Campbell???

[SkinsJock]

Campbell will be playing for us as soon as Gibbs thinks that is best for the team and no sooner!

Fortunately for most of us Gibbs & Williams are solely concentrating on winning the game that is next on the schedule. I do not think Gibbs is thinking about anything further than that.
Any plans or thoughts about next season will be approached and considered at the appropriate time and that will be some time AFTER this season is concluded.
Campbell will be given an opportunity when Gibbs thinks he is ready AND when Gibbs thinks that is the best move for the team. IMO this will not happen just because it will be good for Cambell to get "the experience of playing in the NFL" or anything related to this sort of stupid idea.

I would be very surprised to see a Gibbs coached team not trying to win each and every time they go on the field and with no regard for anything but giving their best effort to win that game.

Thinking about next year is for losers - Gibbs is not a loser!

[Steve Spurrier III]

Campbell will be given an opportunity when Gibbs thinks he is ready AND when Gibbs thinks that is the best move for the team. IMO this will not happen just because it will be good for Cambell to get "the experience of playing in the NFL" or anything related to this sort of stupid idea.

Do you actually believe that getting young quarterbacks in-game experience is a stupid idea? You think that Carson Palmer and Eli Manning's success this season has nothing to do with the experience they gained last season?

I would be very surprised to see a Gibbs coached team not trying to win each and every time they go on the field and with no regard for anything but giving their best effort to win that game.

I just gave an example of when Joe Gibbs did not try his absolute hardest to win a game (Week 17, 1991). Suprise!

[weneedcharlesmann]

Well, if Coaches Gibbs and Williams are only thinking about the next game, and giving no thought to next year, then we're in trouble. In fact, we're doomed to be a mediocre team for a while, because bad teams think about being one hit wonders, and great teams think about building dominance....

as for thinking about next year being for losers, well, then ok, I'm a loser, Bill Belichek is a loser, Marvin Lewis is a loser, etc, etc...who cares if you make the playoffs if your team isn't good enough to win it all? The rams made it last year, and were terrible...

How is getting your qb of the future experience a stupid idea? Seems to have worked alright for the Giants and the Colts...and before anyone says that Eli was the 1st pick overall, whereas Campbell was not, let's think about what was given up for Eli--a first rounder, a third rounder, and fourth rounder. what was given up for campbell---a first rounder, a third rounder, and a fourth rounder. The trust Gibbs argument can be spun both ways---I trust that Gibbs knew what he was doing when he gave all that up, and that Campbell is going to turn into a star...so, getting him experience earlier rather than later means that perhaps we can actually come into a year, just one year, without a qb controversy, or without uncertainty at the position...but oh well, i guess that's just a stupid idea....

[SkinsJock]

Well, if Coaches Gibbs and Williams are only thinking about the next game, and giving no thought to next year, then we're in trouble. In fact, we're doomed to be a mediocre team for a while...

That is your opinion and in my opinion does not make any sense if you understand how Gibbs "works". He is working for the success of this franchise both now and in the future. I am convinced by his past success that his "way" of doing things will work here (even though things have been a little rough lately)

as for thinking about next year being for losers, well, then ok, I'm a loser,..

Dont take it too hard...as you point out, you've got company!

Bill Belichek is a loser, Marvin Lewis is a loser, etc, etc...

again, this is your opinion!!!

..who cares if you make the playoffs if your team isn't good enough to win it all?

I do! I want to be in the playoffs and have no thoughts that we're going to the SB! BUT I will tell you one little piece of information - you can't go to the Super Bowl if you are not in the playoffs!

How is getting your qb of the future experience a stupid idea?

It's my opinion that this way works sometimes for some QBs but for the most part the experience gained on the sideline is just the better way of getting these younger players ready - I think we have seen more QBs "lost" because they were "rushed" than we have seen successes! Who could tell that some Ivy League QB could do what he did last week? - this is a very inexact science and I like the way Gibbs does things and I do not think very much of those coaches who "lose" a lot of potential "stars" by ruining them too early.

---I trust that Gibbs knew what he was doing ..and that Campbell is going to turn into a star...so, getting him experience earlier rather than later means that perhaps we can actually come into a year, just one year, without a qb controversy, or without uncertainty at the position...but oh well, i guess that's just a stupid idea....

