Were the first 2 years of Gibbs II a waste?

[skinfan2k]

We are entering the fourth year of Gibbs II, and I feel if we look back, can it be said that the first two years were a waste in terms of the quarterback situation? Or is the answer TBD(to be determined)? Could Joe Gibbs have selected a quarterback in the draft where we landed sean taylor maybe Big Ben or another quarterback that was well established?

Or was it just housecleaning to get guys that are deemed core redskins as Joe Gibbs terms it? Could we have been a legit superbowl contender and allowed our rookie qb to get 3 full years of experience already like Eli entering his fourth year?

Does the success of Jason Campbell wipe out the first two years if he becomes a pernennial Probowler? Does it pay off for the next coaching staff after Gibbs if we becomes the next dominant franchise like the Patriots, Colts or Steelers


Can this question be answer yet or do we have to wait for JC or year 4 and beyond of gibbs?

[NewCliche21]

You mean the year that we made the playoffs? We were a dropped interception away from the NFC Championship and a seventh consecutive win. There would have been no real reason that we couldn't have beaten the Steelers that year and won it all.

Sorry, but I thought that was the whole reason to field a team.

[skinfan2k]

Actually both the 6-10 and 10-6 team. The way i might look it might look stupid to you but i never thought brunell was going to lead us to a superbowl and basically we reached our potenial with him.

[terpfan]

Gibbs' second year here was a great year. That stretch of 5 games to make the playoffs was the most fun I've had watching sports since the Terps basketball team won it all in '02. So no, it wasnt a waste.

[geekrx]

Why don't you get a job of managing a retail store with dysfunctional staff and then come back and tell me how long it took you to rebuild a winning team!!!!

Football is no different. Think about how many coaches the Skins have gone through in the last couple of years. Gibbs has been more consistant then others. He has a winning NASCAR team. Give him a break in trying to clean up the mess!!!

[skinfan2k]

Gibbs' second year here was a great year. That stretch of 5 games to make the playoffs was the most fun I've had watching sports since the Terps basketball team won it all in '02. So no, it wasnt a waste.


no doubt it was the best football i have seen, but in terms of the quarterback situation? we all know gibbs would not start rookie quarterback but i felt that we regressed maybe 1 yr or so and we could have aviod that 5-11 season last year and made a run to the playoffs and potentially go far

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

I think future success or future failure will determine how we look at the first two years.

[Siven]

You mean the year that we made the playoffs? We were a dropped interception away from the NFC Championship and a seventh consecutive win. There would have been no real reason that we couldn't have beaten the Steelers that year and won it all.

Sorry, but I thought that was the whole reason to field a team.

Actually, no, we weren't. We were not an interception away from the NFC championship game. It would have helped, true, but it wouldn't have sealed the game.

Panthers vs Redskins would have be interesting.

[SKINS FAN #56]

No, because if he came the last 2 years, the same would've happened. It had been 14 years since he last coached for us. It was all about time

[NewCliche21]

Actually, no, we weren't. We were not an interception away from the NFC championship game. It would have helped, true, but it wouldn't have sealed the game.

Panthers vs Redskins would have be interesting.

Failed argument. If your premise is that I'm wrong because I couldn't tell you what would happen, then you can't tell me that we were NOT an interception away.

Panthers vs Redskins WOULD have been interesting, true. We beat them this year, though, so I think that our 10-6, by then 12-6, team would have had an even greater chance to win.

[NewCliche21]

Actually both the 6-10 and 10-6 team. The way i might look it might look stupid to you but i never thought brunell was going to lead us to a superbowl and basically we reached our potenial with him.

He gave us the best chance to win. Putting Campbell in there would, most likely, have not gotten us that far. I see your point, and you're right about it ultimately setting us back with the quarterback situation, but it was the right choice for the TEAM. You know?

[taylorcoreskin]

He gave us the best chance to win. Putting Campbell in there would, most likely, have not gotten us that far. I see your point, and you're right about it ultimately setting us back with the quarterback situation, but it was the right choice for the TEAM. You know?

Unless Joe felt that Brunell could essentially give him his fourth superbowl ring, the games Brunell started were ultimately wasted.

[Riggins77]

Actually, no, we weren't. We were not an interception away from the NFC championship game. It would have helped, true, but it wouldn't have sealed the game.

Panthers vs Redskins would have be interesting.

Exactly, last I looked at it we lost 20-10.........so we would have lost 20-17 :laugh:

[Riggins77]

Failed argument. If your premise is that I'm wrong because I couldn't tell you what would happen, then you can't tell me that we were NOT an interception away.

Panthers vs Redskins WOULD have been interesting, true. We beat them this year, though, so I think that our 10-6, by then 12-6, team would have had an even greater chance to win.

If "if and buts" were candy and nuts it would be Christmas every day.........

[mcarey032]

The team is doing the right thing by having jason campbell in there developing him and making sure that we have a quarterback of the future. Unlike when we let trent green go and before him stan humphries. I believe where the trouble lies is in the back up position. I know that we don't want Jason Campbell looking over his shoulder, but I do hope that either bramlett or palmer develops into viable back-up. At least that way, we could always have an option. I believe that Brunell and Collins only really offer a stop gap. They should in no way, shape, or form be starting options to challenge Jason Campbell. We need to get with the youth movement and not worry about having veterans who will not get us anywhere.

[NoItAllRS]

I think Gibbs is doing a great job. He took over a team that had very few pieces his first year back. His second year back he took us to the second round of the playoffs but still missing some pieces (#2WR/Jacobs/Farris/Brown):pooh:. That year he also got us two wins over Dallas.:D He had a down year his third year due to many circumstances (new systems/injuries/play calling). I feel like this will be the year he gets this team back to being an elite team. I think this year he will correct two of those circumstances and the other we can't control. We will start seeing a Gibbs built team this year. Then add that his last (contract) year, he will have a full draft that would make this team even better.

[NoItAllRS]

I trust what Gibbs II has done.

[NewCliche21]

Exactly, last I looked at it we lost 20-10.........so we would have lost 20-17 :laugh:

Last I looked, they scored a touchdown on the drive that Rogers dropped the easy INT for a TD on, so it would have been 17-13 :laugh:

[NewCliche21]

Unless Joe felt that Brunell could essentially give him his fourth superbowl ring, the games Brunell started were ultimately wasted.

I want you to re-read what you wrote.

Why would Joe bring a guy in for such a cost if he didn't think that he could give him his fourth ring? Starting Brunell was the right choice.

[taylorcoreskin]

Last I looked, they scored a touchdown on the drive that Rogers dropped the easy INT for a TD on, so it would have been 17-14 :laugh:

just more fuel to the rogers bashing fire

[mrdoctor]

You mean the year that we made the playoffs? We were a dropped interception away from the NFC Championship and a seventh consecutive win. There would have been no real reason that we couldn't have beaten the Steelers that year and won it all.

Exact thoughts came running through my mind. Gibbs is adjusting and making strategic moves. I have faith in him!!
:dallasuck:eaglesuck:gaintsuck

[NewCliche21]

just more fuel to the rogers bashing fire

Burn, baby, burn! :evil::evil::evil:

[skinfan2k]

Exact thoughts came running through my mind. Gibbs is adjusting and making strategic moves. I have faith in him!!
:dallasuck:eaglesuck:gaintsuck


strategic moves are fine with the roster but a qb 37 year old and hoping to win a SB. would gibbs really thikn he can win a championship if he had to revamp the entire team?

[Om]

Hardly a waste. Gibbs develops quarterbacks as well as anyone who's ever coached this game. There's more to that art than giving a guy playing time early and hoping he succeeds ... it's also about bringing him along at the right pace, giving him the experience, confidence, and building a support system around him to be ready when his time comes. Rushing a QB who isn't ready to play into service is a huge risk, particularly on a rebuilding team. We've seen examples right here in DC of guys thrown to the wolves too early who simply crash and burn under the pressure.

When you CAN allow that patient development to happen, your young prospect's chances of succeeding are dramatically improved. That's why Mark was brought in to begin with ... to give the team veteran stability and competitiveness at QB until it's young gun was ready. In this case, the vet managed to accomplish just about every that could have been hoped through the first 2 years. Only injury kept him from perhaps taking them all the way.

But back to the initial point. One thing I've NOT seen mentioned much in connection with JC's development is the incredible amount of balls and intestinal fortitude it took for Gibbs to keep JC on the bench as Mark struggled last year after the knee injury against New York. Given the constant and incredibly bitter clamor he had to endure about his "blindness" to Brunell's failings, the fact he kept to his guns and never whispered a word about why I suspect he REALLY waited as long as he did---protecting Campbell until Gibbs was convinced he was ready to succeed---I'd say to date that may be the most compelling story ABOUT Gibbs II.

