Poll: Both on the Board at #13 - Sanchez Vs. Orakpo?

[skinsdude]

Ok, I'll take that bait. :evilg:

Michael Strahan is a HOF DE. He went to Superbowls with Kerry Collins and Eli Manning. Neither of them are HOF caliber quarterbacks. Peyton Manning is a HOF caliber QB and he didn't start winning big time until Feeney came along. I'm not sure it takes a HOF quarterback to win a Superbowl these days. What about Baltimore?

So, I'm not so sure it's that clear cut about having a HOF quarterback to where you can use the term "eeeediot" on the 20%ers like me who MIGHT answer HOF Defensive End after some soul searching.

I think that his point was (or at least as I took it) is that at the end of a HOF QB or DE, take a look at their respective teams records and achievements. For example Troy Aikman, Steve Young, and eventually Peyton Manning and Tom Brady. Point is, when a QB goes to the HOF, he typically has been on some very good teams for a very long time. Not so much for the DE. Winning a super bowl can be done without a HOF QB, but it certainly is easier with one.

[Art]

...unless Sanchez turns out to be a bust.

I guess the same could be said about Orakpo, but I think there's less bust potential for him. I was never really all that impressed with Sanchez.

This is legitimate. Which player poses the lesser risk of setting your franchise back if he fails? Orakpo. That's clear. That's because QB is the overriding, dominating position on the field. It impacts all other things in a way no other position does. You can win without great QB play, but you can't win consistently without it.

[Reaganaut]

You have Reagan in your name. I expect more of you.

If you seriously do not know that an elite QB is the most important position in football, you really, really, really need to evaluate whether you've been wasting a lot of time watching something you clearly don't understand .

I'm sorry, but, there are some things that no one doubts and to doubt the undoubtable makes me worry.

You can win a Super Bowl in a number of ways. The Colts started winning when Dungy came in and Peyton was a .500 QB up to that point, with two great team years and two horrid team years. Belichick was about to be terminated and was on his way to another double-digit loss season when Tom Brady appeared.

Teams are consistently high performing with elite level QBs. Even the Eagles with McNabb and so little talent around him for some time on offense found a way to win because of his impact. A defensive end is generally considered the third or fourth most important position on the field behind QB and OT who protects the QB. Then it's either DE or CB depending on your flavor.

:doh: These expectations are CRUSHING ME!! How can I live up to them. Crisis mode...

Ok, I will just claim temporary insanity, you win.

Can we do this on cost or other factors? How much does Manning cost per season as compared to a HOF DE? Could we get a HOF DE and a HOF Cornerback for the price of a HOF QB?

[addicted]

...unless Sanchez turns out to be a bust.

I guess the same could be said about Orakpo, but I think there's less bust potential for him. I was never really all that impressed with Sanchez.

I agree that if Sanchez is a bust then the franchise is hurt more then if Orakpo is. Orakpo is the safer choice but it comes down to the teams who make choices that are riskier but potentially more rewarding vs. teams who play it safe. The goal of an NFL franchise is to win. Sometimes you have to take chances and risks to get to an elite status. Orakpo is the kind of player you take because you want to be safe. Sanchez is the type of player you take because you want to win.

[Art]

Michael Strahan. Hall of Fame Defensive End.

Brett Favre. Hall of Fame Quarterback.

Look at the success of the Giants vs. Green Bay over the past ten years. It's been spotty on both teams. So how can it be as clear cut as you are stating it? I think it's more like 60/40 in favor of a QB and that may be generous.

For 13 seasons the Packers didn't finish below .500 and only once did they finish .500. Yes, at the tail end of Brett's career when he remains a future Hall of Fame QB, but no longer a GREAT, elite QB and did need more help to succeed, the Packers had been spotty.

I'm reasonably stunned you even made this comparison. The Giants were VERY spotty, with a couple of average or below and a single pop season for some time. He had six losing seasons over the same span Favre and the Packers had none. And he had some .500s in there too. It's not even close.

