Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;543978]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.[/quote]

If we had kept Spurrier and Shane Matthews for 5 years, do you think we'd be any better off now?

The stability i speak of is something that can only be provided by a franchise QB.

The Steelers were not really that great under Cowher when they had near constant QB fluxuation. They didnt become annual superbowl contenders until they found their franchise QB.

If the skins think Jason Campbell is their franchise QB, then by all means, they should stick with him. If they dont, then they need to look at the QBs in this years draft and next years, determine which player is most likely to become a franchise QB, and then plan accordingly. If Sanchez is that guy, they need to get him and move Campbell this year. If not, they can give Campbell another chance and then draft one of the QBs next year. Either way, stability starts with a franchise QB.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=The Goat;543985]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.[/quote]

uhhh, who are you speaking of? I cant think of anyONE who the redskins drafted who we let go and went on to become a "franchise QB" elsewhere. You mention QBs plural, so you must know of several. please share with us.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=SmootSmack;543979]

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]

I agree with you... IF the skins think Campbell or one of the QBs in next years draft can become our franchise QB. If Sanchez is more likely to be a franchise QB, then Sanchez and the 3rd and 4th rounders become more valuable than Campbell and Oher. It all depends on who we think the franchise QB is. It is very important that we make the right choice. If we pass up on Sanchez and Campbell fails, then we're back to square one again.


[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]
All that was said in the context of you refuting my statement about how the colts built their franchise. I was simply contrasting the quality of the 1997 Colts team with their 1998 picks to our 2008 team and 2009 picks. The Colts built their franchise by drafting a franchise QB and then - over the course of a couple years - putting the right pieces in place around Manning for the team to become an annual contender.


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

It was just one example of how a franchise QB can turn a team around. Other than the Patriots, most teams acquire the franchise QB BEFORE getting all the other pieces in place. We have a step up on most franchises - we're already average. We just need a franchise QB.

[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]
Not the best, but better. We cant have the best of everything. As i said earlier, if Campbell our franchise QB, we should focus on OL, DL, and LB with our first pick. If not, QB becomes our priority and Sanchez merits strong consideration.

[quote]But is the answer Mark Sanchez...especially when we have Funkmaster Colt? [/quote] LOL... i think...


[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!)

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!)

Lol

Seriously though...get a haircut[/quote]

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

Why draft Sanchez? I mean come on! We have a pretty decent trio already, and depending on where Collins is in 2010 as well as JC, I rather draft McCoy or Bradford. Big 12 is way more brutal than the Pac-10, and those dudes are ready for the NFL. How many USC QB's have fared well as of late in the NFL? Carson Palmer was pretty decent til he messed up his knee, now he is a walking injury, but Leinhart being beaten out by Warner doesn't bode well for his ass. We are better off taking an USC LB way before even considering Sanchez. It is way better to draft the real deal in either Colt or Sam in 2010.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=The Goat;543985]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.[/quote]

Im curious to know who these "Franchise" quarterbacks are too. I hope your not referring to Brad Johnson and Tony Banks. Tony Banks went on to win a SB ring from the bench as a beneficiary of arguably, if not the best defense...then 1 of the best defenses in NFL history, with the 2000 Ravens. And Brad Johnson who also benefited greatly from having an outstanding defense with the 2002 Bucs. If either of those teams had average to good defenses, neither of them would have a Super Bowl ring in their possession unless they stole it.

I completely agree w/ Aristocrat on taking Sanchez even if we have to go get him. We desperately need a franchise type QB. Im 28 years old and have been a fan since 91 and dont remeber having anyone who was even close to being a "Franchise" QB. Im not a Campbell basher but his numbers got dramatically worse as the season progressed, Im no genius but arent you supposed to get better as you become more comfortable with the system? Plus the fact that he played in the west coast offense in college, so he was somewhat familiar with the system, maybe not the terminology. I think that Campbell has the intelligence, work ethic, arm strength, and athleticism needed to be a great QB, [B]BUT[B] it just doesnt transfer to gameday.[/B][/B]So if Sanchez is as good as Dilfer says and the FO agrees with him, then go get him, but i believe that we should keep Campbell and let him play til Sanchez gets familiar enough with the system to play, unless we can get a 2nd rounder for him. I believe we can get a pretty good OL or OLB in the 2nd round.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;543988]If we had kept Spurrier and Shane Matthews for 5 years, do you think we'd be any better off now?

The stability i speak of is something that can only be provided by a franchise QB.

The Steelers were not really that great under Cowher when they had near constant QB fluxuation. They didnt become annual superbowl contenders until they found their franchise QB.