Again - you said it! You are also entitled to your opinion on how well it may work - I just do not think that Gibbs will be like that at this time (and in the next 5 weeks) with these 3 QBs. I think Gibbs will play the QB who gives him the best chance to win each week - he has done or said nothing to indicate anything else.

I also think and hope he will be here for at least 3 more years so I am confident of our continued success with this great coach. We are a better team this year primarily because of our coaches and we will continue to improve this year and while Gibbs and Williams are in charge of this team.

We shall see the proof of this very soon!

[Countertrey]

Some of you are in for some painful days ahead (unless Gibbs pulls a miracle, and actually does win 5 in a row)

Gibbs does not like to lose... ever. He will continue to play those who he feels give him the best chance of winning every game, until he has either been mathematically eliminated from contention, or he has the post-season locked up, and wants to protect his players. That's what he has always done, and, since past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, it's what he will do this year. Gibbs knows that seasons can turn around just as individual games can...

The only other way Jason Campbell gets a snap this year is if both Brunell and Ramsey go down.

Get used to it.

[Redskin in Canada]

I am glad Joe Gibbs does not read some of these threads.

[SkinsJock]

I am glad Joe Gibbs does not read some of these threads.

you got that right!

I am (as some have said) a little biased about how well we are doing (or not!). I am also not ready to give it in just yet because the other teams that are in contention are almost, if not worse than we are AND we seem to have the better schedule for the next 5 games.

I am looking fwd to Cambell as I'm sure that Gibbs wanted him for a good reason - I just feel that might not happen as soon as some think it should because Gibbs does not work like that.

[pubdog]

Campbell will be given an opportunity when Gibbs thinks he is ready AND when Gibbs thinks that is the best move for the team. IMO this will not happen just because it will be good for Cambell to get "the experience of playing in the NFL" or anything related to this sort of stupid idea.

Do you actually believe that getting young quarterbacks in-game experience is a stupid idea? You think that Carson Palmer and Eli Manning's success this season has nothing to do with the experience they gained last season?

I would be very surprised to see a Gibbs coached team not trying to win each and every time they go on the field and with no regard for anything but giving their best effort to win that game.

I just gave an example of when Joe Gibbs did not try his absolute hardest to win a game (Week 17, 1991). Suprise!

Carson Palmer and Eli Manning did not start because they needed the experience, they started because they were the best QB on the roster. Mark Brunell is the best QB on our roster not Jason Campbell. Rookie QB's start out of necessity, not to gain experience. If the Browns or the Giants had a better QB they would have played him instead. When Joe Gibbs sat his starters in 1991 he did it to achieve a goal THAT year (win the super bowl), not in preparation for the next season. Very poor example, not even a close comparison.

[SkinsJock]

Thanks pubdog and welcome to the site!

We're all a little "testy" because of the last 3 games and we all (or those that matter) are very frustrated about a lot of things that seem to be "wrong" about our team. I just prefer the B&G "glasses" version and also do not think that Gibbs will bring in Campbell just for the experience". He has always tried to play the QB he thinks gives his team the best chance to win and when he thinks that is Jason, we will see him on the field.

Right now I just want a couple of wins and for a minor miracle to happen badly for the gints & pukes! We win out and they lose to the teams they should and IMO we are in the playoffs - who knows what might happen?

[Steve Spurrier III]

Campbell will be given an opportunity when Gibbs thinks he is ready AND when Gibbs thinks that is the best move for the team. IMO this will not happen just because it will be good for Cambell to get "the experience of playing in the NFL" or anything related to this sort of stupid idea.

Do you actually believe that getting young quarterbacks in-game experience is a stupid idea? You think that Carson Palmer and Eli Manning's success this season has nothing to do with the experience they gained last season?

I would be very surprised to see a Gibbs coached team not trying to win each and every time they go on the field and with no regard for anything but giving their best effort to win that game.

I just gave an example of when Joe Gibbs did not try his absolute hardest to win a game (Week 17, 1991). Suprise!

Carson Palmer and Eli Manning did not start because they needed the experience, they started because they were the best QB on the roster. Mark Brunell is the best QB on our roster not Jason Campbell. Rookie QB's start out of necessity, not to gain experience. If the Browns or the Giants had a better QB they would have played him instead. When Joe Gibbs sat his starters in 1991 he did it to achieve a goal THAT year (win the super bowl), not in preparation for the next season. Very poor example, not even a close comparison.