[Reaganaut]

For 13 seasons the Packers didn't finish below .500 and only once did they finish .500. Yes, at the tail end of Brett's career when he remains a future Hall of Fame QB, but no longer a GREAT, elite QB and did need more help to succeed, the Packers had been spotty.

I'm reasonably stunned you even made this comparison. The Giants were VERY spotty, with a couple of average or below and a single pop season for some time. He had six losing seasons over the same span Favre and the Packers had none. And he had some .500s in there too. It's not even close.

HELP! I have got Art all over me and I don't have my Bear Pepper spray. I know. It's my fault. I provoked him.

Please, don't kill me Art. I will slink off somewhere to lick my wounds. :doh:

Ok... I will man up and save some dignity.

I would love to have a franchise QB if nothing other than to have a face to hang the team on. Having a tooth gapped (yet lovable) goofball is no substitute for Montana or Manning.

In my final defense - My guess would be from taking a poll that you'd rather have from the Buffalo Bills teams that went to the Superbowl: Bruce Smith - Hall of Fame Defensive End OVER Jim Kelly - Hall of Fame Quarterback. There will be supporters of Kelly, but my guess is Bruce Smith wins the crowd over.

I'm just saying that it isn't as clear cut as the HOF QB always winning over a DE. Jim Kelly is a great QB. Don't want to take anything away from him. But for lil ole me, I want Bruce Smith. I may be a complete idiot, but I'm an opinionated idiot which should count for something. Right?

[Peregrine]

A HOF defensive end on a bad team is still a bad team. A HOF QB on a bad team is still a bad team. When you evaluate who you are drafting, you base it on how big of an improvement you expect that player to be, and that must also be based on the team around him. If a player brings you an additional 7 points a game(as if you could figure that out), but the other player saves you 8 points a game, you take the guy who makes the bigger difference. Phillip Rivers versus Jay Cutler is not as big of a difference as Demarcus Ware vs Phillip Daniels, though you might think QB is the most important position.

I will take a widely regarded best defensive linemen/player in college, who was not expected to drop to 13, over a guy who only moved up the draft from late in the first round, based on his last game and the less meaningful stuff afterwords.

[Reaganaut]

QFT, good post Art

Brown noser.

(teasing)

[Reaganaut]

For 13 seasons the Packers didn't finish below .500 and only once did they finish .500. Yes, at the tail end of Brett's career when he remains a future Hall of Fame QB, but no longer a GREAT, elite QB and did need more help to succeed, the Packers had been spotty.

I'm reasonably stunned you even made this comparison. The Giants were VERY spotty, with a couple of average or below and a single pop season for some time. He had six losing seasons over the same span Favre and the Packers had none. And he had some .500s in there too. It's not even close.

Reggie White. I seem to remember him being on Favre's great teams. I think he played DT though on the Packers. Still... Brett had a LOT of help on the other side of the ball. If I seem to remember wasn't White the highest paid NFL Player at the time?

[Art]

Bruce Smith and Jim Kelly adds an interesting element to the conversation because you have one of the top defensive ends to EVER play the game, in Smith, against a very, very good QB, but, not one you'd have in your Top 3 at his position all time, as you would with Smith for his incredible activity against the run as well as his pass rushing and longevity.

Frankly, I'd take Bruce Smith over Kelly as well as Smith, like Reggie White or Lawrence Taylor or Jim Brown or Jerry Rice, are so outstanding as to be so impactful overall as to be the unique players at their positions all time that you'd take over almost any other player at any other position, including QB.

Thus, this negates my statement that you'd take a Hall of Fame QB over a Hall of Fame DE by adding the logic if you took the GREATEST DE of all time and merely a great QB, but not a Top 20 guy, who would you take. In that case, probably DE, or any other position you could name.

But, I'd take Montana over Smith, comparing the elites. Tom Brady over any other player in the NFL today with the only competition there being another QB in Manning. To Peregrine's point, you rarely have a Hall of Fame QB without a HoF receiver and/or runner. They breed, thus, is one the cause of the other, or is the other the cause. Would Michael Irvin be in the Hall of Fame if his QB was Trent Dilfer? Or would Dilfer?

At the end of the day, the fundamental point remains. If you could have the best QB in the game or the best ANYTHING else in the game, you know you'd take QB.

