QB for 2006

[SkinsFreak]

Guys, I like Ramsey too. But lets face it - HE'S GONE! If Gibbs thought Pat was going to be the QB of the future, he wouldn't have drafted Campbell and Ramsey would have played this year. Read between the lines! CAMPBELL IN 2006!!!

[roybus14]

I honestly think that Campbell will be pushed this off-season to get ready for '06'. I will give Brunell 3 games max next year before he is yanked. I don't think that Gibbs is as stupid as Billick and will allow wasted opportunities on offense go with the way this defense has been playing.

Billick's botching of the Ravens should be the model on how to not waste a very good defense. Our friends up I-95 had a defense with at least two to three Rings in them but "Brain" Billick could not get the offense right. I don't think that Gibbs will make that mistake.

Gibbs said it himself that Campbell has all of the tools to be a good QB. He's got a strong arm, he's big, can slide side to side, and can definitely run if necessary. Let's hope that Musgrave's alligance to Brunell does not stunt Campbell's progress.

[notwhy26]

I think that Campbell is going to start, and Brunell is going to back him up, if he sucks early on Brunell will come in

[tcwest10]

Does anybody ever wonder what might've been if Martz hadn't taken Trent Green with him to the Rams ?
This was a guy who was champing at the bit, waiting for his turn to play...got an occasional look, but not much more.
I wonder who that guy is for us this year ? Campbell is a baby yet. Ramsey forces too much. Markie's getting older...and brittle.
That's why I go with Brunell. For the mad scramble in Philly, and for the lack of more attractive alternatives.

[JPM36]

I want to see what the kid can do.


We are a defensive, ball control team anyways. How much worse than the Mark Brunell we saw the last few weeks could Campbell possibly be?

[SkinzCanes]

Does anybody ever wonder what might've been if Martz hadn't taken Trent Green with him to the Rams ?
This was a guy who was champing at the bit, waiting for his turn to play...got an occasional look, but not much more.
I wonder who that guy is for us this year ? Campbell is a baby yet. Ramsey forces too much. Markie's getting older...and brittle.
That's why I go with Brunell. For the mad scramble in Philly, and for the lack of more attractive alternatives.

So under your theory how/when does Campbell develope into a starter. Just look at how other teams have used young qb's and have been succesful. Campbell has to play. No point in delaying his growth as a qb.

[UK Skins Fan]

You're statement about our coaching is ridiculous. Are you inferring that the QB coaching in Washington is somehow subpar? That Ramsey would flourish and develop outside of a max-protect, ball-control offense? Right...blame a HOF, 3-time Superbowl winning, QB developing head coach and his stellar staff for Ramsey's poor play. That sounds right to me...

Without blaming Gibbs for Ramsey's failures, what quarterbacks did Gibbs exactly develop? By my count, seven quarterbacks have gotten significant playing time under Joe Gibbs:

Joe Theismann
Jay Schroeder
Doug Williams
Mark Rypien
Stan Humphries
Mark Brunell
Patrick Ramsey

Of this group, Joe Theismann, Doug Williams and Mark Rypien did not land under Gibbs tuteledge until they had already established themselves as NFL quarterbacks. (Remember, Theismann had already been the starter for three full seasons before Gibbs arrived).

Jay Schroeder and Mark Rypien both had one excellent season, but were otherwise pretty ordinary players. Schroeder made the Pro Bowl in 1986 with 4109 yards (but a 22/22 TD/INT ratio), and was traded two years later. He never broke the 3000 yard barrier again. Rypien had a good 1989 and a fantastic 1991, but was pretty bad in 1992, and was never a fulltime starter again.

Stan Humphries did absolutley nothing in Washington, and went on to have a few decent years in San Diego. The Patrick Ramsey project has yet to be completed, although I think it's fair to say it doesn't appear to be going well.

So in terms of developing quarterbacks, Gibbs hasn't really done that hot. He had his hands on Schroeder, Rypien and Humphries as rookies, but none of the three had the careers we would hope of Campbell. That's not saying he can't do it with Campbell (obviously the player has a lot to do with it), but saying he is an established quarterback developing head coach is a bit misleading.

