Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

I haven't given up on JC yet. He played lights out for 8 games. For 8 games he was the second coming of Favre. 8 games after he digressed. Most people do not digress they improve or stay the same unless age or injury is a factor. So if he truly didn't digress then it must be some other reason he did terrible the second half of the season. Some have mentioned injuries, some have mentioned coach Zorn's play calls/lack of adapting.

I would be inclined to give him this yr, a second yr under the same system with the same co-ordinator with a few more weapons.

besides I doubt any of the top tier QB's will be available by 13. I understand some have dropped in the past but some have him either #1 or #2 as far as QB's go and there are teams that need QB's. We don't.

I would rather see what Colt Brennen has to offer prior to drafting a QB in rounds 1-4.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;540780]Dude, the guy knows Matt Leinart. Personally.[/quote]
I hope that was a joke because it was funny as heck

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

So how does that work? We have 3 quarterback projects on our team instead of 2.... Sounds smart.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=Jamaican'Skin;540825]Thanks for killing my glimmer of hope. Everything is the same down here,[B] except the global recession hits third world countries like Jamaica pretty bad, so everyone is pretty much suffering[/B].[/quote]

Sorry to hear that JS. I'm sure the tourist industry is down. Hopefully we can get this thing turned around.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

So..............yeah. Go Sanchez?

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=Dirtbag359;542305]So..............yeah. Go Sanchez?[/quote]

I doubt it, back to the drawing board they were working on (or should've). I get the feeling this was a Snyder tantrum.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=Ruhskins;542317]I doubt it, back to the drawing board they were working on (or should've). I get the feeling this was a Snyder tantrum.[/quote]

lol, I guess your right. At the very least we got Campbell going into his second year in Zorns system and the O-Line will probably get upgraded. And hey if we suck this year we'll be in position to choose next year between Sam Bradford and Colt McCoy.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=Ruhskins;542317]I doubt it, back to the drawing board they were working on (or should've). I get the feeling this was a Snyder tantrum.[/quote]

This is just the way they do things. Never sit back, also get involved if for no other reason than to shake things up. As I mentioned in other posts, I don't think getting Cutler was ever the prime initiative. It was more about a) a limited lack of faith in Campbell's ability to lead a team to a championship (as opposed to being part of a championship team) and b) seeing if they could fit in as the third team perhaps so that they could get some draft picks

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

I think there's no way Sanchez falls to 13. Probably SF at 10.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=Sean"Big Hurt"Taylor;540755]I'm starting to come around on drafting this guy if he's available for us at 13th. Jason could become a good quarterback in the near future but I think this kid could be our franchise quarterback for the next 10 -15 years. Everything I hear about him makes me believe that we may have to draft him if he's there. He always make the right read, takes what the defenses gives him, very accurate even on the move and he's cerebral which he is able to go through the playbook and analyze it. They even say he knows where the blitz is coming from even though that was college not the pros but can be taught by Zorn. USC also runs the west coast offense which is similar to ours per Fred Davis. I was favoring the linebacker Rey but Sanchez might need to be the answer. Before I get flack for this thread I know we need oline help as well as LB and DE help but franchise quarterbacks brings championships. Guys what do you think?[/quote]

I think that Dan Snyder is a good avatar for you.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

IMO we need to let Campbell play his contract season, and take it from there. Colt has been/is being groomed by Zorn and if for some reason we need to part ways with JC after this season, Colt will have every opportunity to audition for the job this preseason and next. If deemed necessary, we should make a splash NEXT offseason for a first round QB and hopefully for one with more experience and/or potential. This is a HUGE if, and for all we know JC will have a career season and get a seven year extension.

on a totally unrelated note, and just out of curiosity, does anyone know if Colt worked out for us before we drafted him?