That Carson Palmer and Eli Manning, respectivley, were the best quarterbacks on their own rosters is very debatable, at best. Jon Kitna had just finished a season in which he posted a 87.4 rating to go along with 3500+ yards and 26 touchdowns. The next season, Palmer posted a 77.3 rating along with 2800+ yards and 18 touchdowns. Eli Manning finished the 2004 season with a 55.4 rating and only one win in seven starts. Kurt Warner put up a 86.5 rating in nine starts - five of which were victories.

But all of that isn't even relevant. SkinsJock claimed that getting young quarterbacks playing time was a "stupid idea", and whether it was out of neccessity or not, the experience Manning and Palmer gained in 2004 has undoubtedly made them better players in 2005.

As for my example being "poor", and "not even close in comparison", I don't see the difference. In both cases, Joe Gibbs is sacrficing his teams' ability to win a single game in order to put the Redskins franchise in the best possition possible to win a Super Bowl as soon as possible. What difference does it make if the effects spread across seasons (like it might in 2005, and later 2006 or 2007), or is only applied to the same season (as in 1991)?

[Countertrey]

whether it was out of neccessity or not, the experience Manning and Palmer gained in 2004 has undoubtedly made them better players in 2005.

True, true... On the other hand, however, you have such examples as one Patrick Ramsey, who was battered around so much during his rookie break-in, that he became totaly squirrely when in the pocket. Remember the flashes of brilliance? You could contend that this experience ruined his potiential, and has resulted in his current inability to work through his progressions with confidence.

[Steve Spurrier III]

True, true... On the other hand, however, you have such examples as one Patrick Ramsey, who was battered around so much during his rookie break-in, that he became totaly squirrely when in the pocket.

Fair point - although I would hope that we could all agree that Jason Campbell would be stepping in to a far different situation than Ramsey did under the Fun n' Gun offense.

If Campbell's not ready, then he's not ready. But no matter when he finally gets on to the field, he is going to struggle. And if the Redskins get mathematically eliminated this season, Campbell getting his feet wet could go a long way in the future.

That being said, I would think that Gibbs is planning on going in to 2006 with Brunell as the starter, so I would not be suprised if we never did see Campbell. But if this team is mathematically eliminated, I wouldn't even be against giving some snaps to Ramsey. It might raise his trade value, or it might even help him in his own progression. At the very least, it lowers the chances that Brunell suffers a severe injury that would force the Redskins' hand in 2006.

EDIT: punctuation

[weneedcharlesmann]

I don't think the Ramsey comparison is apt here. Ramsey was thrown into a system with no proper blocking schemes. At the very least, Coach Gibbs has a pretty good grasp of how to block for his QB (though his o-linemen don't always seem to get it).

As for how Gibbs does things, I think that might be something of the point. How Coach Gibbs things did things in the 80's and 90's is relevant to his current program, insofar as they can be judged on their success. If Coach Gibbs isn't willing to change when necessary, then that doesn't bode well. However, there have been signs...after all, anyone remember Mark Rypien dropping back into a shotgun? So, I think the comments directed to how Gibbs does things have to take into account that he has demonstrated a willingness to change in the face of necessity, and quite honestly, had to in order to survive. (enter mindless optimism about joe gibbs and outrage at any discussion about him).

now, i think it would be tough to really argue that eli manning or carson palmer were the best qb's on their respective teams. instead, they were the best qbs with the best potential on their teams, and their coaches decided that it was worth benching a veteran quarterback to get them comfortable. those decisions get made all the time, and yes, sometimes they work, and sometimes not. If Campbell is not ready based on a reasonable standard of readiness (not my standard, but Coach Gibbs', real football people's, etc), then he shouldn't play. But to sit him simply because he is a rookie, and out of some idea of "how things should be done" doesn't make sense. How things should be done are judged by the circumstances, and the circumstances surrounding the Redskins have been dicey for many years. When's the last time we had a legit qb? A qb that actually inspired some fear? You can point to Brunell's first 5 games, but is that what we've come to expect? Have we fallen so far from being a good team that we're excited about an aging qb's first 5 games? Screw that, the skins need a franchise qb, and I know that Coach Gibbs picked one.

