Mark Sanchez at 13th?

[GTripp0012]

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.


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.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

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.

[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

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

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.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by The Goat

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.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

[quote=SmootSmack;543979]

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.

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

[GusFrerotte]

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.

[RIP21GOSkins]

Originally Posted by The Goat

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.

[celts32]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

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.

[MTK]

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.

[celts32]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

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.

[53Fan]

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

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

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.