[chipwhich]

Given the constant and incredibly bitter clamor he had to endure about his "blindness" to Brunell's failings, the fact he kept to his guns and never whispered a word about why I suspect he REALLY waited as long as he did---protecting Campbell until Gibbs was convinced he was ready to succeed---I'd say to date that may be the most compelling story ABOUT Gibbs II.

??????

Thats standard Gibbs to stand by his QB. Brunell may even have had more of a leash than any other qb. Not sure what you are implying.

[Om]

I'm not "implying" anything. I'm saying, straight out, that one thing I think should be mentioned prominently when discussing Campbell is that Gibbs' decision to stick with Brunell probably had as much to do with Campbell's NOT being ready in his eyes than it did with his affection for/belief in Mark Brunell.

[taylorcoreskin]

I'm not "implying" anything. I'm saying, straight out, that one thing I think should be mentioned prominently when discussing Campbell is that Gibbs' decision to stick with Brunell probably had as much to do with Campbell's NOT being ready in his eyes than it did with his affection for/belief in Mark Brunell.

I don't buy into this argument for the following reason: Jason was getting the fewest snaps of the three QBs during practice until he was named the starter. If Gibbs wanted to develop Campbell yet spare him of the harm produced from playing in an actual game when one is unprepared, he would have given Jason more snaps in practice than Collins and Brunell. The fact of the matter is that Gibbs had the "win now" mentality as illustrated in the amount of snaps he gave Brunell and Collins, which is a foolish mentality to have when Brunell is your team's starter.

[Om]

There's more to developing a young QB in the NFL than the number of "snaps" you given him on the practice field.

[DieselPwr44]

There's more to developing a young QB in the NFL than the number of "snaps" you given him on the practice field.
So that's why they waited until this offseason to get JC to work on his drops and throwing mechanics??

Couldn't that have been done from the get go with the QB coach?? Just sayin'......

[Phixius]

Exactly, last I looked at it we lost 20-10.........so we would have lost 20-17 :laugh:

True but think about it, momentum of the game would have change in favor of the Redskins at that point and the outcome could of been different.

[taylorcoreskin]

So that's why they waited until this offseason to get JC to work on his drops and throwing mechanics??

Couldn't that have been done from the get go with the QB coach?? Just sayin'......

precisely.

JC was ultimately neglected by the coaching staff.

[Om]

precisely.

JC was ultimately neglected by the coaching staff.
That, sir, says all I need to know about your perspective.

Carry on.

[hail2skins]

I think last season was actually more of the waste. Brunell had developed a decent rhythm with Moss and Patten in there in '05 and then we had to go change everything. I could understand bringing in one WR as an insurance policy but signing 2 to fat bonuses was overkill. And the jury's still out on whether bringing in Saunders will pay long-term dividends, but it seems that introducing this complex offense took a lot off kilter. True, perhaps it wouldn't have mattered with the play of the D, but the O definitely struggled in the early part of last year.

[TheLongshot]

I don't buy into this argument for the following reason: Jason was getting the fewest snaps of the three QBs during practice until he was named the starter. If Gibbs wanted to develop Campbell yet spare him of the harm produced from playing in an actual game when one is unprepared, he would have given Jason more snaps in practice than Collins and Brunell. The fact of the matter is that Gibbs had the "win now" mentality as illustrated in the amount of snaps he gave Brunell and Collins, which is a foolish mentality to have when Brunell is your team's starter.

Not really, when at that time, Brunell was really the only QB on the team who really gave the team a chance to win a Superbowl in 2006. Let's face it, as talented as Campbell is, he wasn't likely to take this team on his shoulders and win the big one, especially when learning a brand new offense. After the season, it was obvious that Campbell still had a lot to work on.

As much as we lament some of Brunell's shortcomings, we also forget that Brunell has loads of experience in big games. So, going with Brunell last year was a no-brainer, especially after going to the playoffs the previous year.

It is why Brunell got the bulk of the snaps, because when learning a new offense, you really need to put your eggs in one basket and go with it.

