WP: RI: Skins' Interest in Sanchez Still Strong

[IbleedBnG83]

If teams were so convinced the Redskins are in love with Sanchez, wouldn't it compell them to jump ahead of the Redskins and trade with another team? Otherwise they are banking on him falling at 13 and the Skins fall out of love with him for the right deal.

If it were me, I'd look to jump ahead of the Skins reading this stuff.

That is also part of the strategy. A team that could have been looking to draft someone the 'Skins want ahead of them will trade out and Sanchez gets drafted.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

I disagree. When Flacco gets to the AFC Championship game, Dilfer wins a Super Bowl, etc. I will not agree that QBs, RBs, and WRs are what wins games or championships.

Flacco was a rookie and Dilfer was an exception. That Ravens team had arguably the greatest defense ever.

Let's look at some of the recent Super Bowl winners and their QB's:

2009 - Steelers and Roethlisberger

2008 - Giants and Manning

2007 - Colts and the better Manning

2006 - Steelers again

2005 - Pats and Brady

2004 - Pats and Brady

2003 - Bucs and Johnson (who threw 22 TD's that year and went to the Pro Bowl)

2002 - Pats Brady

2001 - Ravens and Dilfer (there is your exception)

2000 - Rams and Warner (League MVP)

1999 - Broncos and Elway

On and on.

[IbleedBnG83]

They were 15 minutes away from getting Jay Cutler, so that should tell you all you need to know. They are going to do something at QB, because they have no faith in JC nor do I. We would be better off in 2009 with JC instead of a rookie QB.

Obviously they aren't happy with JC. But Cutler is already a rising young QB. Sanchez is a rookie. I wouldn't equate acquiring Cutler with acquiring Sanchez.

Now if they were willing to trade JC for an old vet, then I would say drafting Sanchez is a strong possibility.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Yes, I agree with all of the above points. However, we can look at the colts OL as an example of the "pretty" player. Peyton Manning makes that OL look good, not the other way around. All I am saying is that we are a QB away from taking the next step. By the way, Dilfer was an example of a great defense. Again, this is just my opinion, don't profess to be an expert.

Well, Manning certainly struggles when his OL is hurt or struggles. He's not hopeless, but you can tell a difference in his play.

Like you said, we can agree to disagree. I'd rather build a team from the inside out and have our "infrastructure" set (OL and DL). Then, you can add and probably even interchange skill position players.

I know it's mentioned over and over, but the one common thread (other than Gibbs) during our 3 championships was the best OL in the league. We had 3 QBs, 3+ featured RBs, 2+ sets of WRs and we were successful due to the men up front.

[TGI Jef]

That is also part of the strategy. A team that could have been looking to draft someone the 'Skins want ahead of them will trade out and Sanchez gets drafted.

exactly - a lot of little things could be the result of this. maybe sanchez gets taken early and a team thinks they might have to trade with the Skins to get Josh Freeman even?

bottom line is that this is worth a roundtrip flight and a 2 hour meeting on Dan's money to either know if this guy is def a guy you want to trade up for, or at least make some other teams sweat and maybe offer a pick or two

[#98QBKiller]

I firmly believe that this is a smoke screen for other teams interested to move up and trade with the Redskins.

I hope so man I will not be happy if we draft Sanchez.

[Ernie5]

How about instead of shaking confidence he grows balls and turn into Brees 2? Enough of this OMG his pride will be hurt. What is he 5 years old? Dude, gets $ millions to throw to ball around. Give me a shot at it.

Agreed.

[heliKCx17]

It has to be a smokescreen. No way I can believe we'd take him.

[Voice_of_Reason]

This was written by JLC, therefor it has more chances of being mis-information than reality. Or, it could be something that Vinny is leaking just so that it's reported so that JLC looks like an idiot. Which he is.

Nobody knows anything about what any team is thinking about any player in the draft. It's more closely held secrets than the nuclear codes...