Not trying to pick a fight, but I'd love Campbell to have exactly the same career as Rypien. One Superbowl MVP would suit me! Sure, you'd like a lot more longevity, but let's not be greedy.

The argument may be a little moot anyway, as Gibbs has never actually been a QB coach in Washington. Any "credit" should probably go to people like Jerry Rhome, who worked Schroeder into a serviceable QB for a year or two.

When Theismann played for Gibbs, he was considered one of the best QB's in the NFL - not sure if that was the case before Gibbs arrived?

I thought Gibbs worked with Williams in Tampa (are my facts right?), so he might deserve a little more credit for his development than we give him.

Humphries may have done little in Washington, but I have vague recollections of him being pretty good in relief when Rypien went down.

That being said, we all hope that Campbell develops into the kind of long term ProBowl QB that we just haven't seen in DC for many a year.

[PulpExposure]

Of this group, Joe Theismann, Doug Williams and Mark Rypien did not land under Gibbs tuteledge until they had already established themselves as NFL quarterbacks.

Uh Mark Rypien was a 6th round draft choice by the Redskins, and spent his first 7 years in Washington.

[AZHog]

Without blaming Gibbs for Ramsey's failures, what quarterbacks did Gibbs exactly develop? By my count, seven quarterbacks have gotten significant playing time under Joe Gibbs:

Joe Theismann
Jay Schroeder
Doug Williams
Mark Rypien
Stan Humphries
Mark Brunell
Patrick Ramsey

Of this group, Joe Theismann, Doug Williams and Mark Rypien did not land under Gibbs tuteledge until they had already established themselves as NFL quarterbacks. (Remember, Theismann had already been the starter for three full seasons before Gibbs arrived).

Jay Schroeder and Mark Rypien both had one excellent season, but were otherwise pretty ordinary players. Schroeder made the Pro Bowl in 1986 with 4109 yards (but a 22/22 TD/INT ratio), and was traded two years later. He never broke the 3000 yard barrier again. Rypien had a good 1989 and a fantastic 1991, but was pretty bad in 1992, and was never a fulltime starter again.

Stan Humphries did absolutley nothing in Washington, and went on to have a few decent years in San Diego. The Patrick Ramsey project has yet to be completed, although I think it's fair to say it doesn't appear to be going well.

So in terms of developing quarterbacks, Gibbs hasn't really done that hot. He had his hands on Schroeder, Rypien and Humphries as rookies, but none of the three had the careers we would hope of Campbell. That's not saying he can't do it with Campbell (obviously the player has a lot to do with it), but saying he is an established quarterback developing head coach is a bit misleading.

Rypien was drafted by Gibbs...let's get that fact straight. He threw for over 3000 yards three times in his 6 year career with the Skins. He was the Superbowl MVP in '91 and was groomed by Gibbs and the other veteran QB, ala Doug Williams, on the team.

In fact, while on that subject, the sportsworld thought Doug Williams was all washed up when we picked him up from Tampa Bay. Under Joe Gibbs instruction he went on to win us a Superbowl -- that's right, from washed up to winning the big dance. But I'm sure Gibbs had nothing to do with that...

Jay Schroeder was also drafted by the Gibbs and used primarily in a back-up role. To think of it, he sure looked alot like Ramsey: Bad decision making and terrible pocket presence. Gibbs cut him loose after he couldn't learn, not because Gibbs couldn't teach. He had one good season with the Raiders after that, but never became anything.

Joe Theisman was a so-so veteran QB Gibbs inherited with the Skins. He had average numbers up till '83, Gibbs second year as HC. And then what? -- He threw for career high yardage and touchdowns until breaking his leg on Monday Night. Another so-so QB turned into something pretty good by none other than Joe Gibbs.

Look, Ramsey stinks. Enough pitiful excuses -- he's got bad presence, can't make his check-downs, and overthrows the ball constantly.

Joe Gibbs has a proven track record of taking QBs from very different backgrounds and helping them develop and become pretty darn good. It's a product of his system, coaching, and general demeanor. Not everyone can learn. I think Schroeder and Ramsey both fall in that catagory.

