which I put in the “oh my god, no freaking way” argument box. Trying to restate a poorly shaped argument into the realm of the uber-obvious and then attacking the person who called you on it is not a good way to go..

"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch

by crushedoptimist on Mar 26, 2009 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Read up on estimating a mean?

Using (gasp) regression models in research?

Since I have read and use those models daily, I will continue to make assumptions about your knowledge of statistics. And done.

"Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?" - Dr. Venture

by Eegah on Mar 26, 2009 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

JM,

You used to be so high on Sanchez (late in the CFB season). What happened?

by SeaTownBlueDevil on Mar 25, 2009 4:45 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Skills and tools-wise

I think he’s fantastic. And that’s the rub. It’s not tools or skills that’s the problem. It’s all that’s unknown.

by John Morgan on Mar 25, 2009 5:43 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

John, I like that you are honestly trying to take all variables into account and come to an unbiased conclusion. But I’d venture to guess you secretly believe Sanchez is the superior talent but Stafford grades out better by metrics you respect as valid. In response to your reservations, what do you really know about Stafford other than he’s been better at not getting caught in shenanigans?

In any case, it would seem premature to dismiss Sanchez as a possibility at 4 and I’d like to see more data so we have some basis for comparing him to Stafford apples to apples.

by Camarostache '77 on Mar 25, 2009 7:16 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

While I'm starting to warm up to either...

Sanchez doesn’t have nearly the arm Stafford does. You can teach pocket awareness, decision-making, and footwork, but you can’t teach how to launch a rocket with your arm.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Mar 26, 2009 8:36 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I believe you can teach those things to be better

but those things all are determined by natural ability. The footwork of a Sanchez with the same amount of coaching will always be a lot better than that of a Ryan Leaf.

It’s like control with pitching a baseball or taking a walk for a hitter. You can teach both things to make improvements, but I believe (correct me if I’m wrong) these are actual skills that a player has (for pitchers it’s muscle memory, like free throws, for hitters it’s reaction time and patience?).

by LantermanC on Mar 26, 2009 8:44 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

...because a rocket arm is THE best indicator of future NFL success

see also: Ryan Leaf.

Are there serious questions about Sanchez’s arm strength as it projects to the NFL, or just in comparison to Stafford? The former would be a legitimate issue, the latter, not so much.

by Camarostache '77 on Mar 26, 2009 4:44 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I believe most people think

he has an average, perhaps a slightly above average arm. ‘Capable of making all the throws necessary in the NFL’ I believe is the quote.

by LantermanC on Mar 26, 2009 4:55 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah, Sanchez's arm isn't of concern.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Mar 27, 2009 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I would correlate Leaf to Stafford, rich kid,kinda chubby.

 Personally I ’d rather have Sanchez on my squad.

Cogito Ergo Sum

by censor1979 on Mar 25, 2009 5:42 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Yeah, that's right.

And what does being ‘kinda chubby’ have to do with anything?

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Mar 25, 2009 6:01 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

By that logic,

Mark Mangino is the anti-Christ.

by SeaTownBlueDevil on Mar 25, 2009 6:14 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

At first I thought was Holmgren in his early Seattle days

O_O

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Mar 25, 2009 6:23 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Slightly off-topic, but The Fat Man may be the best X and O guy in the college biz

I’m a Mizzou grad, and it pains me to type that, but they NEVER get outcoached. Kansas shouldn’t even be competitive in football. That state produces next-to-no national talent (Barry Sanders and the kid who just committed to Tennessee).

"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin

by dcrockett17 on Mar 25, 2009 8:24 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It's the double-chin.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Mar 25, 2009 10:19 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

-- while Manning was the rich kid.

With, it should be noted, the big schnozz. Leaf was much better looking.

by The Ancient Mariner on Mar 26, 2009 6:31 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

When I think of Leaf and Stafford being similar,

I think of the cannon arm, more than anything else.

by LantermanC on Mar 25, 2009 9:11 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think of Bledsoe.

Maybe Stafford is more like Bledsoe than Leaf. Sanchez? Well, I like his mobility and seems like he has a lot of charisma. I don’t think there’s all that good of a chance the ‘Hawks draft him, regardless. Not enough games+red flags=Ruskell pass. I can’t say that I’d be upset if we drafted him, though. I just don’t believe we will.

by Misfit74 on Mar 26, 2009 9:48 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Can we use this same argument for Crabtree

is his roommates involvement in cocaine dealings worthy of suspicion?

