Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=The Goat;547815]Word...and to think we've got 5 more days of this. If this is a smokescreen to get us players we actually need who can actually start [B]I'll sing the praises of the FO until ya'll get sick of me.[/B][/quote]

Hey, I'm the over the top positive one here!! LOL.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=Ruhskins;547816]Hey, I'm the over the top positive one here!! LOL.[/quote]

Oops sorry Ruh, no intention to move into your territory :)

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=Lotus;547809]Noooooooo.....I can't listen to this speculation any more! Thank you for the story, Goat, but it is like Chinese water torture - drip, drip drip...

[B]Personally I am adopting the position that the Sanchez talk is a smokescreen and am going into denial until Saturday[/B].[/quote]

I hear ya Lotus. It's a leap of faith but probably the only way to cope these next few days.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

Good article: [url=http://www.nfl.com/draft/story?id=09000d5d80fe0897&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true]Don't believe the hype ... it could just be a smokescreen[/url]

If Stafford was to drop down past #1, this would increase our chances to draft Sanchez (unless some teams value Sanchez higher than Stafford)..

But like the article said, this might be just a smokescreen..

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=GridIron26;547836]Good article: [url=http://www.nfl.com/draft/story?id=09000d5d80fe0897&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true]Don't believe the hype ... it could just be a smokescreen[/url]

If Stafford was to drop down past #1, this would increase our chances to draft Sanchez (unless some teams value Sanchez higher than Stafford)..

But like the article said, this might be just a smokescreen..[/quote]

Thanks, that is a fine article. I usually don't like Pat Kirwan but that was well done.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=GridIron26;547836]Good article: [url=http://www.nfl.com/draft/story?id=09000d5d80fe0897&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true]Don't believe the hype ... it could just be a smokescreen[/url]

If Stafford was to drop down past #1, this would increase our chances to draft Sanchez (unless some teams value Sanchez higher than Stafford)..

But like the article said, this might be just a smokescreen..[/quote]

Nice link GridIron26. I was convinced at the beginning of this Sanchez talk that it was all a smokescreen because it made absolutely no sense to me to use our first pick on a QB with JC entering his 2nd year in the WCO. Plus our other obvious needs. Unfortunately because of the past behavior of our owner, the more this goes on the less convinced I am. My hope would be that Danny has learned how to play the game and all this was just posturing for better trade value or a better choice for our 1rst round pick. If this turns out to be the case, I would say Snyder has truly learned how to use his reputation to his advantage and would have to give him props for a job well done. For my own sanity I'm going to take the same road as Lotus and just believe this to be a smokescreen to help me get through until Saturday.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

You know, last year Malcolm Kelly was quite surprised that we drafted him. He said that we barely spoke to him before the draft.

I mention this because if this is the modus operandi of our FO, this means that Sanchez MUST be a smokescreen. If we like to keep our choices on the way-way-down-low, Sanchez cannot be one of our choices.

Continuing this line of thought, Ayers said the same thing when asked about being drafted by us - "They've hardly spoken to me." Perhaps, then, the plan is to take Ayers at 13.

The Ayers part is my weaker argument here. My stronger argument is that trading up for Sanchez does not fit our past pre-draft behavior.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=Lotus;547860]You know, last year Malcolm Kelly was quite surprised that we drafted him. He said that we barely spoke to him before the draft.

I mention this because if this is the modus operandi of our FO, this means that Sanchez MUST be a smokescreen. If we like to keep our choices on the way-way-down-low, Sanchez cannot be one of our choices.

Continuing this line of thought, Ayers said the same thing when asked about being drafted by us - "They've hardly spoken to me." Perhaps, then, the plan is to take Ayers at 13.

The Ayers part is my weaker argument here. My stronger argument is that trading up for Sanchez does not fit our past pre-draft behavior.[/quote]

I agree Lotus. We also had no idea we were thinking of taking Mayo. I certainly don't remember any mocks having us taking him. This is what gives me hope. :)

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

I'm with you in thinking (hoping?) this is all just a smokescreen. For all we know this could have all started back with Cutler :)

... yes I'm that optimistic

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

why in the hell are looking at Sanchez????? JC, under Zorn's watch and in
one set offense for a while, will do fine as long as He's not on his ass... So
draft OL and DL and bring back Marcus for 1 or 2 more years.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=GreekSkin;547862]I'm with you in thinking (hoping?) this is all just a smokescreen. For all we know this could have all started back with Cutler :)

... yes I'm that optimistic[/quote]

Could be. You know, no one outside of the respective front offices knows what we offered for Cutler. We could have offered a loaf of bread. But one speculative news report said that we offered the farm and then that report got reprinted over and over and over...Like the Nazi Goering said, a lie told often enough becomes the truth.

In truth we may never have been serious about Cutler, we may have just been playing with everyone else. If so, it worked.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=Lotus;547860]You know, last year Malcolm Kelly was quite surprised that we drafted him. He said that we barely spoke to him before the draft.

I mention this because if this is the modus operandi of our FO, this means that Sanchez MUST be a smokescreen. If we like to keep our choices on the way-way-down-low, Sanchez cannot be one of our choices.

