Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


RI: Collins is the no. 2

Redskins Locker Room


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-28-2007, 03:41 PM   #91
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 51
Posts: 8,472
Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2

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:

Quote:
Originally Posted by offiss View Post
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by offiss View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by offiss View Post
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.
__________________
You aren't worth the water in my spit but, maybe, just maybe, you're worth the lead in my shotgun.
JoeRedskin is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 09-28-2007, 03:51 PM   #92
Registered User
 
firstdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: chesapeake, va
Age: 50
Posts: 15,818
Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin View Post
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.
firstdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2007, 04:17 PM   #93
Quietly Dominating the East
 
Hog1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Naples, Florida
Posts: 8,983
Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2

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
__________________
Goodbye Sean..........Vaya Con Dios
thankyou Joe.......
Win! Always win!
By fair means or foul, by soft words and hard deeds...
by treachery, by cunning, by malpractice...
but always win--Edward Teach
Hog1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2007, 04:21 PM   #94
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 51
Posts: 8,472
Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstdown View Post
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.
__________________
You aren't worth the water in my spit but, maybe, just maybe, you're worth the lead in my shotgun.
JoeRedskin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2007, 07:57 PM   #95
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 44,585
Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2

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
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2007, 08:39 PM   #96
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 51
Posts: 8,472
Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2

Sorry, my wife's girlfriends are over and I was confused by our plans for later this evening.
__________________
You aren't worth the water in my spit but, maybe, just maybe, you're worth the lead in my shotgun.
JoeRedskin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2007, 09:08 PM   #97
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 44,585
Re: RI: Collins is the no. 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin View Post
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
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.31634 seconds with 10 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25