If the skins think Jason Campbell is their franchise QB, then by all means, they should stick with him. If they dont, then they need to look at the QBs in this years draft and next years, determine which player is most likely to become a franchise QB, and then plan accordingly. If Sanchez is that guy, they need to get him and move Campbell this year. If not, they can give Campbell another chance and then draft one of the QBs next year. Either way, stability starts with a franchise QB.[/quote]

That makes a lot of sense to me. Nice post.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

You obviously don't keep around a QB just for the sake of continuity, he has to be a guy you can hang your hat on. That said we'll know by the end of next season whether JC is the guy or not. Right now he's on the fence. He's shown flashes of promise, he just needs to put it all together.

I sure wouldn't use a high pick on a QB this year though. Not when we have other more pressing needs at OT, LB, DE.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=Mattyk72;544131]You obviously don't keep around a QB just for the sake of continuity, he has to be a guy you can hang your hat on. That said we'll know by the end of next season whether JC is the guy or not. Right now he's on the fence. He's shown flashes of promise, he just needs to put it all together.

I sure wouldn't use a high pick on a QB this year though. Not when we have other more pressing needs at OT, LB, DE.[/quote]

I agree with you but we don't know what the redskins think. If they still have an open mind to JC being the long term guy then they should not take a QB at all. But if in their mind they have turned the page on JC already then it's best to take whatever they can get in trade for him now and draft a QB.

I am not saying that's what i would do...I would give JC another year myself and draft an OT.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

I think the FO and everybody else will have a clearer picture of what we have in JC [B]after[/B] this year.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;543988]If we had kept Spurrier and Shane Matthews for 5 years, do you think we'd be any better off now?

The stability i speak of is something that can only be provided by a franchise QB.

The Steelers were not really that great under Cowher when they had near constant QB fluxuation. They didnt become annual superbowl contenders until they found their franchise QB.

If the skins think Jason Campbell is their franchise QB, then by all means, they should stick with him. If they dont, then they need to look at the QBs in this years draft and next years, determine which player is most likely to become a franchise QB, and then plan accordingly. [B]If Sanchez is that guy, they need to get him and move Campbell this year. [/B] If not, they can give Campbell another chance and then draft one of the QBs next year. Either way, stability starts with a franchise QB.[/quote]

I disagree with this entirely. Next years QB class by all measures should be as good or far better than this years. And I still maintain it's easier to bring a qb in to an established system, than to have a qb change in mid stream. With that said, this year you HAVE to stand pat at this point.
Let's say we draft Sanchez this year, so we have Colt and Sanchez both as backups, no proven depth(that Leftwich or Collins could provide) AND only 3 scenarios could happen going forward:

1)JZ and JC work great together we extend Campbell and now have 2 unproven qbs around for a while.

2) JZ and JC FAIL miserably, and both are axed, so now you again have 2 unproven qbs, brought in by someone other than the new HC, whoever it is.

3) The team goes middle of the road, somehow good enough to give Zorn one more shot, not good enough to keep Campbell. In which case, JZ would have Colt who had 2 years on the bench and could get a QB of Sanchez's talent in next years draft at a mid level pick (which is where we would be in this scenario.) and we would not have missed a chance to upgrade either our OT/LB in a draft class that should give us a chance to get one or the other at #13.

Your point about Spurrier/Matthews IS Spurious, because no one would suggest that either of those people had a chance in he** of becoming something in the league.

Stability comes from having a good head coach who is given time to get his system right and then bringing in the Franchise QB once the other elements are in place, not putting a QB out there and let the system stabilize around him. Is there even an example of what you are suggesting (i plead ignorance), which if I understand it, is that a Franchise QB provides stability even if Head coaches are changed. The coach has to be there first and then he brings in qb, not the other way around.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

Mark Sanchez at 13th?
dumb dumb dumb dumb.dummmmmmb....

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

Thankfully, stupidity runs rampant in the NFL, so we likely won't have a shot at either Stafford or Sanchez. Bummer, dude.

We could always select Josh Freeman in the off chance that he may one day develop into what Jason Campbell is now.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

why draft sanchez?