[Steve Spurrier III]

Rypien was drafted by Gibbs...let's get that fact straight. He threw for over 3000 yards three times in his 6 year career with the Skins. He was the Superbowl MVP in '91 and was groomed by Gibbs and the other veteran QB, ala Doug Williams, on the team.

My mistake, my original post meant to read that Mark Brunell landed with Gibbs after already being established as an NFL quarterback. Mark Rypien had two good years in professional football (1989, 1991). I think we are all hoping for more than that from Campbell.

In fact, while on that subject, the sportsworld thought Doug Williams was all washed up when we picked him up from Tampa Bay. Under Joe Gibbs instruction he went on to win us a Superbowl -- that's right, from washed up to winning the big dance. But I'm sure Gibbs had nothing to do with that...

Gibbs did have a lot to do with that, my point is that Gibbs did not mold Doug Williams into a consistent starter (Gibbs was only with Tampa Bay in 1979 - Williams did not have his good years until Gibbs left for San Diego), and that point still stands.

Look, Ramsey stinks. Enough pitiful excuses -- he's got bad presence, can't make his check-downs, and overthrows the ball constantly.

Hey, I said that I wasn't blaming Gibbs for Ramsey (I guess you missed that part). My only point is that Gibbs has yet to take a quarterback like Campbell (a rookie), and turn him into a good, consistent starter (i.e., more than just a flash in the pan like Schroeder and Rypien).

Joe Gibbs has a proven track record of taking QBs from very different backgrounds and helping them develop and become pretty darn good. It's a product of his system, coaching, and general demeanor.

Right. He has a track record of taking quarterbacks and winning games with them, if not turning them into All-Pros (save Theismann). And I'm not saying he can't do it with Campbell, I'm just saying he hasn't done it yet, like some people have implied.

[dlc]

I wasn't saying that Gibbs was bad with QBs. I was referring to Spurrier. Ramsey's faults are that of any rookies and to attribute those faults are with him for the rest of his career dispite the bad influence of Spurrier is ridiculous.

I personally believe it won't happen here because Ramsey is probably done with the 'Skins' promises, not vice-versa. I think Gibbs realized that he was probably worse off in terms of preparedness than Campbell because of the bad habits but also better because of his familiarity. He promised him the start preseson cause he wants him around and sees potential, like everyone in the league does. He just doesn't think he's ready yet.

It always seemed to me that he wanted his QBs to compete like he did with Schroeder and Williams, making them achieve to better heights than they could without the competition. If one QB emerges, he's fine with having a very solid backup.

So my bet is if they can find a way to keep the two and make them compete, he will. But that's a big if.

As for the writing on the wall that everyone is talking about, look at Drew Brees and tell me if you think they should be starting Rivers. They didn't make the playoffs, but they should have and they might go all the way next year. If Rivers starts, I bet you they start talking about rebuilding once again.

[Steve Spurrier III]

As for the writing on the wall that everyone is talking about, look at Drew Brees and tell me if you think they should be starting Rivers. They didn't make the playoffs, but they should have and they might go all the way next year. If Rivers starts, I bet you they start talking about rebuilding once again.

If Campbell is Rivers, who exactly is Brees? Either way (Ramsey or Brunell), I think its apples and oranges. Brees is young, and has outproduced Ramsey and Brunell by quite a large margin.

[cvillehog]

As for the writing on the wall that everyone is talking about, look at Drew Brees and tell me if you think they should be starting Rivers. They didn't make the playoffs, but they should have and they might go all the way next year. If Rivers starts, I bet you they start talking about rebuilding once again.

If Campbell is Rivers, who exactly is Brees? Either way (Ramsey or Brunell), I think its apples and oranges. Brees is young, and has outproduced Ramsey and Brunell by quite a large margin.

Oh? Brees has been to the Pro Bowl 3 times and been league MVP? Wow.

[Steve Spurrier III]

Oh? Brees has been to the Pro Bowl 3 times and been league MVP? Wow.

What? Brunell has been to the Pro Bowl three times (but not since 1999), but he's never been league MVP. How is that relevant to anything?

[cvillehog]

Oh? Brees has been to the Pro Bowl 3 times and been league MVP? Wow.

