Reasons for drafting Sanchez

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by Son Of Man

What has JC done to ever instill confidence in the B&G fanbase? Even when we had a solid line, running game and defense (2007 season which was his first as a full-time starter), did he exude leadership quality? Sanchez does.

You're fixated on Sanchez and still missing the point. My arguments are not a defense of Jason Campbell, but rather a criticism of our team's inability to give any QB the necessary tools and environment to succeed. While I don't want to belittle Sanchez performance in the playoffs, you make it sound like he carried the Jets on his back, which he did not.

Originally Posted by Son Of Man

BTW- Ben Rothelisberger played behind a terrible line, so did Aaron Rogers (who was drafted the same year as JC). Why is their play seen as better by virtually ever expert in the NFL and TV? Why is it Denver and Chicage wanted no parts of him in a proposed trade?

Big Ben had a solid line that allowed 36 sacks during his rookie season (tied for 14th in the league), the #2 rushing offense, and the #1 defense in the NFL. And he enjoyed having a top ranked rushing offense and defense for the next couple of years. Once again, it's not about Campbell, and more about what type of talent, tools this team has put around its QB.

[Son Of Man]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Do we disqualify him being our best offensive player in consecutive years? Sure, hasn't meant a whole lot in terms of playoff appearances or victories, but we haven't had much by way of a defense since Grilliams left (except boundless consistency) and the running game has been quite spotty during the last two years. The passing offense has really been the only thing the Redskins have had during the Zorn era, and clearly, it alone was very insufficient to get the Redskins to the playoffs.

Perhaps it's accurate that quarterbacks need to win to be considered franchise QBs, and QBs on teams that don't win are expendable based on the principle that you can lose just as effectively with worse QB play. I wouldn't agree with that, but at the very least, it makes some sense.

On a 4-12 team, all players are expendable. But that doesn't mean they are all worthless.

When was this? What evidence do you have to support this claim?

[Son Of Man]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

You're fixated on Sanchez and still missing the point. My arguments are not a defense of Jason Campbell, but rather a criticism of our team's inability to give any QB the necessary tools and environment to succeed. While I don't want to belittle Sanchez performance in the playoffs, you make it sound like he carried the Jets on his back, which he did not.



Big Ben had a solid line that allowed 36 sacks during his rookie season (tied for 14th in the league), the #2 rushing offense, and the #1 defense in the NFL. And he enjoyed having a top ranked rushing offense and defense for the next couple of years. Once again, it's not about Campbell, and more about what type of talent, tools this team has put around its QB.

The Skins could possibly pull a Falcons 2008 draft (Take franchise QB like Ryan & LT like Sam Baker), focus on the run with a solid back (Turner), play solid defense (Falcons were not a defensive powerhouse) and enjoy some succes next year. The birds had a relatively quick turnaround. The key is having the right guy to build around...period. It's just that JC has never shown to be that guy.

I reference Sanchez alot in this thread because his name was in the title. I could also reference Ryan and Flacco. Young QB's who seem to have theri teams behind them and although not asked to "carry the team on their shoulders" yet, appear poised and capable of doing so when the time comes. Similar to Ben Rothlisberger. I hope we can find that guy.

BTW- This is in no way an advocation for taking a QB with the 4th pick overall.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Son Of Man

When was this? What evidence do you have to support this claim?

By approximate value, Campbell's 11 in 2008 isn't overly impressive, but it's tied with Portis' 11 in the same season, and is probably roughly as valuable (in the abstract sense, more valuable in the literal sense) as Chris Samuels' 9 or Chris Cooley's 8 or Mike Sellers' 8.

It's approximate, but if you're being honest with yourself, you'd probably say that's accurate, or close to accurate.

This year, no approx. value has been calculated yet, but it's not like any individual on our offense was even close to Campbell. It was a pretty bad year for individuals, yes, but Campbell took small strides as well.

More on approximate value from the above link:

If you don't read all that, here is the very short version:


AV is not meant to be a be-all end-all metric. Football stat lines just do not come close to capturing all the contributions of a player the way they do in baseball and basketball. If one player is a 16 and another is a 14, we can't be very confident that the 16AV player actually had a better season than the 14AV player. But I am pretty confident that the collection of all players with 16AV played better, as an entire group, than the collection of all players with 14AV.


