Mark Sanchez at 13th?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by The Goat

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Updated 2009 mock NFL draft: Mel Kiper breaks down the first four rounds - ESPN

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

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by The Goat

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Updated 2009 mock NFL draft: Mel Kiper breaks down the first four rounds - ESPN

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

[Dblock804]

Why not? Really, Why not.

[AnimateYYZ]

Originally Posted by Dblock804

Why not? Really, Why not.

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.

[Hog1]

Can Sanchez play O tackle?

[SOUL-SKINS]

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!

[NM Redskin]

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.

[GTripp0012]

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)?

[NM Redskin]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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)?

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.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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)?

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.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

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.

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.

[AnimateYYZ]

Originally Posted by The Goat

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.

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

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by The Goat

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.

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....

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

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....

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 didn't 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.

[Eknox]

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