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.

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

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

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

[quote=paulskinsfan]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.[/quote]

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.

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

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 [I]the guy[/I] 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.

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

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!!"

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

"Lighten up, Sandy Baby."

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

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

[quote=paulskinsfan]"Lighten up, Sandy Baby."

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

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).

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

[quote=RiggoRules]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).[/quote]

Here's how I understand it: John Riggins, who LOVED to party, goes to real LA TE DA party in DC soon after Sandra Day O'Connor takes the bench. Over the course of the evening, Riggo gets smashed. He literally passes out at his table. When he comes too, he looks over at Sandy, she of course has a look of disgust on her face and that's when he says:
Lighten Up Sandy Baby! The 2 of them became friends and she actually attended a play he starred in years later after football.

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

we aren't in a situation like the chargers where Rivers had to start this year for him or trade him. Campbell's contract isn't too big and with the progress made last year I say u have to stick with Brunnel until Campbell takes the job from him, but I would like to see Gibbs put him in in blowout games unlike last year.

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

Eh! It's just money.

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

Campbell will play when Gibbs feels he is ready to handle the job, barring injury to Brunell of course.

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

[quote=paulskinsfan]Ok, maybe I didn't make my initial statement clear. [B]I am NOT suggesting that Gibbs start Jason Campell.[/B] 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. [B]Having Campbell sit on the bench, or only operate with the 2nd stringers, does not make sense to me.[/B] 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.[/quote]

So then what in the world are you saying? First you're "NOT suggesting that Gibbs start Jason Campell." Then you're saying "Having Campbell sit on the bench, or only operate with the 2nd stringers, does not make sense to me." Seems contradictory to me.

If you really care about getting value for a contract, why are you so concerned about getting value for Campbell, while showing no concern for getting value out of Brunell ($42 million contract)? It's not making any sense to me.

Also, we as fans might have no clue what we have in Jason Campbell. But I think Joe Gibbs knows what he has in Jason Campbell. And I trust Gibbs to play him when he's the best QB for the team. Playing someone to "find out what you have" or get "value" for that player is the wrong reason to play someone. You play to win.

More than anything, it seems like you're going back and just criticizing the decision to select Campbell in the first place. Gibbs likes his QBs to sit for a while longer than most coaches, then he plays them. It's the way he rolls. I'd chill a bit about Campbell. There's still plenty of time left to see what he can do. Right now, let's not worry about it and just try to win a championship.

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

I think we should try something new this year and have a two QB shot gun.

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

"So then what in the world are you saying? First you're "NOT suggesting that Gibbs start Jason Campell." Then you're saying "Having Campbell sit on the bench, or only operate with the 2nd stringers, does not make sense to me." Seems contradictory to me.

If you really care about getting value for a contract, why are you so concerned about getting value for Campbell, while showing no concern for getting value out of Brunell ($42 million contract)? It's not making any sense to me."

Well let me try and straighten this out for ya Schneed. Can you tell me how many snaps Jason Campbell has taken with the starting offense? Answer: None. Im saying that Campbell needs to be allowed to compete with Brunnell, he needs quality snaps with the starting offense and he needs more game time in the preseason. As far as why am I not criticizing Brunnell's contract, well that wasn't the point of the thread now was it? Ive dished out plenty of criticism on that contract before. Im not arguing value for $ spent, Im arguing assessing the value of a guy you gave up 2 first round draft picks for. As for the "Gibbs knows best" argument, you guys really don't need to respond if that's always the comeback argument. I love Gibbs, but to never ever question any of the personnel decisions or coaching decisions is unrealistic.

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

In the pre-draft press conference, Gibbs just said that Campbell will "play a ton" in preseason and that Brunell will not take much work. This will probably give us the best look we've had so far to see how he has progressed.

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

I don't think there is a financial resson to play Campbell. He's growing and learning in the system fine, he'll be the #2 guy this year and will eventually be a good starter.

There's no reason to throw Brunell's experience away out of impatience.

Now Phillip Rivers was an example of a financial reason to start a QB. That's why Brees, although he's been a GREAT QB over the past few years, is now a Saint. Rivers had a HUGE contract and was seeing no opportunities to get on the field. It will be interesting to watch him this year. I bet he won't do as well as Brees did in SD.

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

[quote=firstdown]I think we should try something new this year and have a two QB shot gun.[/quote]

Ha, is that legal?

Can Brunell block? :D

We could make it three in the backfield with Randel El back there too.

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

[quote=Buster]Ha, is that legal?

Can Brunell block? :D

We could make it three in the backfield with Randel El back there too.[/quote]

Dont forget Portis! He's got an arm on him too!

