Cole
Huddler
Yeah, I don't understand how Sanchez has garnered so much hype...
-
Welcome to Seattle Seahawks NFL Football Forum & Community!
Seahawks Huddle is one of the largest online communities for the Seattle Seahawks. You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.
Sign Up or
Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member! Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
Do you take Sanchez at 4
- Thread starter Idahawk
- Start date
I know. They say Sanchez is like Trent Edwards and I'm not too much found of him.
Edwards is loaded at receiver now though... He'll probably start to put up some really good numbers... Especially while Lynch is suspended.
Yeah until he overthrows TO and causes WWIII. Hey though it's nice for me being a media guy in the local area 
I get to have my circus every training camp day.
I get to have my circus every training camp day.
.............NO!
Todd Mcshay is reporting we will take Sanchez if he's there...
This better be some kind of strategy to get someone to trade up or get the Rams to take him.
Todd Mcshay is reporting we will take Sanchez if he's there...
This better be some kind of strategy to get someone to trade up or get the Rams to take him.
- Thread starter
- Thread Starter
- #26
OP
Were not taking Sanchez ..this is just bait for some team that wants him to start making us a deal . Does anybody want a third string QB with the 4th pick ? I think we have two years to find a QB and that means drafting one late this year and trying him out and doing the same next year if we have to.
Re: .............NO!
Todd McShay has 0 inside information with Seattle. How did he even find that out? If Sando reported it I think it would be accurate. McShay is a college guy that's it. I love how if Curry was available we would take Sanchez... yeah right. He just wants his mock to look accurate. Show me facts Todd not speculation.
Todd McShay has 0 inside information with Seattle. How did he even find that out? If Sando reported it I think it would be accurate. McShay is a college guy that's it. I love how if Curry was available we would take Sanchez... yeah right. He just wants his mock to look accurate. Show me facts Todd not speculation.
SeaHawksHuddle
Huddler
Re: .............NO!
Word is the Redskins are pretty high on Sanchez and would like to move up to take him. I am not sure if they would pay the price to get up to #4, though. But I think Snyder is dumb enough.
Word is the Redskins are pretty high on Sanchez and would like to move up to take him. I am not sure if they would pay the price to get up to #4, though. But I think Snyder is dumb enough.
Re: .............NO!
How about their first rounder and Clinton Portis for our pick? lol
How about their first rounder and Clinton Portis for our pick?
lol
S
Seattlehawk94
Guest
Re: .............NO!
No Dirty Sanchez and NO Clinton "Skitzo" Portis....
No Dirty Sanchez and NO Clinton "Skitzo" Portis....
Re: .............NO!
"Ruskell also said the Seahawks have settled on four players they would take if available at No. 4. The team is still haggling with prioritizing that select list."
The Seahawks also said Hasselbeck "was their man" in the same article.
They traded away Peterson, so a change from Hasselbeck to another QB isn't out of the picture with Ruskell.
"Ruskell also said the Seahawks have settled on four players they would take if available at No. 4. The team is still haggling with prioritizing that select list."
The Seahawks also said Hasselbeck "was their man" in the same article.
They traded away Peterson, so a change from Hasselbeck to another QB isn't out of the picture with Ruskell.
Re: .............NO!
Sando said today the Sanchez/QB talk with Seahawks isn't as true as reports in his blog on ESPN.
Sando said today the Sanchez/QB talk with Seahawks isn't as true as reports in his blog on ESPN.
Re: .............NO!
I think the Seahawks would consider Stafford, but Sanchez isn't that great of a QB.
Aaron Curry
Best Tackle
Orakpo
Maclin/Crabtree
Stafford/Sanchez
I think the Seahawks would consider Stafford, but Sanchez isn't that great of a QB.
Aaron Curry
Best Tackle
Orakpo
Maclin/Crabtree
Stafford/Sanchez
- Messages
- 96
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Re: .............NO!
i could organise a better draft than Tim Ruskell
i could organise a better draft than Tim Ruskell
- Thread starter
- Thread Starter
- #35
OP
Re: .............NO!
why do we have two threads on the same topic BOB ?
why do we have two threads on the same topic BOB ?
What are you talking about Ida? 
lol
lol
- Thread starter
- Thread Starter
- #37
OP
my bad Bob ..I must have been seeing things LOL
First, talking Sanchez is a bad move. We already have a back-up with Wallace and last season was bad because of some weird injuries. So let's get some o-line help to shore up Matt's health and the run game.
2nd; from John Clayton himself, NO ONE trades into the top 5 of the draft. It just won't happen.
So the Seahawks have to go best available. Problem is Detroit, Lambs, and Chiefs are in similair situations.
All have a QB they will probably start the season with already. Maybe Detroit goes franchise QB, but Harrington kind of burned them, so maybe not.
I see Curry being long gone, and probably 2 top linemen as well when we get to 4. Ruskell is D first, Mora has a QB already, and it's too expensive to take these guys.
Let's say worse case scenario: we draft Orakapo or a linemen and this season goes like last year and Hasselbeck is no longer the man. We know there will be some top QB's to choose from next year (they passed up this draft class), so we could get one of them early next draft.
Thus no QB @ 4 no matter what.
2nd; from John Clayton himself, NO ONE trades into the top 5 of the draft. It just won't happen.
So the Seahawks have to go best available. Problem is Detroit, Lambs, and Chiefs are in similair situations.
All have a QB they will probably start the season with already. Maybe Detroit goes franchise QB, but Harrington kind of burned them, so maybe not.
I see Curry being long gone, and probably 2 top linemen as well when we get to 4. Ruskell is D first, Mora has a QB already, and it's too expensive to take these guys.
Let's say worse case scenario: we draft Orakapo or a linemen and this season goes like last year and Hasselbeck is no longer the man. We know there will be some top QB's to choose from next year (they passed up this draft class), so we could get one of them early next draft.
Thus no QB @ 4 no matter what.
- Thread starter
- Thread Starter
- #39
OP
I think after you go over those first 4 picks over and over in your head , The only way we don't get a OL or Curry is if the Lions don't take Stafford and instead take an OL .
If the lions pick OL so will the rams and the Chiefs will grab curry , now that would leave best QB or crabtree available to us at 4 ...we need neither but do have need at both these positions long term, I don't care what clayton says If every there was a case for a trade here it is....we don't need whats available at 4 we need whats available at 20 RB , CB ect. Detroit could take OL first and then swap us there 20 for our 4 then they could take Stafford.
If the lions pick OL so will the rams and the Chiefs will grab curry , now that would leave best QB or crabtree available to us at 4 ...we need neither but do have need at both these positions long term, I don't care what clayton says If every there was a case for a trade here it is....we don't need whats available at 4 we need whats available at 20 RB , CB ect. Detroit could take OL first and then swap us there 20 for our 4 then they could take Stafford.
Idahawk said:
There's no reason to pay the number 4 pick the kind of money that we're going to have to pay them for a QB that won't play this year.
Similar threads