[TheLongshot]

The Redskins have maintained strong interest in USC quarterback Mark Sanchez, according to team and league sources, and are evaluating him closely as a top candidate to be selected with their 13th overall pick in the April 25-26 NFL draft.

There is a possibility that Sanchez, considered by some to be the best passer in the draft, could be gone by the time Washington picks, but the Redskins have a history of draft-day deals and parting with future picks in order to move up. The Redskins were very impressed with Sanchez's workout at USC's pro day, according to sources, and the quarterback is scheduled to visit Redskins Park this weekend.

Focusing on the "just the facts" part, what we know for sure is that they are evaluating Sanchez and they seem to like him. Course, they probably like a lot of players. I would expect any team to evaluate closely anyone on their draft board who is likely to be there at the pick. It doesn't mean that he is going to be the pick. It means that we did our due dilligence and if he ends up being the best player on the board, we can feel comfortable picking him.

I think there are those who would feel better if QB was totally eliminated from consideration, but when you aren't settled on a guy, you do have to at least consider doing the move. Personally, the only way I'd do it is either I get a great deal in a trade for Campbell or if I think Sanchez really is heads and shoulders better than anyone else at #13.

I note that JLC doesn't talk about any of the other players who have been in or how much they like those other guys. Certainly I've seen enough stories about how Washington is "in love" with this guy or that guy. I certainly don't think that they are going to trade up, particularly when they are pretty thin on draft picks.

[RedskinWill]

Well, Manning certainly struggles when his OL is hurt or struggles. He's not hopeless, but you can tell a difference in his play.

Like you said, we can agree to disagree. I'd rather build a team from the inside out and have our "infrastructure" set (OL and DL). Then, you can add and probably even interchange skill position players.

I know it's mentioned over and over, but the one common thread (other than Gibbs) during our 3 championships was the best OL in the league. We had 3 QBs, 3+ featured RBs, 2+ sets of WRs and we were successful due to the men up front.

LOL, no I agree with everything you said. But would just add that little missing piece, called the QB.

[myzhi]

Like you said, we can agree to disagree. I'd rather build a team from the inside out and have our "infrastructure" set (OL and DL). Then, you can add and probably even interchange skill position players.

I know it's mentioned over and over, but the one common thread (other than Gibbs) during our 3 championships was the best OL in the league. We had 3 QBs, 3+ featured RBs, 2+ sets of WRs and we were successful due to the men up front.

Please stop using Gibbs 1 as example. We had **** loads of good vets as reserves due to ability to spend uncap money. We could plug in players who were under performing or hurt w/o missing a beat. And, some of our reserves were better than other teams starters. Maybe, we can turn back the clock once uncap year comes.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Flacco was a rookie and Dilfer was an exception. That Ravens team had arguably the greatest defense ever.

Let's look at some of the recent Super Bowl winners and their QB's:

2009 - Steelers and Roethlisberger

2008 - Giants and Manning

2007 - Colts and the better Manning

2006 - Steelers again

2005 - Pats and Brady

2004 - Pats and Brady

2003 - Bucs and Johnson (who threw 22 TD's that year and went to the Pro Bowl)

2002 - Pats Brady

2001 - Ravens and Dilfer (there is your exception)

2000 - Rams and Warner (League MVP)

1999 - Broncos and Elway

On and on.

Good point, but I look at it differently in some cases. I'll grant you Manning's year because he was an elite QB with very little help from his defense. To me, that is the exception. The rest of your examples are great teams that are well-balanced.