It is what it is...

by kidder95 on Mar 25, 2009 6:05 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

While I don't claim to know the answer,

I’d suspect an allegation on him is more concerning than an allegation on his roommates.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Mar 25, 2009 6:24 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't want to be dismissive of something as serious as sexual assault

but Crabtree’s room mate and Sanchez’s accuser are fairly equally tangentially related. If you have to factor in the chance that Sanchez really did do what was claimed than don’t you also have to factor in the chance that Crabtree was also somehow involved with his room mates dealings?

For me Crabtree’s room mate is more concerning than the sexual assault accusations. Sanchez may have had nothing to do with his accuser where Crabtree has already shown poor judgement in who he hangs out with, regardless of his involvement with cocaine.

by Nate Dogg on Mar 25, 2009 6:29 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

What makes those two situations not comparable...

is that Crabtree hasn’t been accused of anything. In fact he’s been cleared of any wrongdoing in the situation. Additionally, beyond the legal process, nothing in the media has emerged that suggests Crabtree had any involvement whatsoever. So you can’t put a player in a position where he’s trying to prove a negative, that he DIDN’T do something. That’s the quintessential false red flag.

In the Sanchez situation, he either did or did not commit sexual assault. He’s been accused of it directly. A direct accusation HAS to be a red flag.

"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin

by dcrockett17 on Mar 25, 2009 8:51 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Does no charges filed

constitute guilty then?

It is what it is...

by kidder95 on Mar 25, 2009 9:09 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Sanchez was also cleared...

From a logical standpoint, you argument is very valid.

So you can’t put a player in a position where he’s trying to prove a negative, that he DIDN’T do something.

…but I think it misses the point Nate was getting at. This is far more about a risk assessment from the standpoint of drafting a guy, than it is about providing a logical burden of proof.

As for the Crabtree roommate incident… being cleared is NOT the issue. If Sanchez was cleared and still deserves to be at minimum “red flagged”, then Crabtree should as well.

A common sense filter would suggest that Crabtree COULD HAVE HAD at least had some idea of what was gong on. 50 grams of cocaine is a boat load. To be distributing those quantities out of a 3 bedroom apartment (as speculated by the DEA) there must be heavy foot traffic. If examining the possibility that Sanchez COULD have done it, then shouldn’t the Seahawks at least entertain the idea that Crabtree COULD have known about an operation so big that the DEA was involved?

by iverson2169 on Mar 25, 2009 9:24 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I personally would buy that more than....

“I really had no idea my roommate was deal cocaine 50 grams at a time”

I totally understand a denial, I just dont fully buy it.

by iverson2169 on Mar 25, 2009 9:42 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The issue I have with making the two situations comparable isn't just flawed logic...

it’s that we are abstracting away from context and blurring pretty critical distinctions in how the two types of alleged crimes are handled in the criminal justice system.

We know a lot about sexual assault and sexual assault claims. High profile cases, like the Duke Lacrosse players aside, the alleged victim has a pretty high hill to climb — especially in a date rape kind of scenario. Known abusers like Lawrence Phillips have had assault charges dropped before he finally got convicted. Real victims are routinely encouraged to drop charges. The most benign explanation I can give is that convictions are difficult to get. This is not surprising, since by nature there can be a lot of gray area.

I’m not suggesting that Sanchez did anything. I’m simply saying that the probability of a false negative (i.e., charges were dropped when he actually did it) is, historically speaking, higher in this context than in some others.

On the other hand, with drug trafficking there is no incentive whatsoever for law enforcement—and this is the DEA here, not the local yokels—to walk away from potential multiple convictions, particularly when talking about the kind of weight this guy was trying to move. There’s every reason to believe that every close associate of the roommate, including Crabtree, was vetted. It’s standard procedure and doesn’t vary much by context.

I have a cousin whose roommate was not only dealing, but the roommate was being watched for months by the DEA. My cousin had no idea that either thing was going on. The place was bugged. The whole nine. Law enforcement absolutely looks at friends and close associates when they are investigating leads on perps. Given that the DEA busted the roommate the likelihood of a false negative is really, really low..

I’m not suggesting that one (or both) isn’t worthy of follow up if I’m a GM. On the assault case I’d hire a private detective to track down the officer who took the complaint originally to see what, if anything, they’re willing to say. If the victim went to a hospital I’d try to find anyone who worked with her within the parameters of what is allowable under various rape shield laws. On the trafficking case I don’t know what you’re gonna find out that the DEA doesn’t already know. If they cleared him it’s pretty much because he doesn’t know anything.

"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin

by dcrockett17 on Mar 26, 2009 8:10 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Exactly, I don't see how one player gets risk added to their stock and the other doesn't

I can understand both sides of the argument, neither were charged or even proven to be involved so it’s a non-issue. But looking at this from the perspective that John brought up in the argument, that it’s about the risk of a commodity and not the quality of the person that we’re looking at, then Crabtree’s situation is more of a red flag than Sanchez’s.

