Guest Diesel-USMC Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 (edited) Are you kidding? No, I'm serious. Where are we expendable with talent? Where, in 2015 or even 2016, can we afford to toss out another pick? All for a backup QB? Too expensive for us, may not be too expensive for any other team. But, a backup quarterback in Sanchez from the Eagles who, under Chip Kelly, wouldn't except a half chewed stick of gum which is really all we have to offer. We need every ounce of talent we have. It's just my opinion but its not worth it for us. Edited August 18, 2014 by ninja rooster
C.Biscuit97 Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 Haha, this place is to predictable. Does anyone realize Thad Lewis' qb rating is 10 points higher than Sanchez? I think Sanchez is basically JP Losman. Chip Kelly's system makes Qbs look good. It's easy reads and quick passes. As bad as I think Sanchez is, I'd rather have him over Tuel. I don't know what Tuel's upside is. As terrible as MS is, he's a vet and seems to have a good team attitude. And Lewis has played himself out of a job. Sad because I thought he played decent at times. But this is EJ's team. And if we're forced to play any of these backups, we screwed anyways.
CodeMonkey Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 I can see where I seemed misleading. I know it was about a backup. But why would you do that and lose another player or 2015 pick? The Eages wouldn't just take any Tom, Dick or Harry in exchange for Sanchez, I dont think. The price would be too high. As far as Thad and Tuel, last year (which isn't this year) but, last year they did enough to keep us in some. They have looked less than steller this preseason and it would be bad if EJ went down. In my own mind though, I can't justify spending anything on Sanchez. Me either. As I said earlier, I imagine his pricetag would be too high for a backup.
Guest Diesel-USMC Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 Me either. As I said earlier, I imagine his pricetag would be too high for a backup. Yeah. I think the "grass is always greener" thing is kind of hard to forget about this time of the year anyway. Makes for some conversation while we wait.
Orton's Arm Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 Can I just say: By playing in consecutive AFC championship games, Mark Sanchez has accomplished more in the last 5 years as a professional quarterback, than the entire Bills organization has accomplished (in all but 4 years) of it's entire existence. I think you missed that. Again: By playing in consecutive AFC championship games, Mark Sanchez has accomplished more in the last 5 years as a professional quarterback, than the entire Bills organization has accomplished (in all but 4 years) of it's entire existence. One more time: By playing in consecutive AFC championship games, Mark Sanchez has accomplished more in the last 5 years as a professional quarterback, than the entire Bills organization has accomplished (in all but 4 years) of it's entire existence. we have EASILY the worst qb situation in the league in buffalo, and there's not even a team that's a close second. we wanted Buddy out the door because he "hadn't addressed" the qb situation, but good god almighty, Fitz would be the day 1 starter on this team and he wouldn't even have to fight for the job. i said this in the thread at the time (below) and i stand by it. I wouldn't just trade any 1 player for him, I would trade any 2 players not named sammy watkins for Mark Sanchez: http://forums.twobil...hez-git-er-dun/ "In Buffalo: we have a top 10 defense, and couldn't make the playoffs and the story line is "when will we have a quarterback??? how can this team win without a superstar quarterback???? we're doomed!!!!" In New York: they had a top 10 quarterback, and made the conference title game in consecutive seasons, and the story line is: "that defense was SICK. that defense carried the team. Sanchez didn't matter" Can't have it both ways boys. Sanchez's story is everything that's wrong with sports these days. 20 years ago he'd still be the starter in New York, and they'd surround him with wideouts and a running back. But because he's in NYC, that piece is overlooked, and 2.5 bad seasons later he's garbage. People on this board still like FITZ for Gods sakes. How many times did Sanchez make Fitz look like a JV reject. Opening week 2012, for starters. Would cut EJ right now and sign Sanchez if I was Whaley. My god, Sanchez never had the talent we have at wideout, much less running back. That arm? Wait, I forgot "Butt fumble LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HE SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!" He has eviscerated us. On numerous occasions. IN OUR HOUSE. " > we have EASILY the worst qb situation in the league in buffalo, and there's not even a team that's a close second. I'm a little less optimistic about Manuel than some. But the above statement might be going a bit too far. There are some teams with pretty bad quarterback situations out there. > In New York: they had a top 10 quarterback . . . I'm not sure I'd use the phrase "top 10 quarterback" to describe Sanchez. Mark Sanchez's career average is 6.5 yards per attempt. Would you like to take a guess at what Trent Edwards' career average might be? At no point in his Buffalo career was Trent Edwards surrounded with an adequate offensive supporting cast. But there were times when Sanchez was put into an absolutely fantastic situation. A great OL. A very good running game to take the pressure off the passing attack. Some good receiving threats. Everything was all set up for him to succeed. Despite all that, Sanchez's best season was his rookie year, when he averaged 6.7 yards per attempt. Even in the years when his offensive supporting cast was surprisingly good, he didn't materially outperform Trent Edwards' career average. (For the record, in Trent Edwards' best season, he averaged 7.1 yards per attempt.) Mark Sanchez is definitely, definitely not any kind of answer for the Bills as a starting quarterback. It's very questionable whether he'd be a better backup than Trent Edwards would be. But if we want a Trent Edwards quality backup, why not just sign Trent Edwards? Why would we actually trade for a guy like that?
