Mark Sanchez at 13th?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

The general belief is, and I've said this before, "Hey, we all love Jason. He's a great guy. And we can win with him. We just don't know if we can win because of him"

It's the guy who adds, "you know who can make us winners? Mark Sanchez!" that I want fired tomorrow.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

It's the guy who adds, "you know who can make us winners? Mark Sanchez!" that I want fired tomorrow.

Is it because of his lack of college experience?

[30gut]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Zorn pushing hard for Sanchez by the way...again allegedly.

If this is true i find it surprising.
Danny pushing hard for Sanchez i get but Zorn?
Zorn is a QB coach whose claim to fame is the ability to develop a QB.
I would think that a position coach hangs their hats on the ability to coach a player up. Like coaches Gray/Jackson did with Doughty and Horton, or Olividotti with Blades, or Williams/Blache with Monty and Golston or Buges with a list too long to mention.
It seems odd for a QB coach to draft a QB with a high pick when he is currently developing a QB and that development is supposed to be his forte.
(like a mechanic who doesn't restore his own cars)

Also, Zorn stirkes me as a honest guy, almost to a fault.
Granted i have no access and i'm only juding based on interviews and post game pressers.
But, he doesn't seem like the kind of guy who gives his word lightly and to throw his support behind Campbell then push for Sanchez doesn't fit my impression of Zorn.

One statement about Campbell form Zorn that i never forget came from Matt Mosley last summer:

What's in Mosley's Mailbag? - NFC East - ESPN
Mosley: Albert, you were actually 6,002, but I like the way you phrased your question (praised my work). Jim Zorn didn't come right out and say this to me, but I know for a fact that he's told Campbell he's poised to become a perennial Pro Bowl quarterback.

[GTripp0012]

Unlike Cutler though, drafting Sanchez to be QB of the F doesn't mean that Campbell isn't still going to get their best efforts for this and potentially next season.

It does mean that they think they don't have holes. Ugh.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Unlike Cutler though, drafting Sanchez to be QB of the F doesn't mean that Campbell isn't still going to get their best efforts for this and potentially next season.

It does mean that they think they don't have holes. Ugh.

Holes that the messiah (QB) will fix.

[hooskins]

I would be so pissed if I were Campbell right now especially after this whole meeting. Also if Danny started jerking off to Sanchez the end of last month then he should've told JC about it during the meeting.

Finally if I were Danny and I didn't think JC could cut it then now would be the time to draft a QB. But then this brings up the question, why draft Colt??? It doesn't matter if it is a late rounder, because there is no point of picking a guy if you truly don't believe he can contribute.

[GTripp0012]

Or the simplified version: If the front office doesn't think Jason Campbell can go out and win games against long odds (which seems to be the issue), how on God's green earth does Mark Sanchez fix that problem? Is taking a player at a dominant college program really the best way to find a guy who wins under any conditions.

Basically, if you are pushing Campbell to the side of the road, you're trying to replace him with the next Peyton Manning. I don't see how Mark Sanchez profiles as the next Manning, in anyones opinion.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Or the simplified version: If the front office doesn't think Jason Campbell can go out and win games against long odds (which seems to be the issue), how on God's green earth does Mark Sanchez fix that problem? Is taking a player at a dominant college program really the best way to find a guy who wins under any conditions.

Basically, if you are pushing Campbell to the side of the road, you're trying to replace him with the next Peyton Manning. I don't see how Mark Sanchez profiles as the next Manning, in anyones opinion.

I agree 100% on this.

From the NFL.com draft profiles:

Compares To: TRENT EDWARDS, Buffalo -- Sanchez, just beginning to come into his own after he was groomed in a pro-style offense since his prep days, might lack the game experience or incredible arm strength of Matthew Stafford, he does show a lot of moxie on the field, along with good patience and excellent timing and touch. He needs to be in a strong vertical attack, as he's best throwing downfield and does a great job of anticipating his receivers before they come out of their breaks.

Now is anyone willing to trade Campbell for Trent Edwards or more likely, if it's going to happen, trade our #1 and #3 this year for Trent Edwards?

[SmootSmack]

I like Sanchez, but I agree that he's probably no better than Campbell and maybe not even Colt (given time). If we actually draft him, then I would hope it's paired with making other moves to get other 1st and 2nd rounders to help the team in other areas. And if we get Sanchez, I wouldn't dangle Campbell along any further. But at the same time, I wouldn't want less than a 3rd for him. Which may be tough.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I like Sanchez, but I agree that he's probably no better than Campbell and maybe not even Colt (given time). If we actually draft him, then I would hope it's paired with making other moves to get other 1st and 2nd rounders to help the team in other areas. And if we get Sanchez, I wouldn't dangle Campbell along any further. But at the same time, I wouldn't want less than a 3rd for him. Which may be tough.

