Mark Sanchez at Four

by John Morgan on Apr 7, 2009 1:40 PM PDT

Mark Sanchez

Birthdate: November 11, 1986

Height/Weight: 6'2 1/8/227

Position: Quarterback

College: USC, Started 16 games

Career Stats: 64.3%, 3965, 41 TDs, 16 Ints, 23 Sacks

My Take: Sanchez excelled in a pro style system and without great surrounding talent. Well, without great surrounding talent for USC. He has a well-rounded set of skills, from his footwork, to his ability to make short and deep throws. If you just watched the Rose Bowl, it's hard not to fall in love with the kid.

The problem with Sanchez isn't so much what we know, as what we don't know. He hasn't faced a lot of competition, especially top competition. He hasn't faced an adjustment from opposing coordinators. Especially noteworthy, he hasn't played from behind almost at all. In two years of collegiate football, he's played 143:59 of game clock when behind--barely more than two games. In 2008, he only played three top 30 defenses, and was behind in those game just 2:33. For the remaining 800 or so minutes of his career, Sanchez was playing with a lead, frequently of 20 or more points. That's a lot of snaps where Sanchez got to play against opponents forced to stop the run. And he wasn't just handing off, Sanchez recorded 21 of his 34 touchdowns while his team was up a touchdown or more.

It's these missing pieces of the puzzle, combined with frightening allegations about his character, that make Sanchez not a bad prospect, but a high risk prospect, and a very high risk prospect for a team selecting in the top five. Sanchez could bust in two distinct ways: on the field and off the field. Neither would or at least should be too surprising. So, my scouting eye sees a star: A quarterback with functional accuracy, a catchable ball, good decision making, an arm that can make all the throws, and a quarterback effective on the move. My rational side sees a lot of downside, and knows there's just too little information to know which outcome is more likely.

Tweet Comment 26 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

These capsules rule.

by Misfit74 on Apr 7, 2009 1:50 PM PDT reply actions

i concur

by cro-mag! on Apr 7, 2009 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions

I think top 5 is too early for Sanchez because he certainly has some unknowns.

What I’m curious about is how he performed in their loss and in their close games.

by Fear on Apr 7, 2009 1:56 PM PDT reply actions

I felt in the loss

that Sanchez started to try and force the ball a lot. Especially for the big plays. One of my biggest peeves with Sanchez all year was that he would often try for the lower percentage, higher yield play instead of taking the higher percentage play that would perhaps keep the drive alive.

Sanchez has all the confidence in the world out there, but he Favre’s it a bit too much at time.

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

by bluemax on Apr 7, 2009 3:07 PM PDT up reply actions

Sounds like Hasselbeck circa 2002

It is what it is...

by kidder95 on Apr 7, 2009 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions

I'm sure I'm in the minority

I’d take Sanchez at #4, if Crabs and Smith were both gone. The way the boards are moving, its looking very unlikely that Sanchez will last past the top 10 picks, so unless its a very small trade down, I don’ t think the Seahawks can trade down and still draft him.

As the losses mounted last year and the Seahawks draft stock improved, I couldn’t help but feel it was destiny, that such an inexplicably horrible season had a reason and a purpose, specifically, to aid the Seahawks in their search for their next franchise QB, a search that hasn’t been particularly fruitful the past 4 years.

Sanchez is risky as hell, but pre-draft declaration, he was my favorite NCAA QB by a nose over Bradford, and at that point I was just assuming Sanchez would be a 2010 prospect.

Needless to say, I’d be geeked if the Seahawks picked Sanchez, at #4 or otherwise.

by kearly on Apr 7, 2009 2:03 PM PDT reply actions

agreed

at times I think I’m the only one who is blinded by potential. Consciousness be damned. Go Sanchez.

It is what it is...

by kidder95 on Apr 7, 2009 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions

Personally, I'm unimpressed with this year's QB draft class

I’d really rather wait til next year and instead improve our O-line this year. Draft either Smith or Monroe and trade up to a late first round to get Alex Mack. That’s a sexy line for next year’s QB.

by Nick Andron on Apr 7, 2009 2:37 PM PDT reply actions

What are you willing to experience to ger your QB next year

1) Another 4-12 Season?
2) or trading up and giving most of the 2010 draft away?

