[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

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