If Sanchez came out this year, is he #1?

[augustiniak]

would he be rated ahead of bradford if he played 1 more year at USC, had a year similar to what he did the year before and didn't get seriously injured?

[WeeZiTe]

If Bradford still got injured, definitely. Even if Bradford didn't get injured, I'd say there was a pretty good shot of him going 1. The biggest knock that Sanchez had on him coming out was that he only had 16 college starts and people were scared of his experience. If he had similar, or better, production this year at SC, they might have made a National Title run and people wouldn't be scared of his experience anymore. He would also be more appealing to teams because of the pro-style offense he played at SC compared to Bradford's spread offense. We got a a steal getting him at 5 last year (and giving up what we gave up to get to 5).

[SMC]

Originally Posted by WeeZiTe

If Bradford still got injured, definitely. Even if Bradford didn't get injured, I'd say there was a pretty good shot of him going 1. The biggest knock that Sanchez had on him coming out was that he only had 16 college starts and people were scared of his experience. If he had similar, or better, production this year at SC, they might have made a National Title run and people wouldn't be scared of his experience anymore. He would also be more appealing to teams because of the pro-style offense he played at SC compared to Bradford's spread offense. We got a a steal getting him at 5 last year (and giving up what we gave up to get to 5).

+1

Regardless of whether Bradford was healthy or injured, Sanchez would be the consensus No. 1 QB assuming he had a good year at SC.

Ironic that the Rams had a shot at taking Sanchez last year and are compounding that mistake by taking the lesser QB this year for more money.

[augustiniak]

what qbs in the past decade have been successful in the nfl who played in the spread offense in college?

[k.Rhodes25]

Definitely he would be the first QB taken.

[Monsterxman]

Originally Posted by augustiniak

what qbs in the past decade have been successful in the nfl who played in the spread offense in college?

Probably about the same as the # who only have 16 college starts and come out after their Jr. seasons...

I think Bradford will be a good pro... perhaps better than Sanchez, but Sanchez would be the #1 pick had he stayed for another year in college, no doubt.

[VincenzoTestaverde]

Probably. Sh*t, he should have been picked #1 over Stafford in last year's draft.

[SenorGato]

Pretty much without a doubt.

[bitonti]

if we asked this question in week 8 of last year it would have been "was Sanchez a reach at #5?"

he had a great playoffs so now we are all excited but his regular season was inconlusive or mediocre at best.

sanchez would not be #1 because his big knock was lack of experience. if teams could watch 16 games he started in college plus the 19 games he started last year, yes he'd be #1. But it was a journey to get there.

[SMC]

Originally Posted by Green Jets & Ham

Definitely Sanchez would have been drafted ahead of Clausen.

If Bradford didn't get hurt he probably gets the nod based on size, but if he hurt his arm as he did it would have been a much closer call with a slight edge to Bradford if he was throwing the ball free and easy in workouts as he has been.

Sanchez does have bigger hands than Bradford though (10" vs. 9 1/2 ").

[k.Rhodes25]

This isn't based on his rookie season though, this is based on if he went back to college and most likely tore it up for the Trojans.

People didn't feel like it was a reach for Sanchez at #5, a lot of people felt it was a steal because he would of been the first pick this year.

I said this before we got Sanchez that I thought he was a better pro prospect than Bradford.

[augustiniak]

so basically there are no qbs in recent years who played in the spread offense in college who have successfully made the transition to the nfl and have taken a team to the playoffs?

[49ersJetsfan]

Easily. He came from a pro style offense and has a lot more natural ability and feel for the game than Bradford, who more or less is robotic. Throw in the fact that now you are comparing two junior QBs where one is coming of two throwing shoulder injuries and comes from a super simplistic two read spread offense.

Then again, Alex Smith went ahead of Aaron Rodgers because he is taller despite Rodgers being way better in basically every viable way to compare them as prospects in 2005.

[Megalomaniac]

Originally Posted by bitonti

if we asked this question in week 8 of last year it would have been "was Sanchez a reach at #5?"

he had a great playoffs so now we are all excited but his regular season was inconlusive or mediocre at best.

sanchez would not be #1 because his big knock was lack of experience. if teams could watch 16 games he started in college plus the 19 games he started last year, yes he'd be #1. But it was a journey to get there.

name one credible person that was claiming sanchez to be a reach last year. i'm pretty sure every logical jets fan was giving him the "he's a rookie" pass, which is a fair pass. now, there were a few that wanted clemens to take the reigns, but that's about as bad as it got.

[Chupa]

After how he playeg in his first three games calling a reach in week five would have been asinine.

[TheMikeIsHot]

If he had a healthy, productive year, I don't think it is even an argument about his status as the #1.

And that's why I loved the pick last year.

Bradford is a great prospect, but he has serious durability concerns.

[gijet]

All i no is that i love the fact we have Sanchez... the guy is a competitor battled back from a long rough patch during the season and had a solid playoffs and is a film rat.... this is the first offseason in a long time where we no 100% who will be our starting QB... i also appreciate that he loves being on the jets

[Slikmojet]

Originally Posted by bitonti

if we asked this question in week 8 of last year it would have been "was Sanchez a reach at #5?"

he had a great playoffs so now we are all excited but his regular season was inconlusive or mediocre at best.

sanchez would not be #1 because his big knock was lack of experience. if teams could watch 16 games he started in college plus the 19 games he started last year, yes he'd be #1. But it was a journey to get there.

I disagree, Sanchez had 3 maybe 4 terrible outings and the rest of the games he played brilliantly. The INT's were all condensed in those games but the rest of his season was pretty flawless.

[Ray Ray19]

Originally Posted by bitonti

if we asked this question in week 8 of last year it would have been "was Sanchez a reach at #5?"

he had a great playoffs so now we are all excited but his regular season was inconlusive or mediocre at best.

sanchez would not be #1 because his big knock was lack of experience. if teams could watch 16 games he started in college plus the 19 games he started last year, yes he'd be #1. But it was a journey to get there.

People keep bringing up Sanchez' inexperience, but if he stayed for his senior season, he plays another year of college ball, and maybe USC wins the championship

If that's the case, he has two years under his belt as a starter, and a championship, and we already know his physical skills is better than any QB in this draft.

[seanmac31]

Originally Posted by augustiniak

what qbs in the past decade have been successful in the nfl who played in the spread offense in college?

The current Super Bowl MVP, for starters.

Bradford would likely still have been the top pick. He's bigger than Sanchez, has a better arm, and is the more accurate thrower at all levels (though Sanchez can match him between the hash marks). While I much prefer Sanchez, his game is much more comparable to Jimmy Clausen's than Bradford's, and Clausen is viewed as a distinctly inferior prospect despite starting for three years.