they both will be career backups, my point. I've probably attended more live football games, played at a higher level than you, and forgotten more games than you remember. So I'm confident in my football analytics. thx.
I highly doubt what you said is accurate and either way all that stuff doesn't matter when you post asinine stuff like this
You don't think Mark Sanchez will be a career back up from now until he retires? I'm responding to your opinion on my "need to watch more football". So I don't think its asinine. If you comment with outlandish statements like that I'll give it right back to you.
Mark Sanchez will be a starter by next season if not sooner(depending upon health of Foles). Kellen Clemens proved he cannot be a starter in this league, Mark proved he can and that a team can win big w/ him.
It's rather fascinating how: somehow jives with: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...-plan-target-matt-schaub-mark-sanchez-qbs-cut You know, since Schaub was Oakland's "top" target and all.
Every team "thought" Sanchez would be available but as each day passed with him still on the roster, I'm sure some doubt arose. Quite frankly, Sanchez was not good enough to wait for. That said, it still does not mean there wasn't interest. You yourself said he was mediocre. What team is going center their off-season plans for the most important position on the team around the release of a mediocre player? ALL veteran players at any position, and especially those of mediocre or less talent, would much rather be released before or at the onset of FA. By Idzik releasing him late Sanchez, who wouldn't had a lot of suitors to begin with, missed out on the "full" compliment of QB needy teams out there on the hunt for a vet. Just like the draft it only takes one team to like you. If there was one, it would have been in the group that signed their QBs before he got released.
The bolded, of course, is precisely my point. We agree there. If anyone thought Sanchez was really good, they would have made him a priority. The fact that he wasn't made a priority (as a starter, anyway) is all you need to know. It's obvious that the rest of the league viewed him as a marginal player, somewhere in the same class with guys like Matt Schaub, Josh Freeman, etc, etc. But, as I have already noted, he wasn't the first choice anywhere. The Raiders wanted (and eventually got) Schaub. Again, which team, specifically, wanted Sanchez to come in and compete to be their starter? The best evidence that I have seen so far is that he was oakland's second (at the very best) choice. And none of this changes the bottom line: If a team really wanted him, they could have had him. Heck, St Louis signed Shaun Hill (as a BACKUP) on March 26th (five days after Sanchez was released and two days before he signed with Philly). Wouldn't he have been a perfect fit there, considering he had all of his success with Schotty? I sincerely wonder what Schotty thinks of him . . . I just haven't seen any evidence, at all, that there was a market for Mark as a starting quarterback. I've only ever seen a report indicating that one team had interest in that prospect, and has been pointed out already, they wanted someone else more.
if Mark was released earlier do you think they would have waited until late March and given up picks for Schaub? so he should have signed w/ SL even thought the much better situation for him was in Philly?
Coming in for an injured player isn't really what I consider to be a "starter" in the NFL. A starter is the player that wins the job, or is brought in to be the man. Sanchez will be neither. What team is going to want to bring him in?
he will be an opening day starter next year. if he gets a chance to play this year it could be in Philly, if not he will be #1 QB FA target this offseason barring something crazy happening and another good QB being released.
Uhm, considering that Schaub was supposedly their "top" target . . . I guess? The point was (quite obviously) that they wanted Schaub first, not Sanchez. Thus, your comment that Sanchez would definitely be starting in Oakland right now if he were cut a day earlier, was not only unfounded and completely baseless speculation (there's that word again), it was actually somewhat refuted by the facts of the situation. 1) Uhm, my point (quite obviously) was that St Louis showed zero interest in him (that we have ever heard about, anyway). 2) Also, how is Philly a "much better situation for him." Doesn't he want to start? How does he have a better chance at starting in Philly (over Foles) than he does in St. Louis (a team without a legit franchise quarterback)? The Eagles are currently a better team (with an awesome offensive coach), but St. Louis has a much more fluid qb situation, and is equipped with an OC who Sanchez had his most success with. They seem like a pretty good fit to me. Except, of course, there is no evidence they ever wanted Sanchez.
How confident are you in this? Because I have heard a lot of outlandish things in my lifetime, but Mark Sancehz the number 1 Free Agent QB acquisition in 2015, might be the second only to 9/11 being an inside job. Seriously, I want a friendly wager on this: If thats the case I will leave TGG board forever, and stop watching football. However, if Sanchez is a career backup (like Kellon Clemens) I think you should leave the board.
they wanted either, schaub first but if Mark is free on day 1 or even a little later they sign him rather than waste a draft pick. SL did express interest in him. If he went to SL he would have been going in as a backup to Bradford but SL doesn't have near the offensive weapons as Philly and though I like Brian he's not the offensive guru that Kelly is.
Writer Brian Costello was supposedly told (by an unnamed head coach) that "(Sanchez) would be the starter the minute he walked in the door." Assuming it was true, then I'm guessing it was either Houston or Oakland (just for the sake of argument) and going off that premise, here's the 2014 off-season timeline: March 18: Houston signs Ryan Fitzpatrick to a 2-year contract. Yet O'Brien waits until June 17th to name Fitzpatrick the starter. March 21: Oakland trades a 6th round pick for Schaub. Yet Oakland also uses an early 2nd round pick (#39 overall) to select David Carr. March 21: Jets release Mark Sanchez. March 29: Eagles sign Mark Sanchez. Considering the timing of both the signings and releases as well as the draft picks involved in the Schaub trade and the Carr draft, then match that against the supposed "he'd be the starter the minute he walked in the door" statement, I'm left wondering: O'Brien?...Allen?....Kelly?... If you're talking about a slam-dunk starter "the minute he walked in the door" then why would Mark be sitting there for a week when Fitz wasn't named a starter in Houston until 3 months later and as far as Oakland was concerned, the draft was still a month and a half away (while only using a 6th rounder to nab Schaub)? It seems that if that 'unnamed' coach really wanted Mark, that said coach could've had him, that is, both Houston and/or Oakland hadn't irrevocably burned their bridges altogether prior to the Eagles signing Mark 8 days afterwards. jm2cents.
if you lose and leave the board it doesn't affect anyone, if I lose and leave it's a huge loss for the board. That is a silly bet. I am supremely confident Mark will be signed as a starter in FA. The only way he wouldn't is if he loves it in Philly and doesn't like the options to start elsewhere but I doubt that happens though he does love Philly.
Your analysis of Mark Sanchez is maddening. Absolutely maddening, this board would be better off without your retrograde thinking of NFL starting QB's.
This is what's known as baseless speculation. You have no factual basis for stating that they would have signed Sanchez outright. Again, Schaub was supposedly their "top" target, not Mark. (The fact that they ended up using a draft pick on Schaub could simply indicate that they really wanted him) Did they ever offer him a contract? Yeah, but Bradford: A) Has major issues staying healthy, and B) Has been mediocre for years now. Mark would have a significantly better chance at playing in St. Louis than in Philly. The only chance he has at playing in Philly is if Foles gets hurt. This is always possible, but again, Bradford gets hurt almost every year. There is just no way that Philly is a better situation for Mark than St. Louis would have been. In Philly, he is designated as a backup. In St. Louis, with a good camp, he could have been starting.
Once you've signed another vet of borderline the same stature, you've essentially burned your bridge. Fitz, Schaub and Sanchez would not want to be on the same roster as all 3 at this point probably have just one more shot at being starters before getting pigeon holed as quality back-ups. Mark at least still has a little bit of upside left.
