QB Situation under Gibbs

[Scottskins]

I want Campbell to play, but only if he beats out Brunell. Best QB at the start of the season should start. Throwing a QB in when he's not ready is not the way to go. It rarely works. Most QBs have a fragile mentality and throwing them into the fire usually ruins there career. Ramsey is a perfect example in my mind. He may figure it out somewhere else, someday, but there is no denying that his progress was severely stunted by spurrier...

The Carson Palmers and Peyton Mannings are a rare breed.

That being said, if anyone is in a position to make it easy on a QB, it's the washington redskins. Just like the Steelers, we have a great defense and a good running game. That is why Roethlesburger(sp?) has done so well. His stats are nothing great, and while he does make some very sweet throws at times, he's still played pretty average as a whole. The rest of that team has made him look good. The Redskins will do the same for Campbell, but Campbell will turn out to be a whole lot better than Ben. Plus Jason has sat for at least a year learning Joe's system. Al's system will be basically the same as Joe's, so it won't stunt Jason's curve.

[The Hogster]

Alright, I didn't think it was throwing someone under the bus to point out they played poorly. And if you don't think Brunell, as well as others, played poorly towards the end of the year, then you have different standards than i do...no worries...

yes, the whole team wins games, the whole team loses games...during the bucs game, it just seemed like the defense did a little more than the offense did to win that game...now, you can disagree with that assessment, but we scored 17 pts, 14 of which were either directly or indirectly set up by our defense...

why is that such a big deal to point that out? i give brunell all the credit in the world...he was part of an amazing turnaround...does that mean that we're obligated not to discuss ways in which the team can improve? i mean, ryan clark had a real good year, and ed reed is potentially a free agent--would it be completely out of bounds for a fan on this site to say, hey wouldn't a safety tandem of reed and taylor be unbelievable? even though that situation would never work out, it's just fans commenting on what they think will make the team better...that seems to me to be the point of the forum...

with that said, play campbell, and let's get started on an era of skins dominance...

Whatever...if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy to say that you have higher standards than others just because you want to bench Brunell then have at it.

My only point is the mentality that some people on here are professing is the same mentality that had us mired in losing. If a coach didn't go above .500 fire him. If a running back didn't go over 1500 yards, let him go to the Panthers and go to a Superbowl. If a QB didn't look like Joe Montana...(Trent Green, Brad Johnson, Rich Gannon) let em go to another team.

Now hear we are with Brunell. He's aging, but played well until he sprained his knee. The same injury that sidelined Rothlesberger for 3 games and made his play suffer hit him at an bad time...period.

To say he 'played poorly' at the end of the year and ignore the fact that he was injured is missing the point. Trust me I am no Brunell fan, but I don't change my mind as the wind blows because that spells LOSING.

Ben Rothlesberger is clearly better than Maddox, but guess who started last year for the Steelers? Maddox, he only got action when Maddox was hurt.

Now, Campbell was the #3 this year because Gibbs inherited a team with Ramsey (an experienced QB that he didn't like) and he went out and got a veteran QB and drafted a rookie.

When Ramsey is gone, Campbell will become #2 or maybe even #1 WHEN HE PROVES TO THE STAFF he can lead us to wins...not just because fans are anxious to see somebody different. That would not make any sense to put him in because you're tired of the starter, instead of beacause he has proven he's the better of the two.

It just seems like some of you look at it like."Lets get our losing seasons out of the way sooner than later and hope Campbell wins a ring in a few years.

I think Gibbs and many other people around here believe that the best way to bring a young QB around is to build a winning program around him, and let him take over when he is ready and doesn't have to do it alone.

Right now, we need good play from our QB on offense, but with some good offseason moves, improvements in personell who knows. But you just don't sit Brunell to give us a different look.

[welch]

OK, let's summarize:

- with Brunell, the team went 10-6

- the Redskins had to win their last five regular season games to make the playoffs. They won them all. They massacred Dallas and the Giants.

- Patten was hurt, and neither Thrash nor Jacobs came close to looking like a starting WR. Therefore, teams smother-covered Moss and paid more attention to ey, and ey is a receiver who slips out and gets his catches when the defense forgets him. He's not a 255-pound Santana Moss

- Randy Thomas was hurt. Ray Brown was a good replacement, but he's not as good as Thomas now. That hurt running the sweep.

