RI: Collins is the no. 2

[offiss]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I think what this boils down to is offiss' not so secret man crush on Patrick Ramsey.

JR, I think you've presented a well thought out and rational argument and all offiss can do at this point is revert to name calling and Brunell bashing. C'mon offiss, step it up son! It's the end of the first quarter and the score is:

JoeRedskin 7
offiss 0

And JR has himself a cheerleader, come on Matty we both know you would side with anybody to come at me, or anyone else who disagrees with Gibbs regardless of rational, let's be real, we all know where the real man crush lies, it lies with GIG crew.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by offiss

And JR has himself a cheerleader, come on Matty we both know you would side with anybody to come at me, or anyone else who disagrees with Gibbs regardless of rational, let's be real, we all know where the real man crush lies, it lies with GIG crew.

There are more people than just myself in this thread that agree with JR, but you choose to come after me. Interesting. It's not about taking sides, don't make it personal.

[DieHardSkinsFan777]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

What an incredibly inane statement. For the last two years WE HAVE BEEN DEVELOPING CAMPBELL. In case you forgot, we drafted him in 2005. Although I haven't looked back, I'm betting you were one who blasted the pick b/c it meant that Gibbs was gonna let your boy Patrick go.

As for drafting developmental QB's - since 2000 we have drafted the following QB's:

2000 - Todd Husak (6th Round)
2001 - Sage Rosenfels (4th Round)
2002 - Patrick Ramsey (1st Round)
2003 - Gibram Hamdan (7th Round)
2005 - Jason Campbell (1st Round)
2007 - Jordan Palmer (6th Round)

The Skins consistently pick up young QB's in hopes one will develop. Throw in Casey Bramlett and that's a lot of young developmental QB's. The fact that they did not pan is not entirely Gibbs fault. The QB position is almost impossible to hit on. Take a look at this: NFL Draft History: Full Draft - by Position

In the year 2000, six QB's were chosen before Tom Brady including such notables as Giovanni Carmazzi, Chris Redman and Tee Martin.

Take a look at the classes of:
2001 (Michael Vick's year) - 11 QB's chosen, one current starter (two including Vick - who would be a starter but for, well you know...)
2002 (Ramsey, Harrington, Carr): 15 QB's chosen - one starter (David Garrard).
2003: (Carson Palmer): 13 QB's chosen - two starters (R. Grossman) and some second tier guys (Leftwich, Boller, Simms)
2004 (Manning, Rivers, Rothlesberger): 17 QB's chosen, 4 starters (M. Schaub - starting for a team that DIDNT DRAFT HIM).

Of the 56 QB's choosen between 2001-2004, how many of the non-starters are even in the NFL? My rough estimate based on name recognition is about 10 with most of those from the more recent drafts. How many of the non-starters are actually back-ups for the teams that originally drafted them?? The only ones that I saw were Feeley and Chris Simms. There may be a couple more.

From 2002 to present we have had six developmental QB's (including Bramlett and Hamdan). Of which one is the current starter - which looks to me to be pretty much in line with the NFL ratio.

To say that we "should have addressed it in the draft a long time ago" ignores reality and is simply wrong.

BTW: Here are Beathard's QB's (78-89) with the Skins -
1981 - Tom Flick, 4th Round
1982 - Bob Holly, 11th Round
1983 - Babe Laufenberg, 6th Round
1984 - Jay Schroeder, 3rd Round
1986 - Mark Rypien, 4th Round
1988 - Stan Humphries, 6th round

Three starters, a career backup and two no-names. Pretty good odds and clearly way above the norm.



Did you watch the last half of the 4th preseason game?? Did you need to see more? He had a friggin month to prepare, it was his big chance and he f'ing stunk up the joint. AND it was pretty clear that his perfomance wasn't out of character for him - show me one report !ONE REPORT! that indicated he was solid practice squad material based on his training camp perfomance. EVERYTHING I read seemed to indicate that his performance in the preseason game was pretty much on par with his play in practice. What? we should take time/reps from QB's who may actually be required to play for us so that the guy who hasn't done anything to show differently can confirm his scrubbiness??