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=Stuck in TX;542363]IMO we need to let Campbell play his contract season, and take it from there. Colt has been/is being groomed by Zorn and if for some reason we need to part ways with JC after this season, Colt will have every opportunity to audition for the job this preseason and next. If deemed necessary, we should make a splash NEXT offseason for a first round QB and hopefully for one with more experience and/or potential. This is a HUGE if, and for all we know JC will have a career season and get a seven year extension.

on a totally unrelated note, and just out of curiosity, does anyone know if Colt worked out for us before we drafted him?[/quote]

I agree. I think the best thing to do is see what's what with Soup and make a decision at the end of the year. Let Colt or Collins play if Soup doesn't work out. If Collins doesn't win out then let him go and get an insurance policy in FA next year. Then Draft Tim Tebow or some other bad a** QB in the draft next year. If Colt doesn't work out then you've got another young guy and an insurance policy sitting right there, just like we have now.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;542423]I agree. I think the best thing to do is see what's what with Soup and make a decision at the end of the year. Let Colt or Collins play if Soup doesn't work out. If Collins doesn't win out then let him go and get an insurance policy in FA next year. Then Draft Tim Tebow or some other bad a** QB in the draft next year. If Colt doesn't work out then you've got another young guy and an insurance policy sitting right there, just like we have now.[/quote]

First of all, Soup = clever

second, drafting a "bad a** QB" would be contingent upon us having a bad enough season to have the draft power to get a QB of such stature. Third, and finally, if this happens I would not go after Tebow.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=SmootSmack;542325]This is just the way they do things. Never sit back, also get involved if for no other reason than to shake things up. As I mentioned in other posts, I don't think getting Cutler was ever the prime initiative. It was more about a) a limited lack of faith in Campbell's ability to lead a team to a championship (as opposed to being part of a championship team) and b) seeing if they could fit in as the third team perhaps so that they could get some draft picks[/quote]There will be varying opinion on the existance of a Quarterback who is able to will his team to a championship, but even if Snyder really does believe this player exists, what about Jay Cutler looks like this player. Jay Cutler is a good "stats" guy, conventionally and metrically. So is Jason Campbell. But if the problem with Campbell is that the Redskins don't feel he's the right guy, why the absolute infatuation with Cutler? What did they see in Cutler that the rest of us don't that would put him in the Manning/Brady category.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=Stuck in TX;542426]First of all, Soup = clever

second, drafting a "bad a** QB" would be contingent upon us having a bad enough season to have the draft power to get a QB of such stature. Third, and finally, if this happens I would not go after Tebow.[/quote]

If we go 8-8 again we'll be looking for a new QB next year, Tebow or not. With a full complement of draft picks, (barring that the FO doesn't trade them away betweeen now and then) we'll have plenty of fire power to get a talented QB if he falls to us or if we need to trade up. This is the worst case scenario.

The alternative is that we win the division and go to the play-offs.
Either way it's a smart move because they'll have played things through for once.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=Dirtbag359;542323]lol, I guess your right. At the very least we got Campbell going into his second year in Zorns system and the O-Line will probably get upgraded. And hey if we suck this year we'll be in position to choose next year between Sam Bradford and Colt McCoy.[/quote]


My sentiments exactly. Also USC QB's have not fared as of late in the NFL. Sanchez is the least talented of the trio of him, Palmer, and Leinhart.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!!!!!!! They have needs at OL, DL, and LB that are staring them in the face. They must address those 3 first and foremost before they do something as foolish as that.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

Hell nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=NM Redskin;542327]I think there's no way Sanchez falls to 13. Probably SF at 10.[/quote]I hope Sanchez does NOT fall to us at 13. That way the FO doesn't have the chance to screw up and pick him... At this point we need to focus on the Lines, and evaluate Campbell's performance THIS season. If Campell struggles this year, especially if the o-line elevates thier play\performance, the team needs to play Colt towards the end of the season, in order to figure out If we should draft\trade for a quarterback for 2010. I DO NOT think Sanchez would be a smart pick considering his lack of play at USC, and the depth of Quarterback talent in next years draft versus this year.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

I'm surprised that worry from the possible Cutler trade hasn't transferred to worrying about trading up to get Sanchez because that's probably what it will take. Danny still might trade away the future.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=theJBexperience;542506]I'm surprised that worry from the possible Cutler trade hasn't transferred to worrying about trading up to get Sanchez because that's probably what it will take. Danny still might trade away the future.[/quote]