- Portis got pounded ("sore shoulders"...remember?)

We knew this, we talked about all of it as it was happening. How come we forget now?

Is Brunell the best QB on the team? It certainly looks that way. Joe Gibbs appears to think so, and Gibbs (and the offensive staff) breaks down every play, watching the films over and over. He knows...this is not fantasy football.

We think the Redskins need:

- health and depth at OL

- a duplicate of Art Monk or Charley Taylor at WR

Sure. We'll see what Gibbs does in the next few months. Last year, he threw away Coles and Gardner. Were those good decisions?

As I write this, Seattle is leading Carlonia 17 - 0, the Panthers have run for nothing, and Delhome has thrown three completions and, I think, two INT's.

So Mark Brunell caused the loss last week?

[Steve Spurrier III]

So Mark Brunell caused the loss last week?

For the zillionth time:

It's not about what Mark Brunell was able to do in January of 2006. It's what he will be able to do in January of 2007. And as far as that is concerned, there is plenty of reason to believe that he just won't be the same player.

[The Hogster]

So Mark Brunell caused the loss last week?

For the zillionth time:

It's not about what Mark Brunell was able to do in January of 2006. It's what he will be able to do in January of 2007. And as far as that is concerned, there is plenty of reason to believe that he just won't be the same player.

Thanks Dionne Warwick, but being psychic is not a part making personell decisions.

As I write this, Delhomme just threw another INT against Seattle....HMMM I guess Carolina should be looking for another quarterback.

You guys make me laugh with this Madden Playstation way of trying to talk football.

God knows if Brunell had looked like this against Seattle there would be mutiny in Washington. Good thing you guys are fans, and far, far away from making real football decisions.

[cvillehog]

Good thing you guys are fans, and far, far away from making real football decisions.

The same could be said about you.

[Steve Spurrier III]

Thanks Dionne Warwick, but being psychic is not a part making personell decisions.

What? Predicting how players will perform in the future isn't part of personel decisions? What world do you live in?

As I write this, Delhomme just threw another INT against Seattle....HMMM I guess Carolina should be looking for another quarterback.

Cute. Of course, Brunell's performance against Seattle isn't why I want Campbell to get snaps, so your sarcastic comment doesn't apply. But if Jake Delhomme was 36 years old, hadn't finsihed a season healthy since 2002 and was incredibly inconsistent throughout 2005, then yes, Carolina should start looking for a quarterback.

Seriously, don't pretend that the only reason everyone wants Campbell to get snaps is because Brunell threw up a quarterback rating of 69.9 in the playoffs. That's not it, and you know it.

You guys make me laugh with this Madden Playstation way of trying to talk football.

Quote anything I have said that has anything to do with a fricking Playstation. Otherwise, stop hurling insults at people who are trying to make legitimate points.

[The Hogster]

Yes, you do make projections about performance, but you don't predict that someone will be injured 12 months from now...that's called speculation.


And even if he is injured, THAT is why you have backup quarterbacks. But I guess in the world you live in, you bench the starting qb because you have a hunch he will be hurt at some point.

The reason I say Playstation is because you think you just push pause, and switch QB's in and out because you want to see what the team looks like with another QB.

Right now there are 30 teams that are not playing anymore. I guess we should look for every QB over 32 on that list to be benched in favor of the backup.

[Steve Spurrier III]

Yes, you do make projections about performance, but you don't predict that someone will be injured 12 months from now...that's called speculation.

Yeah, I'm really going out on a limb by saying that there is a pretty good chance that 36-year old and notoriously fragile Brunell can't finsih a season healthy. Oh wait, that's exactly what has happened the past three seasons. What's wild speculation is betting on Mark Brunell reverting to his 2001 form (at least in terms of durability).

And even if he could get through the season healthy, the fact still remains he is an average quarterback to begin with (13th in QB rating), and is only getting older. Of course, it would probably be speculative of me to say that players' skills start to atrophy in their late 30's.

The reason I say Playstation is because you think you just push pause, and switch QB's in and out because you want to see what the team looks like with another QB.

Aging quarterback step aside all the time for younger players - that's just the way the NFL works. I've said all along that Campbell is going to have to take his lumps - and with him playing, we can probably expect a 7-9 type season in 2006. But if he is as good as we all hope he is, the work he gets next year will make us a legitimate contender for the next ten seasons. That's something Mark Brunell can never offer.