What? Brunell has been to the Pro Bowl three times (but not since 1999), but he's never been league MVP. How is that relevant to anything?

You said Brees has far out-produced Brunell. Brunell was in the Pro Bowl in 2000 last. He was MVP in 1999, near as I can tell (I didn't follow his career before the Redskins, though).

How about this: How many playoff games has Brees won since Brunell came to Washington? Now, how many has Brunell won?

[Steve Spurrier III]

You said Brees has far out-produced Brunell. Brunell was in the Pro Bowl in 2000 last. He was MVP in 1999, near as I can tell (I didn't follow his career before the Redskins, though).

How about this: How many playoff games has Brees won since Brunell came to Washington? Now, how many has Brunell won?

No, Brunell last made the Pro Bowl in 1999, not 2000, and Kurt Warner was the MVP in 1999.

Honestly, if you can't see that Brees is the better player at this point, then I don't know what to tell you. His 2004 season was vastly superior to Brunell's 2004, and he outproduced Brunell again in 2005.

I love the "playoff wins" argument, as if that proves anything. But it should be pointed out that Brees had a quarterback rating of 101.2 in his playoff lost, compared to Brunell's ratings of 46.7 and 59.5.

[cvillehog]

You said Brees has far out-produced Brunell. Brunell was in the Pro Bowl in 2000 last. He was MVP in 1999, near as I can tell (I didn't follow his career before the Redskins, though).

How about this: How many playoff games has Brees won since Brunell came to Washington? Now, how many has Brunell won?

No, Brunell last made the Pro Bowl in 1999, not 2000, and Kurt Warner was the MVP in 1999.

Honestly, if you can't see that Brees is the better player at this point, then I don't know what to tell you. His 2004 season was vastly superior to Brunell's 2004, and he outproduced Brunell again in 2005.

I love the "playoff wins" argument, as if that proves anything. But it should be pointed out that Brees had a quarterback rating of 101.2 in his playoff lost, compared to Brunell's ratings of 46.7 and 59.5.

The point is that Brees has absolutely nothing to do with this team or its quarterbacks.

[HEROHAMO]

We want Campbell.......... not that constructive couldnt think of anything else.I had to do my daily post at least once. On to the Draft oh yeah.......

[PulpExposure]

You said Brees has far out-produced Brunell. Brunell was in the Pro Bowl in 2000 last. He was MVP in 1999, near as I can tell (I didn't follow his career before the Redskins, though).

How about this: How many playoff games has Brees won since Brunell came to Washington? Now, how many has Brunell won?

No, Brunell last made the Pro Bowl in 1999, not 2000, and Kurt Warner was the MVP in 1999.

Honestly, if you can't see that Brees is the better player at this point, then I don't know what to tell you. His 2004 season was vastly superior to Brunell's 2004, and he outproduced Brunell again in 2005.

I love the "playoff wins" argument, as if that proves anything. But it should be pointed out that Brees had a quarterback rating of 101.2 in his playoff lost, compared to Brunell's ratings of 46.7 and 59.5.

The point is that Brees has absolutely nothing to do with this team or its quarterbacks.

A n a l o g y.

[cvillehog]

You said Brees has far out-produced Brunell. Brunell was in the Pro Bowl in 2000 last. He was MVP in 1999, near as I can tell (I didn't follow his career before the Redskins, though).

How about this: How many playoff games has Brees won since Brunell came to Washington? Now, how many has Brunell won?

No, Brunell last made the Pro Bowl in 1999, not 2000, and Kurt Warner was the MVP in 1999.

Honestly, if you can't see that Brees is the better player at this point, then I don't know what to tell you. His 2004 season was vastly superior to Brunell's 2004, and he outproduced Brunell again in 2005.

I love the "playoff wins" argument, as if that proves anything. But it should be pointed out that Brees had a quarterback rating of 101.2 in his playoff lost, compared to Brunell's ratings of 46.7 and 59.5.

The point is that Brees has absolutely nothing to do with this team or its quarterbacks.

A n a l o g y.

"Player x has outperformed player y" is not an analogy, thank you very much.

[Steve Spurrier III]

"Player x has outperformed player y" is not an analogy, thank you very much.