2008 - Steelers (great D, great running game, Big Ben is good)

2007 - Giants (great D, great running game, Eli is above average)

2006 - Colts (Manning is awesome)

2005 - Steelers (great D, great running game, Big Ben was average in the post-season)

2004 - Pats (best-built team ever...great D, great O system, and Brady is great but this was far from the Tom Brady Show)

2003 - Pats (see above)

2002 - Bucs (great D, good running game, Johnson was average)

2001 - Pats (great D and OK offense...Brady was above average here)

2000 - Ravens (great D...period)

1999 - Rams (great O, good D, best player in the league in Faulk and an offense that even Trent Green couuld have led)

1998 - Broncos (declining Elway, great RB, good D)

1997 - Broncos (see above)

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Please stop using Gibbs 1 as example. We had **** loads of good vets as reserves due to ability to spend uncap money. We could plug in players who were under performing or hurt w/o missing a beat. And, some of our reserves were better than other teams starters. Maybe, we can turn back the clock once uncap year comes.

Why would I not use historical precedent as an example? The WHY it worked is irrelevant. We had the best OL in the league combined with average skill position players (2 HOFers) and we won 3 rings. I didn't say we could replicate that dominance, just illustrating the importance of OL play.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Good point, but I look at it differently in some cases. I'll grant you Manning's year because he was an elite QB with very little help from his defense. To me, that is the exception. The rest of your examples are great teams that are well-balanced.

2008 - Steelers (great D, great running game, Big Ben is good)

2007 - Giants (great D, great running game, Eli is above average)

2006 - Colts (Manning is awesome)

2005 - Steelers (great D, great running game, Big Ben was average in the post-season)

2004 - Pats (best-built team ever...great D, great O system, and Brady is great but this was far from the Tom Brady Show)

2003 - Pats (see above)

2002 - Bucs (great D, good running game, Johnson was average)

2001 - Pats (great D and OK offense...Brady was above average here)

2000 - Ravens (great D...period)

1999 - Rams (great O, good D, best player in the league in Faulk and an offense that even Trent Green couuld have led)

1998 - Broncos (declining Elway, great RB, good D)

1997 - Broncos (see above)

And our Washington Redskins have a top 5 D and arguably a top 5 RB. So what is missing?

And a declining Elway still threw for 22 and 27 TD's.

EDIT: FTR, my years look different because I put the year in which the Super Bowl took place.

[IbleedBnG83]

I hope so man I will not be happy if we draft Sanchez.

Neither will I. Lets just say, "something tells me" that this is a smoke screen.

[stoney26]

So there is a very real chance that Campbell will suck this year and be gone next? Then wouldn't it make sense to prepare for that chance (as it is the most important position on the team) just to be safe? Otherwise, if Campbell does bomb and we wait until NEXT year to pick one up, that's just delaying our progress by an entire year.

What if he doesnt suck??

[myzhi]

Why would I not use historical precedent as an example? The WHY it worked is irrelevant. We had the best OL in the league combined with average skill position players (2 HOFers) and we won 3 rings. I didn't say we could replicate that dominance, just illustrating the importance of OL play.

Because there's no way you can spend that amount of money today. We had veteran reserves better than other team starters. Today, those veterans would be on other teams because they can make more money than we can offer under the cap. Lets take Samuel as an example, if he performs like **** or gets hurt, under Gibbs 1, another good vet player would be plugged in. Now, what do we have?

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

What if he doesnt suck??

Then you got a Brees/Rivers situation. Which would be fine with me.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

And our Washington Redskins have a top 5 D and arguably a top 5 RB. So what is missing?

And a declining Elway still threw for 22 and 27 TD's.

EDIT: FTR, my years look different because I put the year in which the Super Bowl took place.

Oh, I knew that...I just confuse myself easily to I made it the season year, not the Super Bowl year. Sorry!

We're missing an OL and a DL. That's pretty well-known. I agree that we don't have an elite QB, but I just believe that OL and DL make a bigger difference.

If you're talking about us suddenly having a top-3 QB in the league, that's different. However, if you're just talking about choosing between a "better" QB than Campbell or fortifying the lines, I'd pick the lines.

[Skinsinparadise]

That is also part of the strategy. A team that could have been looking to draft someone the 'Skins want ahead of them will trade out and Sanchez gets drafted.

Maybe but most of the draft geeks are expecting him to go before pick 13 anyway, hard for me to believe that they are going through all this trouble looking at this guy to ensure he gets drafted before 13.