Although I’d draft Crabtree in a heartbeat so it shows you how much I care about any of it.

by Nate Dogg on Mar 25, 2009 9:53 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I couldn't agree more with you Nate...

Guilt or innocence has NOTHING to do with it.

It’s the assessing of the risk, and accounting for the possibility of what MIGHT have been so (for either guy) that is of importance here. It would be blindly irresponsible to not, at minimum, think there was a possibility that both Sanchez actually did it, or that Crabtree knew about his roommates cocaine dealing it in assessing the risk of either guy.

by iverson2169 on Mar 25, 2009 9:58 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Bobby Engram was accused of breaking and entering and stealing some dude's stereo

at Penn State in the early 90s. He was acquitted and his roommate was found guilty. I’m sure we can agree Engram had a fine career complete with great work-ethic.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Mar 25, 2009 10:21 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Completely true, and completely irrelevant to my point Frog.

Michael Crabtree and Mark Sanchez are both more than likely good people with good work ethic and decent career potential. NOT the point here.

My point is that if one is going to assign a “red flag” to Sanchez for the events he was cleared of, then one must also assign a red flag to Crabtree for events that he was cleared of having a connection with. The purpose of the “red flag”? Due diligence.

It would be unwise to not at least consider the possibility that both Sanchez and Crabtree COULD have done or been involved of events that they were cleared of. Remember… the US legal system has nothing to do with whether a person is guilty or innocent (big misconception). It’s all about what you are able to prove (right or wrong). Since this is not about providing a legal burden of proof, and more about how a franchise spends their cap dollars, how could one not account for the possibility that either of the events are true?

In the end, it’s more than likely that neither guy is affected by the events they were both cleared of; however, if a person attaches that proverbial flag to one, you must attach it to both.

By the way: The kidder95 post was the feedback that triggered this vein of thought. At no time did John imply that the Seahawks (or any team for that matter) wouldn’t consider looking at the Crabtree roommate issue as an item of due diligence. John being a fairly pragmatic editorialist would probably agree that a good number of teams would “dig” into the roommate issue in an interview (not attempting to answer for Mr. Morgan of course… simply a guess).

by iverson2169 on Mar 25, 2009 11:58 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Do you really not see a difference

between “cleared of doing” and “cleared of having a connection with”? To my eye, the difference is an order of magnitude.

by The Ancient Mariner on Mar 26, 2009 6:34 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Of course there is a contextual difference here....

…but it is irrelevant to my point. Crabtree’s relationship and proximity (same apartment) to a guy that was dealing 50 grams of cocaine at a time, is enough to at least ask the questions.

If you are paid by the Seahawks to interview, investigate Crabtree as a draft choice, due you NOT ask the questions about the events?

If you answer yes, then you are hitting the crux of the argument here. It’s not about whether he is guilty, its about doing your job as a scout and protecting your investment.

If you answer no, then you are grossly inept as a scout, to NOT even ask the questions and find out if your million dollar draftee may have known about the cocaine dealing.

by iverson2169 on Mar 26, 2009 7:05 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I had a roommate who was a drug dealer in college

I’ve never touched anything more than a beer in my life. I knew very little about my roommate other than he was doing and selling drugs out of our university apartment on a daily basis. Does this make me a bad individual with character red flags?

You know what? Fuck you Sports Gods, fuck you.

by bluemax on Mar 26, 2009 4:05 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

If I was evaluating you strictly as a commodity it would raise a question about you

People are making this personal and it shouldn’t be. I’m simply going by this:

That doesn’t make him guilty, and I’m not implying he is guilty, but it’s ignorant to ignore the accusation. We’re talking brass tacks, risk/reward, investment, not right and wrong. If we say that there’s a 25 or even 10 percent chance that Sanchez did commit sexual assault, than that must be part of how we evaluate him as a prospect.

and this:

…we’re not talking the measure of the man, we’re not judging Sanchez, we’re evaluating him as a, for lack of a better word, commodity. We’re attempting to project his future value.

If we’re going to evaluate risk using this method than Crabtree’s room mate becomes a question mark.

by Nate Dogg on Mar 26, 2009 4:59 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Totally and Completely Missing the Point...

This is not a hard concept to grasp people….

I knew very little about my roommate other than he was doing and selling drugs out of our university apartment on a daily basis. Does this make me a bad individual with character red flags?

Obviously NOT….. It’s NOT our (mine or Nate’s) point and NEVER has been. Whether Sanchez,Crabtree or both are guilty or innocent has absolutely nothing to do with what we talking about. This is about due diligence for an NFL club spending millions of dollars on a young prospect.