Mark Sanchez is not a star and he won't win right away. So this won't give the Danny another tantrum. Let's just hope no more QBs become disgruntled with their teams.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

No, No and no! We need to concentrate on our O and D lines.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;542430]There will be varying opinion on the existance of a Quarterback who is able to will his team to a championship, but even if Snyder really does believe this player exists, what about Jay Cutler looks like this player. Jay Cutler is a good "stats" guy, conventionally and metrically. So is Jason Campbell. But if the problem with Campbell is that the Redskins don't feel he's the right guy, why the absolute infatuation with Cutler? What did they see in Cutler that the rest of us don't that would put him in the Manning/Brady category.[/quote]

Well, like I've said I don't believe it was ever really about Cutler

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

Hopefully he'll be gone before we pick...

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

unfortunatly he will be gone we our pick comes around. sanchez will not make it out of the top 10, and he is not going to get past denver who picks right before us at #12 but i agree with you ,he would be our franchise quarterback for at least 12 years......

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

If he makes it to 13, and Orakpo and M. Oher are gone, I say yes. It's a given that J. Smith and Monroe are gonna be gone. I think Sanchez is extremely cerebral and a hard-worker. He doesn't have a rocket for an arm but he has plenty of arm strength. His fundamentals are outstanding for a college qb, better than some pros form what I've heard. And if you lok at past 1st round qbs, the ones w/ the rocket arms dont make it often, the 2 recent exceptions being the Manning brothers. Cerebral QBs w/ questionable arm strength who are stars: Drew Brees, Matt Ryan, and some guy named Brady....I think he's won 3 Super Bowls and was 1 unbelievable catch,by David Tyree, away form having 4 rings. Im not ready to throw the towel in on Campbell just yet, but im close. I'm just saying take Sanchez in case Campbell doesnt show major improvement this season, that way he can be learning the offense, because I dont think Brennan is the answer. And If Campbell lights it up this year, then we have a decision to make.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

I'll pass on him haha

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

Stay with JC and forget Sanchez. We have more problems on this team than QB. We need to get a DE or a solid linebacker. Also a good offensive lineman is a necissity!! Remember the redskins three superbowls were won with a great line.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

For those of you who don't think Mark Sanchez is a franchise QB or that he won't be able to play right away, Trent Dilfer thinks you're wrong. Trent was a so-so quarterback (who reminds me of Campbell in alot of ways), but he is probably the best former player analyst on ESPN and he seems to be a very good judge of quarterbacks.

Dilfer was on the Herd a few days ago and he was absolutely gushing about Sanchez. According to Dilfer, Sanchez is not only the best QB in this draft, but he's also better than any of the QBs entering the draft next year. I dont remember details on everything Dilfer said, but he said its amazing how good Sanchez was last year, considering it was his first year as a starter and the O-Line, RB play and receivers were far worse than when Leinhart was QB at USC. Dilfer also compared Sanchez favorably to Tom Brady and Peyton Manning in that they have a commanding lockerroom presence. He said guys like Cutler arent leaders and dont command respect. When Sanchez walks into the room, it doesnt matter who else is in there, the focus is on him - he has that type of presence. Dilfer commented on how important that type of presence was in a QB. He said that Sanchez has it all and was absolutely confident that he would not only become an elite QB, but also that his "aura" would make everyone around him better.

If Sanchez is available at 13, I think its a no-brainer that we take him and trade Campbell for a 2nd rounder or a 3rd and a 4th. I also think its worthwhile to trade UP to get him, if necessary. Yes, we have other needs. I know. I'm not forgetting about OT, DE, and OLB. But The Colts had a ton of needs when they drafted Peyton Manning. But the did the smart thing. They drafted him, and then built a team around him. Unless Dilfer is completely mistaken, I think we can do the same with Sanchez.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;543941]For those of you who don't think Mark Sanchez is a franchise QB or that he won't be able to play right away, Trent Dilfer thinks you're wrong. Trent was a so-so quarterback (who reminds me of Campbell in alot of ways), but he is probably the best former player analyst on ESPN and he seems to be a very good judge of quarterbacks.[/quote]

Good guy, good analyst, good judge of quarterbacks, but his word isn't gospel of course.

