From a financial standpoint, doesn't Campbell need to play this year?

OK, Im just throwing this out for discussion. We gave up a boat load of picks for Jason Campbell. I was all for him sitting his rookie season, but he did sign a 5 year deal. So, we've got 4 years left on the contract and we really have no idea what kind of quarterback he is going to be. Let's say that Brunnell starts again this year (likely), then we've got 3 years. All those picks for a player who doesn't start a game for the first 2 years. If he's the 2nd coming of Elway, then we'd only get the benefit of the rookie contract for 3 years and he hits the free agent market. Seems to me we really need to play this kid this year to gauge where we are.

Even if its in a reserve(mop-up) role he really needs some regular playing time.

OK, Im just throwing this out for discussion. We gave up a boat load of picks for Jason Campbell. I was all for him sitting his rookie season, but he did sign a 5 year deal. So, we've got 4 years left on the contract and we really have no idea what kind of quarterback he is going to be. Let's say that Brunnell starts again this year (likely), then we've got 3 years. All those picks for a player who doesn't start a game for the first 2 years. If he's the 2nd coming of Elway, then we'd only get the benefit of the rookie contract for 3 years and he hits the free agent market. Seems to me we really need to play this kid this year to gauge where we are.

Well by this logic, don't we need to justify the $42 million contract we handed Brunell a few years ago?

But this is a strange line of thinking to me. Playing a guy because you drafted him high sends the wrong message to the team. Players need to know that you're going to play the best player, period. No matter where he was drafted. Why would undrafted free agents want to bust their butt here if you just played the highly paid players all the time, without regards to who deserves it more?

Look, I'm all for giving Campbell a chance to beat out Brunell this year to be the starter. And if we were in a total rebuilding mode, I might say OK lets turn the reins over to Campbell and let him learn. But we're not in a rebuilding mode. We have a shot to win the title now, so we can't worry about justifying draft status or contracts. We've got to play the best player. And if that player is Brunell, then he plays.

When you're spending money and draft picks on all your players, you're doing it because you think it gives you a better shot to win. Justifying contracts is not the way to be thinking. Winning games is the way we should be thinking. Would you complain if Campbell sat the bench for the next 3 years, with Brunell taking us to the playoffs 3 times and a super bowl title in one of them? I wouldn't.

Never up, never in. You take your shot when you got it.

I have always been of the opinion that rookie quarterbacks should be thrown to the wolves from Day One. Aikman and Manning are examples of this. I firmly believe that you're going to find out one way or the other if the quarterback you selected is the guy whether it's year one or year three.

However, there's still something to be said for playing the guy that gives you the best chance to win. Right now, that person is Mark Brunell. Therefore, the "Thrown to the Wolves" rule really only applies to teams like the Texans or Browns. But if you're the Redskins, unless Brunell really stinks it up in preseason, he's the starter without question.

Guys we don't need a QB contraversy this early. Gibbs will stick with Brunell even if he has some bad games this year (which every QB does). I know what's coming though, as soon as Brunell throws his first INT, the Campbell fans will come out of the woodwork so to speak and saying "bench Brunell!!"

Last I heard Gibbs said that Campbell will be given a shot at competing for the #2 position with Collins. Given that, I seriously don't think Gibbs thinks Campbell is ready to start. If Gibbs isnt' ready, neither am I.

Like Schneed said, we are a playoff-caliber team right now.......that means you play your best players, period. If we draft a rookie RB in the 7th round who outplays Portis, then you play that rookie. If Ade is suddenly better than Springs, you start Ade. The only thing that matters right now is winning games. Let Danny Boy worry about the financial stuff.

Ok, maybe I didn't make my initial statement clear. I am NOT suggesting that Gibbs start Jason Campell. There is no quarterback controversy so take a deep breath and pass the blunt to the homey on the left. What I am saying is that we gave up A LOT to get Campbell. We are now in year 2 of a 5 year deal, and we have no clue what we have. Campbell should play this pre-season, and he should be allowed to compete with Brunnell while utilizing the starting offense. Having Campbell sit on the bench, or only operate with the 2nd stringers, does not make sense to me. Its like going out and spending big bucks on a new car, buy you keep it parked in the garage because the old Toyota Tercel with over 100k miles still fires up every morning.

I'll take an even more radical view:

From both a salary cap perspective and the value of a first round draft pick, it doesn't make sense to invest a first round pick on a QB based on the probability of what that QB will produce during his first contract.

I'm not saying it doesn't ever work out. Simply that the overwhelming probability is that it will not be good value at all. All you have to do is look at previous QBs drafted in the first round and come up with the number of games they provided a positive contribution during their first six years to the team that drafted them. For the Skins, Ramsey was their best first round QB going all the way back to 1960. And in that case, the value was not good.

The real value in the draft is on Defense, OL & TE in the first round.

"Lighten up, Sandy Baby."

By the way, that's the best Redskin quote of all time.

"Lighten up, Sandy Baby."

By the way, that's the best Redskin quote of all time.

LOL. You know, here is what I've always wondered about that quote: What was the context? I mean, what did Riggo do and how did Justice O'Conner respond that resulted in him cutting loose with that (I mean besides having had a bit too much to drink).