Laying on Mark Sanchez

by abender20 on Apr 2, 2009 6:53 AM PDT in Seahawks News & Rumors

If you ignore the Twitter comment that reeks of failed attempt to appeal to people under 30, the LA Times says that the Seahawks have been keeping close tabs (notice the spelling, it's important) on Mark Sanchez.

* Don't be surprised if Sanchez goes fourth to Seattle. Half of the Seahawks' front office is in town.

* Sanchez was scheduled to meet Tuesday night with Seattle and Jacksonville brass, with Jags picking up dinner tab.

This could mean any number of things, really. The Hawks are clearly interested in a QB and could just be keeping their options open in case Stafford goes at 1. Maybe they like Sanchez more than Stafford. It's also possible that Seattle is evaluating Sanchez with the hopes of trading down. There's another option too:

He's irresistible, that Mark Sanchez.

Anything is possible on draft day. If only it would get here more quickly.

Tweet Comment 37 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Seahawks interested in Sanchez?

Is this another spoof article? April fools was yesterday. :)

by B.B.Finnegan on Apr 2, 2009 9:18 AM PDT reply actions

I don't see why they WOULDN"T be interested in Sanchez.

If Stafford is on peoples radar, why would Sanchez NOT be? By most accounts he has the best footwork (not fungal counts btw) by any prospect this decade.

He has a better completion % than Stafford as well, and didn’t do so from a spread offense. Thats from a Pete Carroll (NFL style) offense and against great competition.

I just think it would be silly to think Seattle wasn’t at least interested.

by iverson2169 on Apr 2, 2009 8:47 PM PDT up reply actions

*NOTE: I wasn't saying Staffords numbers are from a spread O. More a commentary on the Hawaii's and Texas Techs of the world.

by iverson2169 on Apr 2, 2009 8:48 PM PDT up reply actions

I thought this was interesting.

Trips Sanchez has already made: Detroit, San Francisco and St. Louis

I didn’t know St. Louis was interested. In my mind, the biggest possible disaster would be:
1. Stafford
2. Sanchez
3. Jason Smith

Because those are the three guys that I have come to want the most. Funny how in the midst of all our rational discussion, i get more and more irrational as we get closer to draft day. April 20th, please come sooner.

by LantermanC on Apr 2, 2009 9:25 AM PDT reply actions

April 25th/26th. Fend off insanity for another couple of days.

by abender20 on Apr 2, 2009 9:27 AM PDT up reply actions

does that mean

i can work on my abs for a couple more days before the draft? just to keep tabs on them.

On another note, the number of times ’Don’t be surprised if…" is written before the NFL draft has to be astounding. I mean, everyone tries to be clever with writing this stuff. But the thing is, every team in the top 10 is going to look at a lot of players – it’d be dump not to either be a)pretending to be interested in everyone to trade down, and b)prepared. I just want the draft to happen so I don’t have to read any more damn guessing games. “Anything is possible on draft day. If only it would get here more quickly” is exactly right.

Did the Jags pick up the tabs for the Seattle front office? Is that what the article implied?

by Jerikantilles on Apr 2, 2009 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions

Don't be surprised if I black out from reading too many draft speculation articles.

At least the Jags will be there to buy me a drink afterward.

by abender20 on Apr 2, 2009 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions

I think LantermanC was purposely using April 20th

by Built2Spill on Apr 2, 2009 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions

It's a 420 reference I think.

SSR's NFL Fun Fact: Andy Reid is the only coach in the league who uses the pass to set up the pass.

by SSreporters on Apr 2, 2009 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions

No, ABender was correct.

I for some reason thought the draft was on the 20th. C’mon people, if I don’t drink, I probably don’t smoke.

by LantermanC on Apr 2, 2009 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions

How could you afford to with all the good meth you buy?

by abender20 on Apr 2, 2009 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions

4. Josh Freeman.

There, I guess that would be a bigger disaster.

by LantermanC on Apr 2, 2009 9:26 AM PDT reply actions

Agreed.

Considering I’d rather have about 64 other prospects before him.

by Misfit74 on Apr 2, 2009 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions

God I hope not

I’d rather take Monroe and trade up in the draft next year to try and get McCoy or Bradford.

by Nick Andron on Apr 2, 2009 9:47 AM PDT reply actions

You hope we don't draft Sanchez?

I don’t know, I’ve heard a lot of ‘draft experts’ say that if he stayed in school for another year, he’d be the number one pick next year. Makes no sense to me. He’s either #1 pick material or he isn’t. Sure it would reduce some of the risk, but I don’t see how he goes from #15 pick to #1 pick if he puts up the same numbers (40 tds 10 ints roughly).

by LantermanC on Apr 2, 2009 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions

I think a lot of draft experts

are implicitly saying that he’d be the #1 pick if he had stayed in school and put up similar numbers. One of the doubts about Sanchez is how to interpret his dramatic improvement over the final 5ish games of the season: is it an indication that he’s got room to grow into a great NFL QB, or was it an irreproducible hot streak?

Seeing his performance over another college season would go a long way towards answering that, I think.

by cyberwulf on Apr 2, 2009 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions

I still think Sanchez is a better QB prospect than Matt Ryan last season.

And Freeman a better one than Flacco.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Apr 2, 2009 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions

By all means offer this up with no semblance of any evaluation.

by abender20 on Apr 2, 2009 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions

ok

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Apr 2, 2009 5:29 PM PDT up reply actions

I don't agree that Sanchez > Ryan

Ryan got knocked for the INT’s his Senior year, but IMO he was shouldering way more of the load than Sanchez had to at USC. Ryan was also doing it vs. legit compeiton with Pro-level coaching, and for multiple seasons

I’m with you on the Freeman > Flacco thought though. Flacco really surprised me last year, I was convinced he was going to be one of those good combine fueled busts. He & Freeman strike me as similar prospects – both with impressive measureables. But Freeman has the edge in that he’s been putting up decent #‘s in Div I for 3 years. I honestly don’t understand why he’s been written off as 2nd tier this year while there was so much buzz around Flacco last year.

But admittidly, I’m not a scout, and I haven’t paid that much attention … so I don’t know if Freeman has some goofy mechanics or fatal flaw that really jumps out on tape.

by jteckmann on Apr 2, 2009 7:03 PM PDT up reply actions

The thing about Flacco is that I'm virtually certain he wasn't pegged as a first round pick.

More like a mid second in the Brohm/Henne tier, which was why it was surprising that Baltimore traded up for him.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Apr 3, 2009 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions

I'd rather have Sanchez then McCoy.

NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!

by Scruffy Lefty on Apr 2, 2009 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions

why?

not disagreeing. curious.

by Jerikantilles on Apr 2, 2009 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions

Nobody wants to draft a QB with a porn name

Colt McCoy? Seriously, all he needs is Jeff Foxworthy mustache and you’ve got yourself a bonafied pornstar.

by Built2Spill on Apr 2, 2009 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions

I don't know

Mark Sanchez isn’t a bad porn name. All you need to add is a “dirty” middle or nick name.

by B.B.Finnegan on Apr 2, 2009 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions

I'd rather have Sanchez than Bradford.

But I like McCoy an awful lot. The 70% completion percentage and leading the team in rushing might have something to do with it.

by LantermanC on Apr 2, 2009 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions

And a perceived weaker (at least for Texas)

supporting cast compared to Sanchez and Bradford.

by LantermanC on Apr 2, 2009 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions

I think this is just due diligence.

Check him out, bring a lot of people to thoroughly know what’s his deal, leave options open for a trade down, etc.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Apr 2, 2009 12:36 PM PDT reply actions

Sanchez is going to be a stud i think

He has all of the skills to be a mix between a tony romo and a matt ryan, I kind of hope we get him especially if we can trade down and get a couple of extra picks.

by gohawks89 on Apr 2, 2009 1:49 PM PDT reply actions

"to be a mix between a tony romo and a matt ryan"

So he’ll be good for a 1:1 TD INT ratio despite an excellent rushing attack to take pressure off?

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Apr 2, 2009 5:31 PM PDT up reply actions

What the darn...

So yeah, this is my first post (Hi!) and I’m a little distraught at the idea of getting a QB with the #4 pick. Why would we draft Sanchez and not even put any effort towards getting Cutler? Sure, we’d have to groom Sanchez behind Hass for a year or two but why not give up our pick and Hass for a proven (I use this term loosely) player who is young? Is it the attitude? I don’t know, needed to vent…

by mrj on Apr 2, 2009 2:53 PM PDT reply actions

Cutler is a moot point now, he's on his way to the Bears.

I can’t think of anyone else who would be available and would be worth trading the #4 pick for.

by BrianL on Apr 2, 2009 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions

I realize that...

But my point is that we weren’t even in the running for him according to all the things I’ve read about the Cutler saga…

by mrj on Apr 2, 2009 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions

How do you know we didn't put forth any effort?

And maybe the Broncos didn’t want Hasselbeck for whatever reason. Who knows what happened?

by LantermanC on Apr 2, 2009 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions

I wouldn't be disappointed with Sanchez.

I just can’t help but think of Manning/Leaf when it comes to this year’s draft.

It's great to be a Florida Gator!

by Wayward Llama on Apr 2, 2009 4:51 PM PDT reply actions

I keep thinking of Manning/Rivers

Most people figured Eli would go somewhere between #1 and #4 (the Giants ended up swapping #4 to #1 to get him)… sort of where Stafford is projected now.

Most mocks had Philip Rivers going somewhere between #10 and #20… basically where Sanchez is projected now. And then the Chargers grabbed him at #4, which seemed too high, but in hindsight was probably pretty close to his value. Maybe we’ll see Sanchez make a surprise leap? (There doesn’t seem to be a third viable choice [Ben Roethlisberger] in this draft.)

Other interesting parallels to 2004:

Larry Fitzgerald (Michael Crabtree 1.0) goes third overall.
Will one of the highly-touted offensive tackles be the next Robert Gallery (drafted second)?
The first running back taken was Steven Jackson at #24…

by busplunger on Apr 3, 2009 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions