Jeff Fisher admits Rams have interest in Mark Sanchez

Getty Images

Because of Sam Bradford’s injury and the presence of offensive coordinator Brian Schottenheimer, the Rams were among the early list of possibilities for former Jets quarterback Mark Sanchez.

And now, coach Jeff Fisher confirms that interest is real.

“I’d say that there is interest. I can’t say how much. But there certainly would be interest,” Fisher told Jim Corbett of USA Today. “I don’t have a backup with experience on the roster right now.”

Bradford is five months out from his torn ACL, and could still be ready for the start of the regular season. But the Rams only have Austin Davis behind him, after losing Kellen Clemens to the Chargers in free agency.

And it’s worth pointing out that Sanchez’s most effective years were with Schottenheimer, who was calling plays for the Jets when Sanchez was at the wheel for back-to-back AFC Championship Game runs (which included four road playoff wins).

“Brian had a good relationship with Mark,” Fisher said. “He’s just learning. He’s been to the AFC Championship game a couple of times, so he’s been there.”

The Rams have insisted they’re committed to Bradford, but having a better grade of backup would be wise also, as they enter a year with increased pressure to win.

33 responses to “Jeff Fisher admits Rams have interest in Mark Sanchez

  1. Of course they have an interest. Typical NFL hackneyed old boy network guy Fisher.

    Lets put Schott and Sanch back together because they were soo dynamic together in NY.

  2. I’m having a PTSD relapse just thinking about another one of those “Run for 2 yard, Sanchez throws incomplete on slant, Sanchez throws for 4 yards on slant”-drives Sanchez and Schottenheimer so masterfully put together every weekend.

  3. Perfect landing spot for Sanchez, they should give him a chance to compete for starting job.

  4. If there’s increased pressure to win….then….you know…maybe you’d want to fill a hole or two with a nice free agent (not named Sanchez)???

  5. In the end,.the Rams will look like fools. All those picks from the rg3 trade, and never got better. 4th in division coming again

  6. Makes sense unless Sanchez wants to go to a place where he gets a chance to compete for the starting job. He won’t get that chance with Sam Bradford on the roster.

  7. With no experienced backup to Bradford, why wouldn’t you be interested in a veteran QB who had his best seasons with your current OC? And with Bradford not neccessarily a ‘lock’ to be their long-term starter at this point, that makes it doubly understandable, especially at the right price.

  8. Only if Rex also becomes HC of the Rams. Still refuse to believe this epic tandem has been broken up for the coming season. You can’t make me live in a world without weekly buttfumble potential, I won’t do it!

  9. The Rams are all ready better than they were before the RG3 trade- not to mention RG3 wouldn’t have lasted 4 games playing in the NFC West against the defenses in the division. If you can’t see the Rams are in a better spot now, then you have no idea what you’re talking about.

    I had a bad feeling Fisher was the unknown coach mentioned in the article that stated a coach said Mark could be the starter from day 1. It’s too easy to connect the dots for Sanchez to end up on the Rams. Keep in mind Kellen Clemens started most of the games last year, I’d say Sanchez is an improvement over Clemens at least.

  10. Sanchez > Bradford, Now that puts him at about 30 in the NFL. You of course have his former team with their passel of horrible QBs such as Vick.

  11. Those who think Sanchez is an upgrade over Bradford are poorly informed or not watching the games. Bradford is no Wilson, but he is in the top 20 QBs. Sanchez is not close.
    The Rams are significantly improved since the RG3 trade and Fisher took over. The Rams were a dysfunctional, toxic franchise with terrible, aging talent. They are now competitive in the NFL, but the other teams in their conference are vastly more talented at this time. Hence their fourth place finish. (probably this year too)
    Sanchez is high risk, low reward given the amount of money he will demand. Backups QB’s are getting up to 4 million/year. If Sanchez signs for the minimum or close to it, the Rams may be interested, although it makes little sense unless they feel this is their year. (I doubt it). Why get a veteran QB unless you need one to help carry you to the playoffs? Rams thought 2014 was their breakout year. It won’t be in the NFC West. Perhaps in any other division they would be playoff ready.
    Rams need a good draft and the other teams in the West to come back down due to cap, age, injury, bad fortune. Sanchez is not the answer.

  12. this was the team I thought of when I read that comment about Sanchez being the starter for their team. Rams make sense in that regard. still don’t think he should be starting anywhere though.

  13. Let’s see, the 49’ers chose Blaine Gabbert as their backup and the Rams are leaning to Sanchez?

    While the edge on those backups clearly goes to the Rams, that entire division is extremely weak when it comes to backup QBs.

  14. Bradford and Sanchez have basically the same skill set – neither throws downfield, both are experts on the 3-yard checkdown. Sanchez would fit in perfectly.

  15. tennesseeoilers says:Mar 24, 2014 11:06 AM

    Let’s see, the 49′ers chose Blaine Gabbert as their backup and the Rams are leaning to Sanchez?

    While the edge on those backups clearly goes to the Rams, that entire division is extremely weak when it comes to backup QBs.

    Yes, because teams are judged solely on their back-up qb situation. Last time I checked that “entire division” had 1 team miss the playoffs even with 10 wins, the other 2 played each other in the NFC championship with 1 of them winning the Super Bowl.

  16. tennesseeoilers says:
    Mar 24, 2014 11:06 AM
    Let’s see, the 49′ers chose Blaine Gabbert as their backup and the Rams are leaning to Sanchez?

    While the edge on those backups clearly goes to the Rams, that entire division is extremely weak when it comes to backup QBs.
    When did the backup QB position dictate divisional strength?

  17. meatcarroll says:
    Mar 24, 2014 8:16 AM
    Mark Sanchez is literally better than Sam “Badd for Rams” Bradford.

    44 50
    Report comment
    Uh, since NEITHER of these QB’s have the “it” factor, we’ll need to turn to the stats…

    Career QB rating

    “Bad”ford 79.3
    Sanchez 71.7

    Career completion %

    “Bad”ford 58.6%
    Sanchez 55.1%

    Career TD’s & INT’s

    “Bad”ford 59 TD’s & 38 INT’s
    Sanchez 68 TD’s & 69 INT’s

    “Bad”ford has one of the LOWEST ALL TIME INT percentages in the history of the game…

    Look at Mark’s yr by yr QB ratings, they are 63, 75, 78, but then back down to 67.

    “Bad”ford’s QB ratings go like so: 77, 71, 83, 91

    Sanchez NEVER his the 80’s let alone the 90’s…

    Mark’s HIGHWATER mark barely beats Sam’s 3rd best QB rating…

    Hell, I’m a Bears fan and have no interest in the Rams, Bradford or Sanchez but you do not know what you’re talking about.

  18. For those of you who seem to think Sam Bradford and Mark Sanchez are remotely on the same playing field I feel sorry for your football intelligence.
    Given Bradford is healthy next season, I will guarantee all of you that he is the best QB in the NFC West.
    With a soon to be great defense led by Greg Williams and the running game of Zac Stacy, Bradford will only have to play as good as a Joe Flacco or Russell Wilson to win a Super Bowl in the next couple years.
    Yes, Wilson and Flacco are good QBs but they are game managers. Their teams do not lean on them. Bradford has more than enough skill to fill those shoes. He has had a bad go at it thus far in his career due to various reasons, but don’t sell him short just yet.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!