My eyes do see a lot of Brady Quinn in Sanchez. My head knows better.

I don't think we can afford to part with Campbell in any case. We've certainly left rebuilding mode. Who plays QB on opening day, Collins? There's no way.

There's also no way we can get Sanchez without trading up in the draft, so that would mean less picks next year as well. It's not as bad as the Cutler deal, but I think it's reinforcing the point that we really have no idea what is separating our roster from the elite teams in the NFL.

And unless the culture here changes, I don't see any way Sanchez would be remotely successful. Before we could build a half decent roster to give him a shot at the playoffs, we'll likely have blamed this current mess on Zorn, fired him, and brought in a coach who probably doesn't want to try to win with Sanchez. So basically, we've just pissed away three years, and the best value years of the Haynesworth deal.

So after spinning our wheels in place for three years and spending a ton of money, rebuilding starts.

Hmmm. Sounds like the Raiders.

Again, it doesn't have to be like this, even if Sanchez does come here, but if we're unable to diagnose the real issues, there's really nothing inherent to stop the situation from devolving into that.

[SmootSmack]

But what about the argument that "Hey look at the Steelers. They don't have a great offensive line. Yet Roeth helped make things happen. The best QBs make something out of close to nothing. Roethlisberger with no line, McNabb with no WRs..."

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

But what about the argument that "Hey look at the Steelers. They don't have a great offensive line. Yet Roeth helped make things happen. The best QBs make something out of close to nothing. Roethlisberger with no line, McNabb with no WRs..."

I mean, the last time we had a defense that could had been remotely competitive given the current offense of the Steelers was 2004.

Roethlisberger struggled mightily when his OL was decimated and he was getting pressure every play. But then, they found a group that worked, and that group stayed healthy though the playoffs and they won with it. It proves, you don't have to invest heavy in the OL to win, but it HAS to play well at the right time. Clearly, ours broke down at the wrong time.

McNabb having no receivers is predominantly a myth that dates back to the James Thrash era, I think. Their receivers are much better than ours, right now at least. In 2006 and 2007, their receivers finished top three in YAC each season, which greatly helped Donovan throw for yards and big plays (not unlike us in 2005). DeSean Jackson and Kevin Curtis will only help that.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I mean, the last time we had a defense that could had been remotely competitive given the current offense of the Steelers was 2004.

Roethlisberger struggled mightily when his OL was decimated and he was getting pressure every play. But then, they found a group that worked, and that group stayed healthy though the playoffs and they won with it. It proves, you don't have to invest heavy in the OL to win, but it HAS to play well at the right time. Clearly, ours broke down at the wrong time.

McNabb having no receivers is predominantly a myth that dates back to the James Thrash era, I think. Their receivers are much better than ours, right now at least. In 2006 and 2007, their receivers finished top three in YAC each season, which greatly helped Donovan throw for yards and big plays (not unlike us in 2005). DeSean Jackson and Kevin Curtis will only help that.

I guess I have to agree with you on that point at this exact moment but I really believe that at the end of the season Moss, Thomas and Kelly will be better than Curtis, Jackson and Baskett/Greg Lewis. If they get a Boldin or Edwards they are ahead of us too. If with what we picked last year we can't be better than the Eagles WR we are in a major world of hurt.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

I guess I have to agree with you on that point at this exact moment but I really believe that at the end of the season Moss, Thomas and Kelly will be better than Curtis, Jackson and Baskett/Greg Lewis. If they get a Boldin or Edwards they are ahead of us too. If with what we picked last year we can't be better than the Eagles WR we are in a major world of hurt.

Totally agreed. Don't worry though, Mark Sanchez will save us.

[celts32]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

But what about the argument that "Hey look at the Steelers. They don't have a great offensive line. Yet Roeth helped make things happen. The best QBs make something out of close to nothing. Roethlisberger with no line, McNabb with no WRs..."

yes yes yes! Great QB's cover up for other weaknesses on the team! It's a lot harder in the salary cap era to build a great all around team like the skins had in the 80's and get by with an average QB. In this era most of the teams have weaknesses but the teams with the top QB's are able to make up for those weaknesses.

Also the way the redskins choose to build a team under snyder with big free agent splashes surrounded by fill in types...under this strategy we are never going to have a stacked roster at every position. Basically I think we need a great QB to have any chance of winning a Super Bowl the way the redskins currently build a roster.

I just don't know if Sanchez is that great QB.