The Rams and Seahawks could have drafted quarterback Mark Sanchez last year. Should they have done so?
With Sanchez in the playoffs for the Jets, the obvious answer is yes. The Rams didn't get much from first-round choice Jason Smith. Seahawks first-rounder Aaron Curry could not sustain a promising start.
Of course, Sanchez was shaky as a rookie. He finished with 12 touchdowns and 20 interceptions even though New York had a very strong ground game and defense. His team qualified for postseason in spite of those struggles. And it's not as though the Jets are winning playoff games with a dynamic passing attack.
None of that really affects the question at hand.
Teams do not draft quarterbacks with one season in mind. They draft quarterbacks to set up their franchises for the long term.
It's easy but not particularly useful to sit here after one season and say Sanchez would have been the wiser choice based on how the Jets, Rams and Seahawks fared in 2009.
Smith and Curry might still enjoy better careers than Sanchez. It's also possible Sanchez might use this postseason as a launching pad for even greater accomplishments down the line.
My thinking before the 2009 draft was that the Rams were pretty much stuck with Marc Bulger's contract for a year, making it tough to invest the No. 2 overall choice in a quarterback -- particularly with so many other obvious needs and the high-risk nature of drafting quarterbacks early. Seattle needed to consider a quarterback at No. 4, I thought, but the Seahawks also needed the player taken in that spot to make an immediate impact, the better to maximize what Matt Hasselbeck still had to offer.
That was before we knew Seattle was headed for a 5-11 season.
Give me your thoughts. This is a subject I'd like to revisit as we think about how teams should proceed in future drafts. Should the Rams and Seahawks regret passing on Sanchez? Why?