First of all, I love the way you started to argue that Brunell was better than Brees, but once you realized you were wrong you switched to the relevancy argument. Well played.

Second of all, Dic said that our current situation was similar to San Diego's, in that Campbell is to Rivers as Brunell is to Brees (that's the analogy). I was simply pointing out that Brees and Brunell are very different players, so the analogy doesn't work.

Of course, you could have figured all that out had you read all the posts, but whatever.

[cvillehog]

"Player x has outperformed player y" is not an analogy, thank you very much.

First of all, I love the way you started to argue that Brunell was better than Brees, but once you realized you were wrong you switched to the relevancy argument. Well played.

Second of all, Dic said that our current situation was similar to San Diego's, in that Campbell is to Rivers as Brunell is to Brees (that's the analogy). I was simply pointing out that Brees and Brunell are very different players, so the analogy doesn't work.

Of course, you could have figured all that out had you read all the posts, but whatever.

I never said Brunell was better than Brees. You said Brees has far out-produced Brunell. That is just untrue. BTW, I am not a Brunell support. I will have serious indegestion if Brunell is the starter next year.

[tcwest10]

So under your theory how/when does Campbell develope into a starter. Just look at how other teams have used young qb's and have been succesful. Campbell has to play. No point in delaying his growth as a qb.

Sure there is. We went 10-6. I'm not over all the losing just yet. Not ready to step back to 7-9 or 8-8 for the sake of his development.
I know we need to groom him. I just think he should get his game time in blow outs and emergencies for now.
It's selfish, stupid and shortsighted...but I have tasted the playoffs for the first time in six years, and I want more...now.

[Steve Spurrier III]

I never said Brunell was better than Brees. You said Brees has far out-produced Brunell. That is just untrue. BTW, I am not a Brunell support. I will have serious indegestion if Brunell is the starter next year.

I know I should just let this go, since we all agree that Drew Brees isn't really relevant at all, but to say that Brees hasn't outproduced Brunell since Brunell's arrival in D.C. is just ludicrous.

2004
Brees : 3159 yards, 27/7 TD/INT, 104.8 QB Rating
Brunell: 1194 yards, 7/6 TD/INT, 63.9 QB Rating

2005
Brees : 3576 yards, 24/15 TD/INT, 89.2 QB rating
Brunell: 3050 yards, 23/10 TD/INT, 85.9 QB rating

As I type this, it occurs to me that you might be referring to Brunell's prime, when he was a Pro Bowl player and won that imaginary MVP award, although I'm not sure why you would be doing that. That player is gone, and never coming back.

[cvillehog]

I never said Brunell was better than Brees. You said Brees has far out-produced Brunell. That is just untrue. BTW, I am not a Brunell support. I will have serious indegestion if Brunell is the starter next year.

I know I should just let this go, since we all agree that Drew Brees isn't really relevant at all, but to say that Brees hasn't outproduced Brunell since Brunell's arrival in D.C. is just ludicrous.

2004
Brees : 3159 yards, 27/7 TD/INT, 104.8 QB Rating
Brunell: 1194 yards, 7/6 TD/INT, 63.9 QB Rating

2005
Brees : 3576 yards, 24/15 TD/INT, 89.2 QB rating
Brunell: 3050 yards, 23/10 TD/INT, 85.9 QB rating

As I type this, it occurs to me that you might be referring to Brunell's prime, when he was a Pro Bowl player and won that imaginary MVP award, although I'm not sure why you would be doing that. That player is gone, and never coming back.

Oh, so i should be psychic and know you meant "since Brunell arrived in DC?" You said "Brees has out produced Brunell." Yet, at this point, Brees's career doesn't even stack up to Brunell's. Now that my internet connection is functioning properly, I can see that Brunell was the Pro Bowl MVP, not league MVP, so I mis-stated there.

If you want to talk production in the last two years, I think playoff wins is a fine metric.

You won't get an argument out of me for saying Brunell is past his prime. I hope to never see him start for us again. But, Brees has had two good years, in which he made the playoffs once and did not win. Now he is seriously injured. And you sound like you are annointing him to the Hall of Fame already.