I guess where we really differ is that you believe that this team can win a Super Bowl in 2006 with Mark Brunell. I just don't see it. In my opinion, the team needs improved and consistent play out of the quarterback, and I think it is going to be a struggle for Brunell just to replicate his 2005 season, let alone build on it.

[Steve Spurrier III]

Just a quick example of two teams that made the switch to younger quarterbacks, despite the fact that the veterans probably gave them the better chance to win.

In Cincinnati, Jon Kitna had just finished the 2003 season in which he posted a 87.4 rating to go along with 3591 yards and 26 touchdowns. The Bengals had gone 8-8, their best record since 1996 (sound familiar)? The next season, Palmer posted a 77.3 rating along with 2800+ yards and 18 touchdowns - clearly an inferior stat line compared to Kitna's 2004. But in 2005, Palmer threw for 3836 yards, 32 TD/12 INT and a 101.1 rating en route to becoming an MVP candadite.

Kurt Warner started the first nine games of 2004, putting up a 86.5 and leading the Giants to a 5-4 record. Eli Manning replace Warner, and finished the 2004 season with a 55.4 rating and only one win in seven starts. In 2005, Eli Manning threw for 3762 yards, 24 TD/17 INT and a 75.9 rating, while leading the Giants to the playoffs and the NFC East crown.

Both Kitna and Warner were completley healthy.

The Bengals situation is particularly interesting because it is the most like ours. The Bengals had just completed their best season in quite some time, just like the 2005 Redskins. Kitna had been solid, if not spectacular, much like Brunell. (Kitna 2003 QB rating: 87.4, Brunell 2005 QB rating: 85.9). And the Bengals had a first round quarterback who they had invested heavily in (1st overall pick) that did not play a single snap that season in Carson Palmer, just like Redskins have in Jason Campbell (traded multiple picks to acquire). If Cincinnati's 2005 success can't convince someone to take a serious look at Campbell for 2006, then I don't know what would.

[The Hogster]

Let's see who wins a Championshihp first, the Giants, Bengals or Skins.

We will see...if Gibbs thinks Campbell is ready to start....I am all for it....but I do not agree with you that we need to chalk up the season and play Campbell, or "take a step back" for your scenario.

Gibbs wants to win NOW. He is in year 3 of a 5 year deal and phasing himself out of the hands on coaching duties...I don't think he is going to make the move if he thinks the team will step back.

[Steve Spurrier III]

Let's see who wins a Championshihp first, the Giants, Bengals or Skins.

Rather, let's see who wins a championship first, Manning, Palmer or Brunell.

Gibbs wants to win NOW. He is in year 3 of a 5 year deal and phasing himself out of the hands on coaching duties...I don't think he is going to make the move if he thinks the team will step back.

I think the fact that Gibbs's years are numbered will make him lean towards Campbell. If he believes that Campbell needs a year to adjust (which I think we all agree will probably be the case), I would think he would want to get it over with as soon as possible, rather than wait until Year 4 and leave himself with only one more chance to win a ring.

[welch]

OK, Delhome finished the game at 15/35 196 yards 1 TD and 3 INT's. His one TD came when Carolina was down 34 - 7, and added about 50 yards to his stats. Big star.

Statement of the blindingly obvious:

(a) Seattle is pretty good when playing at home.

(b) Brunell moves better than Ramsey, even if he isn't as fast as he was ten years ago. He thinks well and throws well.

(c) We saw a statistical dropoff in Brunell when Patten got hurt, when Thomas got hurt, as Portis wore down, and as defenses attended to ey.

Ramsey has a lively arm, and I'm sure that Gibbs will play him if he shows better than Brunell in pre-pre-season workouts.

If Ramsey goes, then I'm sure that Gibbs will play Campbell only if Campbell earns the job. Joe Gibbs did not win three Super Bowls by knowing less than sportswriters or fans.

(And, yes, Gibbs like depth at QB. The QB is always the first target. After SB 17 -- remember Bob Holly -- he and Beathard and Casserly found Jay Schroeder, a guy that everyone had overlooked. That was lucky, when Joe T. was hurt. They hired Doug Williams to bck up Schroeder, and only switched when Schroeder lost his eye or his nerve or whatever caused him to throw consistent grounders in 1987. By then, they had Rypien holding the clipboard. Even with Williams, they traded Schroeder only when they knew they could get Stan Humphries to hold the clipboard behind Williams and Rypien. By the end, Casserly and Gibbs had Cary Conklin holding the clipboard.)