IF we get a QB it should be next year...Sam Bradford, Tim Tebow, and my favorite Colt McCoy are all going to be out. Each one of these guys is better than Sanchez. The only reason Sanchez came out is for the money. If he waited until next year to come out, he would fall to at least the 2. Sanchez waited until he knew that both Bradford, Tebow and McCoy were staying in school to announce that he was coming out, because he wants to cash in...dude is a bust waiting to happen.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

Kiper's latest draft, posted 4-9-09, has us taking Sanchez @ 13 and Mel says it's a great pick. We pass on Oher and Rey. WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[url=http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/draft09/insider/columns/story?id=4054695]Updated 2009 mock NFL draft: Mel Kiper breaks down the first four rounds - ESPN[/url]

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=The Goat;544546]Kiper's latest draft, posted 4-9-09, has us taking Sanchez @ 13 and Mel says it's a great pick. We pass on Oher and Rey. WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[url=http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/draft09/insider/columns/story?id=4054695]Updated 2009 mock NFL draft: Mel Kiper breaks down the first four rounds - ESPN[/url][/quote]

I think Mel Kiper accurately predicts 30% of the picks in round 1 on average. He's really no better at predicting the draft than any of us are. He's just a talking head (with a hair-helmet).

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

Can Sanchez play O tackle?

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=The Goat;544546]Kiper's latest draft, posted 4-9-09, has us taking Sanchez @ 13 and Mel says it's a great pick. We pass on Oher and Rey. WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[URL="http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/draft09/insider/columns/story?id=4054695"]Updated 2009 mock NFL draft: Mel Kiper breaks down the first four rounds - ESPN[/URL][/quote]Thankfully, stupidity runs rampant in the NFL, so we likely won't have a shot at either Stafford or Sanchez.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

Sanchez shouldn't even be considered. I can't believe this thread exist. I'm not a JC fan but i'm giving him one more year with the same offense. We have WAY bigger needs right now. I don't like this Sanchez kid......at all
Can you say BUST!

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=The Goat;544546]Kiper's latest draft, posted 4-9-09, has us taking Sanchez @ 13 and Mel says it's a great pick. We pass on Oher and Rey. WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[url=http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/draft09/insider/columns/story?id=4054695]Updated 2009 mock NFL draft: Mel Kiper breaks down the first four rounds - ESPN[/url][/quote]

and Kyle Moore in the 3rd...so it's all USC!

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

Why not? Really, Why not.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

Makes sense to me.

If Campbell doesn't produce you got Sanchez and Colt to battle it out.

If Campbell succeeds, we trade Sanchez, Colt is number 2.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

I still don't understand why people think that Campbell won't improve statistically over last year. Can you make up a scenario in which his supporting cast is more useless than last season (second half)?

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;544600]I still don't understand why people think that Campbell won't improve statistically over last year. Can you make up a scenario in which his supporting cast is more useless than last season (second half)?[/quote]

I hear what your saying, but I think the team needs to be prepared if Campbell succeeds or doesnt. I think it would be a huge risk to go to next season with just Colt and Collins to replace Campbell.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=Dblock804;544585]Why not? Really, Why not.[/quote]

If this is a serious inquisition, I will give you a few reasons NOT to draft Sanchez.

1. There is a risk factor with all draft picks, just different levels. Sanchez would be a high risk pick. The succession rate of junior qb's coming out of college are not great. Sanchez has had only one good full season at USC.

2. The Cutler deal aside, the Redskins need to see what they have in Jason Campbell. There were multiple picks (including a first), and a lot of effort and time involved in acquiring him. Campbell has had just over two seasons worth of starts and considering the tumultuous set of circumstances- he should be given at least another year to prove his value to the team.

3. There will be better, more proven sure-fire qb's available in next year's draft.

4. Because Sanchez would be such a risky pick, it would be in the teams best interest to go with offensive line or defense which are said to be greater needs- especially with so few first day picks. O lineman taken in the first round are collectively more successful than qb's.

I think most fans are in agreement that this is "make or break" time for Jason. If he does not make the next big step in his development this year, than it's obvious the skins will have to look in a different direction come 2010.

To take a gamble on a fairly unproven kid like Sanchez would more than likely set this franchise back even farther. While there may be some up side to drafting him, it's far too many chips to push in the pot when the stacks are and have been dwindling.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

I thought Brennan was the QB of the future? Are they saying he's not going to be any good either?

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=Eknox;544612]I thought Brennan was the QB of the future? Are they saying he's not going to be any good either?[/quote]


Brennan is the fan's QB of the future. You don't draft a QB in the six round with the intention of him being a franchise QB. CB is a project who, according to Zorn, is far from NFL ready. I'll trust that if the coaches think he is ready to be a leader and a field general, he would be starting.

...or did I overlook the sarcasm in your post. :confused:

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=AnimateYYZ;544616]Brennan is the fan's QB of the future. You don't draft a QB in the six round with the intention of him being a franchise QB. CB is a project who, according to Zorn, is far from NFL ready. I'll trust that if the coaches think he is ready to be a leader and a field general, he would be starting.

