Mark Sanchez at 13th?

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

However, if we accept DS and then find a way to "work around" him, then we can start making some progress.

"We" don't have any say in working with or around DS. It's his team and he'll do whatever he wants. All we can do is post on message boards or make the decision to attend/watch or not the games and buy/not buy merchandise.

This team has been in search of a franchise QB for years. If we get a franchise QB, and keep the same system for 3-4 years, then we have plenty of time to build the pieces around him. It would be nice if we had done that with JC after we drafted him but we didnt. He's damaged goods and and if we don't cut ties with him this year, we certainly will next year. Its time to move on.

The Redskins have been searching for a franchise QB since Theisman's leg was broken by LT. JC isn't damaged goods, that's ridiculous. How about we don't wait 3-4 years and compete now.

No, my statement is not wrong. yours shows that you dont remember a thing from last season.....

Round and round we go.....but you have NEVER in any thread about JC given an answer/justification as to why JC was on a Pro Bowl pace early in 2008 and then he just magically, by himself, started to suck in the second half. Anyone whose judgement on JC isn't clouded would say the OL was the problem, but you've discounted that before, so what's the answer?

Not making the move ensures the skins remain what they have been for nearly 20 years: mediocre. I don't know about you, but I'm sick of mediocre.

Not if JC continues on his current pace of improvement and his QB rating jumps another 7 points this season, then we'll certainly not be mediocre. Fix the OL and the offense will be fine. If you know anything about football it all starts there. Franchise QBs don't grow on trees and the odds of top ten picks at QB being busts is actually higher than the pick being successful. For every Peyton Manning, there are more Akili Smith / Alex Smith / J. Russells / M. Leinarts. Not a risk worth taking on a player with one good year in college.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

I was just trying to look at the positive aspect of even the worst-case scenario (Vinny being gone for good). Trading up to draft Sanchez would be a huge risk, but i think its a risk worth taking because of the potential rewards (building around a franchise QB and becoming an elite team). If Snyder drafted Sanchez, then fired zorn and brought in Gruden or Cowher in 2010, it would be a monumental failure. Snyder would need to ensure that Zorn (or if he had to make a change, Shanahan or Holmgren) kept the same (or very similar) system in place - otherwise Sanchez would just become Patrick Ramsey 3.0 (Campbell is 2.0).



I have NOTHING against Campbell. I have said over and over again that we wouldnt be having this discussion if we hadnt brought in Zorn and the WCO. Campbell would be lightyears ahead of where he is now and in a system that covered his flaws and played to his strenghts... Campbell would probably be a pro-bowler now if we had kept the Gibbs/Saunders system here... but we didnt. I am positive Campbell will never become a franchise QB in this system. So, I have a dilema - either the system goes, or Campbell does. I pick Campbell to go, if, for no other reason, than i think he might go postal on everyone at Redskins park right before his head explodes. I pick the system to stay, if for no other reason than it'll prevent all the other offensive players wont have to learn anything new this offseason either... thus furthering their development. To reiterate, i dont hate Campbell. I hate the "match" Snyderatto made last offseason. Campbell is a square peg. Zorns system is a round hole - it aint ever gonna fit.

I find it strange that you and other people point to Campbells improvement in some areas as reasons to stick with him... yet you want to give up on guys like Stephon Heyer, who have also shown steady improvement year after year... Why not have faith that Heyer will develop into a solid, if not elite, RT?

1) Does it bother you at all that you're alone in the assumption that Jason Campbell's skill set doesn't play in the WCO? You're okay assuming that your assessment is sufficient to warrant dismissal?

2) It's a legitimate question regarding Heyer, but I'm not sure I'd say we've seen steady improvement. He came into the league with good pass blocking fundamentals, and he still has no idea how to properly execute a toss play.

Ultimately though, Heyer is a different issue altogether, because Jason Campbell was a well polished first round quarterback out of college, and Stephon Heyer was a developmental tackle who went undrafted.

I'm all for playing the young guys on this team, but he has to at least prove he can be the best option first. Jason Campbell has already proven he's the best option we have right now. There's no veteran, established QB on the trading block who would be a significant upgrade over Campbell. Therefore, improving on him is a non-issue.

