The NFL may never see a fifth-round pick overshadow its draft again, but it certainly happened this past weekend. Shedeur Sanders‘ fall to No. 144 perplexed most, but it came after rumblings of the QB’s stock having tumbled ahead of the selection event.

Countless instances of players with criminal backgrounds becoming early-round picks have been part of the draft’s history, but it appeared as though teams determined Sanders’ skillset was not worth any potential off-field distractions he and his family might provide. As we move away from the draft, more evidence toward that case is emerging.

[RELATED: Which QB Will Make Most Starts For 2025 Browns?]

Before Round 4 began, a report that indicated Sanders not being a first-round pick pertained to a lack of high-level traits while then pointing to the Day 2 snub coming from teams not wanting their backup to bring a “circus” atmosphere. A Monday offering indicated Sanders indeed run into issues during the pre-draft process, particularly with coaches. Quarterback-turned-veteran media presence Boomer Esiason has offered more to this end.

Esiason said during his Boomer and Gio WFAN Sports Radio show (video link) that multiple teams took Sanders off their draft board due to his attitude during interviews. Owners drove these decisions, Esiason added, with perceived Sanders entitlement a central issue here. Deion Sanders having also mentioned potential intervention with regards to steering his son away from certain teams also “didn’t help.”

Shedeur Sanders fell from a player in contention for the No. 1 overall pick, before Cam Ward evaluations separated the Miami product, to someone not expected to drop out of the top 10 to a player not a lock to go in Round 1. Coaches becoming more involved in the process are believed to have affected this, at least it is believed to have impacted the Giants’ approach, and Esiason adds that Sanders’ brash attitude proved off-putting to “many, many” GMs and coaches. Clubs were certainly hesitant on Sanders becoming the face of a franchise, as the three-day fall illustrated.

We heard before Round 2 the Saints were unlikely to choose Sanders, despite carrying QB uncertainty going into the draft. They indeed went another way, taking Tyler Shough at No. 40. The Seahawks (Jalen Milroe) and Browns (Dillon Gabriel) followed suit. It was fairly clear the Browns were not planning to draft Sanders, having made Gabriel their choice in Round 3. But as he fell into the fifth round, a Cleveland team attempting to move past the Deshaun Watson mistake traded up for him. Sanders and Gabriel will vie for the starting job along with Joe Flacco and Kenny Pickett.

While the Browns were not one of the teams whose owner put a reported kibosh on a Sanders selection, the Giants moved three Day 2 picks to the Texans for Jaxson Dart. They did this after extensive Sanders homework. Big Blue is believed to have done more work on Sanders compared to Dart, but Brian Daboll — who was believed to have been among the coaches who did not see eye-to-eye with the Colorado QB — is believed to have driven a push for the Ole Miss passer. That said, the Giants still considered moving up for Sanders — had Dart been off the board — per NFL.com’s Ian Rapoport.

The Giants were believed to be leery of the Browns for a Dart move, and their trade offers appeared to emerge after the Steelers passed on Dart at No. 21. This brought New York’s long-debated Dart-or-Sanders decision to the forefront, and as Daboll and GM Joe Schoen attempt to make cases to last beyond Year 4 in their respective roles, Dart will be in line to eventually replace Russell Wilson.

As reports of teams being miffed at Shedeur Sanders’ tactics ahead of the draft multiply, the historic slide begins to make a bit more sense. The former Colorado and Jackson State signal-caller potentially overplaying his hand regarding his approach to the interview process will likely come up for many years during draft time. For 2025, he will attempt to prove the league — which includes his own team, which drafted Gabriel 50 spots before him — wrong for its determination on his prospect value.