If Sanchez is innocent…great!!! Draft him.
If Crabtree is innocent of knowing about his roommates actions… great draft him!!

WARNING: DOUBLE NEGATIVE ALERT!!!

But you dont NOT ask the questions to him in an interview as a matter of due diligence! Period. Why? Because there is the possibility that Sanchez actually did it, and there is also a possibility that Crabtree knew about his roommates drug dealing.

This isn’t even a question about whether either of those events being true make them un-draftable… that is another discussion. This is simply about the fact that Sanchez, Crabtree, or any other prospect that has been accused of, involved in, or associated with criminal activity warrants some sort of investigative due diligence.

by iverson2169 on Mar 26, 2009 6:59 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah

my best friend in high school ended up cooking meth. Coolest dude in the world… he has since turned his life around. It was a one time event. People are now better for knowing him.

That said, I see John’s point. There is no safe way to view it.

I am biased towards Sanchez’s talents. To me, he blows Stafford out of the water. That said, I am in agreement. That breaks my heart.

It is what it is...

by kidder95 on Mar 25, 2009 8:13 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'll admit that a long time ago Ryan Leaf crossed my mind when I first started evaluating Sanchez

Both essentially had 1 great season which propelled them. Both were guys that had terrific final college seasons- particularly Leaf who carried WSU on his back. Both seemed “unshakable” on the field, and showed natural leadership and field charisma. Both were very good “tools” wise.

The critical difference between Leaf and Sanchez is that Leaf always struck me as an extremely passionate player who was an ultra competitive type at WSU, the kind of guy that gets easily frustrated because that’s how competitive he is (Manning is another guy that gets visibly frustrated all the time, but he was able to handle it unlike Leaf). When Manning struggled in his 1st NFL season, he was composed at least enough to succeed in his 2nd year, whereas Leaf erupted with frustration and his career became a downward spiral.

Sanchez strikes me as more aloof and having a good time out there. He’s competitive, but in a good way, not in a self-destructive way. He hasn’t faced the kind of adversity he’ll face in the NFL, but if you’ve seen his interviews, he’s very easy going, almost Hasselbeck-like.

As far as the Sexual Assualt, its my understanding that the incident happened in Sanchez’s room and it was a case of a man going too far (similar to the Kobe Bryant case). The victim left Sanchez’s place and told her mother about it the next day. It was the victim’s alarmed mother that reported the incident to the police. Parents are often over-protective and its very possible that the incident was overblown. Sanchez was never charged and evidence was never presented.

The Fake ID is very minor thing for me, its about as damning and as common among college students as illegal internet downloading of copyrighted material.

Both of these things happened 2 years before Sanchez played a single game for USC. I think his future as an NFL QB was far from probable at that point.

I have concerns for Sanchez, and I do see the Leaf comp, but not because of the red flags listed.

by kearly on Mar 25, 2009 7:11 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I'm more concerned about comparisons to Leinert

Leinert seems to like the fame more than the game, and this has led to him not doing a whole lot in the NFL despite every chance to succeed. But then again, Sanchez didn’t elect to stay in College simply to win more games and try to win the title again. He seems more eager to get his NFL career started (and thus, make some $).

by Fear on Mar 25, 2009 7:21 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I agree

Leinart is a better comparison. Oh if only Leinart played the Seahawks every week. He’d probably have around a 100 passer rating and be one of the most elite QB’s in the NFL. Maybe its because Leinart always seems to do well against Seattle that’s making me biased, but I’m just not ready to label him a bust yet.

Personality wise and talent wise, Sanchez does remind me of Leinart a little bit.

by kearly on Mar 25, 2009 9:07 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I dunno

as someone who was on campus at the same time as Leinart and Sanchez I don’t think they’re all that similar. They’re both popular, affable guys, but once Sanchez became “the man” he was more about spending time with his team mates and getting ready for the season than he was about hanging out with Nick Lachey at Lakers games.

You know what? Fuck you Sports Gods, fuck you.

by bluemax on Mar 26, 2009 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The Kobe Bryant thing was completely different

I lived up in the Rockies at the time, and the picture in the national media was skewed. Morally, yeah, he was wrong, but legally, much as I dislike the guy, he did nothing illegal.

As for Sanchez, all I know is what I’ve heard from folks who know him, and they speak well of his character, work ethic, and smarts . . . I don’t know, though, he still rings warning bells for me; I still wouldn’t want to take the risk on him.

by The Ancient Mariner on Mar 26, 2009 6:40 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I lived on a hill about 10 miles from where the incident happened at the time

I heard rumors too, but I think its pretty clear now what happened in that case. Basically, Bryant slipped up and did have sex with her, but the probably of rape became very muddy when it came out that the victim was a mental case and had a history of accusing men of raping her.