Again, nobody thinks that Sanchez would be an improvement over Campbell. I do think some people are suggesting we start rebuilding with a QB in this draft, and go all-young...except we just signed a 28-year old DT to an 100 million dollar contract, so, it's a little late for that.

I'll throw a question back at you: If the Redskins draft Sanchez with the 13th pick and they cut Todd Collins (and not Jason Campbell), who would you start on opening day: Campbell, Brennan, or Sanchez?

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Mosley's arguably a bigger Campbell fan than any of us here.

But yeah, it seems like what's happening is Zorn is being told "Look, we're not sure we want to make a big long-term financial commitment to Campbell. We're not convinced it's going to be money well spent (remember what I said in another post about econeomy, marketability, etc). So if we take him off the table, who's your QB?"

Zorn: "Well, I think I can make Campbell a good QB. All the other stuff I have nothing to do with. But if pressed, I like Colt but he's not ready. Give me Sanchez"

Blache: "My MLB is older than a lot of head coaches in this league (maybe one actually). And my DEs are older than that. I need help"

Jesus...

That all gets fixed once we start winning f'n games and a Superbowl. Not a lot of marketable QBs out there who haven't won a SB. Our lack of a SB has almost zero to do with JC.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Jesus...

That all gets fixed once we start winning f'n games and a Superbowl. Not a lot of marketable QBs out there who haven't won a SB. Our lack of a SB has almost zero to do with JC.

True but ESPN sure the hell tries with Romo!

[MTK]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

I find it strange that you and other people point to Campbells improvement in some areas as reasons to stick with him... yet you want to give up on guys like Stephon Heyer, who have also shown steady improvement year after year... Why not have faith that Heyer will develop into a solid, if not elite, RT?

I guess it's the same way we find it strange that you point to Heyer's improvement in some areas as reasons to stick with him... yet you want to give up on guys like Jason Campbell, who have also shown steady improvement year after year... Why not have faith that Campbell will develop into a solid, if not elite, QB?

[MTK]

Bottom line here is folks, a new QB no matter who he is isn't going to fix the other issues we have. You build a team from the inside out. Build up the lines and build a strong supporting cast and you can put a decent QB back there and get quality production and win games. Put a good QB behind a bad line with no help around him, and he's going to play to the level of the rest of the offense, simple as that.

It amazes me that some still can't see the writing on the wall. Last year through the first 8 games JC was getting the protection he needed and the rest of the offense was playing well, and what do you know JC was playing well. In the final 8 games he was under pressure and the rest of the offense crumbled around him, and surprise surprise he struggled. It doesn't get any more obvious to me what the issues were.

If we draft Sanchez I might have to take a step back from being a Skins fan for a while. That's how ticked I will be, I'll have one foot out the door.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

1) Does it bother you at all that you're alone in the assumption that Jason Campbell's skill set doesn't play in the WCO? You're okay assuming that your assessment is sufficient to warrant dismissal?

No, it doesnt, because i'm not alone. Multipe sources were sited as saying this a year ago. Every paid professional that i can recall reading questioned the move, and JCs ability to transiton. While no one on this forum seems to share my view, its a common belief in other forums i visit and amongst my friends. So really, the only place where i go that i don't find anyone beleiving this simple fact is here. It doesnt bother me at all, but i do wonder why you cant see something thats clear as day to me. I guess everyone is entitled to beleive what they want some people are convinced in a God, others are convinced the mere notion is completely idiotic. Both views can't be right, but staunch supporters of either position will never be convinced that the other side is right. I view it as a similar situation here. From my POV, you have blind faith in Campbells success in this system. In my view, all the evidence points to the contrary. Im open to every possibility, but i won't beleive it until i see it.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

2) It's a legitimate question regarding Heyer, but I'm not sure I'd say we've seen steady improvement. He came into the league with good pass blocking fundamentals, and he still has no idea how to properly execute a toss play.

Ultimately though, Heyer is a different issue altogether, because Jason Campbell was a well polished first round quarterback out of college, and Stephon Heyer was a developmental tackle who went undrafted.