Continuing this line of thought, Ayers said the same thing when asked about being drafted by us - "They've hardly spoken to me." Perhaps, then, the plan is to take Ayers at 13.

The Ayers part is my weaker argument here. My stronger argument is that trading up for Sanchez does not fit our past pre-draft behavior.[/quote]

That's a tough pull. Kelly wasn't our first pick nor did we get exactly who we wanted in the 2nd. Hell he was our 3rd pick in the 2nd.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=Lotus;547860]You know, last year Malcolm Kelly was quite surprised that we drafted him. He said that we barely spoke to him before the draft.[/quote]

If Malcolm Kelly was surprised we drafted him then he isn't too bright. DS and a contingent of Skins people, including Jason Campbell, flew to Norman to work him out personally prior to the draft.

[quote=53Fan;547861]I agree Lotus. We also had no idea we were thinking of taking Mayo. I certainly don't remember any mocks having us taking him. This is what gives me hope. :)[/quote]

Mayo might not have been on any mocks (because most mocks are worthless), but we knew he had a personal visit to Redskins Park and I think JLC even had a blog post about the team being interested in him. Probably if you search this site you can find some talk about it someplace.

My point is not to disparage your memories, but to say that I actually do not think that the Skins operate very well in the cloak and dagger department. They try really hard sometimes, but the stories seem to get out. Just off the top of my head, Albert Haynesworth's agent dining with DS at the combine, "secret" private workout with Jason Campbell prior to the 2005 draft, Lance Briggs talk, and the list can go on. Not everything happens, but there is usually some fire behind the smoke. I think the M.O. with this F.O. is that if the stories are out there with more substance than "x high profile free agent is available, the Redskins must be interested" then they usually have some legs.

When the Redskins do deal in smokescreens they are of the "we are not interested in Jason Taylor" and then trade for Jason Taylor variety. Usually the intentions of ownership are fairly obvious by their actions unless they just lie about their intentions.

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=SC Skins Fan;547883][B]If Malcolm Kelly was surprised we drafted him then he isn't too bright. DS and a contingent of Skins people, including Jason Campbell, flew to Norman to work him out personally prior to the draft.[/B]



Mayo might not have been on any mocks (because most mocks are worthless), but we knew he had a personal visit to Redskins Park and I think JLC even had a blog post about the team being interested in him. Probably if you search this site you can find some talk about it someplace.

My point is not to disparage your memories, but to say that I actually do not think that the Skins operate very well in the cloak and dagger department. They try really hard sometimes, but the stories seem to get out. Just off the top of my head, Albert Haynesworth's agent dining with DS at the combine, "secret" private workout with Jason Campbell prior to the 2005 draft, Lance Briggs talk, and the list can go on. Not everything happens, but there is usually some fire behind the smoke. I think the M.O. with this F.O. is that if the stories are out there with more substance than "x high profile free agent is available, the Redskins must be interested" then they usually have some legs.

When the Redskins do deal in smokescreens they are of the "we are not interested in Jason Taylor" and then trade for Jason Taylor variety. Usually the intentions of ownership are fairly obvious by their actions unless they just lie about their intentions.[/quote]

Yeah that doesn't sound right, the Skins were all over Kelly

Re: Mark Sanchez at 13th?
 

[quote=SC Skins Fan;547883][B]If Malcolm Kelly was surprised we drafted him then he isn't too bright. DS and a contingent of Skins people, including Jason Campbell, flew to Norman to work him out personally prior to the draft.
[/B]


Mayo might not have been on any mocks (because most mocks are worthless), but we knew he had a personal visit to Redskins Park and I think JLC even had a blog post about the team being interested in him. Probably if you search this site you can find some talk about it someplace.

My point is not to disparage your memories, but to say that [B]I actually do not think that the Skins operate very well in the cloak and dagger department. [/B] They try really hard sometimes, but the stories seem to get out. Just off the top of my head, Albert Haynesworth's agent dining with DS at the combine, "secret" private workout with Jason Campbell prior to the 2005 draft, Lance Briggs talk, and the list can go on. Not everything happens, but there is usually some fire behind the smoke. I think the M.O. with this F.O. is that if the stories are out there with more substance than "x high profile free agent is available, the Redskins must be interested" then they usually have some legs.

When the Redskins do deal in smokescreens they are of the "we are not interested in Jason Taylor" and then trade for Jason Taylor variety. Usually the intentions of ownership are fairly obvious by their actions [B]unless they just lie about their intentions.[/B][/quote]

You are correct about the Skins going to Norman to work out Kelly. But you are overlooking the "we like you, we like you" banter that is part of the process. Apparently we never gave Kelly that vibe although clearly we did like him. We made it look even to Kelly that we were just doing due diligence without real interest. With Sanchez we've done the opposite - very obvious wining and dining, no denials of news reports, etc.

You are correct that sometimes we have failed miserably at cloak-and-dagger. But such antics have worked on other occasions. And the whole trade-up-to-get-Sanchez thing is so blatant, there is no attempt at cloak-and-dagger, not even a failed attempt. It makes me think that it is all a ruse.

As for lying, that is precisely what I am accusing the Skins of. However, it is lying for strategy, as in poker. So let's use the milder term: bluffing.