Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If Sanders is there @ 9 that means more than likely Carter, Graham,T-Mac, Jeanty and maybe Warren are gone. If so I'm taking the best offer to trade down we can get. Even if we only get an extra 2nd and 3rd. Sanders will be a bust.
I don't really think cherry picking plays like Orlovsky does in this video proves anything about Sanders. But, it is clear that Orlovsky really likes Sanders. And, we know that Kellen Moore is close to Orlovsky. Could this mean that Moore has similar opinions about Sanders? I don't know, but it is interesting to think about.
I'm not a big fan of Sanders as I think his ceiling is somewhere a bit better than Carr and in the Dak range. But if he turns out better than Carr, then that's a QB you can win with. I also have some concerns about the character and work ethic of a QB that grew up with everything and has always played on teams where his dad was the HC or OC, but I don't know Sanders so maybe he has great character and work ethic. I also think his floor is probably around Carr's level or a little worse.
Anyway, I think I might be at the point where I would be okay taking Sanders at #9. I would rather trade down and get him late in the first or early in the 2nd, but if the Saints think he's a QB that can be as good as or better than Carr at a much cheaper price for 5 years, then maybe it's worth it to reach for him a bit.
I would prefer to take Graham, Carter, Ward, Warren, Will Johnson, or Jalon Walker, but if Moore likes Sanders and thinks he's going to be Carr level or better then I would get the pick at #9.
I definitely didn't watch Sanders play much in college but was just looking at his stats. Obviously a talented passer....but he had -50 yards on 100 rushing attempts last season? He seems pretty mobile so that was really surprising to me. Do we want a guy who has no ability to run the ball? Was he sacked so many times that it negated all running yardage?
Yeah, he's athletic enough to move around in the pocket, but he's a pocket passer first and foremost, not a 'dual threat' type quarterback. And they did have protection issues while he was at CU, but I do think he also holds the ball too long.Sack yardage is subtracted from rushing yards for QBs in college and he had a lot of sacks in college. They don't do that in the NFL.
My impression of Sanders is that he is not a running QB, but he does have some speed and quickness so he can take the easy yards and is pretty mobile in the pocket.
I'd prefer a more mobile QB, but I think Sanders is mobile enough to buy time for off schedule throws and he's pretty decent at those throws so I don't think he is so immobile that it's a problem. But the number of sacks is a concern. He had a bad OL, but it's hard to know how many sacks were just due to him failing to get the ball out on time.
But, yeah, 70% plus completion percentage with lots of TDs and very few interceptions is hard to argue with.
Yeah, he's athletic enough to move around in the pocket, but he's a pocket passer first and foremost, not a 'dual threat' type quarterback. And they did have protection issues while he was at CU, but I do think he also holds the ball too long.
From the few games I watched, this seemed to be his main issue with the sacks. He scrambled so long waiting for someone to get open. He seemed to hate throwing the ball away when nothing was there.Yeah, he's athletic enough to move around in the pocket, but he's a pocket passer first and foremost, not a 'dual threat' type quarterback. And they did have protection issues while he was at CU, but I do think he also holds the ball too long.
From the few games I watched, this seemed to be his main issue with the sacks. He scrambled so long waiting for someone to get open. He seemed to hate throwing the ball away when nothing was there.