I agree with what you say about Heyer vs Jason based on their starting point (Campbell-High, Heyer-Low) but for those same reasons, i feel the ceiling is lower for Campbell than it is for Heyer. Campbell clearly showed what he was capeable of, which is why he was drafted so high. With Heyer, he has much more room to improve, if that makes sense.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I'm all for playing the young guys on this team, but he has to at least prove he can be the best option first. Jason Campbell has already proven he's the best option we have right now. There's no veteran, established QB on the trading block who would be a significant upgrade over Campbell. Therefore, improving on him is a non-issue.

Excluding the draft, i dont think we could make significant improvements over either Heyer or Campbell, so improving on either of them prior to the drafu is a non-issue.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Again, nobody thinks that Sanchez would be an improvement over Campbell. I do think some people are suggesting we start rebuilding with a QB in this draft, and go all-young...except we just signed a 28-year old DT to an 100 million dollar contract, so, it's a little late for that.

"No one" on this forum seems to think Sanchez would be an upgrade over Campbell... but that doesnt mean "no one." Obviously, there arent alot of people making direct comparisons out there, but most teams have Sanchez rated as the best QB in the draft. The Lions are the only team that seems to prefer Stafford and i'm not really sure why... oh, thats right - they're the Lions. Anyway, with Campbell, we know what we're getting. He's a classy mild mannered guy who doesnt make mistakes. With Sanchez, we're getting a guy who has all the physical tools Campbell has, but with the "it" factor. He also has had the advantage of being in only one system the past 3 years.... as opposed to the 7? Campbells been in in the past 9?.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I'll throw a question back at you: If the Redskins draft Sanchez with the 13th pick and they cut Todd Collins (and not Jason Campbell), who would you start on opening day: Campbell, Brennan, or Sanchez?

Interesting you bring that up, since CP was just talking about that.
Clinton Portis Talks Sanchez in Interview with NFL Live crew - Hogs Haven

I've rambled on enough, but suffice to say, I'd be thrilled in that scenario: Let them compete for it, let them both make eachother better, and let the best man win.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

It amazes me that some still can't see the writing on the wall. Last year through the first 8 games JC was getting the protection he needed and the rest of the offense was playing well, and what do you know JC was playing well. In the final 8 games he was under pressure and the rest of the offense crumbled around him, and surprise surprise he struggled. It doesn't get any more obvious to me what the issues were.

First of all, during the first half of the season, JC wasn't doing all that great. He was still just averaging 1 TD per game. The only thing JC wasnt doing was throwing picks. I'd take a QB who throws 3 TDs and 2 INTs per game over a guy who doesnt make mistakes any day of the week - TDs = 7Points. INTs just mean you turn the ball over - they dont always result in points and probably wouldnt result in too many TDs with this defense.

Secondly, how JC fared in the 2nd half of the season says all we need to know about him - he can't handle pressure.

The O-line declined in the 2nd half of the year, but barring the game where our backup center was playing Left Tackle and blocking one of the best pass rushers in the league, it was still one of the better O-lines in the league (and by that i mean top 16). Yes, the line declined, but JC didnt adapt. He didnt step up. He didn't get rid of the ball faster and he didnt become more accurate with his short passes. JC, like alot of "good" QBs out there are only considered good because they have a GREAT supporting cast.

I guess there are two different philosophies:
1) Have a GREAT suppoting cast so you can get by with a GOOD QB, or
2) HAVE a GREAT QB so you can get by with a GOOD supporting cast.

IMO its easier to get one GREAT player than it is to get 21 others.

[cochise]

USC made Sanchez and not the other way around. He's a career back-up at best.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Every paid professional that i can recall reading questioned the move, and JCs ability to transiton.

Many did prior to the season and by game 5 or 6 were speaking about JC as playing at a Pro Bowl or potential MVP level.

I view it as a similar situation here. From my POV, you have blind faith in Campbells success in this system. In my view, all the evidence points to the contrary. Im open to every possibility, but i won't beleive it until i see it.