[quote]Dilfer was on the Herd a few days ago and he was absolutely gushing about Sanchez. According to Dilfer, Sanchez is not only the best QB in this draft, but he's also better than any of the QBs entering the draft next year. I dont remember details on everything Dilfer said, but he said its amazing how good Sanchez was last year, considering it was his first year as a starter and the O-Line, RB play and receivers were far worse than when Leinhart was QB at USC. Dilfer also compared Sanchez favorably to Tom Brady and Peyton Manning in that they have a commanding lockerroom presence. He said guys like Cutler arent leaders and dont command respect. When Sanchez walks into the room, it doesnt matter who else is in there, the focus is on him - he has that type of presence. Dilfer commented on how important that type of presence was in a QB. He said that Sanchez has it all and was absolutely confident that he would not only become an elite QB, but also that his "aura" would make everyone around him better.[/quote]

I don't remember him saying better than any QB next year as well, but either way yes he was effusive in his praise

[quote]If Sanchez is available at 13, I think its a no-brainer that we take him and trade Campbell for a 2nd rounder or a 3rd and a 4th. I also think its worthwhile to trade UP to get him, if necessary. Yes, we have other needs. I know. I'm not forgetting about OT, DE, and OLB. But The Colts had a ton of needs when they drafted Peyton Manning. But the did the smart thing. They drafted him, and then built a team around him. Unless Dilfer is completely mistaken, I think we can do the same with Sanchez.[/quote]

I'm pretty sure that's not how the Colts were built. Meadows, Glenn, and Harrison are among a few of the key players drafted before Manning. Plus the Colts had lots and lots of picks to work with (even in 1998, when Manning was drafted), a luxury we currently don't have.

I don't think it's a no-brainer at all. Especially if you're talking about trading Campbell for as low as a 4th. What is there to gain there?

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

We don't even need to worry about taking him because there is no way he is going to be there.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

Denver is rumored to be trying to move up and snap up the "Dirty Sanchez".

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

Just curious who would you draft at 13 if Orakpo and Sanchez were both available?

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;543948]Good guy, good analyst, good judge of quarterbacks, but his word isn't gospel of course.[/quote]
True, Dilfer's only human and if he could predict these things with 100% accuracty, he'd most certainly be someone's GM. I just felt it was very interesting how much he was in Sanchez' corner. I admit I don't watch alot of film to compare guys, but even if i did, I wouldnt be 1/100th as good as comparing guys than Dilfer. I trust his opinion more than I do most analysts, so i figured I would pass it along.

[quote=SmootSmack]don't remember him saying better than any QB next year as well, but either way yes he was effusive in his praise[/quote]
He didnt specifically say "any QB next year" but he named at least 3 of them (Bradford, Tebow, and McCoy) and said while all of those guys were good in a lot of areas, Sanchez was more complete than any of them - he has it all.

[quote=SmootSmack]I'm pretty sure that's not how the Colts were built. Meadows, Glenn, and Harrison are among a few of the key players drafted before Manning. Plus the Colts had lots and lots of picks to work with (even in 1998, when Manning was drafted), a luxury we currently don't have.
[/quote]

I said 3rd AND a 4th for Campbell (as opposed to a 2nd). we would no longer need Campbell if we had Sanchez and two mid-round picks are better than none at all. And that said, if you dont think 3rd and 4th round picks are valuable, should the skins just give theirs away every year? We cant have it both ways - We cant treat picks we get in receipt of a player as valueless, yet complain when we trade our picks for players. Either picks are valuable or they are not.

[quote=SmootSmack]I'm pretty sure that's not how the Colts were built. Meadows, Glenn, and Harrison are among a few of the key players drafted before Manning. Plus the Colts had lots and lots of picks to work with (even in 1998, when Manning was drafted), a luxury we currently don't have.
[/quote]

The Colts did not have "lots and lots of picks to work with." They had 7 picks. We have 5. From NFL.com:

[quote=]1998 - Indianapolis Colts
Rd Sel # Player Position School
1 1 Peyton Manning QB Tennessee
2 32 Jerome Pathon WR Washington
3 71 E.G. Green WR Florida State
4 93 Steve McKinney G Texas A&M
5 135 Antony Jordan LB Vanderbilt
7 190 Aaron Taylor G Nebraska
7 231 Cory Gaines -- Tennessee [/quote]

Granted, they had a 2nd and a 4th that we dont, but their 2nd and 3rd round picks were used on WRs that never became anythign of consequence, so i would say those picks were useless.

They also are a team that had far more holes than we do now. They had the worst record in football in 1997 - they went 3-13 - which is why they were drafting first.

We were an average team in 2008. We've filled the vast majority of the teams glaring holes. Bring back Daniels and Wynn allows us to "get by" another year at DE if we have to. We have a hole at SLB, but Blades didnt do a half-bad job there last year. We had the 4th ranked defense in 2008 and we added the best Defensive lineman in football to our roster and replaced an aging injury-prone Shawn Springs with a 25year old pro-bowler who has the 3rd most interceptions of anyone in the league the past 5 years.... our defense will easily be top 10 next year even if nothing else changes.

On offense, we've already upgraded our interior dramatically with Dockery and Jansen and Heyer are duking it out for the starting RT job. Competition should ensure whoever wins the job (if we didnt draft anyone else) would be better than they were in 2008.

The big question mark with our team is quarterback. The team has expressed no confidence in Campbell and less than a week ago, they were within minutes of replacing him. They might be showing more support in Campbell now, but he certainly hasnt done anything in the past week to give them any more confidence in his ability to be a franchise QB.

Even if we want to be completely short-sighted and only look at the 2009 season, we will be a better team in 2009 than we were in 2008 (when we were average) without making any more changes. And, ill add, we will certainly be better than the 1998 Colts team that went 3-13 again. It wasnt until 1999 that everything turned around and they went 13-3 and have been a dominant team since.... all because they took a long term approach and invested in a franchise quarterback when they had the chance.

Anyway, we are an average to slightly above average team right now. We've already made major improvements to our roster. Everything else we get in the draft (and after) is just "gravy." IF Dilfer is right about Sanchez, then it makes all the sense in the world to get him this year. We will have our franchise QB, a team that enters 2010 with the same "holes" we have now (RT, SLB, and DE), but we will have almost a full compliment of picks in 2010 to fill those needs - not to mention free agency in a possibly uncapped year. IF Dilfer is right, Long-term it makes sense to get Sanchez, even if it means letting a few holes remain until 2010.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

Do you guys think that us looking at Leftwich has anything to do with us preparing for a QB change? I don't see us going QB in the first round, but a new backup could lead the way if we got rid of Campbell after the year... or just serve as a mentor to some kid we drafted

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;543965]True, Dilfer's only human and if he could predict these things with 100% accuracty, he'd most certainly be someone's GM. I just felt it was very interesting how much he was in Sanchez' corner. I admit I don't watch alot of film to compare guys, but even if i did, I wouldnt be 1/100th as good as comparing guys than Dilfer. I trust his opinion more than I do most analysts, so i figured I would pass it along.


He didnt specifically say "any QB next year" but he named at least 3 of them (Bradford, Tebow, and McCoy) and said while all of those guys were good in a lot of areas, Sanchez was more complete than any of them - he has it all.



I said 3rd AND a 4th for Campbell (as opposed to a 2nd). we would no longer need Campbell if we had Sanchez and two mid-round picks are better than none at all. And that said, if you dont think 3rd and 4th round picks are valuable, should the skins just give theirs away every year? We cant have it both ways - We cant treat picks we get in receipt of a player as valueless, yet complain when we trade our picks for players. Either picks are valuable or they are not.



The Colts did not have "lots and lots of picks to work with." They had 7 picks. We have 5. From NFL.com:



Granted, they had a 2nd and a 4th that we dont, but their 2nd and 3rd round picks were used on WRs that never became anythign of consequence, so i would say those picks were useless.