You only need to smell sh** to know what it is. You don't need to touch it and taste it too. I guess I'll go with the coach who won three superbowls with three different QB's when it comes to the analysis of an individual QB's potential.

Good post. We think we have our guy NOW in JC that will be seen this year.

IMO, JC's our future and will prove it on the field. As far as keeping Todd/#2 & Mark/#3 which was played out on the field. We have great veteran depth at QB either guy can come in and win games for you if need be. This will probually be the last year for Mark if I had to guess.

But I really like where we are at this season this year at QB.

[DirteePosse]

well back to quarterbacking.... I'm not a Brunell basher, I've always thought that Brunell could manage a game and he's good for at least 6 or 7 wins a year (at this stage). He just needed a receiving corp that could stay healthy. Collins is a great back up. Before you complain about the Redskins QB's, please check out the rest of the NFC East. We're not breeding Pro-Bowlers, but they are consistent.

[4mrusmc]

I'll add to this by saying that our qb will be as good as our receivers. After Moss who do we really have? Somebody needs to step up, and take charge. Didn't 05' (against seatle) teach us anything?

[thekingrobert]

i might as well throw my name in there too and go try out

[JoeRedskin]

I am only addressing this b/c it is the bi-week, offiss replied while I was away on vacation and because he did so in a manner that invites a reply. So here goes:

Originally Posted by offiss

Pay attention, which I know you don't which is why we are even having the debate, Palmer is the first QB drafted by Gibbs to be a backup, Campbell was drafted to be a starter, as I said he has not brought in talent at the QB position to add depth.

Please pay attention before you use fancy words like obtuse, we all have seen shawshank redemption.

As for being obtuse, I didn't realize a two syllable word was "fancy". Sorry, I'll try to be more monosyllabic for you.

As to paying attention - I have been trying but the inherent inconsistencies in your argument make it difficult. You keep moving the target:
- Gibbs drafting of Campbell while he already had two QB's with starting experience on the roster doesn't count as drafting a young developmental QB.
- The fact that Gibbs has drafted a 2 QB's in his four drafts is not sufficient even though it is a ratio roughly equivalent to BB's in his tenure.
- Gibbs is to blame b/c the QB drafted this year didn't pan out even though, historically, the drafting of QB's is a crapshoot even for the best talent evaluators. (Beathard was a great talent evaluator BUT - Ryan Leaf, 'nuff said).

I will try again with this as the assumed statement of your position: Gibbs hasn't adequately addressed the generally accepted practice of obtaining a young passer to groom as the eventual replacement for the current starter or, if the current starter is still young and performing well (a' la Farve back in the day), to trade for draft picks. Specifically, you seem to assert that Gibbs, at some point, should have acted to obtain a back-up for Campbell through the draft. It is on this last point that I think you are being wrong headed and simply ignoring the facts as to the status of our roster at the time of the relevant drafts. (there, is that a better way of putting it for you?).

Preliminarily, your assertion that "Campbell was drafted to start" is simply wrong. Campbell was not drafted to start. He was drafted to sit on the bench behind Brunnell and Ramsey. In 2005, when Brunnell went down, who came in? Not Campbell - Ramsey. Campbell was drafted to sit on the bench, learn the position and, hopefully, start someday. No one expected him to be our starter on day one, or even by the end of the year. He was the classic developmental pick. (It your assertions that Campbell wasn't a developmental pick and similar ilk that lead me make accusations of obtuseness).