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

[quote=paulskinsfan]"So then what in the world are you saying? First you're "NOT suggesting that Gibbs start Jason Campell." Then you're saying "Having Campbell sit on the bench, or only operate with the 2nd stringers, does not make sense to me." Seems contradictory to me.

If you really care about getting value for a contract, why are you so concerned about getting value for Campbell, while showing no concern for getting value out of Brunell ($42 million contract)? It's not making any sense to me."

Well let me try and straighten this out for ya Schneed. Can you tell me how many snaps Jason Campbell has taken with the starting offense? Answer: None. Im saying that Campbell needs to be allowed to compete with Brunnell, he needs quality snaps with the starting offense and he needs more game time in the preseason. As far as why am I not criticizing Brunnell's contract, well that wasn't the point of the thread now was it? Ive dished out plenty of criticism on that contract before. Im not arguing value for $ spent, Im arguing assessing the value of a guy you gave up 2 first round draft picks for. As for the "Gibbs knows best" argument, you guys really don't need to respond if that's always the comeback argument. I love Gibbs, but to never ever question any of the personnel decisions or coaching decisions is unrealistic.[/quote]

OK well whatever twisted logic you're using to assess the value you're getting from one player and not another, it's not making any sense to me. But whatever, it's not really the point.

The point is I don't care if Campbell shows us he's worthy of the picks we gave up this year. All I care about is putting the team out there that gives us the best chance to win the Super Bowl. Last time I checked you don't get a ring on your finger for getting great value for your draft picks.

Playing Campbell a lot in the preseason is a great idea. It's also not a new idea by any means. Gibbs has said on several occasions that he plans to do that this summer. But when the games are live, I don't care about finding out what we have in Campbell. I care about winning.

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

PS - Jason Campbell is a Redskin for four more years. He'll have his chance. What's the hurry?

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

Riggo's real position -- UNDER the table:

At the 39th annual Washington Press Club "Salute to Congress" Dinner in 1985, Washington Redskins running back John Riggins was seated at a table with Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. As usual, he had not missed attitude adjustment hour. Sometime before [B]he passed out under the table[/B], he managed to respond to what he considered boring dinner conversation by giving some advice to Mrs. Justice O'C. "Lighten up, Sandy baby," he said.

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

"The point is I don't care if Campbell shows us he's worthy of the picks we gave up this year. All I care about is putting the team out there that gives us the best chance to win the Super Bowl. [B]Last time I checked you don't get a ring on your finger for getting great value for your draft picks.[/B]"


I think the Patriots and the Steelers would disagree with you. Champions are built around draft picks, free agents merely supplement. We gave up a TON to get Campbell, 1st round picks that would arguably be contributing to this team right now.

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

if you're letting financial equations determine your starting lineup instead of talent, something is very very wrong. we'll see him in pre-season and have a better idea of what's going on then.

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

Can someone explain to me how, exactly, we gave up "2 first round picks" to get Campbell? We acquired a 2nd first round pick last year in place of our first round pick this year. That's not spending 2 first round picks, that's simply spending one first round pick a year in advance. We may have given up a lot in other picks, that I'd agree with........but I don't get how we are counting 2 first rounders for Campbell. Between last year and this year, we were going to have 2 first rounders if we never made the trade..........and guess what, that's exactly what we have: Rogers and Campbell.

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

[QUOTE=paulskinsfan]"The point is I don't care if Campbell shows us he's worthy of the picks we gave up this year. All I care about is putting the team out there that gives us the best chance to win the Super Bowl. [B]Last time I checked you don't get a ring on your finger for getting great value for your draft picks.[/B]"


I think the Patriots and the Steelers would disagree with you. Champions are built around draft picks, free agents merely supplement. We gave up a TON to get Campbell, 1st round picks that would arguably be contributing to this team right now.[/QUOTE]

Well considering the 1st round pick we gave up was for the 2006 draft I would say he wouldn't be contributing to the team right now

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

[quote=dblanch66]In the pre-draft press conference, Gibbs just said that Campbell will "play a ton" in preseason and that Brunell will not take much work. This will probably give us the best look we've had so far to see how he has progressed.[/quote]

This quote by Gibbs says it all to me. Brunell does not need the extra work in Preseason, all it will do is wear him down and possibly get him hurt. Campbell needs all the work he can get. I invision Brunell getting the start in every Preseason game and maybe playing one series or so before Campbell comes in (with the first string I might add) and playing until deep in the second half. At that point Collins will come in to clean it up. Brunell needs some "gametime" timing with Randle El and Lloyd, but not with Moss. Anyone can hand off to Portis, so Brunell's Preseason will be very limited.