They also are a team that had far more holes than we do now. They had the worst record in football in 1997 - they went 3-13 - which is why they were drafting first.

We were an average team in 2008. We've filled the vast majority of the teams glaring holes. Bring back Daniels and Wynn allows us to "get by" another year at DE if we have to. We have a hole at SLB, but Blades didnt do a half-bad job there last year. We had the 4th ranked defense in 2008 and we added the best Defensive lineman in football to our roster and replaced an aging injury-prone Shawn Springs with a 25year old pro-bowler who has the 3rd most interceptions of anyone in the league the past 5 years.... our defense will easily be top 10 next year even if nothing else changes.

On offense, we've already upgraded our interior dramatically with Dockery and Jansen and Heyer are duking it out for the starting RT job. Competition should ensure whoever wins the job (if we didnt draft anyone else) would be better than they were in 2008.

The big question mark with our team is quarterback. The team has expressed no confidence in Campbell and less than a week ago, they were within minutes of replacing him. They might be showing more support in Campbell now, but he certainly hasnt done anything in the past week to give them any more confidence in his ability to be a franchise QB.

Even if we want to be completely short-sighted and only look at the 2009 season, we will be a better team in 2009 than we were in 2008 (when we were average) without making any more changes. And, ill add, we will certainly be better than the 1998 Colts team that went 3-13 again. It wasnt until 1999 that everything turned around and they went 13-3 and have been a dominant team since.... all because they took a long term approach and invested in a franchise quarterback when they had the chance.

Anyway, we are an average to slightly above average team right now. We've already made major improvements to our roster. Everything else we get in the draft (and after) is just "gravy." IF Dilfer is right about Sanchez, then it makes all the sense in the world to get him this year. We will have our franchise QB, a team that enters 2010 with the same "holes" we have now (RT, SLB, and DE), but we will have almost a full compliment of picks in 2010 to fill those needs - not to mention free agency in a possibly uncapped year. IF Dilfer is right, Long-term it makes sense to get Sanchez, even if it means letting a few holes remain until 2010.[/quote]If Dilfer is right on Sanchez, if Cutler is an elite QB, if Campbell is a bad fit for the west coast offense, then your logic has been very sound. I just wish you'd take these reasoning skills and come back to the reality of having a 27 year old QB who is improving in a rough offensive environment, and looking at the potential of a nice breakout this year. That seems to be way more likely then wild speculation.

Mayock mentioned that he feels, despite the low number of starts, Sanchez is the safest pick in the first round of the draft. From one perspective, this makes sense, as he was likely to stay very productive on a very good team at USC, had he returned for a 5th year. So maybe he is safer than his draft profile would suggest. But the fact remains that the only thing we know about Sanchez is that he was good enough to play QB for USC.

If I put the name of every QB to enter the program at USC over the last decade into a hat, and told you that you could pick a name out of that hat without looking, but that you have to use the 13th pick or might even have to trade up to do it, would you? You know that you are getting a player that Pete Carroll recruited, but you don't know if you are getting a Palmer/Leinart type, a Booty/Cassel type, or any other guy who has come through the program and never really played. All you know is that he could play at USC. Would you take that? That's essentially what you are doing with this pick.

I say this knowing Mayock might be totally right. You might absoultely be better off with a random QB off USC's roster than Stafford or Freeman. It just seems, counterintuitive, that's all.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;543970]If Dilfer is right on Sanchez, if Cutler is an elite QB, if Campbell is a bad fit for the west coast offense, then your logic has been very sound. I just wish you'd take these reasoning skills and come back to the reality of having a 27 year old QB who is improving in a rough offensive environment, and looking at the potential of a nice breakout this year. That seems to be way more likely then wild speculation.

Mayock mentioned that he feels, despite the low number of starts, Sanchez is the safest pick in the first round of the draft. From one perspective, this makes sense, as he was likely to stay very productive on a very good team at USC, had he returned for a 5th year. So maybe he is safer than his draft profile would suggest. But the fact remains that the only thing we know about Sanchez is that he was good enough to play QB for USC.