FluffHead Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 Chip Kelly's system makes Qbs look good. It's easy reads and quick passes. . Sounds like the kind of system the Bills need.
reddogblitz Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 Same plan this year as last (when Kolb went down). Ride EJ to the playoffs. If he goes down, tank with Tuel/Thad. No team in the NFL is competing for a title with a back up QB. I'm starting to think, who ephedrine cares about 2nd OR 3rd QB? They would suck with Sanchez too, so don't PAY for the guy. Let's see what shakes down from the NFL tree at cut down time. If this their plan they are even more foolish than I thought. No team in the NFL is competing for a title with a backup QB, really? 1972 El Perfecto Dolphins with Earl Moral playing most of the games. The Rams with Kurt Warner. Have you ever heard of Jeff Hostettler? The Texans won a playoff game a few years ago with TJ Yates 2000 Patsies with backup Tom Brady I'm not buying it.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 Look for Cleveland to take interest in Mark "Hot Dog" Sanchez
CodeMonkey Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 Look for Cleveland to take interest in Mark "Hot Dog" Sanchez Nah they just signed Grossman as their "veteran backup".
Guest Diesel-USMC Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 (edited) The biggest thing that confuses me is how the collective can use one set of standards to critique a quarterback not currently on the roster while simultaneously using another set of standards to critique those that are on the roster. On top of that, the use of training camp and preseason, known events that are used for other things beside a showcase of talent, as some kind of pre-regular season measuring tool to determine the outcome of the year. It's maddening and somewhat comical. I understand that, in the grand scheme of things, many will never be satisfied and the grass is apparently always greener somewhere else. However, for as much emphasis that is put on having common knowledge of the game and the strategic way a football team uses the time prior to a season, there seems to be this irrefutable lack of this presumed knowledge. Which can be attributed to losing. Losing sucks. If you think, even for a minute, that the preseason is a definitive preamble to the regular season, I feel bad for you son. I've got 99 problems but that theory is not one. If you think that the entire offensive or defensive side of the ball is utilizing every one of its sets or plays, well, thats a sad, sad thing. It doesn't matter if it has been said before in years past, the preseason is not the time for a team to show their capabilities. It is a time for coaches to assess players, assess new ideas. It is a time for new players to familiarize themselves with the NFL and audition for a roster spot. It is a time for teams to focus on the things that need work and things that need work. If you pay attention to the way the offense is run with each individual quarterback and not just the outcome, you would see a familiarity between each game and the things they are running. Add to that the consistent shuffle of players in all positions throughout the process and its easy to see that the preseason is nothing more than trials, errors and assessments. For those of you with the "we have to wait and see" attitude, I am with you. For those of you calling for "out with the old, in with the new", I challenge you to find another team that has publicly stated that the preseason is more than just a tool for the coaches and players. I'm pretty sure you will not find a team that considers the preseason the end all be all. Sure, you do see starting positions won and lost. Why? Because coaches purposefully run the plays that need to be run with certain personnel to gauge their rosters. EJ will be fine, our backups are backups for a reason and given the current circumstances with free agency and the position of this team, any price for another backup is too high. Trying to stay on topic is hard sometimes, I apologize. We do not have expendable talent in any position or the draft picks we can waste on subpar backup talent. No one is going to take a trade for our worst player for their competent backup quarterback. The free agency market for quarterbacks is "on back order". At this point, none of them are worth it. Edited August 19, 2014 by ninja rooster
Homey D. Clown Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 Eagles are willing to listen to trade talks http://www.nfl.com/n...nt-mark-sanchez Butt Fumble... this can't be a real thread.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 Nah they just signed Grossman as their "veteran backup". too damn funny!!!
Clippers of Nfl Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 Eagles are willing to listen to trade talks http://www.nfl.com/n...nt-mark-sanchez His correct nickname is Sanchize (as he was expected to be the franchise leader of jet nation) Jk.
A Dog Named Kelso Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 Whaley/Marrone will not bring anyone to camp that could challenge Manuel for the starting position. This! If they were going to do it, it would have happened already. Tuel will be the back up this year... because he hit the gym and the playbook in the off season, like a good "Student" and that is what is important to Marrone.
run dat back Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 Might as well get this out of the way now... http://m.youtube.com...h?v=Vuvz15OjCVc Never - and I mean NEVER - gets old. I guess there are worse backups out there, but I'm of the firm opinion we're not making playoffs this year, so who the #2 is doesn't mean a heck of a lot.
Fixxxer Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 The biggest thing that confuses me is how the collective can use one set of standards to critique a quarterback not currently on the roster while simultaneously using another set of standards to critique those that are on the roster. On top of that, the use of training camp and preseason, known events that are used for other things beside a showcase of talent, as some kind of pre-regular season measuring tool to determine the outcome of the year. It's maddening and somewhat comical. I understand that, in the grand scheme of things, many will never be satisfied and the grass is apparently always greener somewhere else. However, for as much emphasis that is put on having common knowledge of the game and the strategic way a football team uses the time prior to a season, there seems to be this irrefutable lack of this presumed knowledge. Which can be attributed to losing. Losing sucks. If you think, even for a minute, that the preseason is a definitive preamble to the regular season, I feel bad for you son. I've got 99 problems but that theory is not one. If you think that the entire offensive or defensive side of the ball is utilizing every one of its sets or plays, well, thats a sad, sad thing. It doesn't matter if it has been said before in years past, the preseason is not the time for a team to show their capabilities. It is a time for coaches to assess players, assess new ideas. It is a time for new players to familiarize themselves with the NFL and audition for a roster spot. It is a time for teams to focus on the things that need work and things that need work. If you pay attention to the way the offense is run with each individual quarterback and not just the outcome, you would see a familiarity between each game and the things they are running. Add to that the consistent shuffle of players in all positions throughout the process and its easy to see that the preseason is nothing more than trials, errors and assessments. For those of you with the "we have to wait and see" attitude, I am with you. For those of you calling for "out with the old, in with the new", I challenge you to find another team that has publicly stated that the preseason is more than just a tool for the coaches and players. I'm pretty sure you will not find a team that considers the preseason the end all be all. Sure, you do see starting positions won and lost. Why? Because coaches purposefully run the plays that need to be run with certain personnel to gauge their rosters. EJ will be fine, our backups are backups for a reason and given the current circumstances with free agency and the position of this team, any price for another backup is too high. Trying to stay on topic is hard sometimes, I apologize. We do not have expendable talent in any position or the draft picks we can waste on subpar backup talent. No one is going to take a trade for our worst player for their competent backup quarterback. The free agency market for quarterbacks is "on back order". At this point, none of them are worth it. +1, ninja style
26CornerBlitz Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 @CBSPhilly .@Eagles QB Mark Sanchez Feels Revived And Confident | http://cbsloc.al/1mjmy7L
Solomon Grundy Posted August 22, 2014 Posted August 22, 2014 Sanchez looking good. Made same throw to TE that EJ tried to Chandler
PromoTheRobot Posted August 22, 2014 Posted August 22, 2014 Sanchez looking good. Made same throw to TE that EJ tried to Chandler Agree, he looks pretty good tonight against PIT
reddogblitz Posted August 22, 2014 Posted August 22, 2014 Agree, he looks pretty good tonight against PIT All the QBs look good with Chip Kelly. Even the 4th string QB is 9 for 11 in pre season.
Recommended Posts