Mark Sanchez at 13th?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
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.


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

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.

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.
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.

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


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

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.

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.

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, BUT it just doesnt transfer to gameday.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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.