[PulpExposure]

Seattle's defense just dominated today. Their d-line just ate up Carolina.

[die cowboys die]

Yes, you do make projections about performance, but you don't predict that someone will be injured 12 months from now...that's called speculation.

brunell has gotten injured 3 seasons in a row and is only getting older. so yes we are "speculating" that he won't make it through next year. i am also speculating that the sun will rise tomorrow morning since that has also been a pretty consistent trend.

but so what? whether brunell will stay healthy or not is irrelevant. no one is denying he had some very good games. but he was very inconsistent. we can't take the risk of having someone be injured and/or just plain "off" in the playofs again.


anyways, all this being said i think all of us campbell (or even ramsey) supporters would say that if the other QBs look vastly inferior to brunell in camp, brunell should obviously still start. but if campbell at his average looks like brunell at his worst, we should go with the kid and let him get work through that to an even higher level.

[The Hogster]

All of you all have your own opinions...good thing the only one that matters is Gibbs.

You guys keep saying "he" did this and "he" did that. When you fail to grasp the most fundamental concept that so many of us have tried to spoon feed to you. The quarterback is only as good as what is around him.

We only had 2 real receiving threats, and as Portis got banged up and our running game evaporated, then Brunell's stats fell off. Not to mention his injury.

But whatever...think what you want. Campbell will get in when its' best for the team, not because Gibbs is perusing these fan boards and making real decisions to make Brunell detractors happy.

[The Hogster]

Let's see who wins a Championshihp first, the Giants, Bengals or Skins.

Rather, let's see who wins a championship first, Manning, Palmer or Brunell.

quote]

Okay? Let's see who wins one first. The only one with a shot is Manning, but if we improve next year as much as we did last year. Brunell will be hoisting a Lombardi next year, and you guys will be somewhere eating crow.

[Steve Spurrier III]

Okay? Let's see who wins one first. The only one with a shot is Manning, but if we improve next year as much as we did last year. Brunell will be hoisting a Lombardi next year, and you guys will be somewhere eating crow.

Why did we improve so much in 2005? Our defense fell off just a little bit, but we got improved play out of our running game and special teams. Overall - it was pretty much a wash.

The real reason the Redskins improved four games in 2005 was the quarterbacks. Mark Brunell and Patrick Ramsey combined for an 86.4 rating in 2005, up from a combined rating of 69.7 in 2004, an increase of 19.33%.

To replicate that kind of jump in 2006, Redskins quarterbacks are going to have to put up a quarterback rating of 103.1, which is probably going to translate into a stat line around 4000 yards, 30 touchdowns and 10 interceptions.

I will concede that another reciever will really help whoever is playing quarterback, and I firmly believe that Al Saunders running the offense will help as well, but those things alone aren't going to translate into numbers like that for Brunell, whose career high in quarterback rating was 91.2 for the Jaguars (with the young tandem of Jimmy Smith and Keenan McCardell) in 1997.

Will Campbell put up a quarterback rating of 103.1? No way. But if he gets enough reps in 2006, he might be ready to do perform at that level in 2007, just as Carson Palmer was able to do in his third year (101.1 rating in 2005).

I don't have a real problem with Brunell opening the season as the starter. Who knows, maybe the combination of an added reciever, a healthy David Patten, Al Saunders and the weak NFC can translate into a deep playoff run for the Redskins, provided Brunell can stay healthy and effective. But that's a whole lot of "ifs", and personally, I would rather make sure that Campbell gets his work in.

[Mursilis]

So Mark Brunell caused the loss last week?

For the zillionth time:

It's not about what Mark Brunell was able to do in January of 2006. It's what he will be able to do in January of 2007. And as far as that is concerned, there is plenty of reason to believe that he just won't be the same player.

Thanks Dionne Warwick, but being psychic is not a part making personell decisions.

How can you call him out for "being psychic" when in this same thread you called drafting Campbell the "right decision" when JC hadn't played a single regular season snap yet? Just like everyone here, I hope JC becomes an elite level QB, but I also know the list of 1st round QB busts is long (we all remember Heath Shuler), so I'll just have to wait to see what he does on the field before I can know if drafting him was the right call, and worth three picks.