Campbell came in at probably the perfect situation for him: when there wasn't really much to play for anymore. Sure, we had an outside chance at the playoffs, but it was a longshot and mostly it would take a big run to do it. That wasn't likely to happen. So, there was little pressure on him, and he could just go out there and play.

So, were the first two years a waste? Only if last year was the real team and the first two years were an illusion. Personally, I don't believe that.

Jason

[TheLongshot]

I think last season was actually more of the waste. Brunell had developed a decent rhythm with Moss and Patten in there in '05 and then we had to go change everything. I could understand bringing in one WR as an insurance policy but signing 2 to fat bonuses was overkill. And the jury's still out on whether bringing in Saunders will pay long-term dividends, but it seems that introducing this complex offense took a lot off kilter. True, perhaps it wouldn't have mattered with the play of the D, but the O definitely struggled in the early part of last year.

That's why I don't understand those who argue that Gibbs is just looking to "win now". Fact is, the move to get Saunders and getting two WRs were long-term moves. The hope was that that would work hand-in-hand with the short term goal of winning. Unfortunately, it didn't work out that way.

Jason

[taylorcoreskin]

Not really, when at that time, Brunell was really the only QB on the team who really gave the team a chance to win a Superbowl in 2006. Let's face it, as talented as Campbell is, he wasn't likely to take this team on his shoulders and win the big one, especially when learning a brand new offense. After the season, it was obvious that Campbell still had a lot to work on.

As much as we lament some of Brunell's shortcomings, we also forget that Brunell has loads of experience in big games. So, going with Brunell last year was a no-brainer, especially after going to the playoffs the previous year.

It is why Brunell got the bulk of the snaps, because when learning a new offense, you really need to put your eggs in one basket and go with it.

Campbell came in at probably the perfect situation for him: when there wasn't really much to play for anymore. Sure, we had an outside chance at the playoffs, but it was a longshot and mostly it would take a big run to do it. That wasn't likely to happen. So, there was little pressure on him, and he could just go out there and play.

So, were the first two years a waste? Only if last year was the real team and the first two years were an illusion. Personally, I don't believe that.

Jason

Brunell may have given us the best chance to win a superbowl. That doesn't mean that he actually gave us a chance to win a superbowl however.

Gibbs could have very well started Brunell without giving him the bulk of snaps. Nothing wrong with putting Brunell in the games without adequate preparation. It's not like Brunell had the potential to get us our 4th superbowl victory. Thus, there was no need to invest "all our eggs" in him.

[RedskinzOwnU]

Season 1 ramsey should have been playing. I never wanted Brunell on the team to begin with, and he played like ass. Season 2 he played decently for most of the season. I can't really complain about his overall performance that season. Season 3 I wanted JC starting after week 2 b/c it was clear that brunell was back in season 1 mode. So, while the 2nd season was nice, everything after that involving brunell was a waste

Right now I'm just glad JC is looking good and glad that brunell will quite possibly never start for the squad again. That's all that really matters at this point. The brunell mistake is, for the most part, behind us.

[hail2skins]

Brunell may have given us the best chance to win a superbowl. That doesn't mean that he actually gave us a chance to win a superbowl however.

Gibbs could have very well started Brunell without giving him the bulk of snaps. Nothing wrong with putting Brunell in the games without adequate preparation. It's not like Brunell had the potential to get us our 4th superbowl victory. Thus, there was no need to invest "all our eggs" in him.

I don't know.......I think many would argue that the offense was playing fairly well in '05 when we had a healthy cadre of wide receivers. Even without a healthy cadre we were still able to put together a string of Ws to get us in to the playoffs and optimism for another playoff appearance (and who knows after that) in '06 with the #8 car was certainly warranted.

Again, I think the big factor was the Saunders equation. With the new offense you certainly had to give Brunell the majority of the practice snaps to adequately prepare him. Just seems like it wasn't enough. The offense stunk in the first part of the season last year and unfortunately the games against Houston and Jacksonville gave the false hope that things would turn around, which they never did in the meaningful part of the season. Its even unclear if it was Saunders or Gibbs calling the shots by the time Campbell got the start.

[DieselPwr44]

Season 1 ramsey should have been playing.

I disagree and I was a Ramsey supporter at the time. IMO,Gibbs was proven rigjht not to trust Ramsey at the QB spot. The guy has no pocket presence and has trouble with short touch passes and reading defenses.