If I put the name of every QB to enter the program at USC over the last decade into a hat, and told you that you could pick a name out of that hat without looking, but that you have to use the 13th pick or might even have to trade up to do it, would you? You know that you are getting a player that Pete Carroll recruited, but you don't know if you are getting a Palmer/Leinart type, a Booty/Cassel type, or any other guy who has come through the program and never really played. All you know is that he could play at USC. Would you take that? That's essentially what you are doing with this pick.

I say this knowing Mayock might be totally right. You might absoultely be better off with a random QB off USC's roster than Stafford or Freeman. It just seems, counterintuitive, that's all.[/quote]

As always, you make excellent points.

My main point is that getting a franchise QB should be our organizations #1 concern. IF they think Campbell can be they guy, then they need to give him everything he needs to succeed. If they don't, and a guy they do beleive can be their franchise QB is within reach, then it makes sense to do whatever it takes (within reason) to get that guy.

Once a team gets "that guy," everything else tends to fall into place. Great QBs inspire everyone around them. It gives teams something solid to build around. It ensures consistancy. (Indy, New England, New York Giants, Steelers, etc dont need to change their offense around every couple years because they have the same QB and the system with that QB works).

This team has constantly been changing systems and coaches and quarterbacks for decades. We need stability. Getting a franchise QB is the #1 way to ensure long-term (10+years) stability.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;543976]As always, you make excellent points.

My main point is that getting a franchise QB should be our organizations #1 concern. IF they think Campbell can be they guy, then they need to give him everything he needs to succeed. If they don't, and a guy they do beleive can be their franchise QB is within reach, then it makes sense to do whatever it takes (within reason) to get that guy.

Once a team gets "that guy," everything else tends to fall into place. Great QBs inspire everyone around them. It gives teams something solid to build around. It ensures consistancy. (Indy, New England, New York Giants, Steelers, etc dont need to change their offense around every couple years because they have the same QB and the system with that QB works).

[B]This team has constantly been changing systems and coaches and quarterbacks for decades. We need stability. Getting a franchise QB is the #1 way to ensure long-term (10+years) stability[/B].[/quote]

I would have thought the best way would be to stop changing systems, coaches and quarterbacks.
Cowher was at Pitt for how long, how many qb's before Ben. Shanahan was at Denver for how long, how many qbs. Rather than putting a new player/coach in and creating "the new stability", lets let the people play and coach into a rhythm.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;543965]True, Dilfer's only human and if he could predict these things with 100% accuracty, he'd most certainly be someone's GM. I just felt it was very interesting how much he was in Sanchez' corner. I admit I don't watch alot of film to compare guys, but even if i did, I wouldnt be 1/100th as good as comparing guys than Dilfer. I trust his opinion more than I do most analysts, so i figured I would pass it along.[/quote]

I'll sing your praises to him next time I see him

[quote]I said 3rd AND a 4th for Campbell (as opposed to a 2nd).[/quote]

Gotcha. I misunderstood

[quote]we would no longer need Campbell if we had Sanchez and two mid-round picks are better than none at all. And that said, if you dont think 3rd and 4th round picks are valuable, should the skins just give theirs away every year? We cant have it both ways - We cant treat picks we get in receipt of a player as valueless, yet complain when we trade our picks for players. Either picks are valuable or they are not.[/quote]

Together, yes they are valuable. Again, I misread your original post. Because, to me, Oher at 13 (as an example) and staying pat with our picks otherwise is better than Sanchez at 13 and trading Campbell for a 4th. And depending on where he went, a 3rd and a 4th..

[quote]The Colts did not have "lots and lots of picks to work with." They had 7 picks. We have 5. From NFL.com:[/quote]

Maybe I should have just used one "lots" then

[quote]Granted, they had a 2nd and a 4th that we dont, but their 2nd and 3rd round picks were used on WRs that never became anythign of consequence, so i would say those picks were useless.[/quote]

That's irrelevant really, because the fact is they had a 2nd and 4th round pick to work with. You can't screw up a draft pick if you don't even have a pick to begin with.