Since it is the failure to draft a back-up to Campbell that seems to be your problem, the 2004 draft is simply not relevant as Campbell wasn't even on the roster. BUT, for the sake of background as to the roster status in subsequent years, we should take a look at it. In 2004, coming into a roster he barely knows, Gibbs had a young passer as the potential starter, Ramsey, and an experienced vet that he traded for, MB, and who was obtained for the purpose of being the insurance policy to the unknown that Ramsey was. In addition, the roster contains a practice squad passer in Hamdan. We had four picks (two of whom were Taylor and Cooley) and an arguably set QB roster - a "QB drafted by Gibbs to be a backup" at this point could be seen as wasteful of the limited picks considering the more pressing needs the team had at that time.

So, in 2005 Gibbs drafted a young passer to groom. Please don't try and tell me he should have drafted another in the same year? Four QB's - 3 of whom were young and two draft picks? Please tell me Mr. "Gibbs Never Gave Ramsey A Fair Shot" how THAT would have gone over with the Ramsey fanatics.

In 2006, going into the draft, Gibbs has a young QB as the planned back-up to a playoff squad, experienced QB. Further,as the young back-up has yet to start a game, Gibbs has signed another experienced QB to be the third QB - just in case. Should we have drafted a QB this year - possibly but not necessarily. As the back-ups, we had one young developmental QB and an experienced QB. Sounds like the generally accepted "best practices" scenario for QB's. Certainly, no one (to my knowledge) came out of the 2006 draft saying -"Dammit! why didn't they draft another QB".

In 2007, with the young QB now the starter and two experienced QB's apparently battling it out for the 2nd spot (pre-draft, I think it is pretty well accepted that either MB or TC was gonna stick but not both), Gibbs drafts a QB to possibly groom and develop. He doesn't pan out. As I have pointed out before, that is not an uncommon event - in fact it is a more than common event.

Thus, in his the three relevant drafts, Gibbs has drafted two developmental QB's. One a high pick who looks like a hit (but still could miss) and one low pick that went the way of the vast-majority of low round picks. Add in the various young FA's brought in and, to me (and I suppose others), Gibbs has clearly taken appropriate steps in his attempts to secure young depth at the QB position.

If it is your continued assertion that another young QB should have been drafted, when? where?

Originally Posted by offiss

It appears he's hit on Campbell eh. Ramsey's press was better than Campbells my friend that is why everyone was so shocked when Gibbs went after Brunell, it is also why Miami was offering a #2 pick in the draft for Ramsey at the time. I would like to know what Campbell has done to warrant these accolades? Other than being the only guy on the team who can actually throw a football 50 yards? Campbell has proven nothing, his only accolade is gibbs named him starter no different than when he named Brunell the starter, Campbell has a long way to go before he's a success story. Beating Brunell out for the starting job I hardly consider conquering the mountain.

How fast do you think it would take the phone to ring if we let it be known JC could be had straight up for a number 2? The line would burn up. Just off the top of my head - TBay, Atlanta, KC, Chicago. Even if we upped the price to a No. 1, wanna bet we would get serious offers? And, just to be clear, you don't think the talking heads would've been roasting us if we had signed Leftwich or Culpepper?

I agree that Campbell has yet to be a success story - but I am betting he makes it and, IMO, as a former Ramsey backer, he is showing more than Ramsey did. Not by a lot just yet but he is certainly more mobile and seems to me (again just my opinion) to have a much better feel for the pocket than Ramsey ever did. Even Jaws commented on how well he seems to be looking off receivers.

Originally Posted by offiss

I really hope Campbell is the goods because we are a long way's away from another legitimate starter.

I agree, though I don't think that is to be unexpected in this day and age. The same can be said of teams with other young starters - Denver, San Francisco, Atlanta, Chicago, Houston, Tennessee, Pittsburg, Minnesota (you could even throw Green Bay in here - they are banking on Aaron Rodgers to step in next year, if he can't they got nothing).