Heck, he couldn't even beat out Pennington who has a rag arm and a precariously brittle shoulder.Looking back(isn't hindsight wonderful?), Brunell was the only real option we had at the time. :2cents:

[taylorcoreskin]

I don't know.......I think many would argue that the offense was playing fairly well in '05 when we had a healthy cadre of wide receivers. Even without a healthy cadre we were still able to put together a string of Ws to get us in to the playoffs and optimism for another playoff appearance (and who knows after that) in '06 with the #8 car was certainly warranted.

Again, I think the big factor was the Saunders equation. With the new offense you certainly had to give Brunell the majority of the practice snaps to adequately prepare him. Just seems like it wasn't enough. The offense stunk in the first part of the season last year and unfortunately the games against Houston and Jacksonville gave the false hope that things would turn around, which they never did in the meaningful part of the season. Its even unclear if it was Saunders or Gibbs calling the shots by the time Campbell got the start.

When we headed into the bye week with a 2-5 record in 2006, it would have been appropriate to give Jason the bulk of snaps and simply make Brunell suffer through gameday until Jason was ready. It would have been foolish to think that we could win the rest of our games with Brunell as our starting quarterback. By then, any knowledgeable person saw that the "number 8 car" wasn't going to lead us back to the playoffs for our 4th superbowl victory.

[NoItAllRS]

Hardly a waste. Gibbs develops quarterbacks as well as anyone who's ever coached this game. There's more to that art than giving a guy playing time early and hoping he succeeds ... it's also about bringing him along at the right pace, giving him the experience, confidence, and building a support system around him to be ready when his time comes. Rushing a QB who isn't ready to play into service is a huge risk, particularly on a rebuilding team. We've seen examples right here in DC of guys thrown to the wolves too early who simply crash and burn under the pressure.

When you CAN allow that patient development to happen, your young prospect's chances of succeeding are dramatically improved. That's why Mark was brought in to begin with ... to give the team veteran stability and competitiveness at QB until it's young gun was ready. In this case, the vet managed to accomplish just about every that could have been hoped through the first 2 years. Only injury kept him from perhaps taking them all the way.

But back to the initial point. One thing I've NOT seen mentioned much in connection with JC's development is the incredible amount of balls and intestinal fortitude it took for Gibbs to keep JC on the bench as Mark struggled last year after the knee injury against New York. Given the constant and incredibly bitter clamor he had to endure about his "blindness" to Brunell's failings, the fact he kept to his guns and never whispered a word about why I suspect he REALLY waited as long as he did---protecting Campbell until Gibbs was convinced he was ready to succeed---I'd say to date that may be the most compelling story ABOUT Gibbs II.

:high5: :chestram: Finally someone is seeing the light!

[TheLongshot]

When we headed into the bye week with a 2-5 record in 2006, it would have been appropriate to give Jason the bulk of snaps and simply make Brunell suffer through gameday until Jason was ready. It would have been foolish to think that we could win the rest of our games with Brunell as our starting quarterback. By then, any knowledgeable person saw that the "number 8 car" wasn't going to lead us back to the playoffs for our 4th superbowl victory.

Actually, Campbell did get the bulk of the snaps during the bye week. At that point, you do need to evaluate where your developing QB is, because there was a good chance that at some point of the rest of the season, he could come in.

The bye week gives a team a chance to go in and try to retool things if they are struggling. Considering that Brunell wasn't a primary reason why we were 2-5, a QB change didn't make that much sense. Fact is, even with the poor record, we were still in the hunt if we could turn things around. And while we were still in the hunt, Brunell was going to be in there. At that point in his career, Campbell didn't give us a greater chance to win than Brunell, and that was pretty much proven out over the rest of the year. Yes, he could do things that Brunell couldn't, but the results were pretty much the same.

Jason

[taylorcoreskin]

Actually, Campbell did get the bulk of the snaps during the bye week. At that point, you do need to evaluate where your developing QB is, because there was a good chance that at some point of the rest of the season, he could come in.

The bye week gives a team a chance to go in and try to retool things if they are struggling. Considering that Brunell wasn't a primary reason why we were 2-5, a QB change didn't make that much sense. Fact is, even with the poor record, we were still in the hunt if we could turn things around. And while we were still in the hunt, Brunell was going to be in there. At that point in his career, Campbell didn't give us a greater chance to win than Brunell, and that was pretty much proven out over the rest of the year. Yes, he could do things that Brunell couldn't, but the results were pretty much the same.