Essentially, AV is a substitute for --- and a significant improvement upon, in my opinion --- metrics like "number of seasons as a starter" or "number of times making the pro bowl" or the like. You should think of it as being essentially like those two metrics, but with interpolation in between. That is, "number of seasons as a starter" is a reasonable starting point if you're trying to measure, say, how good a particular draft class is, or what kind of player you can expect to get with the #13 pick in the draft. But obviously some starters are better than others. Starters on good teams are, as a group, better than starters on bad teams. Starting WRs who had lots of receiving yards are, as a group, better than starting WRs who did not have many receiving yards. Starters who made the pro bowl are, as a group, better than starters who didn't, and so on. And non-starters aren't worthless, so they get some points too.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by Son Of Man

The Skins could possibly pull a Falcons 2008 draft (Take franchise QB like Ryan & LT like Sam Baker), focus on the run with a solid back (Turner), play solid defense (Falcons were not a defensive powerhouse) and enjoy some succes next year. The birds had a relatively quick turnaround. The key is having the right guy to build around...period. It's just that JC has never shown to be that guy.

I reference Sanchez alot in this thread because his name was in the title. I could also reference Ryan and Flacco. Young QB's who seem to have theri teams behind them and although not asked to "carry the team on their shoulders" yet, appear poised and capable of doing so when the time comes. Similar to Ben Rothlisberger. I hope we can find that guy.

BTW- This is in no way an advocation for taking a QB with the 4th pick overall.

Ok now I get what you are saying, but I would counter that JC didn't have what Flacco, Ryan, and Big Ben had as rookies. Once again, not defending Campbell, but I hope the team has learned that you have to put some talent around your QB if you either want him to a.) live up to their potential or b.) develop into a good QB.

I don't think drafting a QB with the #4 is the answer, unless we are sure that we have given the QB position the right tools for whoever that QB is to be successful. And honestly I don't think a rookie QB can be successful when the following units have question marks:

Offensive Line: We have at best 2 starters from this past season's group. Arguably the Achilles heel of the team.

Running Game: We have an aging (in RB years) star who may or may have not polarized the locker, and a whole bunch of back ups/scrubs.

Receivers: Maybe the unit with that has more potential than the other two I mentioned, given the development of Thomas and Davis.

Defense: Good statistically, but not good enough to carry the team with the offensive deficiencies.

Starting with the offensive line, this team needs to be rebuilt in several areas. Campbell can be a stop gap until we have team that can give either a developing QB (drafted in the later rounds in 2010) or a rookie with a lot of potential (drafted in 2011...*crossing fingers that there's no lockout) an opportunity to pull a Big Ben, Flacco, Ryan or Sanchez.

[mlmdub130]

ahh i'm so tired of this sanchez crap, he had below average numbers all year long made a few plays here and there, he had the njumber one run game, an amazing d with probably one of the most impressive seasons worth of stats for a db, honestly how sick is revis' season, the guys he shut down all year is amazing

oh yeah and sanchez has a o line chock full of first round studs i can't remember if it was on the warpath or some where else but i think they have one thrid rounder the rest are second and first round picks, ramsey could be their qb, and probably have better stats too

[Kalisto2010]

Pointing out that you misspelled Shaun Hill's name isn't playing the grammar card, it's correcting a dude's name.

I don't care, it's still very elementary. Especially when your own sentence structure is replete with errors.

[Kalisto2010]

Originally Posted by Hogroll

Sorry, just being a smarta$$ here; doing nothing more than pointing out irony.

And I'm doing the same with you.

Hogroll: I don't know, good think Gilbert from Texas is only a Freshman...

Good think Gilbert? just being a smarta$$ here; doing nothing more than pointing out irony since you really meant to say good thing

One more for the road.

Originally Posted by Hogroll

Now, that is funny stuff!

Now, that's funny stuff. Fixed.

[dgack]

Originally Posted by Kalisto2010

I don't care, it's still very elementary. Especially when your own sentence structure is replete with errors.

Congratulations, you win at the Internet!

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Kalisto2010

And I'm doing the same with you.



Good think Gilbert? just being a smarta$$ here; doing nothing more than pointing out irony since you really meant to say good thing

One more for the road.



Now, that's funny stuff. Fixed.

LOL...you do understand that "that's" is a contraction for "that is" right? Meaning no correction was needed.