Simply put - your assertion that Gibbs hasn't adequately sought young QB depth lacks any contextual analysis of the Redskin's roster during the relevant draft periods, the state of back-up QB's throughout the leage and/or the average success rate of drafted QB's league-wide. In addtion to lacking analytical context, you continue to assert opinions that fly in the face of the relevant facts (Campbell was drafted to start; Gibbs hasn't attempted to add young depth to the QB position).

In other words - you're being obtuse.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I am only addressing this b/c it is the bi-week, offiss replied while I was away on vacation and because he did so in a manner that invites a reply. So here goes:



As for being obtuse, I didn't realize a two syllable word was "fancy". Sorry, I'll try to be more monosyllabic for you.

As to paying attention - I have been trying but the inherent inconsistencies in your argument make it difficult. You keep moving the target:
- Gibbs drafting of Campbell while he already had two QB's with starting experience on the roster doesn't count as drafting a young developmental QB.
- The fact that Gibbs has drafted a 2 QB's in his four drafts is not sufficient even though it is a ratio roughly equivalent to BB's in his tenure.
- Gibbs is to blame b/c the QB drafted this year didn't pan out even though, historically, the drafting of QB's is a crapshoot even for the best talent evaluators. (Beathard was a great talent evaluator BUT - Ryan Leaf, 'nuff said).

I will try again with this as the assumed statement of your position: Gibbs hasn't adequately addressed the generally accepted practice of obtaining a young passer to groom as the eventual replacement for the current starter or, if the current starter is still young and performing well (a' la Farve back in the day), to trade for draft picks. Specifically, you seem to assert that Gibbs, at some point, should have acted to obtain a back-up for Campbell through the draft. It is on this last point that I think you are being wrong headed and simply ignoring the facts as to the status of our roster at the time of the relevant drafts. (there, is that a better way of putting it for you?).

Preliminarily, your assertion that "Campbell was drafted to start" is simply wrong. Campbell was not drafted to start. He was drafted to sit on the bench behind Brunnell and Ramsey. In 2005, when Brunnell went down, who came in? Not Campbell - Ramsey. Campbell was drafted to sit on the bench, learn the position and, hopefully, start someday. No one expected him to be our starter on day one, or even by the end of the year. He was the classic developmental pick. (It your assertions that Campbell wasn't a developmental pick and similar ilk that lead me make accusations of obtuseness).

Since it is the failure to draft a back-up to Campbell that seems to be your problem, the 2004 draft is simply not relevant as Campbell wasn't even on the roster. BUT, for the sake of background as to the roster status in subsequent years, we should take a look at it. In 2004, coming into a roster he barely knows, Gibbs had a young passer as the potential starter, Ramsey, and an experienced vet that he traded for, MB, and who was obtained for the purpose of being the insurance policy to the unknown that Ramsey was. In addition, the roster contains a practice squad passer in Hamdan. We had four picks (two of whom were Taylor and Cooley) and an arguably set QB roster - a "QB drafted by Gibbs to be a backup" at this point could be seen as wasteful of the limited picks considering the more pressing needs the team had at that time.

So, in 2005 Gibbs drafted a young passer to groom. Please don't try and tell me he should have drafted another in the same year? Four QB's - 3 of whom were young and two draft picks? Please tell me Mr. "Gibbs Never Gave Ramsey A Fair Shot" how THAT would have gone over with the Ramsey fanatics.

In 2006, going into the draft, Gibbs has a young QB as the planned back-up to a playoff squad, experienced QB. Further,as the young back-up has yet to start a game, Gibbs has signed another experienced QB to be the third QB - just in case. Should we have drafted a QB this year - possibly but not necessarily. As the back-ups, we had one young developmental QB and an experienced QB. Sounds like the generally accepted "best practices" scenario for QB's. Certainly, no one (to my knowledge) came out of the 2006 draft saying -"Dammit! why didn't they draft another QB".

In 2007, with the young QB now the starter and two experienced QB's apparently battling it out for the 2nd spot (pre-draft, I think it is pretty well accepted that either MB or TC was gonna stick but not both), Gibbs drafts a QB to possibly groom and develop. He doesn't pan out. As I have pointed out before, that is not an uncommon event - in fact it is a more than common event.