[Mursilis]

You guys keep saying "he" did this and "he" did that. When you fail to grasp the most fundamental concept that so many of us have tried to spoon feed to you. The quarterback is only as good as what is around him.

I'd say that's not entirely true. An elite level QB elevates those around him. Look at Brady in his first two years - NE had a decent but not great running game, and a bunch of good but not great wide receivers, and we all already know their results over the last 4 seasons. Hasselback's the same way - Seattle's receiving group (WRs and TEs) didn't include a single Pro Bowler this year, but his play elevated them to the big dance. Though Delhomme had a bad game yesterday, he was awesome vs. NYG and Chicago, and he's got Steve Smith and no one else you'd call great catching his passes.
I'm with the others here who think that with Brunell, we're just not going to go the full distance to another trophy. He did fine this year, but the age and health factors aren't going to go away.

[Donkey McDonkerton]

Brunell is not very accurate. When he is banged up at all, he sails balls way too high. If brunell is healthy play him, when he is hurting, play PR or Campbell.

[weneedcharlesmann]

You build championship teams, you don't just luck into them. It helps to have consistent quarterback play when trying to win a super bowl....look at the two superbowl teams...both of their quartbacks (one in his second year, imagine that) are playing extremely well, and there teams are doing well...

Hogster, you keep trying to turn this into a blame brunell scenario, and it's not...it's simply trying to think what will make the team better, and playing campbell can make the team better...i'm not looking to take a losing season with campbell, i'm just willing to concede that he won't be as polished as brunell in the beginning of the year...but guess what, he's close to 14 years younger, is probably in better physical shape, and is the future qb of the skins...

you point out roethliesberger as an example...first of all, roethliesberger was a rookie, so the situation is a little different...you think the steelers would have gone with maddox this year?

nice madden reference, i'm assuming your kids gave you that one...it is the offseason, you know, when team moves are made...that's not really "hitting pause and seeing how the team looks with another quarterback"...and hey, if brunell does play, and does lead us to a championship, you can say i told you so all you want, but i'll just be thrilled that the skins won one...your condemnation will be pretty irrelevant at that point...

yes, brunell played poorly, and was injured...he's been injured twice now in two years...just like rex grossman, who is 24...and the bears went out and drafted a rookie qb, b/c they were worried about grossman's durability...at 24...and so, you think it's unrealistic to worry about a 36 year old man's durability? what's around the quarterback is really important, but so is that quarterback...if you can't see that, then i guess you're too engrossed in tecmo bowl, when any quarterback could throw that same jerry rice play down the field...oh, if wishing made it so....

and as for all the "thank god your fans and not coaches" talk, i'm sure that's felt on both sides of the aisle...i'd be really worried that if you were making personnel decisions, the skins would squander another year with a good team watching brunell sail his balls over the heads over receivers due to his 3rd knee injury...i'd pray it didn't happen, but i'd be worried about it...don't insult fans just because they choose to take a long term view...

and please don't speak for coach gibbs...you know as little as the rest of us do, and we don't need you to "spoon feed" us anything...have you been a pro coach, a college coach, hell a high school coach? you're a fan, like the rest of us, and your thoughts are just opinions...so, chill out and let others express their opinions, just as you should be able to...

[roybus14]

The key to the QB situation is how well the O-line and the offense, will response to Saunders and his new plays. If Saunders has enough plays in is arsenal that teams won't see the same play twice in a season, how long will it take this team to learn them, especially the QBs.

I think that Campbell should get a shot but I would not do it unless our situation is like Pittsburgh's with Roethlisberger, where our running game and O-line are good enough to protect him and bail him out if necessary. I would not put him in there if this will be a Ramsey-Spurrier situation and he get's killed.

Hopefully, Campbell has been paying attention and learning that Gibbs wants his QBs to be efficient, smart, and mistake free.

[weneedcharlesmann]

i agree wholeheartedly with roybus14...if our defense, o-line, and running game look to be working and playing well, then i think you should go with campbell....

[DEHog]

And let Campbell screw up once and the crowd at FedEX will be all over him!! What make everyone think thta Campbell is the real deal?? I'll admit if he fails it won't be from poor coaching..just wondering how much patients will us fans have next year after returning to the playoffs this year more is expected next year..thta's alot of pressure to place on Jason!!