Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room > NFL Draft Central


Mark Sanchez at 13th?

NFL Draft Central


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-02-2009, 08:28 PM   #61
Living Legend
 
Ruhskins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 15,842
Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?

Quote:
Originally Posted by theJBexperience View Post
I'm surprised that worry from the possible Cutler trade hasn't transferred to worrying about trading up to get Sanchez because that's probably what it will take. Danny still might trade away the future.
Mark Sanchez is not a star and he won't win right away. So this won't give the Danny another tantrum. Let's just hope no more QBs become disgruntled with their teams.
__________________
R.I.P. #21

New words created on The Warpath:
Rewalsr - Somretimes - Fualt - Jersesy - Itiot - Composetory
Afeard - Storgn - Empliment - Gaissn - Saftys - Minnisota
Faviort - Hatter - Phsyched - Foof - Heloing - Brutual
Stroried

"Give an opinion and move on. Your life doesn't depend on winning the internet." -FRPLG
Ruhskins is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 04-02-2009, 10:58 PM   #62
The Starter
 
TheSmurfs22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Staunton, VA
Posts: 1,079
Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?

No, No and no! We need to concentrate on our O and D lines.
TheSmurfs22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2009, 11:13 PM   #63
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 44,632
Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
There will be varying opinion on the existance of a Quarterback who is able to will his team to a championship, but even if Snyder really does believe this player exists, what about Jay Cutler looks like this player. Jay Cutler is a good "stats" guy, conventionally and metrically. So is Jason Campbell. But if the problem with Campbell is that the Redskins don't feel he's the right guy, why the absolute infatuation with Cutler? What did they see in Cutler that the rest of us don't that would put him in the Manning/Brady category.
Well, like I've said I don't believe it was ever really about Cutler
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2009, 08:51 AM   #64
Camp Scrub
 
bigant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: bloomfield,new jersey
Posts: 76
Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?

unfortunatly he will be gone we our pick comes around. sanchez will not make it out of the top 10, and he is not going to get past denver who picks right before us at #12 but i agree with you ,he would be our franchise quarterback for at least 12 years......
bigant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2009, 01:18 PM   #65
Camp Scrub
 
RIP21GOSkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 18
Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?

If he makes it to 13, and Orakpo and M. Oher are gone, I say yes. It's a given that J. Smith and Monroe are gonna be gone. I think Sanchez is extremely cerebral and a hard-worker. He doesn't have a rocket for an arm but he has plenty of arm strength. His fundamentals are outstanding for a college qb, better than some pros form what I've heard. And if you lok at past 1st round qbs, the ones w/ the rocket arms dont make it often, the 2 recent exceptions being the Manning brothers. Cerebral QBs w/ questionable arm strength who are stars: Drew Brees, Matt Ryan, and some guy named Brady....I think he's won 3 Super Bowls and was 1 unbelievable catch,by David Tyree, away form having 4 rings. Im not ready to throw the towel in on Campbell just yet, but im close. I'm just saying take Sanchez in case Campbell doesnt show major improvement this season, that way he can be learning the offense, because I dont think Brennan is the answer. And If Campbell lights it up this year, then we have a decision to make.
RIP21GOSkins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2009, 01:50 PM   #66
Impact Rookie
 
tdSKINS1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Altavista Virginia
Age: 25
Posts: 711
Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?

I'll pass on him haha
__________________
#21 Never Forget
HOKIES!
tdSKINS1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2009, 01:11 PM   #67
Camp Scrub
 
stew9483's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3
Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?

Stay with JC and forget Sanchez. We have more problems on this team than QB. We need to get a DE or a solid linebacker. Also a good offensive lineman is a necissity!! Remember the redskins three superbowls were won with a great line.
stew9483 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2009, 03:06 PM   #68
Registered User
 
BigHairedAristocrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,917
Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?

For those of you who don't think Mark Sanchez is a franchise QB or that he won't be able to play right away, Trent Dilfer thinks you're wrong. Trent was a so-so quarterback (who reminds me of Campbell in alot of ways), but he is probably the best former player analyst on ESPN and he seems to be a very good judge of quarterbacks.

Dilfer was on the Herd a few days ago and he was absolutely gushing about Sanchez. According to Dilfer, Sanchez is not only the best QB in this draft, but he's also better than any of the QBs entering the draft next year. I dont remember details on everything Dilfer said, but he said its amazing how good Sanchez was last year, considering it was his first year as a starter and the O-Line, RB play and receivers were far worse than when Leinhart was QB at USC. Dilfer also compared Sanchez favorably to Tom Brady and Peyton Manning in that they have a commanding lockerroom presence. He said guys like Cutler arent leaders and dont command respect. When Sanchez walks into the room, it doesnt matter who else is in there, the focus is on him - he has that type of presence. Dilfer commented on how important that type of presence was in a QB. He said that Sanchez has it all and was absolutely confident that he would not only become an elite QB, but also that his "aura" would make everyone around him better.