It is what it is...

by kidder95 on Apr 7, 2009 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions

The latter.

by Nick Andron on Apr 8, 2009 9:24 AM PDT up reply actions

Wow, this is tough

On the one hand, the Hawks are prime rebound/regression candidates, so I don’t think they’ll be in line to draft the top 1-2 QBs next year. Given the value of the QB position (which John has alluded to in several previous posts), it’s tough to pass up the opportunity to grab a guy who has a decent chance of being very, very good.

On the other hand, the next-to-impossible problem of predicting QB performance is made even harder when you have less data than usual about someone.

In the end, I think I’d be for drafting Sanchez if you told me that his chance of being relatively successful in the NFL was around 40-50%.

Also, I wonder whether the potential for the salary cap being removed in future years changes the calculus at all. For example, the market price for QBs may skyrocket if the cap is removed, and young QBs under contract may have tremendous value, even if they aren’t Pro Bowl level players.

by cyberwulf on Apr 7, 2009 2:54 PM PDT reply actions

Follow up question to your comment:

What would Leinart’s (sp?) value be today? Assuming Leinart is the model for the “bust” sanchez, what would be the “bail out” value?

This is really negative thinking, but would a Sanchez bust still garner more value in trade 3 years from now to that of a Crabtree?

Rick Mirer sure turned out ok.

Thoughts?

It is what it is...

by kidder95 on Apr 7, 2009 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions

Slightly off topic

but how much of a “bust” is Leinart? DVOA has him as being better than both Cutler and Pro Bowler Young in his first year. He got hurt early in year 2 and he got beat out by a guy who might be going to the Hall of Fame this past year.

He’s probably disappointed in his career arc, but I’d argue the jury’s still out on him.

by DoubleB on Apr 7, 2009 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions

I agree completely

It is what it is...

by kidder95 on Apr 7, 2009 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions

It should be noted

that Cutler was suffering from unknown and untreated diabetes at the time.

by SeaTownBlueDevil on Apr 8, 2009 1:44 AM PDT up reply actions

What are the frightenng allegations about his character?

I was surprised to read that, hadn’t heard anything negative about him

by ciarannh on Apr 7, 2009 3:30 PM PDT reply actions

Check out

A previous FieldGulls article, near the bottom

by cyberwulf on Apr 7, 2009 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions

The way I see it,

It’s one big possible negative, and a few very small negatives, which are outweighed by a whole bunch of positives. It seems like everyone raves about his character and his work ethic.

by LantermanC on Apr 7, 2009 3:38 PM PDT up reply actions

Thanks Man

by ciarannh on Apr 7, 2009 3:38 PM PDT reply actions

Regardless of when and whom

we would be wise to remember how many “years” it took Matt Hasselbeck to become the #1 here at Seattle. If I recall, we were desperate for a certain ESPN announcer to start instead.

Regardless of whom or when, there will be pain.

It is what it is...

by kidder95 on Apr 7, 2009 3:38 PM PDT reply actions

I'm still not convinced that character makes a difference in on field performance

but the rest of that long list of concerns definitely rules out Sanchez in my book.

by Nate Dogg on Apr 7, 2009 4:16 PM PDT reply actions

This is also slightly off-topic but about a QB on our roster

But assuming we dump Charlie Frye, and draft a QB at #4, where does this leave Seneca Wallace? I’m probably one of the few Seneca defenders around, but if that’s the case than I think they’ll either:

Make him full-time WR or have him come on special plays (Trick play anyone?)).

Dump him to 3rd in the roster chart.

Cut him and punt him all the way to the Uwajimaya Market in Chinatown.

He’s clearly not the QB of the future for any team in the league, but he’s still a reliable backup in my book.

Back on topic. For John’s reasoning and the fact that Sanchez had every chance to pad his stats against teams like Wazzu, U-Dub, and Stanford, while losing against the 1 team that challenged them in the Pac-10 (Oregon State), I would rather gamble on Stafford than Sanchez.

Actually, I’m not too high on either QB, but I consider Stafford to be better because of the competition he’s faced.

SSR's NFL Fun Fact: Andy Reid is the only coach in the league who uses the pass to set up the pass.

by SSreporters on Apr 7, 2009 4:26 PM PDT reply actions

Wallace I'm sure would remain the #2.

Sanchez would be the #3 in 2009. If Sanchez progresses enough, he might be the #1 or #2 in 2010, but for next year, I don’t think very much will change for Wallace. Wallace has 2 years left on his contract.

by kearly on Apr 7, 2009 9:03 PM PDT up reply actions