In Sanchez’s case, there is 0 evidence of even sex taking place, so really, I’m being pessimistic about Sanchez by comparing him to Kobe.

by kearly on Mar 26, 2009 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well, and more than that

you know how the justice system works, or doesn’t, on the Western Slope. Most folks outside western Colorado don’t have a sense of that, and so don’t seem to have more than a vague idea what actually went down.

by The Ancient Mariner on Mar 27, 2009 6:42 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm in the middle of a book that might relate to this discussion

called “Outliers,” by Malcolm Gladwell. To distill the point for this topic, he makes the argument that opportunity and experience counts just as much (if not more) as talent and innate ability, when it comes to the rise of some of the most successful men in our nation’s history.

One example given was Bill Gates, who not only was lucky enough to be born at the right time so that he’d be in high school and college at the beginning of the computer age of the late 60’s and early 70’s, but also had the unique opportunity to go to schools (Lakeside and UW) that allowed students access to computers. The conclusion is that Gates got to log thousands of hours on a computer when he was young, at a time when only a tiny, tiny amount of people had similar access.

Along those lines, I think starting 4 years at a university over just 1 year is a value that seems to be completely ignored when evaluating son-to-be-drafted QBs. When it comes to comparing the elite of elite in draft classes, like Sanchez and Stafford this year and Manning and Leaf way back when, the difference in experience must loom as large as the shadow of a redwood.

by J.L. White on Mar 25, 2009 7:50 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Good author.

I’m currently reading ‘the Tipping Point.’

by LantermanC on Mar 25, 2009 9:26 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I thought "The Tipping Point" was awful

The guy spends half the book setting something up, then doesn’t deliver. Useless, when I thought it might actually say something.

by djafrot on Mar 26, 2009 2:54 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Gladwell is good for what he is...

I think a lot of his ideas are insightful and the way he presents them are usually pretty cool but his MO is generally to heap piles of anecdotal evidence on readers hoping that they don’t notice there’s nothing conclusive.

by cro-mag! on Mar 26, 2009 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You're not the only one

Check out this article, and this one. They do a pretty good number on the guy.

by The Ancient Mariner on Mar 26, 2009 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I just dont see the comparisons with Leaf beyond...

Big arm and some stats that appear to be circumstantial.

As a WSU alumni from the Bledsoe era, I followed future WSU QB’s religiously. The two biggest red flags I could see with Leaf weren’t maturity issues, but mechanical issues. His incredible arm masked many of his throwing-mechanic deficiencies and his footwork was average at best.

Side note on Sanchez: His immaturity issues are three years removed. ALL of the infractions mentioned happened in 2006 during his redshirt freshman year. Since that point Sanchez became a leader of the team and on several occasions publicly took responsibility for poor performances or losses.

NOT NFL ready, but has every tool you would want from a QB prospect and is a proven winner. Great feet, great vision, good arm, and interviewed very well.

by iverson2169 on Mar 25, 2009 7:57 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Why can't both Sanchez and Stafford be Ryan Leaf

Or is that just too much Leaf for one draft? Just sayin’, just because one may be bad doesn’t mean the other will be good.

Unfortunately, as we all know, no one will know until it happens. Or doesn’t.

by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 25, 2009 9:20 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

They could be Tim Couch and Akili Smith.

How hilarious would that be if they both were busts and Josh Freeman turned out to be a pro bowler?

by LantermanC on Mar 25, 2009 9:24 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It would only be hilarious

if we ended up with the Freeman, or didn’t draft one of the bust. Even then I might laugh at the irony. My gut says that’s the way this draft will go, which is why I want Crabtree. Of course, I also have a feeling the Cubs will win a world series before my Grandma kicks it (she’s a huge Cubs fan) and it’s been a long wait…

by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 25, 2009 9:30 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I would shit bricks and never trust analysis again.

Because I can’t imagine Freeman ever becoming a starter, let alone a Pro-Bowl one.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Mar 26, 2009 8:40 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Jamarcus Russell aint a bust yet

too early. He showed decent improvement under Knapp. Now if only that offensive line doesn’t get him killed

by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 26, 2009 11:21 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

i know

but do you really think Cable had anything to do with it? The guy gets along with Al Davis for christs sakes. Cable is an O-line coach, not a QB coach. I think all that really did was give Knapp more time to work with Russell. I’m guessing, or maybe wishfully hoping, but who knows maybe you’re right..

by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 27, 2009 7:09 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I agree. Not sure why the comparison is between Sanchez and Leaf

At first glance I thought it was an experience correlation, but upon further review, Leaf had far more starts than Sanchez did (8 is nearly another seasons worth).