If Sanchez is available at 13, I think its a no-brainer that we take him and trade Campbell for a 2nd rounder or a 3rd and a 4th. I also think its worthwhile to trade UP to get him, if necessary. Yes, we have other needs. I know. I'm not forgetting about OT, DE, and OLB. But The Colts had a ton of needs when they drafted Peyton Manning. But the did the smart thing. They drafted him, and then built a team around him. Unless Dilfer is completely mistaken, I think we can do the same with Sanchez.
BigHairedAristocrat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2009, 03:35 PM   #69
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 44,632
Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat View Post
For those of you who don't think Mark Sanchez is a franchise QB or that he won't be able to play right away, Trent Dilfer thinks you're wrong. Trent was a so-so quarterback (who reminds me of Campbell in alot of ways), but he is probably the best former player analyst on ESPN and he seems to be a very good judge of quarterbacks.
Good guy, good analyst, good judge of quarterbacks, but his word isn't gospel of course.

Quote:
Dilfer was on the Herd a few days ago and he was absolutely gushing about Sanchez. According to Dilfer, Sanchez is not only the best QB in this draft, but he's also better than any of the QBs entering the draft next year. I dont remember details on everything Dilfer said, but he said its amazing how good Sanchez was last year, considering it was his first year as a starter and the O-Line, RB play and receivers were far worse than when Leinhart was QB at USC. Dilfer also compared Sanchez favorably to Tom Brady and Peyton Manning in that they have a commanding lockerroom presence. He said guys like Cutler arent leaders and dont command respect. When Sanchez walks into the room, it doesnt matter who else is in there, the focus is on him - he has that type of presence. Dilfer commented on how important that type of presence was in a QB. He said that Sanchez has it all and was absolutely confident that he would not only become an elite QB, but also that his "aura" would make everyone around him better.
I don't remember him saying better than any QB next year as well, but either way yes he was effusive in his praise

Quote:
If Sanchez is available at 13, I think its a no-brainer that we take him and trade Campbell for a 2nd rounder or a 3rd and a 4th. I also think its worthwhile to trade UP to get him, if necessary. Yes, we have other needs. I know. I'm not forgetting about OT, DE, and OLB. But The Colts had a ton of needs when they drafted Peyton Manning. But the did the smart thing. They drafted him, and then built a team around him. Unless Dilfer is completely mistaken, I think we can do the same with Sanchez.
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 don't think it's a no-brainer at all. Especially if you're talking about trading Campbell for as low as a 4th. What is there to gain there?
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2009, 03:49 PM   #70
Playmaker
 
WaldSkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Age: 31
Posts: 2,726
Re: 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.
__________________
"I would change that around, Jesus isn't Cutler. I guarantee you Jesus couldnt thread the ball like Jay does."-Monksdown
WaldSkins is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2009, 03:50 PM   #71
Pro Bowl
 
SFREDSKIN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pacifica, CA
Posts: 7,366
Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?

Denver is rumored to be trying to move up and snap up the "Dirty Sanchez".
__________________
Joe Gibbs- The best coach of all time, Lombardi trophy should be renamed Gibbs.

Art Monk- Art was like an OL playing WR, doing the dirty work and not getting the glory.

Darrell Green- Best DB ever.


Purveyor of fine Filth
SFREDSKIN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2009, 03:56 PM   #72
Playmaker
 
WaldSkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Age: 31
Posts: 2,726
Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?

Just curious who would you draft at 13 if Orakpo and Sanchez were both available?
__________________
"I would change that around, Jesus isn't Cutler. I guarantee you Jesus couldnt thread the ball like Jay does."-Monksdown
WaldSkins is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2009, 04:42 PM   #73
Registered User
 
BigHairedAristocrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,917
Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack
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:

Quote:
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.

Last edited by BigHairedAristocrat; 04-07-2009 at 04:52 PM.
BigHairedAristocrat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2009, 04:54 PM   #74
Gamebreaker
 
tryfuhl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Waldorf, MD
Age: 30
Posts: 12,514
Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?

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
tryfuhl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2009, 05:01 PM   #75
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,994
Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat View Post
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.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.43450 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25