QB Possibilities (players already in the NFL)

ROFL

You're really feeling comfortable getting into an arguement with a "he took 11 sacks" on your hands... while defending SANCHEZ... really?

That's some impressive judgement, right there.

And so I'd have to assume you disagree with the formula 11 sacks > 4 turnovers then?

 

There's an overriding message here. It's that our offense sucked and the QB was only one piece of it. The OL sucked. The running game sucked. The receivers were the worst I have ever seen and the QBs sucked. It wasn't just one person.

 

Any sane person would. 11 sacks, creates worse field position.

The point is part of the argument the Nacho haters make is poor decision making. 11sacks, is the inability to make any decision. Far worse.

 

Wait a second Hobbes,

wasn't McElroy throwing to Reuland, Gates, and Hilliard? Explain to me how he could look good doing that :beer:

McElroy was a 7th round pick who played his first game ever. He was late/unsure on some reads and some reads he made the right move which was to tuck it and take the sack. In the flow of the game, I'd rather Sanchez never turned it over agaisnt TEN and taken sacks instead of his 4 picks. IT depends on a game scenario.

 

You are wasting your time trying to have a rational discussion with him.

 

So, if the Eagles really do bring in someone else more in Vick's mold as his backup, perhaps Foles would be obtainable. I would go for that.

 

I completely agree that the overall offense was anything but impressive.
Which should be equally accounted for, in the 11 sacks on McElroy.
But there's also a lot of incidents (which gradually got worse as the season went along) that's solely on Sanchez; missed easy throws, forced interceptions, buttfumbles, etc.

Any sane person would?
You can still win games when being sacked 11 times.
When causing 4-5 turnovers?
Not so much.
I bet you would get this very answer from a lot of the - clearly not very sane - coaches in the NFL.

Being sacked can be a very conscious decision, and Sanchez if anyone should welcome that thought.
Taking sacks and protect the football, instead of forcing passes?
Far better.

 

Throwing the ball away - best of all. Sanchez has turned into a victim back there because he can't make the decision to throw the ball away.

 

Absolutely.
I was just choosing between the two options discussed.
Never understood why Sanchez has been so reluctant to just throw it away, especially those times when he's on the run and cleared of intentional grounding - even then he rather forces it.
Feels like he considers it some sort of weakness/sign of defeat.

- But... but, Hobbes said...

 

I agree to a point.and all of those points are accurate, but then you are left with the fact that there is a reason Sanchez was a number five pick, and GMac was a 7th rounder.

 

How can a player's draft number be a 'fact' in relation to that player's ability, when all the draft does is provide an estimation of what he -might- become?

There's a LOT of better players better than Sanchez whose draft number was way lower.

You got some weird logic running, just to defy Sanchez actual performance - his draft number is irrelevant. Just ask Brady or JaMarcus Russell.

 

McElroy's problem was two-fold in that game. His WR's didn't get good separation and he doesn't have the physical talent to throw the ball down the field accurately. Taking a sack is in fact a decision, and it's a rational one at times. Sanchez would have been much better taking a sack in the Arizona game than to throw the ball off his back foot late over the middle.

Mark does make some pretty bad decisions, and his accuracy can be poor. In his defense, it's not like he had a whole lot of talent around him either.

 

McElroy in his eleven sacks still managed to score more points in his first start than Sanchez did in SEVEN starts. We had seven games in which we failed to score 17 points....

Absolutely unbelievable. And you still want to defend that shit, Hobbes?

 

Can't defend. But you can't put it all on the QB, when a HOF coach (Westhoff) pointed the finger directly at the OC.

And FWiW, you can't totally excuse the poor play, but you haters refuse to acknowledge the contexts of coaching, and surrounding talent.

My position, is this is the first chance you are going to get to evaluate what you have,
Schotty was shit, and Sparano, sadly turned out to be not much different.

Let's go back to the Pre Sanchez days...who was the OC that routinely called for Ole Noodle Arm to throw 15 yard out routes, no matter how many went for six the other way.

Or who took an injured Favre into Seattle on a snowy day against an undersized defense, and tried to work thru the air, when you had a top tier running game...


Yes, is been all Sanchez.

 

I can put 95% of our offensive woes on our quarterback when he threw games away. Our schedule was set up to have 10 or 11 wins. We ended up 6-10.

There were some losses that the entire team shit the bed. But, there were other losses in which the quarterback played average...AVERAGE...we would have won the games.

Seattle. Houston. New England. Tennessee. We would have won all of them had Sanchez decided to actually earn his money instead of being a whiny idiot with his red zone interceptions and game ending turnovers.

 

And the dropped pass by Hill, in the NE game? Was that his fault?

 

It is of course possible that Shotty sucked, Sporano sucked, and Sanchez sucks.

 

Foles would probably come cheap and knows the system. He looked better than Nacho last year too.

 

Kind of glad to see Tarvaris Jackson off the table. He'd be an acceptable place-holder at QB but nothing more than that. I'd rather have the Jets sign somebody with a bit more upside or take a 2nd round QB to groom behind Sanchez.