Thus, in his the three relevant drafts, Gibbs has drafted two developmental QB's. One a high pick who looks like a hit (but still could miss) and one low pick that went the way of the vast-majority of low round picks. Add in the various young FA's brought in and, to me (and I suppose others), Gibbs has clearly taken appropriate steps in his attempts to secure young depth at the QB position.

If it is your continued assertion that another young QB should have been drafted, when? where?



How fast do you think it would take the phone to ring if we let it be known JC could be had straight up for a number 2? The line would burn up. Just off the top of my head - TBay, Atlanta, KC, Chicago. Even if we upped the price to a No. 1, wanna bet we would get serious offers? And, just to be clear, you don't think the talking heads would've been roasting us if we had signed Leftwich or Culpepper?

I agree that Campbell has yet to be a success story - but I am betting he makes it and, IMO, as a former Ramsey backer, he is showing more than Ramsey did. Not by a lot just yet but he is certainly more mobile and seems to me (again just my opinion) to have a much better feel for the pocket than Ramsey ever did. Even Jaws commented on how well he seems to be looking off receivers.



I agree, though I don't think that is to be unexpected in this day and age. The same can be said of teams with other young starters - Denver, San Francisco, Atlanta, Chicago, Houston, Tennessee, Pittsburg, Minnesota (you could even throw Green Bay in here - they are banking on Aaron Rodgers to step in next year, if he can't they got nothing).

Simply put - your assertion that Gibbs hasn't adequately sought young QB depth lacks any contextual analysis of the Redskin's roster during the relevant draft periods, the state of back-up QB's throughout the leage and/or the average success rate of drafted QB's league-wide. In addtion to lacking analytical context, you continue to assert opinions that fly in the face of the relevant facts (Campbell was drafted to start; Gibbs hasn't attempted to add young depth to the QB position).

In other words - you're being obtuse.

You made the statement that JC does a good job looking off WR's. To me thats is his biggest problem right now that he is starring them down. I was at the Giants game and he missed allot of wide open WR's and when I got a chance to watch the game on NFL Replay I watch and he seemed to be starring them down. He is young but the coaches need to get him out of that habbit or maybe the coaches told him to do that this past Sunday.

[Hog1]

Joe,
I'm submitting your post for consideration to the WP's annual "longest post" competition held each October on All Hallows Eve at the much anticipated Suds fest and, Rodeo/Swat party at Matty's house.
However, nice post, in spite of your astute, obtuse...??....ness

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by firstdown

You made the statement that JC does a good job looking off WR's. To me thats is his biggest problem right now that he is starring them down. I was at the Giants game and he missed allot of wide open WR's and when I got a chance to watch the game on NFL Replay I watch and he seemed to be starring them down. He is young but the coaches need to get him out of that habbit or maybe the coaches told him to do that this past Sunday.

I agree. My comment was based on a couple of comments by Jaws during the Monday night game. Initially, Jaws said that JC had a bad habit of staring down receivers. Later, during the telecast and using some of his "announcer toys", he demonstrated how JC was, in fact, looking safeties off.

I have heard from various talking heads that JC has a habit of staring guys down. Also, according to your statement, he may not be seeing the field all that well. I am trying to watch for these things myself to see if there is any improvement.

Certainly, if we are making the same comments next year, we may be looking at a Ramsey redux, and that would be a baaaad thing.

[SmootSmack]

Nice post JoeRedskin...but um, when did we stop referring to it as the "bye week" and start referring to it as the "bi-week"

Something you're not telling us

[JoeRedskin]

Sorry, my wife's girlfriends are over and I was confused by our plans for later this evening.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Sorry, my wife's girlfriends are over and I was confused by our plans for later this evening.

Oh well, in that case I understand