[quote]They also are a team that had far more holes than we do now. They had the worst record in football in 1997 - they went 3-13 - which is why they were drafting first.[/quote]

I'm not even sure why we're making the comparison to the Colts in the first place, quite honestly

[quote]We were an average team in 2008. We've filled the vast majority of the teams glaring holes. Bring back Daniels and Wynn allows us to "get by" another year at DE if we have to. We have a hole at SLB, but Blades didnt do a half-bad job there last year. We had the 4th ranked defense in 2008 and we added the best Defensive lineman in football to our roster and replaced an aging injury-prone Shawn Springs with a 25year old pro-bowler who has the 3rd most interceptions of anyone in the league the past 5 years.... our defense will easily be top 10 next year even if nothing else changes.[/quote]

I hope you're right

[quote]On offense, we've already upgraded our interior dramatically with Dockery and Jansen and Heyer are duking it out for the starting RT job. Competition should ensure whoever wins the job (if we didnt draft anyone else) would be better than they were in 2008. [/quote]

Competition did wonders for our punting game last year. Just because Jansen and Heyer are fighting it out doesn't mean those are the best options.

[quote]The big question mark with our team is quarterback. The team has expressed no confidence in Campbell and less than a week ago, they were within minutes of replacing him. They might be showing more support in Campbell now, but he certainly hasnt done anything in the past week to give them any more confidence in his ability to be a franchise QB.[/quote]

But is the answer Mark Sanchez...especially when we have Funkmaster Colt?

[quote] Even if we want to be completely short-sighted and only look at the 2009 season, we will be a better team in 2009 than we were in 2008 (when we were average) without making any more changes. And, ill add, we will certainly be better than the 1998 Colts team that went 3-13 again. It wasnt until 1999 that everything turned around and they went 13-3 and have been a dominant team since.... all because they took a long term approach and invested in a franchise quarterback when they had the chance.[/quote]

I honestly don't have a problem with Sanchez (though if we're going to "reach" give me Beanie Wells), but I would want a lot more picks (2nd, 3rd, and 4th) if we're going to go in that direction...but just think of the international appeal of Sanchez vs. Romo (games will be Live on Univision!)

[quote]Anyway, we are an average to slightly above average team right now. We've already made major improvements to our roster. Everything else we get in the draft (and after) is just "gravy." IF Dilfer is right about Sanchez, then it makes all the sense in the world to get him this year. We will have our franchise QB, a team that enters 2010 with the same "holes" we have now (RT, SLB, and DE), but we will have almost a full compliment of picks in 2010 to fill those needs - not to mention free agency in a possibly uncapped year. IF Dilfer is right, Long-term it makes sense to get Sanchez, even if it means letting a few holes remain until 2010.[/quote]

But wait...Sanchez has been busted in the past for underage drinking (he must be an alcoholic, call Jay Cutler and get them to AA...stat!)

Seriously though...get a haircut

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;543976]As always, you make excellent points.

My main point is that getting a franchise QB should be our organizations #1 concern. IF they think Campbell can be they guy, then they need to give him everything he needs to succeed. If they don't, and a guy they do beleive can be their franchise QB is within reach, then it makes sense to do whatever it takes (within reason) to get that guy.

Once a team gets "that guy," everything else tends to fall into place. Great QBs inspire everyone around them. It gives teams something solid to build around. It ensures consistancy. (Indy, New England, New York Giants, Steelers, etc dont need to change their offense around every couple years because they have the same QB and the system with that QB works).

[B]This team has constantly been changing systems and coaches and quarterbacks for decades. We need stability. Getting a franchise QB is the #1 way to ensure long-term (10+years) stability[/B].[/quote]

This is key IMHO...we've had "Franchise QBs" on the roster off and on - guys we didn't keep who then won SBs w/ other teams. We blow up the offense and that's the real problem. Danny is evidently looking to blow up the offense again...two years in a row. There's little to no chance of success under such circumstances but our owner, some fans and various analysts don't want to face that reality.