Everyone here is so caught up on the playoffs. I know you need to make the playoffs to win the Super Bowl. But you also need a good team. If people here want to delude themselves into thinking that this team so far is good, then fine. Every team needs its zealots I guess. But everyone realizes we are once again sub-.500 right? That we have a worse record than the vikings? And this isn't a new thing---year in and year out, the skins have chased ghosts and lost. Well, that's gotta stop some time, and I'd prefer it sooner rather than later. Go ahead and root for the skins qua last year's rams...I'll keep dreaming of the day the skins return to actual dominance.

[UK Skins Fan]

I do think there are sensible arguments on both sides here.

I just think that you always play the game in front of you, and never ever look further down the road than that. The old coaching cliche that you take one game at a time may be old hat, but it's absolutely true. The minute the coaches send a message to the players that they are thinking about next season more than this one, then the team will suffer a letdown. It's unavoidable, and a team that takes it's foot of the gas is going to be no help to the development of a young quarterback. You might argue that a little adversity is just what the kid needs, and I guess there may be a positive benefit from that, but it could go badly wrong. Adversity can make or break a young player, and we don't need to make or break Campbell just yet.

As for the argument that the only point of any franchise is to win the Superbowl - that's hokum. Sure, any team obviously has that as the ultimate goal, but winning division championships, playoff spots, conference games - they're all achievements in their own right. You can't write off a season just because the Superbowl doesn't look realistic. In these days of parity, the first goal of the Redskins should be to actually achieve parity, before we start thinking about Superbowls.

Now, you could make the argument that playing Campbell gives us the best chance to win now. That's a whole different argument. But I'd still disagree.

Sure, Gibb's introduction of the shotgun does show us that his previous track record doesn't necessarily mean that we can predict with certainty what his actions will be in future, but I doubt very much that he'll play Campbell for the sake of experience only. And I think he'd be right not to.

[Steve Spurrier III]

As for the argument that the only point of any franchise is to win the Superbowl - that's hokum. Sure, any team obviously has that as the ultimate goal, but winning division championships, playoff spots, conference games - they're all achievements in their own right.

How many division championships equal a Super Bowl? Two? Four? Twelve? Don't you think the Bills would be willing to trade their four conference championships for one Super Bowl victory? Wouldn't the Dolphins trade those ten playoff appearances with Dan Marino for one ring? Don't get it twisted - division and conference championships are just consolation prizes.

In these days of parity, the first goal of the Redskins should be to actually achieve parity, before we start thinking about Superbowls.

Parity in itself is not an achievment. For the Redskins, parity would be encouraging because it would be a sign that the franchise is moving in the direction of its ultimate goal - a world championship.

[UK Skins Fan]

Steve Spurrier III wrote:

How many division championships equal a Super Bowl? Two? Four? Twelve? Don't you think the Bills would be willing to trade their four conference championships for one Super Bowl victory? Wouldn't the Dolphins trade those ten playoff appearances with Dan Marino for one ring? Don't get it twisted - division and conference championships are just consolation prizes.

Of course they probably would, but each playoff appearance and conference championship were achievements in their own right. They're not consolation prizes - they're the result of those teams being the best they could be. The Bills weren't good enough to win a Superbowl, plain and simple. If they could have made a pact with somebody, then I'm sure they'd trade them all for a Superbowl. It probably eats those guys up every day knowing that they didn't win the big one, but try telling them they achieved nothing in the game just because they didn't.

Do you consider all but 3 of the Redskins' last 40 seasons to be failures? If so, you've done well not to hang yourself by now.

[Steve Spurrier III]

Do you consider all but 3 of the Redskins' last 40 seasons to be failures? If so, you've done well not to hang yourself by now.

Of course not. But I consider each season a battle as a part of a larger war.

For instance, 1981 was clearly a success - despite finsihing 8-8, Gibbs took what was a very mediocre team in 1980, and turned thme into a team that believed they could compete. In 1982, we won a championship.

Conversley, 2002 was a failure. Even though the team finished 7-9, it became obvious in 2003 that the franchise wasn't going anywhere under Spurrier, and the franchise had to change direction.

Time will tell if 2004 and 2005 will ultimatley pay off. But they are only truly successful if they, in some way, contribute to a championship in the future.