Jason

link?

[DieselPwr44]

link?


Campbell, who is 6-4 and 223 pounds, first began to get increased reps in practice during the Redskins' bye week in late October. It was a sign that coaches were preparing the second-year player for the starting role.

http://www.redskins.com/news/newsDetail.jsp?id=22127

[taylorcoreskin]

http://www.redskins.com/news/newsDetail.jsp?id=22127

It appears that I must admit defeat :( .






However, increased reps isn't very specific. ;)

[communion5]

sigh.....nothing to contribute. more negetive speculation. what a drag.

[scruffylookin]

There's more to developing a young QB in the NFL than the number of "snaps" you given him on the practice field.

Such as?

You mean even in his second season with the team, it still made sense to you that they didn't even get him on the field with the starters at all until the bye week when they finally decided to start prepping him to take over? I agree that Gibbs has had great success in developing young QBs in the past, but he's also shown an annoying habit of staying with his trusted veteran way to long (Theismann 85, Williams 88, Brunell 04 & 06). Schroeder in 85, Rypien in 88 and to a lesser degree Campbell in 06 demonstrated that they were ready to take over but unfortunately it took injuries for them to get their shot, not some grand Gibbs master plan.

As for the subject of the thread, I don't think the first two years was a waste because he did make the playoffs in year two. Considering how barren our postseason resume has been since 1993, I'll take it.

However, if you're looking at it strictly in terms of building a consistent winner/Super Bowl team, then yeah so far it all has been a waste because Gibbs and company have failed to make this team younger and build it for the long haul.

The "legs" of the football team (as Mark Moseley once termed it) are your offensive and defensive lines. We are old at the offensive line and question marks abound on the defensive line.

Gibbs 2 has failed to develop one young lineman in the three years he's been here. Prior to Dockery leaving, 4/5ths of the line were guys that Gibbs inherited from Spurrier. Dockery leaves and instead of having a guy ready to take over, we resort to moving a natural tackle who is over 30 into the slot and hope he can play there.

When Gibbs returned there were two expectations that I feel comfortable in saying that everyone had.

1. Win a Super Bowl
2. Clean up the mess and build a strong football organization.

Both do not need to happen in order for Gibbs 2 to be called a success.

If he wins a Super Bowl, enough said.

If he fails to win a SB or even get to one, he could still be considered a success if he actually rebuilt the Redskin organization and the organization could thrive after he leaves.

So far, Gibbs has failed on both counts and based on what I've seen, hope #2 will not happen. The organization will once again fall into the hands of Snyder/Cerrato once Gibbs walks away be it after 07 or 08.

That leaves SB or bust and ironically enough it's in the hands of one Jason Campbell, the man Gibbs did not see fit to start prepping as a starter until midway through last season, that will give Gibbs any shot at actually achieving this goal.

[TheLongshot]

Such as?

The mental aspect of the game: reading defenses, knowing where the ball is supposed to go on any given playcall. There is a lot a QB has to learn. Hell, Brunell was having problems with a new offense, and he's an experienced NFL player. It is much tougher for a guy who has never hit the field in an NFL game.


You mean even in his second season with the team, it still made sense to you that they didn't even get him on the field with the starters at all until the bye week when they finally decided to start prepping him to take over?

When you need to use most of that time to get your starter ready for the season, yes, it does make sense.

It isn't like Campbell wasn't getting any snaps at all. He was often used as the opposing QB in defensive drills. It is just that he didn't work with the starters, which is the way it is when you aren't the starter.


I agree that Gibbs has had great success in developing young QBs in the past, but he's also shown an annoying habit of staying with his trusted veteran way to long (Theismann 85, Williams 88, Brunell 04 & 06). Schroeder in 85, Rypien in 88 and to a lesser degree Campbell in 06 demonstrated that they were ready to take over but unfortunately it took injuries for them to get their shot, not some grand Gibbs master plan.

Campbell showed that he still had work to do to become a better than average QB. His accuracy and timing still needed a lot of work, and he was rather inconsistent. I certainly like his potential, but he wasn't a guy last year that was going to lead a team to a playoff berth.

I think the "sticking with vets" knock is a bit overblown. Fact is, most coaches would rather go with the guy who knows what he's doing, rather than a young guy who doesn't. The only time they do that is when they feel that they have no choice in the matter.

