Early Thoughts on Sanchez

by John B on Apr 25, 2009 5:39 PM EDT

I get the excitement. I do. The tabloids will all laud the move. The fan base will be fired up. The owner will sell plenty of PSL's. This was a very sexy move, the flashiest thing the team could have done. Mark Sanchez has a dynamic personality. The team can put him on billboards. He has handled being a star in a big market. USC is basically Los Angeles' pro team.

Sanchez has a chance to be a fine quarterback. He may not own elite attributes scouts love like arm strength and height, but he does know how to read a defense and is accurate, things that actually matter. He was my favorite quarterback in a weak Draft.

Here's the thing. The Jets just took a big and unnecessary risk and gave up a lot to take it. The team cannot address anything else on the first day of the Draft. Abram Elam had the potential to become a high quality player in an attack style defense. Kenyon Coleman was a quality starter for two years. This was in exchange for a roll of the dice.

The Jets now will give Sanchez a big contract and depend on him to develop into a star. The field's most important position will go to a total unknown. Sanchez is very raw. He only started 16 games in college and was not terribly consistent. He had not mastered the speed and complexity of college defenses. Asking him to step in and start right away could be too much. Considering the investment the team just made and the current state of the position, that is probably what will happen.

The Jets took Kellen Clemens three years ago and never ended up giving him a real chance to succeed. He started eight games with no running game and one of the league's worst offensive lines. Why give him a chance? The team clearly saw something in him to take him. If Clemens did not succeed, the team would have been in the same position in a year. The team could have gone back and taken a quarterback in what will likely be a deeper quarterback class. There are quarterbacks like Sanchez available every year. How about taking Michael Crabtree, a once in five year receiver prospect, to help Clemens out? How about getting two quality players in the first two rounds to build the roster? Championship caliber teams are not built on one player alone. That is why the Jets did not give up a ton of picks for Reggie Bush. It is why most of the readers of this site were opposed to giving up Darrelle Revis, David Harris, or Leon Washington to get Jay Cutler.

This move could work out. I will be happy to eat my words in a year as many Falcons fans did a year ago with Matt Ryan. This just seems like an unnecessary risk at this point, not the course of prudence. If it fails, the franchise will have problems for the next few years.

Tweet Comment 10 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

WORTH THE RISK

WE BASICALLY GAVE UP ONLY A 2ND ROUNDER TO MOVE UP TO #5!! ELAM WOULDNT EVEN SEE THE FIELD WITH RHODES AND LEONARD AND I DISAGREE, I THINK COLEMAN HAS BEEN A BUST AFTER THEY GAVE HIM DECENT MONEY!! RATLIFF IS AT BEST A BACKUP, HIS GREAT NUMBERS LAST YEAR WERE AGAINST 3 AND 4TH STRINGERS, ALL 3 CAN BE REPLACEE THROUGH FREE AGENCY THE NEXT FEW WEEKS

by rooster1381 on Apr 25, 2009 5:43 PM EDT reply actions

Don't agree on Coleman

His job wasn’t to be an impact player. It’s been to tie up blockers, which he’s done pretty well.

Editor-In-Chief
Gang Green Nation
SB Nation's Jets Blog
http://www.ganggreennation.com

by John B on Apr 25, 2009 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions

right with ya rooster

the 3 players they gave up are nothing, 3-4 de’s arent the easiest to find (especially with so many teams switching to it) but as you said I dont think he was worth his pay…great job gang green

by Ozone on Apr 25, 2009 5:51 PM EDT reply actions

Who For RE

This pick might work out great, but who will play in the place of Coleman? Are they that confident in M. Douglas? Or are they going to try to drop Gholston back down into a three-point stance? And what about a #1 WR? Cotchery is good, but not good enough to break free in double coverage. Plus with Jones holding out, the running game seems to be in trouble too. Hopefully Tennanbaum can resolve these issues.

by jestidff72 on Apr 25, 2009 5:59 PM EDT reply actions

DE

the de situation will pan out, guys get cut after draft mini camps, plus douglas played for ryan before so i trust that he knows what he has!! tannenbaum is aggresive, ya never know, they could move back into the lower 1st like they did last year

by rooster1381 on Apr 25, 2009 6:13 PM EDT reply actions

Don't have the ammo

No early second rounder this time around to trade and move back into the first.

Editor-In-Chief
Gang Green Nation
SB Nation's Jets Blog
http://www.ganggreennation.com

by John B on Apr 25, 2009 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions

I have no problem with this trade

Browns fans think Mangini “fleeced the Jets” haha….Coleman was a ghost on the field yeah I know players that play DE in a 3-4 position are good against the run but the only reason Coleman was productive was because Jenkins was next to him….he will be ok with Shaun Rogers next to him but I don’t mind him leaving. Elam is a special teamer and Ratliff could turn into a good player but i don’t think he gets to see playing time with Anderson and Quinn in front of him. So basically the Jets only gave up a 2nd rounder for Sanchez.I’m sure T.Rex will find value in the later rounds especially in the 4th round.

by JM2789 on Apr 25, 2009 6:20 PM EDT reply actions

what was coleman's cap # going into next year...

the needed to free some space since they will be taking a hit with Sanchez’s contract…I looked on nyjetscap.com but they’ve already removed him…I believe his cap # would have been pretty high, so it makes some sense to go in that direction to free up room..true, a 3-4 de isnt designed to be a big “impact” guy but that is another reason to not overpay at the position…however, again, with so many teams switching to the 3-4 the lack of servicable players may push their price higher than it should…im interested to see how they fill this hole

by Ozone on Apr 25, 2009 6:23 PM EDT reply actions

Ozone

You bring up a great point in the cap number. In my mind they were going to release coleman at the end of the upcoming season anyway. He is not versatile enough to play in the Rex scheme. As I stated before I think T.Rex will find somebody to fill that hole. The Browns just selected Mack…so basically it was a Sanchez for Mack trade….and I’m relieved we won’t have to see Pettigrew with the Bills

by JM2789 on Apr 25, 2009 6:38 PM EDT reply actions

Trading Up A Success for J-E-T-S?

For me the key is not to draft a bust – and so with the Patriots and others collecting nearly a dozen picks, they’ll have some gems and some busts… But which is which will take time to work itself out. The Jets on the other hand went for quality over quantity – a recipe I think has worked well in the Tannenbaum era.

Not so sure about this – and fact check me if I’m wrong, but since Tannenbaum came on board in 2006 as GM, the Jets traded up in the draft only a few times. These are the players they were willing to move up for:

1.Darrelle Revis 07 (traded Carolina a 1st, 2nd and 5th for their 1st and 6th, to move from #25 to #15 and get Revis)
2. David Harris 07 (traded GB a 2nd and a 3rd and a 6th to move for their 3rd and 7th, moving up in the 2nd from #63 to #47 and get Harris)
3. Dustin Keller 08 (traded GB a 2nd and 4th for their 1st, #30 overall)

And now, they moved up for 4. Mark Sanchez and 5. Shonn Greene… (if you want to know what it cost to move up, just visit other postings on this site).

I have to think that when Tannenbaum trades up, he is chasing real talent. Revis is a Pro-Bowler, and Harris and Keller both put together impressive rookie years (Harris had 127 tackles, 5 sacks, and two forced fumbles despite only starting 9 games, and earned various all-rookie honors. In 2008, he won a starting spot replacing Vilma though a groin injury limited him to just 11 games)

This is a good sign since we only had 3 picks this year after all the dealing was done. I hope they are all as productive as their trade-up predecessors.

by NC_Scott on Apr 28, 2009 3:05 PM EDT reply actions