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

[quote=paulskinsfan]"The point is I don't care if Campbell shows us he's worthy of the picks we gave up this year. All I care about is putting the team out there that gives us the best chance to win the Super Bowl. [B]Last time I checked you don't get a ring on your finger for getting great value for your draft picks.[/B]"


I think the Patriots and the Steelers would disagree with you. Champions are built around draft picks, free agents merely supplement. We gave up a TON to get Campbell, 1st round picks that would arguably be contributing to this team right now.[/quote]

This still makes no sense. The Pats and Steelers have rings because they played the best players. Not necessarily because they drafted them high. The single biggest reason the Pats have 3 rings is Tom Brady (6th round pick). If they kept and played the higher draft pick (Bledsoe) that probably wouldn't have worked out so well.

Draft position doesn't dictate your lineup. If you draft well, they'll end up in your lineup anyway. But not because of where they were picked. They'll end up in the starting lineup because they're the best players.

Just because you're picked high, that doesn't mean you're necessarily the best player. I think Campbell will be the best QB for the Skins at some point, but I'm not sure that will be this season.

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

Here's my philosophy on who plays and who doesn't. If there are new players vying for a starting position - whoever plays the best in practice and preseason gets the starting nod. If there is an incumbent who started the year before - the player, challenging for that starting spot, needs to outplay (in practice and preseason) the incumbent by a significant difference. The challenger needs to take the position, leaving no doubt.

Unless you are Gibbs, then you just trust your gut and play whoever, on what feels good to you.

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

[quote=warriorzpath]Here's my philosophy on who plays and who doesn't. If there are new players vying for a starting position - whoever plays the best in practice and preseason gets the starting nod. If there is an incumbent who started the year before - the player, challenging for that starting spot, needs to outplay (in practice and preseason) the incumbent by a significant difference. The challenger needs to take the position, leaving no doubt.

Unless you are Gibbs, then you just trust your gut and play whoever, on what feels good to you.[/quote]

Well put.

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

I don't believe at this point the question should be should Campbell start [or play] he's under contract what's done is done, but perhaps the bigger question is was Campbell worth what we gave up for him if at this point into his second year he can't beat out a 36 year old has been, as Gibbs has him competing with Todd Collins for the #2 backup? Perhaps most draft experts were right when they said he was a mid second rd talent and a project. I really wouldn't have a problem with the pick if we took him in the second rd and didn't give up so much to get him, it's a lot to give up, and a lot of time to invest in a player who could fall flat on his face. Was, or is he worth that kind or risk? Obviously we are going to find out.

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

I've never been a Campbell believer offiss, so I guess you can mark me down as feeling like we gave up entirely too much. Hope he proves me wrong though.

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

All Ive ever tried to say is that the kid needs to take the field and compete, and he should be allowed to compete with Brunnell with the first string offense. We only have him for 5 years and we gave up 2 1st round picks. He's going into his 2nd year and if he is never allowed to compete with the first string offense then how will we know what we have. I guess by making this argument, I don't want to "win" in some people's eyes, but I for one would like to find out what we have in Jason Campbell before the 2nd year of his contact is up.

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

[QUOTE=paulskinsfan]All Ive ever tried to say is that the kid needs to take the field and compete, and he should be allowed to compete with Brunnell with the first string offense. We only have him for 5 years and we gave up 2 1st round picks. He's going into his 2nd year and if he is never allowed to compete with the first string offense then how will we know what we have. I guess by making this argument, I don't want to "win" in some people's eyes, but I for one would like to find out what we have in Jason Campbell before the 2nd year of his contact is up.[/QUOTE]

Why do you keep saying we gave up 2 1st round picks? I thought we traded a 3rd in 2005, plus a 1st and 4th in 2006.

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

[QUOTE=paulskinsfan]All Ive ever tried to say is that the kid needs to take the field and compete, and he should be allowed to compete with Brunnell with the first string offense. We only have him for 5 years and we gave up 2 1st round picks. He's going into his 2nd year and if he is never allowed to compete with the first string offense then how will we know what we have. I guess by making this argument, I don't want to "win" in some people's eyes, but I for one would like to find out what we have in Jason Campbell before the 2nd year of his contact is up.[/QUOTE]


Whether I like the pick or not is kind of a mute point by now, but I totally agree PSF, I want to see him on the field so we know what we have in him this season.

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

[quote=TAFKAS]Why do you keep saying we gave up 2 1st round picks? I thought we traded a 3rd in 2005, plus a 1st and 4th in 2006.[/quote]

Good luck.......I tried before and couldn't get an answer to that one.

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

I imagine those Chunky Soup folks are really rooting for Jason Campbell to do well. The marketing just writes itself

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

Anything to get McNabb and his mom off my TV screen every freaking Sunday.