With the Skins usually where there is smoke there is fire. There aren't IMO that great at keeping leaks out. We knew for example last draft that they liked Kelly and were checking out him and other receivers.

I recall reading Carlos Rogers was the corner they liked best as opposed to Rolle and Jones, the Jason Campbell drill got leaked out early. I remember Gregg Williams gushing about Landry and how he was their guy before that draft. Chad Johnson rumors about a trade proved true, just Cincy turned it down. Some of us discounted the Haynsworth rumor, then it happened, etc. And of course the whole Jay Cutler deal.

Subterfuge doesn't seem to be their thing.

[mnb123]

Good point, but I look at it differently in some cases. I'll grant you Manning's year because he was an elite QB with very little help from his defense. To me, that is the exception. The rest of your examples are great teams that are well-balanced.

2008 - Steelers (great D, great running game, Big Ben is good)

2007 - Giants (great D, great running game, Eli is above average)

2006 - Colts (Manning is awesome)

2005 - Steelers (great D, great running game, Big Ben was average in the post-season)

2004 - Pats (best-built team ever...great D, great O system, and Brady is great but this was far from the Tom Brady Show)

2003 - Pats (see above)

2002 - Bucs (great D, good running game, Johnson was average)

2001 - Pats (great D and OK offense...Brady was above average here)

2000 - Ravens (great D...period)

1999 - Rams (great O, good D, best player in the league in Faulk and an offense that even Trent Green couuld have led)

1998 - Broncos (declining Elway, great RB, good D)

1997 - Broncos (see above)

I dont see the point you are trying to make. Yes, they all had well rounded teams.

But could have the Pats won all those rings without Brady? No. Would the Colts be in contention every year without Manning? No. Would the Steelers have those rings without Ben? The first one, probably, this year's, absolutely not.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Because there's no way you can spend that amount of money. We had veteran reserves better than other team starters. Today, those veterans would be on other teams because they can make more money than we can offer under the cap. Lets take Samuel as an example, if he performs like **** or gets hurt, under Gibbs 1, another good vet player would take his spot. Now, what do we have?

Again, I don't think that's relevant. I'm not arguing that we can recreate the OL from 1986 and have 9 starting-caliber players. All I'm saying is that the precedent is there (3 rings) that if you have a great OL, you can win with average QBs, RBs, and WRs. Period.

For you to dispute that because the rules of the NFL are different is a minor argument. It would be like me saying that you can't use Manning as an example of a team winning with a great QB because there isn't another Manning out there to acquire.

So, simply stated, there are examples all over the place (Denver in 1997 and 1998 for example) of great OLs leading teams to Super Bowl wins.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I dont see the point you are trying to make. Yes, they all had well rounded teams.

But could have the Pats won all those rings without Brady? No. Would the Colts be in contention every year without Manning? No. Would the Steelers have those rings without Ben? The first one, probably, this year's, absolutely not.

My point is simply that they won because they had well-rounded teams (not simply because of their QBs).

I think Cassel's play in NE's system this past year shows that maybe the Pats could have won those SBs without Brady. I completely believe the Steelers would have been just fine this past year with Leftwich running the team. The Bucs and Ravens easily could have won without Johnson and Dilfer. Again, Manning is the only exception that I can see there.

However, I don't believe those teams win if they have the QBs and don't have a well-rounded team. If this year's Steelers had Big Ben but only an OK D, they don't win the SB.

You see my point (even if you disagree)?

[bowhunter]

I don't think that there is any argument to be made that a strong O-line is a very important element in winning football games. I fully agree with that. However, there are FIVE players on an o-line, and there is only one QB. You can upgrade your team MUCH more effectively by improving the QB play than you can by improving 1/5 of the O-line. Veteran Linemen may be much easier to add to your team than starting caliber QBs. Campbell oftimes looks confused by defenses, I say that this may not be a bad move.