Times Reporter is Delusional - Thinks Drafting Sanchez Would Have Been a "Disaster"

Times reporter Jerry Brewer has towed the company line and posted a pre-emptive strike against all those who question the decision to draft OLB Aaronn Curry over USC QB Mark Sanchez. Here is the link.

I just couldn't help myself:

The reasons for taking Sanchez over Curry were myriad and obvious. For the record, I was screaming Sanchez’ name at my TV when “Timmay!” drafted Curry. This is not some revisionist position taken after the fact.

Your article was a good recitation of the company line, but it was just wrongheaded on several points.

First, the Seahawks desperately needed a new QB, not just of the future, but of the present. Hasselbeck, for all his successes, is 34 years old and as we all know has a bulging disk in his back. Now, I have known lots of people with disk problems, and none of them, not even one, has ever just "gotten better." And the idea that such an injury is going to get better while playing professional football is laughable. The simple fact is that Matt Hasselbeck is in physical decline and he's getting brittle. He was also god-awful last year aside from the injuries. He's looked a little better so far this year, but let's face it; his best years are behind him. Also, please spare me the excuses about how he didn't have any receivers or an offensive line. Go back and look at some of the games from last year. He was under no duress at all when he threw the game deciding INT against the Redskins, for instance.

Then you factor in that Seneca Wallace is the next guy in line. I have had the displeasure of watching him perform live three times now, including last weekend at that piss-pot known as Candlestick Park. He misses wide open guys, is slow on the reads he does make, is frequently inaccurate - which turns potentially big plays into short gains - and even when he does see an open receiver, he doesn't have the arm strength to get the ball there before the defenders can close on (and decapitate) the poor unfortunate soul who is going up for the fluttering ball he has thrown them. Ask T-Ho about that one.

The simple fact is that the Seahawks were deluding themselves into thinking that they didn’t need to upgrade at QB. Hasselbeck is fading, and they have no one ready to step in and replace him.

Second, there was no desperate need for an OLB on this team. They had Peterson and Hill last year, and they won 4 games. Even if Curry is as good as Peterson was last year, will that really help this team win many games? Not as many as Sanchez would have, this year and into the future. They could have taken an OLB or even two on the second day and been fine. They might even have been fine if they hadn't taken a LB at all. Add in how much the team spent on Curry - $34 million guaranteed - and this has the makings of another Tim Ruskell Cluster-Hutch. To justify that amount of money, a player had better be an immediate star, and Curry clearly is not. He may be a good player someday, but by this point Demarcus Ware and Shawne Merriman were already showing signs of greatness, and Curry isn't even the best LB on the team yet.
And lets’ say just for laughs that Curry actually becomes as good a player as Ware is right now. How many wins will that actually translate to over the years? Who has more to do with affecting the outcome of an NFL game, the Pro Bowl quarterback or the Pro Bowl linebacker? Ask any GM in the league (except Tim Ruskell) which they’d rather have in 2 years time and which one would help their team win more games over that period.

Never mind, I already know the answer to that one…

Third, there is Mark Sanchez himself. He has all the physical tools, makes all the throws, and would be a perfect fit for this offense. Yes he did only have 16 college starts, but he had them for a program that is in essence an NFL program. My best friend is a good friend of Pete Carroll, and I have watched USC practice on several occasions and had a chance to talk to him about Sanchez before the draft. Not only did he rave about Sanchez’ skills, smarts and leadership, he gave him an unqualified endorsement as a person and as a competitor. You are seeing all of that come together now in New York and sadly, not in Seattle. Last weekend in the 4th quarter, it was not Tom Brady who took over the game and led his team to victory, it was Mark Sanchez. And please spare me the “running game” argument. He made some huge throws on 3rd downs to lead his team to victory. The bottom line is that Sanchez has everything you want in a young QB physically and all the intangibles to be one of the greats. And there were lots of people who saw that before the draft.
Just not Tim Ruskell.

Fourth, whether Matt Hasselbeck starts 14 games this year (as you hope) or less than 10 (as I predict), the Seahawks will soon have to face the reality that they need a new QB. Unfortunately, they will be picking from among guys like Colt McCoy and Tim Tebow, and they do not hold a candle to Sanchez. The gap will only become more obvious as time goes by. On top of that, the simple reality is that it will always cost you more (in terms of bonus money and draft picks) to fill a need next year than it does this year. No matter where the Seahawks end up picking, let’s say the 15th pick, it will cost them a ton of picks to go up and get a guy who will not even be as good a prospect as Sanchez was this year. Add to that the fact that every team will know the Seahawks are desperate for a QB, and the price will become astronomical. Had they simply taken the guy who was right in front of them this year, they would have no such worries. The best time to draft a young QB is when you don’t “need” one. Ask the Packers.

As to your point that drafting Sanchez would have somehow undermined Hasselbeck in the eyes of the team, my response is… so what? The players don’t run the team, they are the employees, period. I think, sadly, that you are suffering from the same delusion many Seahawks fans are suffering from; namely that this is a “playoff caliber” team. The fact is they were nowhere close to that last year, injuries aside. They haven’t added a real star to the roster since Lofa Tatupu in 2005. They don’t have a star runner, and their best offensive player is a tight end. Most of Ruskell’s first round picks have played like 3rd rounders at best. Their offensive foundation is crumbling, starting with Hasselbeck’s back and Jones’ knee. And they won four games last year. So how exactly would blowing up the roster and starting over with younger, better players have been a “disaster?” Would it have been a bigger disaster than the season I predict we’re about to endure? No. And the only difference would be that the Seahawks would be one year into rebuilding with some potential young stars on the roster. Instead, next year they’ll just be an old and desperate team with no quarterback.

Teams that get sentimental about replacing their declining veterans end up at the bottom of the heap for a long time, a future if fear will be Tim Ruskell’s legacy in Seattle. New England does things the right way. I have no doubt that if Tom Brady was 34 instead of 30 and the Patriots had the chance to take Sanchez, they would have done it and traded Brady. That’s the way you should do business, putting the good of the team above all else, sentiment or not. Both Walter Jones and Hasselbeck are near the end of the road, and the Seahawks could and should have drafted their replacements this year. It’s as simple as that.

So given all my criticism, what would I have done on draft day had I been the GM? Taken Sanchez, obviously, as I said at the time. I don’t agree the team needed an OLB but if the coaches did I would have taken Rey Maulauga at #37. I would still have made the trades for Max Unger and Deon Butler – 2 guys I loved at the time, BTW. And if I could have gotten Minnesota’s 2nd rounder for Hasselbeck I would have done that deal in a flash and taken Phil Loadholt or William Beatty at #54. My preference would have been Beatty, because he’s more athletic and a good fit for the new zone blocking scheme. I would have signed Rex Grossman to come in and compete with Wallace until Sanchez was ready to start, which would have been this year, not 2 years from now. This would have allowed me to move Wallace to KR\WR\Wildcat\Slash and actually get some use out of him instead of pretending he’s ever going to be a real NFL QB.

So far from your assessment that drafting Sanchez over Curry would have been a “disaster” for the Seahawks, the reality is it would have been the right – and smart – thing to do, and it would have opened up a whole series of other moves that would strengthen the team for the long haul. Your whole premise is based on the idea (or, as I said, delusion) that the Seahawks were serious contenders coming into this season. Because they fooled themselves into believing that, I expect it will now take 2-3 years longer than it would have to get back into contention.

Mark my words; the Seahawks, and their fans, will rightfully rue the day they passed on Mark Sanchez to take an above average outside linebacker.

If Aaron Curry even gets to that level.

Mike Bara