[DCDiesel44]

I like Sanchez and he's going to end up a good quarterback for New York, but Orakpo was definitely the best player available, even if Sanchez was still on the board. Not to mention DE was a much bigger need than QB.

[Hiro]

I don't really have a good feeling about Sanchez. The best QBs that have come out of college have typically had at least two years starting under their belt and stayed throughout their whole college careers before making the transition to the NFL. Sanchez has neither of these qualities, and the fact that he was a "top QB" within a weak QB class bothers me. Had Bradford or McCoy declared, I honestly believe he wouldn't have been drafted as high as he was.

While I do agree with the philosophy that QB is the most important position for a football team, I chose Orakpo because he fits what our team has really badly needed for years, he's a complete player, and he can come in and contribute right away.

[Reaganaut]

Bruce Smith and Jim Kelly adds an interesting element to the conversation because you have one of the top defensive ends to EVER play the game, in Smith, against a very, very good QB, but, not one you'd have in your Top 3 at his position all time, as you would with Smith for his incredible activity against the run as well as his pass rushing and longevity.

Frankly, I'd take Bruce Smith over Kelly as well as Smith, like Reggie White or Lawrence Taylor or Jim Brown or Jerry Rice, are so outstanding as to be so impactful overall as to be the unique players at their positions all time that you'd take over almost any other player at any other position, including QB.

Thus, this negates my statement that you'd take a Hall of Fame QB over a Hall of Fame DE by adding the logic if you took the GREATEST DE of all time and merely a great QB, but not a Top 20 guy, who would you take. In that case, probably DE, or any other position you could name.

But, I'd take Montana over Smith, comparing the elites. Tom Brady over any other player in the NFL today with the only competition there being another QB in Manning. To Peregrine's point, you rarely have a Hall of Fame QB without a HoF receiver and/or runner. They breed, thus, is one the cause of the other, or is the other the cause. Would Michael Irvin be in the Hall of Fame if his QB was Trent Dilfer? Or would Dilfer?

At the end of the day, the fundamental point remains. If you could have the best QB in the game or the best ANYTHING else in the game, you know you'd take QB.

I'm polling this in the Tailgate and there are comments that back up what you are saying about the HOF QB. I phrased the answers to make the person agree that one or the other position is more valuable. I think that you will probably win the poll with Jim Kelly based on that logic. I didn't account for the fact that Bruce played for the Skins and homerism, but my belief is that Smith is a somewhat "neutral" character here because his play declined and he got bad talk radio for the last several years. I realize he is one of the top guys against Kelly who is not, but he DID make the HOF which means he's an incredible quarterback.

Ultimately, I am not the strongest Jason Campbell or Mark Sanchez supporter and would take Orakpo based on what I think I see right now over those two guys. I was a big time Heath Schuler supporter over Trent Dilfer as were many other people in that draft. So, it goes to show that being wrong can be costly at that position as you have pointed out. I think the Skins are LOUSY at picking up quarterbacks and receivers since the last Superbowl with the exception of Trent Green, Brad Johnson, Henry Ellard and Santana Moss. I know these are draft picks on defense, but they've been doing alright on defensive high round picks with Bailey, Arrington, Taylor, Landry, Rogers, Smoot, McIintosh etc. So, it's probably better they stick to that rather than try and pick the next offensive star. We're likely not going to get Manning or Favre ever.

We are more likely to get a Warner, Collins, Delhomme, Brunell, or Romo sits to pee type when we get a shot at the trophy again. I'd take a Jim Kelly right now over Orakpo... So you got me.

The poll is running 50-50 right now with comments decidedly on the side of a Quarterback being more valuable, but with Smith being an exceptional talent. I am reading up on Kelly now, so my opinion may migrate as well. He was an OUTSTANDING quarterback.

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=287201

[HailinginSeattle]

I think we have a winner!

And I'm elated that things actually turned out that way!

[MumboSauce]

As much as I like Orakpo, it's hard to pass up a potential franchise QB at #13.

^^ how I voted, though apparently the minority in that thought...and I'm freakin' ecstatic about Orakpo.

[Reaganaut]

The way I ultimately read this poll is that Mark Sanchez is too big a risk compared to a monster defensive end like Orakpo. I think that people are gun shy after trading so much for Campbell and could still be slightly biased because of the belief that Sanchez was talked about as a trade based choice. Even correcting for the # 13 equality of the picks as I framed this, there is likely a residual negative feeling toward Sanchez. I'd give that about a 10 point residual bias against Sanchez.

Also, the Redskins have had very good luck with defensive high picks over the Dan Snyder era. Orakpo probably reminds people of the Taylor pick, in that he looks like he could be the top pick in the draft. So, people are less likely to suspect the judgement of Lord Farquaad and Prince Charming on high defensive picks. Their high offensive picks have all busted with the exception of Chris Samuels. I'd give that about a 20 point bias factor against Sanchez.

I'd also give Sanchez another 10 points because Orakpo is a lineman and we haven't drafted a D-Line guy in the first round for so long, half ES members weren't born at the time. I'm not going to get into racism, but there might be a couple points against Sanchez there which I won't account for since we are such a racially harmonic group of fans. (Seriously)

So, if you take the bias out of this we get to 60% Sanchez and 40% Orakpo which is probably about right given the strength of the position all other factors being equal.

[GibbsFactor]

I choose Orakpo but that thread in the tailgate made me rethink my choice.

[onnie007]

Had to go with Orakpo, I have this strange feeling Sanchez will not pan out...

I have a damn good feeling that Sanchez won't pan out...

Orakpo is a beast.

[Reaganaut]

I choose Orakpo but that thread in the tailgate made me rethink my choice.

Which thread in the Tailgate? The poll on Kelly vs. Smith? Is there some other thread I missed?

[fnkdctr(007)]

Had to go with Orakpo, I have this strange feeling Sanchez will not pan out...

I have a strange guess that he will but I still want orakpo because Jason"Candle " is gonna light it up for 30 tds and less than 10 picks:koolaid:

[GibbsFactor]

Which thread in the Tailgate? The poll on Kelly vs. Smith?

Yeah, all things considered, the HOF QB is not replaceable.

[Reaganaut]

Yeah, all things considered, the HOF QB is not replaceable.

I think the logic supports Art's position on this. With the new rules about QB's not getting hit late etc., perhaps the longevity of a QB is better than a DE as well. So, it's a better investment to have a long-term starter that is HOF material. The Skins are so LOUSY though at evaluating offensive talent unless it's a top five pick like Samuels that we can't trust them. If you remember they chose Pat Ramsey OVER Clinton Portis and got stuck with Betts in that draft. Then they had to pay top dollar plus a second rounder to get him from Denver when he may have been happy with Ramsey's salary here. If the Skins were in LOVE with Sanchez, then something's wrong with him.

Jim Kelly was a magnificent Quarterback. He is definitely at the level of Elway, Theisman and the other pantheon guys. The no-huddle offense... all those Superbowls.

[flock53]

Sanchez was the flavor of the month and won't be anything. We needed a DE.

Orakpo without blinking.

AGREE, fully......

[cphil006]

I think Orakpo is a risk. We don't even know what position he is.

[cphil006]

I think the logic supports Art's position on this. With the new rules about QB's not getting hit late etc., perhaps the longevity of a QB is better than a DE as well. So, it's a better investment to have a long-term starter that is HOF material. The Skins are so LOUSY though at evaluating offensive talent unless it's a top five pick like Samuels that we can't trust them. If you remember they chose Pat Ramsey OVER Clinton Portis and got stuck with Betts in that draft. Then they had to pay top dollar plus a second rounder to get him from Denver when he may have been happy with Ramsey's salary here. If the Skins were in LOVE with Sanchez, then something's wrong with him.

Jim Kelly was a magnificent Quarterback. He is definitely at the level of Elway, Theisman and the other pantheon guys. The no-huddle offense... all those Superbowls.

You are correct. The only good picks Danny and Vinny have made are obvious ones... LaVar, Samuels, Sean Taylor (Gibbs).