Mark Sanchez at 13th?

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Is it because of his lack of college experience?

I dont want to speak for Tripp but I am pretty sure the answer is. If we combined the best attributes of Brady, Manning, Montana, Elway and Marino into one uber-QB and put him behind our line we'd still win no more than 10 games because he'd be on his ass just about as much as JC was. Our problem is not QB.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by The Goat

The million dollar question for me is when and why our FO utterly lost hope in JC? It defies logic. By the 2nd half of last season, when Jason's numbers plummeted, we easily had the worst offensive line in football. This unit was an embarrassment to football...defenders shot through the line within a split second of the snap, from center to right tackle there was practically zero run-blocking w/ Rabach getting manhandled, Thomas ailing and Heyer unable to find a defender to block. It was horrible. And the WR corp was among the worst 5 in football IMO. Just pitiful. So basically Jason's had little to nothing to work w/ and evidently from this Danny and Vinny can deduce his "real" potential. It's extremely suspicious in the first place our FO/coaches never acknowledged the dismal state of the offensive line. So again i'm starving for some inside information, even a hunch, about how and when the FO came to it's current mindset about our QB situation.

I'm just gonna repost this till I get a satisfactory answer...

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Is it because of his lack of college experience?

I'm not even that worried about the low starts number in his case. Clearly, the 16/17 figure is not indicative of his true level of experience, after three seasons coming off the bench. He's been a college football player longer than either Stafford or Freeman.

With that said, nothing he's done in shirt and shorts indicates he's better than one year at a 64% completion percentage. In context of USC, that's a promising figure, but hardly worthy of high first round consideration. From a scouting perspective, I've seen plenty of stuff he just screws up under pressure. Shoddy fundamentals under pressure (not unlike Stafford).

He's very "toolzy", but he brings nothing to the table that Campbell doesn't already have, except I guess that he's 4 years younger.

My main problem with Sanchez is that he brings nothing to the table that Colt Brennan doesn't. Both guys posted really nice numbers out west, but the projection curve is much steeper on both guys than Campbell's was at Auburn.

Bottom line, if they were in the same draft, I'm taking Campbell 10/10 times. That's without seeing the promise we've seen from Jason over the last two years.

[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.

[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.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by The Goat

The million dollar question for me is when and why our FO utterly lost hope in JC? It defies logic. By the 2nd half of last season, when Jason's numbers plummeted, we easily had the worst offensive line in football. This unit was an embarrassment to football...defenders shot through the line within a split second of the snap, from center to right tackle there was practically zero run-blocking w/ Rabach getting manhandled, Thomas ailing and Heyer unable to find a defender to block. It was horrible. And the WR corp was among the worst 5 in football IMO. Just pitiful. So basically Jason's had little to nothing to work w/ and evidently from this Danny and Vinny can deduce his "real" potential. It's extremely suspicious in the first place our FO/coaches never acknowledged the dismal state of the offensive line. So again i'm starving for some inside information, even a hunch, about how and when the FO came to it's current mindset about our QB situation.

Well it's not anything unique to Snyder's M.O. that we'd allegedly gotten away from. He's flash over function, style over substance. Not to say that Sanchez is not functional nor having substance, but regardless of the side of the fence we sit on in the Campbell debate, we can all agree he's not a 'sexy' QB. He doesn't have the personality or 'Madison Avenue' presence that Snyder seems to crave and covet. If Snyder can get a player of comparable or better skills and abilities that's a bigger name, he's going to pounce. I really think he'd love to have a top 3 pick so he could make a splash with a 'franchise' QB, regardless of if he panned out or not just so he could stand next to him at the press conference and say 'I did this'.

I don't think it's purely football reasons that Snyder is ready to move on from Campbell, otherwise we would have been more actively pursuing all QB options this offseason rather than just getting in on Cutler and now seemingly infatuated with Sanchez.

His lack of football knowledge manifests in not realizing that whomever is at QB will face the same issues and challenges at the QB position if the OL isn't addressed.

[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.

[celts32]

Originally Posted by The Goat

I'm just gonna repost this till I get a satisfactory answer...

Perhaps they reviewed the coaches tapes and determined that there were to many instances where Jason did have time or receivers were open and he still did not get the ball to the right read. I don't know...I am just giving you a possible answer. We don't have the coaches tape to answer these questions for sure. And maybe it's possible that when Zorn is behind closed doors with Vinny and Danny he is not painting as bright a picture of Jasons development as he does out in the open.

[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]

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.

[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.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by celts32

And if that's true then it is the ultimate indictment on Vinny. Vinny does not have the authority or resume to stand up to Snyder and make him listen like Gibbs did. Snyder needs to have a GM or team president with a proven track record that he will listen to and respect. Snyder would not be influencing the decision over the starting QB if Gibbs, Shanahan or Holmgren were running the show. We didn't hear any of this for 4 years under Gibbs now Gibbs is gone for a year and rumors of Snyders influence are starting to creep up again and it's obviously not good if true.

From my outside point of view, I agree. I see Vinny as at least somewhat of a yes-man who will say "sure boss" to just about anything if he thinks that such agreement will keep him employed. And yes, if I am right, this is a bad thing.

[diehard]

Smoke?

[Soup's Uncle]

This is the dumbest thing the front office will ever do of they do it. I think it's all smoke screen to trade down. It better be. Trade down with the Jets and pick up a 2nd or 3rd.