Mark Sanchez! (AS A BACK UP!)

chitownsalesmen · Post #1 » by **chitownsalesmen** » Thu Sep 19, 2013 10:29 am

If Mark Sanchez is in our budget for a back up QB I think we should pursue that option. He might not be a starter, but as a back up he could be pretty solid. If the money works would the Bears consider? Hes a few years younger then Cutler so if we resign Jay, which I hope we do then Mark could be a decent back up option who could be a decent stop gap down the line if it works out, think of him as a marginally better Kyle Orton.

blumeany · Post #2 » by **blumeany** » Thu Sep 19, 2013 11:44 am

I would honestly rather being back Rex Grossman.

Sent from my VS840 4G using Tapatalk 2

Post #3 » by **RedBulls23** » Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:46 pm

Kyle Orton was better. No to Sanchez.

chitownsalesmen · Post #4 » by **chitownsalesmen** » Thu Sep 19, 2013 9:03 pm

Red-Bulls83 wrote:Kyle Orton was better. No to Sanchez.

I think your really mistaken, MS isn't going to be a starter but by the same token hes proven a lot more then Orton, who I also wouldn't mind as a back-up.

heir_jordan22 · Post #5 » by **heir_jordan22** » Fri Sep 20, 2013 3:26 am

Sanchez would definitely be a good pickup. I would like to draft a qb also.

Post #6 » by **RedBulls23** » Fri Sep 20, 2013 4:42 am

chitownsalesmen wrote:
Red-Bulls83 wrote:Kyle Orton was better. No to Sanchez.

I think your really mistaken, MS isn't going to be a starter but by the same token hes proven a lot more then Orton, who I also wouldn't mind as a back-up.

Yeah, he's proven that he sucks more than Orton; when Orton was younger. Those Jets teams didn't win because of Sanchez...they won despite him.

Meh to him. As a back up it's what ever I guess, but he sucks big time. And if he ended up starting for us, that means we are screwed.

bearadonisdna · Post #7 » by **bearadonisdna** » Sat Sep 21, 2013 2:45 am

Mark Sanchez or Luke McCown. Easy choice.

Post #8 » by **RedBulls23** » Sat Sep 21, 2013 3:54 am

bearadonisdna wrote:Mark Sanchez or Luke McCown. Easy choice.

Crap or mega crap. In the end, it's still crap. :lol:

BR0D1E86 · Post #9 » by **BR0D1E86** » Sun Sep 22, 2013 2:24 am

bearadonisdna wrote:Mark Sanchez or Luke McCown. Easy choice.

Yeah, whichever is cheaper. If either one is playing you're in bad shape.

bearadonisdna · Post #10 » by **bearadonisdna** » Sun Sep 22, 2013 2:32 am

BR0D1E86 wrote:
bearadonisdna wrote:Mark Sanchez or Luke McCown. Easy choice.

Yeah, whichever is cheaper. If either one is playing you're in bad shape.

agreed. but cmon we would be in way worse shape having to play mccown. Right?

bearadonisdna · Post #11 » by **bearadonisdna** » Sun Sep 22, 2013 3:45 am

Honestly i would just go after freaking Tebow. And have a stipulation that he has to seperate church and football as it pertains to offical chicago bear business. And off the field he can do what he pleases. But shoot he would have more upside than Mccown. He is hated on but he saved the broncos season and even won a playoff game for them.

Yeah i can believe the Patriots have better options at QB. Ny im not gonna make excuses for him but i dont think they even wanted to play him. He might have been their 3rd stringer.

Axl Rose · Post #12 » by **Axl Rose** » Sun Sep 22, 2013 8:32 am

Dirty Sanchez is trash

patryk7754 · Post #13 » by **patryk7754** » Mon Sep 23, 2013 3:58 am

two or three years ago i think he was the most efficient red zone QB in the nfl

bearadonisdna · Post #14 » by **bearadonisdna** » Mon Sep 23, 2013 7:30 am

patryk7754 wrote:two or three years ago i think he was the most efficient red zone QB in the nfl

sanchez or tebow?

patryk7754 · Post #15 » by **patryk7754** » Mon Sep 23, 2013 12:43 pm

bearadonisdna wrote:
patryk7754 wrote:two or three years ago i think he was the most efficient red zone QB in the nfl

sanchez or tebow?

Marky mark