It could have been an maturity comparison, but Leaf never really had his maturity tested until after he got drafted. Sanchez has already had maturity issues (in 2006) and bounced back well.

by iverson2169 on Mar 25, 2009 9:29 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I never met Leaf

but I was at wazzu when he was there, and oh boy were there some stories about what an immature douchebag he was. It’s all heresy though, but now that I see how things went, all probably true.

by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 25, 2009 9:33 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Mike Price was the same way

Lots of sleezy stories about him crept out after the Alabama fiasco.

by Nate Dogg on Mar 25, 2009 9:58 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

What a character that guy was...

He would have fit in well in Minnesota on some of those infamous boating trips on Lake free-love.

by iverson2169 on Mar 25, 2009 10:00 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah I was there as Bledsoe left and Leaf came on...
and oh boy were there some stories about what an immature douchebag he was.

probably all true I’m sure, but thats exactly my point. Pullman is so quaint that there just isn’t a real test of a guys maturity. L.A. by contrast will really test a young immature guy’s makeup from the beginning.

By the way- is it weird that I miss food at the Rotunda 12 years after I left?

by iverson2169 on Mar 25, 2009 9:38 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

No kidding..... Ahhh

Were you in dorms or a house? I was mostly on the Streit-Perham side behind the basketball arena and Football Stadium. Watching those old B-ball teams was great (Fontaine, Ellison, Mack, Hendrickson, and Antrum).

by iverson2169 on Mar 25, 2009 9:54 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

That's beyond weird

Missing the food from the Rotunda? Good god man. I remember a choice bit of graffiti in the Stephenson North bathroom: “Flush twice…it’s a long way to the Groto”

Seconded, thirded, and fourthed on Leaf’s reputation at Wazzu. He is unanimously regarded as a douchebag of the highest caliber in Pullman, including reportedly telling the owner of a local bar “I could buy you” on a visit after signing his contract with the Chargers. Still, I’m sure plenty of other successful NFL quarterbacks were/are boorish, arrogant d-bags so it’s hard to blame evaluators of the time for guessing wrong on Leaf. He is perhaps the most spectacular top-of-the-draft flameout in the modern NFL – that just doesn’t happen frequently and there was no way to really know it would happen.

by Camarostache '77 on Mar 25, 2009 10:19 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It is weird... but I liked the choice!
Missing the food from the Rotunda? Good god man.

It was cool having all the choices in a single spot and I have never been a particularly picky eater. Also, my card always had double points because I was on a track scholarship.

by iverson2169 on Mar 26, 2009 12:04 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Track scholarship to Washington State?

That’s impressive. You weren’t by chance on the team when Lagat was on the team were you?

by LantermanC on Mar 26, 2009 8:33 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

as a matter of fact yes...

RIck Sloan recruited me (great guy and an all-time great track historian). My roommate was a guy named Hilary Mawindi ( hell of a sprinter).

by iverson2169 on Mar 26, 2009 7:12 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't know anything about sprints.

But man it would’ve been cool to be on the same team as Lagat. Top 5 distance runner of the last 20 years.

by LantermanC on Mar 26, 2009 7:59 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It's hard to feel like your on the same squad in track...

especially when you talk about distance guys.

Lagat put in as much sprint work with us as I have ever seen for a guy outside the quarter or half, but most of the time the distance guys are “somewhere else”.

by iverson2169 on Mar 26, 2009 10:19 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I know what you mean.

The cross country coach and track coach would always try to get us to support our teammates and spend more time together, but sprints, distance, and field are all so different. Distance guys just need to get in the miles, sometimes speedwork is not even needed, at least not on a track.

by LantermanC on Mar 27, 2009 11:20 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Absolutely.

That having been said, Bernard was as close to a sprint junkie as I have ever met in a distance runner. He would regularly put in at least a day a week on quarter mile track pyramids.

by iverson2169 on Mar 28, 2009 11:41 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I wonder how much of Ryan Leaf's rep as a jerk is because of his performance on the field

Compare him to Jay Cutler, who by all account has been a total baby, has demanded to be traded several times, is diabetic and may have a list of off field issues all his own. Nobody cares though because he tore it up on the field last year. Immaturity and asshole tendencies haven’t kept a lot of players from being successful, why should we think it stopped Leaf?

by Nate Dogg on Mar 25, 2009 10:32 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I think that the difference is that while Cutler may be an immature assclown,

all his problems are personal. He’s not calling out teammates or screaming at the media or anything like that, although this behavior could lead one to believe he might pop a lid if he loses a lot, like our season.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Mar 26, 2009 8:43 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Leaf's rep as a jerk comes from the fact he was a jerk

Not to say his performance didn’t have a say in how he was protrayed. Additionally, he may have been able to better control himself had he performed well. He did not, got reamed for it, and became more petulant and unrestrained.

