Mark Sanchez at 13th?

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 intention 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.

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.

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

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....

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.

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.

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.

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!!!