Here's the problem, you won't accept the evidence that supports the point that JC is getting better. QB rating improvements, etc. provided by many on this forum in response to your posts. The main reason I come to this forum is because in general the folks here make their points with more than anecdotes to back them up (and that includes you, on any other issue than JC, your posts are normally well thought out)

"No one" on this forum seems to think Sanchez would be an upgrade over Campbell... but that doesnt mean "no one." Obviously, there arent alot of people making direct comparisons out there, but most teams have Sanchez rated as the best QB in the draft.

"Many" had Ryan Leaf rated as the best QB in his draft and above Peyton Manning. Even if Sanchez is the best QB in this draft, he only has one year of starting experience at USC which is stockpiled with talent and overmatches almost every team they play against with shear talent. How can you truly evaluate him in that environment? Hell, if you put me on the field with the talent at USC I'd put up numbers.

Interesting you bring that up, since CP was just talking about that.
Clinton Portis Talks Sanchez in Interview with NFL Live*crew - Hogs Haven

Yes, and he said he believed JC would win the job. (and I generally do not cite CP as a talent evaluator)

[Dirtbag59]

So the real question is this. When we send Seattle or Kansas city this years first and next years first and draft Mr. USC will you support Sanchez?

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Bottom line here is folks, a new QB no matter who he is isn't going to fix the other issues we have. You build a team from the inside out. Build up the lines and build a strong supporting cast and you can put a decent QB back there and get quality production and win games. Put a good QB behind a bad line with no help around him, and he's going to play to the level of the rest of the offense, simple as that.

It amazes me that some still can't see the writing on the wall. Last year through the first 8 games JC was getting the protection he needed and the rest of the offense was playing well, and what do you know JC was playing well. In the final 8 games he was under pressure and the rest of the offense crumbled around him, and surprise surprise he struggled. It doesn't get any more obvious to me what the issues were.

If we draft Sanchez I might have to take a step back from being a Skins fan for a while. That's how ticked I will be, I'll have one foot out the door.

That's EXACTLY how I feel. I would never abandon the Redskins completely, but to say my interest in the coming season would wane, would be putting it mildly. It's hard to pull for an idiot. (D.S.)

[Chico23231]

Sanchez isnt that good, I never saw a game or hightlight where he impressed me (UVA game does not count). He is, for sure, not close to be ready to be under center at least for 2-3 more years in the NFL. Pete Carrol begged him to come back because he was not ready. We have been building with Jason and I feel we could be a good O-Linemen away from a serious playoff run. If Jason fails this year, there are better QBs, NFL ready QBs, coming out next year. Or who knows, Colt did show a little bit last year, maybe he will be ready to lead next year. The draft is such a crap shoot, and I will support who ever we get, but the best direction for this draft is to get a beast O-lineman and OLB.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

First of all, during the first half of the season, JC wasn't doing all that great. He was still just averaging 1 TD per game. The only thing JC wasnt doing was throwing picks. I'd take a QB who throws 3 TDs and 2 INTs per game over a guy who doesnt make mistakes any day of the week - TDs = 7Points. INTs just mean you turn the ball over - they dont always result in points and probably wouldnt result in too many TDs with this defense.

The most important stat in determining W-L in the NFL is turnover ratio. I'll take an efficient QB over a gunslinger every day of the week and twice on Sunday. As long as the offense is putting up TDs, last I checked a Rush TD was scored the same as a pass TD. INTs aren't "just" a turnover. They are a momentum swing and a potential point change of 10 to 14 points in many cases.

The O-line declined in the 2nd half of the year, but barring the game where our backup center was playing Left Tackle and blocking one of the best pass rushers in the league, it was still one of the better O-lines in the league (and by that i mean top 16).

Our OL was statistically performing in the bottom third of the league the second half of the season. Kind of hard to step into a pocket when it is collapsing in your face.

2) HAVE a GREAT QB so you can get by with a GOOD supporting cast.

Did you check out Peyton Manning's numbers early in the season while Indy was having OL issues?

IMO its easier to get one GREAT player than it is to get 21 others.

What if you miss on Sanchez and he isn't great? Then we're in a world of doo-doo as I mentioned in an earlier post.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359

So the real question is this. When we send Seattle or Kansas city this years first and next years first and draft Mr. USC will you support Sanchez?

Of course some would, but then they would bust the FO's chops for it later if he fails to produce. Please let this be a smoke screen, or even just due diligence.