Despite Cutler’s antics, as of yet it has not been required of one of his linebackers to physcially restrain him from attacking a reporter, nor has he lied about an injury to beg out of practice to play golf, or jeopardizing his rehabiliation by playing flag football when his team or doctor did not give the go-ahead. Leaf’s rep as a jerk comes partly from his poor performance but mostly because he was, in fact, a giant turd.

Is Cutler a jerk or lacking in common sense (along with his enabling agent)? I think what Leaf did and what Cutler is doing are different things.

by Gihyou on Mar 26, 2009 12:10 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Right, I'm not really trying to draw a direct comparison between Cutler and Leaf

My point was that Cutler is an immature baby who’s stomping his feet and holding his breath in attempt to get traded because he’s so made that the Bronco’s would think of trading him. If Ruskell gave me GM powers for 5 minutes I’d make sure Cutler was wearing Seahawks blue before my time was up. Nobody cares about immaturity or being a jerk when you’re throwing for 350 yards a game.

If Leaf doesn’t implode on the field no one cares about his implosions off the field. If we can’t see any causation between his off the field problems and his on the field problems then what difference does it make if Sanchez is tempermentally the second coming of Leaf? Cutler, TO, Moss, Stabby, none of these guys have been slowed down by their general douchebaggery, why should we assume Leaf was?

by Nate Dogg on Mar 26, 2009 12:46 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

To be fair to Cutler (and I don't know why I'm really taking his side on this)

he’s angry because he’s offended at the thought of being traded, but also because he apparently was told (or at least perceived, which is good enough in this case) that the offense wouldn’t really be changed and then all the offense staff was fired. I’m sure he doesn’t want to become the next Alex Smith, where he is doomed to failure because they change OC’s on him every year (although he’s progressed to the point where it may not matter that much anymore). And if he thought he was being lied to by the front office, or that they had deceived him, then his behavior doesn’t really surprise me. He could have handled it better, but he’s no T.O.

Then again, I agree with the point of your post completely. If he performs, who cares how much he complains? As long as he isn’t hurting the team.

by Fear on Mar 26, 2009 1:34 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You say Mark Sanchez, I say Gale Gilbert.

I think the Seahawks over the years have already filled their quota of players who maybe did, maybe didn’t rape a young woman. Anyone who’s honest about it, I think, would have to admit that it takes a miracle to find a prosecutor who will even bring charges against the big-name college stars like Sanchez (or like Jerramy Stevens…hello!). I’d put those odds at a lot higher than 10% that he did it, and you know, I think you just have to man up and cross his name off the wish list because, actuarial tables aside, it seems like bad policy to take a flier on a guy who maybe didn’t rape someone. Then go home and cry into your pillow if you have to. For those who say “innocent until proven guilty,” remember, I didn’t say you lynch him. I said you don’t make him the face of Seattle sports for the next decade. Perspective, folks.

by dagraham on Mar 26, 2009 1:32 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Lets just assume for a second

That Sanchez really is guilty of what he was accused of. Do you think he’d rape again? Is he a threat off the field to do something really horrible? To me it seems more likely, he made a mistake, (ala Kobe Bryant), and sure it looks bad, but it doesn’t necessarily mean he’s someone you lose sleep over as the face of the Franchise. LA sure isn’t sweatin’ it that Kobe is their guy. Sanchez isn’t a repeat offender, a boozer or a thug like Stevens was. He made some mistakes when he was 19 years old, and he’s cleaned up his act since then.

Character grows from mistakes. I think this is why Ruskell was forgiving of Bernard/Locklear/Tatupu/Hill, especially Hill, after their public (or very public) mistakes. He wasn’t forgiving of K-Rob in 2005- because K-Rob was a repeat offender and had established himself as having a real problem.

I don’t see Sanchez as a guy who has a real character problem, just a guy that made a couple of isolated mistakes.

by kearly on Mar 26, 2009 3:13 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Honestly, I don't really give a crap.

I know a guy who used to hang with the Edmonton Oilers back in the time when they were putting up a zillion points and winning Stanley Cup after Stanley Cup. He said that there were always huge parties with lots of ladies and TONS of coke all over the place. Did that hurt the performance of Gretsky, Messier, Anderson, Coffey, Kurri et al? Not a smidge, nor their reputations. All they did was win, and win big.

