With the NFL Draft finally upon us, one of the biggest mysteries remains: where will Shedeur Sanders land? Once widely projected as a top-five pick just three months ago, his stock has taken an unexpected tumble, despite not playing a single snap since. Now, projections have him going anywhere in the first round.
Advertisement
The drop in draft position hasn’t come without controversy. Many believe there’s a targeted campaign against the former Colorado quarterback, fueled by behind-the-scenes criticism. The most recent example surfaced from Combine interviews.
According to NFL insider Tom Pelissero, an anonymous assistant head coach delivered a harsh assessment of Sanders. He described Shedeur as “entitled,” calling his formal interview “one of the worst” he’s been part of. The coach went on to criticize Sanders’ game, pointing to his tendency to take unnecessary sacks, poor body language, and moments where he appeared to throw his teammates under the bus. In his words, Sanders simply isn’t good enough to warrant the hype.
However, Shannon Sharpe dismissed the criticism as unnecessary and targeted.
“Well, don’t take him. Assistant coach, if you’re on a team, you recommend that they don’t take Shedeur, but you don’t have to do this. Why now? Because that man is confident. Baker Mayfield was a lot like this. I didn’t hear none of this.”
Johnson echoed the sentiment, saying the criticism feels deeply personal, and not necessarily toward Shedeur. According to him, this smells a lot like a grudge against Deion Sanders.
“Obviously, when it comes to Shedeur, it’s a personal vendetta. Not only against him, but those who don’t like his father as well. It’s carrying over. The two should be separated in general. Don’t allow your hate for Prime or whatever disdain you might have for him to affect what Shedeur is going to do for the team at the next level.”
These weren’t the only negative reports to emerge from the Combine regarding Shedeur Sanders. One quarterbacks coach reportedly described him as “arrogant and brash,” suggesting that the Colorado alum lacked professionalism and didn’t take the interview process seriously. He wasn’t alone in that assessment.
While criticism of any player or prospect is fair game, Unc and Ocho clearly feel it should be based on merit. Notes on areas he can improve on, such as footwork, decision-making, and pocket presence, should’ve ideally been more relevant to his draft stock. Are these criticisms valid? Or are they really based on “personal vendetta” as Ocho hypothesised?
