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.

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

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

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

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

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.


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

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

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.

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

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.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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Gotcha. I misunderstood

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.

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..

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

Maybe I should have just used one "lots" then

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

I hope you're right

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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!)

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.

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

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.

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.