Fact is, Brunell was in there so long because he had so little confidence in Ramsey. When Ramsey did go in, it was very obvious that Gibbs had the training wheels on him.


However, if you're looking at it strictly in terms of building a consistent winner/Super Bowl team, then yeah so far it all has been a waste because Gibbs and company have failed to make this team younger and build it for the long haul.

The "legs" of the football team (as Mark Moseley once termed it) are your offensive and defensive lines. We are old at the offensive line and question marks abound on the defensive line.

Gibbs 2 has failed to develop one young lineman in the three years he's been here. Prior to Dockery leaving, 4/5ths of the line were guys that Gibbs inherited from Spurrier. Dockery leaves and instead of having a guy ready to take over, we resort to moving a natural tackle who is over 30 into the slot and hope he can play there.

Actually, I think we are young in quite a few aspects of this team. Other than the OL, just about everyone else is pretty young. On the defense, the DBs have gotten significantly younger, and while the LBs are somewhat old, we have some nice developmental players behind them. The DL got significantly younger last year as well.

Your specific example is somewhat out there, since the need to develop a young lineman wasn't needed. When Gibbs got here, we already had a good set of O-linemen, and the fact is you usually need your backups to be able to fill in at a moment's notice, so keeping a player around strictly for developmental purposes is a luxury. You need to be able to play.

So, why Wade? Because he's the next best lineman on the team, and you want your best out there. Fact is, when a hole like this opens up, you either draft your replacement in the first day, or you sign a vet. We did the latter, with the added advantage that he knows the system.


When Gibbs returned there were two expectations that I feel comfortable in saying that everyone had.

1. Win a Super Bowl
2. Clean up the mess and build a strong football organization.

Both do not need to happen in order for Gibbs 2 to be called a success.

If he wins a Super Bowl, enough said.

If he fails to win a SB or even get to one, he could still be considered a success if he actually rebuilt the Redskin organization and the organization could thrive after he leaves.

So far, Gibbs has failed on both counts and based on what I've seen, hope #2 will not happen. The organization will once again fall into the hands of Snyder/Cerrato once Gibbs walks away be it after 07 or 08.

That leaves SB or bust and ironically enough it's in the hands of one Jason Campbell, the man Gibbs did not see fit to start prepping as a starter until midway through last season, that will give Gibbs any shot at actually achieving this goal.

I disagree with your evaluation of #2. I think we are a stronger organization than we have been in a long time. There are few needs out there on this team as far as starters go and the young players are starting to come in. Yes, the process hasn't been smooth, but that happens. If Gibbs left at the end of the year, I think we have a pretty good core that any head coach would love to have.

Jason

[NewCliche21]

I agree that Gibbs has had great success in developing young QBs in the past, but he's also shown an annoying habit of staying with his trusted veteran way to long (Theismann 85, Williams 88, Brunell 04 & 06). Schroeder in 85, Rypien in 88 and to a lesser degree Campbell in 06 demonstrated that they were ready to take over but unfortunately it took injuries for them to get their shot, not some grand Gibbs master plan.

I don't like this part of the post. Theismann and Williams had won Super Bowls. Why in the world would you switch quarterbacks who won you a Super Bowl? If it ain't broke, then don't fix it. It seems like you have a mentality of "What have you done for me lately?" Williams had just won a Super Bowl and Theismann was barely removed from leading arguably the third-best team of all time, minus the Super Bowl loss.

Sticking with Brunell was the smartest choice for the team.

[Justsomeguy]

The only "waste" is this thread......

[FuriousD]

Hardly a waste. Gibbs develops quarterbacks as well as anyone who's ever coached this game. There's more to that art than giving a guy playing time early and hoping he succeeds ... it's also about bringing him along at the right pace, giving him the experience, confidence, and building a support system around him to be ready when his time comes. Rushing a QB who isn't ready to play into service is a huge risk, particularly on a rebuilding team. We've seen examples right here in DC of guys thrown to the wolves too early who simply crash and burn under the pressure. .


Gibbs has had his success with some and failures with others.

Jay Schreoder was never taught the intricacy and subtlties of the Zone Defense. That developed into 6 Int's in the '86 championship, was it? :cry:

And what about Stan Humphries? He was shipped* (*code for "developed") out of the organization and over to the Chargers who in turn developed him into a Superbowl QB! :doh:

Did Gibbs develope Doug Williams? No. :no:

His only truely valid claims to real success come from Mark Rypien and maybe Theisman considering that Theisman was a vet when first meeting Joe.