...or did I overlook the sarcasm in your post. :confused:[/quote]
yes, If you would have read some of the posts pertaining to CB and Campbell you'd have never overlooked my sarcasm..lol ..welcome to TheWarpath....Hail..

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

If you have no O line then youre quarterback is going to get squashed. The Skins need to concentrate on the line.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

if we're smart, and I'm not saying we (as in snyder and cerra-Doh!) are, we should probably trade back if Sanchez falls.
I know this is taboo, but we could always trade with Philly if Sanchez falls to us. Philly won't keep McNabb for much longer, they run the west coast offense and more importantly, have a ton of picks.
I say bleed'em or anyone else willing to play ball. There aren't many quality QB prospects this year and that should play to our advantage if he falls to us.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

I could not even imagine the fan backlash if we drafted Sanchez. Not to mention it would be a horrible pick.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=AnimateYYZ;544616]Brennan is the fan's QB of the future. [B]You don't draft a QB in the six round with the intention of him being a franchise QB. [/B]CB is a project who, according to Zorn, is far from NFL ready. I'll trust that if the coaches think he is ready to be a leader and a field general, he would be starting.

...or did I overlook the sarcasm in your post. :confused:[/quote]

Where a guy is drafted has no meaning if he's a franchise QB or not. That's determined when and if the player gets a chance to play.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;544600]I still don't understand why people think that Campbell won't improve statistically over last year. Can you make up a scenario in which his supporting cast is more useless than last season (second half)?[/quote]

I don't think it's a question of whether he will improve statisically. I mean it would be pretty tough for him not to. The question is can he be the type of QB that can carry an offense, can he be the type of QB that can win games for you. That's what we need him to be. Not a game manager. If he does those things then no question his stats will improve.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=skinsfan69;544640]I don't think it's a question of whether he will improve statisically. I mean it would be pretty tough for him not to. The question is can he be the type of QB that can carry an offense, can he be the type of QB that can win games for you. That's what we need him to be. Not a game manager. If he does those things then no question his stats will improve.[/quote]

I understand you're desire for that kind of QB...an elite guy under center. I mean that's really what you're talking about IMO. There are a small, small handful of guys that fit that description. And I believe it's much smaller than the conventional wisdom goes. You look at QBs who put up huge numbers. They typically have lots of talent surrounding them. Brady's best years have been when he's got the most talented WR corp in football...along w/ phenom protection and a pretty solid running game. Oh jeez and btw a pretty good defense too. Same w/ Peyton. Cutler, the recent darling of our FO, was surrounded by far more talent in Denver and played against absolute shit defenses compared to what we see in the NFC East. Honestly there are just so few QBs who truly "take over" games. If I had to pick one guy I thought was above the rest I'd have to peg Brees...not Brady or Peyton. Anyway, I don't think there's anything wrong w/ continually searching for the franchise QB who makes everybody around him better and wills his way to victory...my point is it's a fallacy IMO to see one around every corner and w/ every other franchise.

...Jason will be good enough to win ballgames if given the chance. I watched every game last year and honestly didn't believe he had much chance in the games we lost.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=skinsfan69;544638]Where a guy is drafted has no meaning if he's a franchise QB or not. That's determined when and if the player gets a chance to play.[/quote]

You should probably read my post before making a rhetorical response such as this.

I said you don't take a guy in the sixth with the [I]intention[/I] of him being a franchise qb. It doesn't mean that he is not or could not be a franchise qb. It's obvious that even the first overall pick has to prove himself.

If a team decides to draft their qb of the future, they certainly aren't gonna do it with a sixth round pick- and don't give me any Tom Brady talk.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=The Goat;544643]I understand you're desire for that kind of QB...an elite guy under center. I mean that's really what you're talking about IMO. There are a small, small handful of guys that fit that description. And I believe it's much smaller than the conventional wisdom goes. You look at QBs who put up huge numbers. They typically have lots of talent surrounding them. Brady's best years have been when he's got the most talented WR corp in football...along w/ phenom protection and a pretty solid running game. Oh jeez and btw a pretty good defense too. Same w/ Peyton. Cutler, the recent darling of our FO, was surrounded by far more talent in Denver and played against absolute shit defenses compared to what we see in the NFC East. Honestly there are just so few QBs who truly "take over" games. If I had to pick one guy I thought was above the rest I'd have to peg Brees...not Brady or Peyton. Anyway, I don't think there's anything wrong w/ continually searching for the franchise QB who makes everybody around him better and wills his way to victory...my point is it's a fallacy IMO to see one around every corner and w/ every other franchise.

...Jason will be good enough to win ballgames if given the chance. I watched every game last year and honestly didn't believe he had much chance in the games we lost.[/quote]

Excellent post. People act like if you don't have one, you just go get an elite qb. I wish it were that easy.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

Just imagine if danny, vinny zorn a Jc were all in on this elaborate scheme, to make others thin kwe didnt want jc and were going to take another qb. Let us work him out, let others thin kwe would really take him just to ensure we could trade back? Oh wait its late that was just a really ****ed up dream...where we still got Oher, and Mack with our newly aquired 2nd round pick! LMAO

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=The Goat;544643]I understand you're desire for that kind of QB...an elite guy under center. I mean that's really what you're talking about IMO. There are a small, small handful of guys that fit that description. And I believe it's much smaller than the conventional wisdom goes. You look at QBs who put up huge numbers. They typically have lots of talent surrounding them. Brady's best years have been when he's got the most talented WR corp in football...along w/ phenom protection and a pretty solid running game. Oh jeez and btw a pretty good defense too. Same w/ Peyton. Cutler, the recent darling of our FO, was surrounded by far more talent in Denver and played against absolute shit defenses compared to what we see in the NFC East. Honestly there are just so few QBs who truly "take over" games. If I had to pick one guy I thought was above the rest I'd have to peg Brees...not Brady or Peyton. Anyway, I don't think there's anything wrong w/ continually searching for the franchise QB who makes everybody around him better and wills his way to victory...my point is it's a fallacy IMO to see one around every corner and w/ every other franchise.

...Jason will be good enough to win ballgames if given the chance. I watched every game last year and honestly didn't believe he had much chance in the games we lost.[/quote]

Well Brady still had some very very good seasons with Deion Branch, Troy Brown and David Givens. I'm not expecting him to be Brady, Manning or Brees. But I do expect him to be as good as McNabb and he gets it done with below average wr's. I don't know...I just don't think JC sees the field like some guys do and that's why I think our FO wants Sanchez and almost made the deal for Cutler. I think JC would be a perfect fit for the old Gibbs system but we don't have the line or the wr's. We'll see....

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=skinsfan69;544750]Well Brady still had some very very good seasons with Deion Branch, Troy Brown and David Givens. I'm not expecting him to be Brady, Manning or Brees. But I do expect him to be as good as McNabb and he gets it done with below average wr's. I don't know...I just don't think JC sees the field like some guys do and that's why I think our FO wants Sanchez and almost made the deal for Cutler. I think JC would be a perfect fit for the old Gibbs system but we don't have the line or the wr's. We'll see....[/quote]In my opinion, what separated Brady in 2004 and 2005 from his down season in 2006 was less about who he had as a dominant receiver, and more about who he [I]didn't[/I] have to worry about screwing up the offensive rhythm. Branch, Givens, Troy Brown, Watson, Fauria, Tim Dwight, and Kevin Faulk were all above average receivers at the time in the system, and Brady really had two pretty great seasons back to back.

Ben Watson has been in incredible decline since 2006, along with Troy Brown, and Reche Caldwell/Doug Gabriel/Jabar Gaffney might not have been the best way to go that season. So that, I feel, is why Brady had a down year. I think it shows that he's not "bad receiver proof". He of course, reached new heights with the Moss/Welker tandem, so I think that only makes this case stronger.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;544756]In my opinion, what separated Brady in 2004 and 2005 from his down season in 2006 was less about who he had as a dominant receiver, and more about who he [I]didn't[/I] have to worry about screwing up the offensive rhythm. Branch, Givens, Troy Brown, Watson, Fauria, Tim Dwight, and Kevin Faulk were all above average receivers at the time in the system, and Brady really had two pretty great seasons back to back.

Ben Watson has been in incredible decline since 2006, along with Troy Brown, and Reche Caldwell/Doug Gabriel/Jabar Gaffney might not have been the best way to go that season. So that, I feel, is why Brady had a down year. I think it shows that he's not "bad receiver proof". He of course, reached new heights with the Moss/Welker tandem, so I think that only makes this case stronger.[/quote]

I really want to see how much he declines now that he does not know what the defense will do... Poor guy got injured and we could not see what the "real" Tom Brady looks like. For all we know, Cassel is a better QB. I hate to unearth this argument again, but until I see Brady win a Super Bowl without using illegal filming tecniques (granted, the blame goes to Belicheck), I am not convinced he is as elite as people think.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

No no no...he won't even be there when we pick, denvers in Front of us, and if we trade up to get a position which we don't have as big of a need as say DE or OLB or OT, then I will be very very pissed...I don't even think sanchez is that great anyway I think he was good because he had elite talent around him ...NO dan no! We could tom Brady out there and it still wouldntmake us that good cause we couldn't protect him with our needs at OLine...NO No NO!!!