To think that all of the Seahawks on the current roster are some kind of poster-boys for Christian, pure-living America is some kind of pipe dream. That Sanchez, a good looking quarterback from one of the biggest hot-chix schools in the nation was ACCUSED of rape but not found guilty does not mean a damn thing to me.

If there’s proof, fine, toss the fucker in jail. Without it, throw me some touchdowns, dammit.

by djafrot on Mar 26, 2009 3:00 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Succintly stated.

I agree.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Mar 26, 2009 8:50 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Count me in.

I think that arguments for ‘red-flagging’ have some degree of validity, but are being blown out of proportion. But, to be fair, the scrutiny of a 4th overall pick has to be strong, doesn’t it? The bottom line is, ultimately: can he play and lead a team? He’s made a case for himself in those areas, but only a 16-game case.

by Misfit74 on Mar 26, 2009 9:58 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

What if

Sanchez is anyone other than a sports hero? Let’s say he’s a school teacher at Whittier or the Pilates instructor at your family’s gym. Alternatively, what if your kid sister (or brother) were the one saying Sanchez had raped him/her? I am guessing a radically different set of criteria would enter into your calculations. My main issue here is an ethical one. Obviously, it matters whether or not he did it, but it matters for a lot of reasons besides whether it’ll hurt his effectiveness or popularity.

Now coming down off my high horse.

by dagraham on Mar 26, 2009 10:12 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

While I appreciate the spirit behind your question...

I don’t think I truly buy the logic. It appears that you are arguing that since Sanchez was accused we should treat him differently. Unfortunately, that neglects another “what if”, such as “what if your kid sister (or brother) was falsely accused of rape?”

Rape is such an emotionally charged crime, more so than just about any other out there (another reason I object to the comparison with alleged drug uses above), but we cannot treat those who are accused as if they were convicted. Unless you are Jerramy Stevens.

"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch

by crushedoptimist on Mar 26, 2009 12:21 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm somewhat confused by your argument at the outset of your comment.

You seem to be stating something along the lines of “who cares whether or not the Edmonton Oilers broke tons of laws through illicit drug activity, they were winners!”. I’m not entirely sure that’s even tangentially related to the question of wanting due process with Sanchez before crucifying him.

However, I fully agree with everything else you wrote about Sanchez.

"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch

by crushedoptimist on Mar 26, 2009 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

it's not really very logical, I admit.

It’s just that this talk about Sanchez’s red flags is no doubt boosted along by our GM’s supposed insistence on “character”, which I think is overblown. Not much more than that.

by djafrot on Mar 26, 2009 11:39 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

And I fully agree with your sentiments there.

"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch

by crushedoptimist on Mar 26, 2009 11:45 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

For someone who sure is a great innovator...

He sure doesn’t strike me as a great talent evaluator. I guess we all have our strengths and weaknesses.

by Carl Shinyama on Mar 26, 2009 9:42 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

He was at his peak

just check out his drafts. What it really gets down to is that he retired at the right time . . . the Bill Walsh who offered these comments was no longer the equal of the Walsh who earned his reputation. (One of my relatives knew him somewhat, and said at the time that it was more than just Walsh losing his edge — that he honestly wasn’t as sharp as he had been; my relative was worried that he might be developing Alzheimer’s, actually, though as far as I know that never happened.)

by The Ancient Mariner on Mar 27, 2009 6:47 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You say Mark Sanchez.

I say dirty Sanchez.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Mar 29, 2009 12:39 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Hail to the greatest Seahawk to ever live: Walter Junior Jones.
Start posting about the Seahawks »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

Comcast NFL RedZone Moments from SB Nation

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Sketch_haggar_small
USC Recruiting 2002-2009 Defensive End
Jack22_small
Super Bowl XLIV Open Thread
Olympiabeer_small
My problem with the Colts winning-- the absence of immortality.
Small
Random Super Bowl Thoughts
Profilepic_small
Diamonds in the Rough
Jack22_small
"Pro Bowl" "Open Thread"
Seattle_seahawks_small
Pro Bowl Folly
Small
Kerney Retires?
Nielson_small
Replacing Matt Hasselbeck
Sketch_haggar_small
USC Recruiting 2002-2009 Offensive Line

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Latest NFL Headlines from SB Nation


Managers

Image_114_small Shrug

Jj_flag_detail1_small John Morgan

Whiteken_small Scruffy Lefty

Small BrianL

Small abender20

Authors

Vp081-c_small Christian

Small Doug Farrar

Dksbtwit_small Johnny Peel (DKSB)