It's still a great record but spotless it is not.

[InsaneBoost]

1st year he needed to catch up, so I guess it could be looked at as a waste, but getting back into the game isn't.

2nd year, hell no, we did great.

3rd year, our whole team sucked, not coaching TEAM, so maybe a bit.

4th year, well, we shall see, but I'm going to say no.

[taylorcoreskin]

The mental aspect of the game: reading defenses, knowing where the ball is supposed to go on any given playcall. There is a lot a QB has to learn. Hell, Brunell was having problems with a new offense, and he's an experienced NFL player. It is much tougher for a guy who has never hit the field in an NFL game.




Jason


You do realize that they break down the plays from practice, right? Practice provides a learning experience as every play gets evaluated and scrutinized. Alot of snaps would have have been both physically and mentally beneficial for JC. Nothing is more constructive for a young quarterback than practice.

[Killerbo]

I have to say though, that we don't really develop players that well.....especially olinemen....

[Cdowwe]

I hardly think year 2 was a waste. I dont think people realize how close we were. The AFC was represented by Pittsburgh and they played crappy in the Superbowl, so a win over them could have been very possible. Had we beat Seattle, and I think we could have, we'd of won the Superbowl.

[DieselPwr44]

Did Gibbs develope Doug Williams? No.

Well, Joe was the O-coordinator with Tampa when Williams was there so he may have done some molding of his QB skills. :2cents:

[Wyvern]

Gibbs has transitioned the Redskins to a state of competitiveness that we didn't enjoy under Spurrier. He overhauled the roster of players the Spurrier left behind. He's upgraded the entire coaching staff with we have some of the best coaches available. He's kept a nucleus of Redskin players together now for several years, and brought in hard-working talented players.

FYI, He did build up the offensive line --with the signing of Rabach, and kept most of the O-line intact. We've upgraded our WRs, our TEs, our RBS, and much of our defense too.

The issue fans might have problem with is Gibbs patience -- especially with the QB position. QB development isn't done overnight. No doubt Gibbs decided that Ramsey was not what he needed at the Redskins QB, but even then it takes 3-4 years for most drafted QBs to be ready. Considering we've changed offensive systems in 2006, I think Gibbs has moved Campbell along as quickly as possible and still be responsible in developing our next Redskins QB.

IMO, Gibbs has been patiently constructing a winner here, under some difficult circumstances. True there have been some disappointments but there also been a lot of successes too.

Also, I don't think you can call a year when you reach the playoffs a waste. I think 2007 adn 2008 are going to be really good years for the Redskins.

[honeydont]

Dont give me that crap Its was never a waste. With Dan Snyder pushing the buttons behind the veil we will continue to struggle and no GM to equalize the upper end management. Marty Schottheimer? had a good chance to get us there until Dan ruined it. Joe Gibbs will always be a winner thats inside him and he takes it wherever he goes in life. Joe will turn us into big winners but the SB trophy...................I hope so. :) To your Mother :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

[topdogbran]

I wouldn't consider it a waste at all. He was doing what he's always done. Put the best QB on the field for any given game. That's typically a veteran with a developmental guy in wings. Think about it, he had Theismann and nearly traded him. Then there's Schroeder milling about. He comes in and lights it up in 86. He's not entirely comfortable with Jay, so he goes and gets another veteran, Doug Williams. Those two are mano y many for the better part of a couple seasons, and then finally turns the offense over to Mark Rypien who'd be lurking in the background for a couple three seasons. I don't really see much different here to be honest. He went with the veteran he trusted, had Ramsey in there competing for a job. Didn't like what they had with Ramsey and drafted Campbell. We're going with Campbell, but veteran Brunell waits in the wings. Not entirely unlike '87, except I don't Campbell is a horse's ass like Schroeder was.

[NewCliche21]

1st year he needed to catch up, so I guess it could be looked at as a waste, but getting back into the game isn't.

2nd year, hell no, we did great.

3rd year, our whole team sucked, not coaching TEAM, so maybe a bit.

4th year, well, we shall see, but I'm going to say no.

InsaneBoost?

With a great post?

Looks like another account got hacked . . .

:cheers: