[Note by Skin Patrol, 07/14/08 8:16 PM EDT ]
Readers are once again encouraged to check out Ben's Redskins Blog, The Curly R, on a daily basis. There is a reason it sits at the top of my Blogroll. Many thanks many times over to Ben for helping tend shop in my absence.

 
Which Brett Favre is still in there?

Brett Favre is coming out of a four month retirement and wants his unconditional release from Green Bay. They do not want to give it to him. Should be interesting.

Via Will at Hogs Haven a week ago a press release from an offshore casino appeared on a free PR site betting that Brett would not land with the Minnesota Vikings but rather with the Washington Redskins.

I think this could work.

Though I may be in the minority. This post at Hogs Haven by mmford10 was up twelve hours after the news and, the comments trended against the idea early and then the thread became about Jason Campbell, not Brett Favre. That was totally predictable.

For the Redskins this could be an historic opportunity. It may play some havoc with the team yes, that is nothing new for Redskins fans. Disruption has been the norm under Dan Snyder, the difference, now before us is a disruption that could be good for the team now and later. Here is my argument:

1. It's Brett Favre. A sure fire first ballot Hall of Famer. No one ever thought he would be available. Now that he is, you talk to him. Just to see what he is looking for. It's Brett freaking Favre. We all know he can still play.

2. The new Redskins offense. What Brett ran in Green Bay and what Jim Zorn brings to the Redskins come from the same source, Mike Holmgren. Brett would have a short learning curve and it would get the new offense humming from the start.

3. The old Redskins offense. The Redskins offense is tooled to win now, it is full of veterans, the line should be healthy back from injuries and if they can play like 2006 that would be great for the running game, west coast offense or not you still have to run the ball in the NFC Beast. Santana Moss, Antwaan Randle El, Chris Cooley and the New Guys are plenty of weapons through the air.

4. The Redskins defense. Turns out the transition from last year to this year should be pretty smooth after all. Even if they slip ten places the team will still be in the top half of the league. A good defense gives new offenses and new players breathing room.

5. It's a tradition. Brett Favre would not be the first high profile Packer to come to Washington. After the 1967 NFL season, Vince Lombardi stepped down as head coach of the Green Bay Packers and after a brief quote retirement unquote from coaching, he took the Packers' general manager position for one season in 1968 before getting restless and coming back to coaching with the Redskins. Prior to the 1969 season the Redskins had not had a winning campaign in 14 years. Under Vince they went 7-5-2, by 1971 George Allen was in place and the team went on to nine straight winning seasons.

The value proposition: it has to cost little or nothing. Ideally the Packers will release Brett after he promises not to sign with a division rival. Frankly I have a hard time seeing Brett play for the Vikings but I digress. If the team demands a trade then it should cost the Redskins not higher than a third round pick, even though it's Brett Favre the team cannot sacrifice any serious portion of the long term future for a player that will give the Redskins one, maybe two shots at the Super Bowl.

The impacts: the elephant in the room here is obviously Jason Campbell, the Redskins starting quarterback, a first round pick himself that cost the team three draft picks in trade to acquire. In the long run, bringing Brett Favre in may be good for Jason Campbell's career. Or it may begin the door closing on what was never going to work out in the first place. Follow me here.

In the first place, there is no shame in being Jason Campbell if you get benched for Brett Favre, that's not a lack of confidence in Jason, that's just taking advantage of an unbelieveable opportunity, if one of the greatest ever in your professional field were suddenly available and your company hired him and he happened to do your job, you could hardly fault the company, it just makes good business sense. Jason is a big boy, if Vinny Cerrato walks into Jason's house this week and tells him Jason will be backing up Brett Favre this year, Jason can not only take it, he may jump up and hug Vinny.

Second, Jason Campbell's position with this team in the long run is still very much open to question. Jason has shown the skills and the potential to be a franchise quarterback in the NFL, he has never lit us up and what we may still be interpreting as growing pains may simply be Jason's limitations. As Randy Cross likes to say on Sirius NFL Radio, that the guy you see early is pretty much the guy you will see always. Players can improve at the edges, rarely do we see a guy go from average to great.

This is not to say Jason is not a starting caliber quarterback. If the Redskins have a good plan they do not need the best QB to make it work. The team could well be successful within Jason's limits, I mean come on this team won Super Bowls with Mark Rypien and Joe Thiesmann, good QBs, not all time greats.

If Brett Favre were to come and wear number four (sorry Derrick Frost, with Durant Brooks and all, this could be a bad training camp experience for you) here in Washington, it would mean Jason would be the backup. It would give him a full year to get familiar with Jim Zorn's offense, I for one along with Rich Tandler and Will-A have plenty of questions as to whether Jason can be a reliable executor of this offense a) now, b) ever. From watching as much football as I have, I am not sure Jason is physically or mentally the type of QB for this type of system. Then again I did not think Steve Young would be successful after Joe Montana and did not envision Donovan McNabb as a west coast quarterback either.

In any event, a full year to learn the system without having to run it on game day might be conducive to Jason digesting the system and being better prepared when his number is called.

True, the Redskins would not get value from Jason's contract this year, which according to PC's awesome contract page, runs through 2010. Brett has a chance to come in and make a run at a title for a season or two then the team gets to decide whether they have seen enough out of Jason Campbell to merit re signing him to a long term deal as the franchise starter.

So this is not just about Brett Favre. All that money and those draft picks spent on Jason Campbell, that's all sunk cost. Jason is either going to be the team's long term solution or he is not, as commenter Allskins at Hogs Haven wrote yesterday, Patrick Ramsey was also a first round pick future of the franchise guy.

The odd man out in this scenario is Todd Collins, who though signed to a two year deal is nothing more than insurance anyway.  Colt Brennan will get a look as number three, he is a Jim Zorn pick and with or without Brett Favre, Colt will be salted away to see if he can run this team.  If he can, if he has the chops to be an NFL quarterback in this type of system, Jason Campbell may be out in two seasons anyway.

This team is ready to win now. The offensive line should be back, how many more seasons do they have in the tank? How about Clinton Portis? Santana Moss and Antwaan Randle El are ready to win now. Chris Cooley is in the prime of his career. There is veteran leadership on a defense peppered with young players, stewardship of the team from old to young has to start happening in the next two to three seasons. Two or three seasons I'd rather not see an offense and a QB getting up to speed, getting untracked, whatever.

Jim Zorn's offense would be friendly to Brett. Let's see what it can do now and now wait until 2010.



Compostite image by me. Brett Favre left image from here, Brett Favre right image from here.

I don't know if I'm using fan in the right context here, but we're all worried; Coach Bugel isn't. Per a Q&A at the Official Site with Bugel:

Q: Randy Thomas and Jansen have had injuries the last few years. Is there any concern about their durability heading into 2008?
A: "No, you can't be worried because injuries are a part of the game. I hate to use a cliché, but age never worries me. I coached Ray Brown at 42 years old, so I don't care how old you are. If you can still play, you're playing. Plus, Randy and Jon are in great condition. They've had time off, plus in rehab you have to work hard every single day. I never worry about injuries. Some guys who come off major injuries have great careers. Injuries are part of the game, really."

Age never worries you? This can't possibly be true. As much as I love Coach's enthusiasm about our old offensive line, I need position coaches willing to address issues, such as the unavoidable, never-ending process whereby young football players become old ones. (And I know that Coach Bugel, despite what he says publicly, is worried about the offensive line, including their collective age.)

The good news is that he has plenty of great things to say about Chad Rinehart, Stephone Heyer, and Andrew Crummey. Stephon has already developed as a reliable backup, Chad Rinehart is treated (in the interview) as a versatile offensive linemen who can play both guards and tackle, and Andrew Crummey receives heaping big praise along with his alma mater, generally. Apparently Bugel has a high opinion of Maryland prospects.

One issue unaddressed in the interview is our backup center situation or, more precisely, the non-existence of a pure backup center on the roster. No offense intended to Kyle Devan but I'm suspicious of his ability to make the team. The more likely scenario is that we ultimately brings in a veteran to fill that spot, as Jon Jansen is more useful as a starting tackle than he is as a backup center, should Rabach go down to injury.

Elsewhere, I know a couple of reader(s) are big on Byron Westbrook, but he got some bad print out of Redskins 360:

Highlights from the 7-on-7 passing part practice: James Thrash beating Byron Westbrook for a long catch, a one-handed catch by Devin Thomas and two Malcolm Kelly catches -- beating Westbrook to catch a long ball from Jason Campbell and, moments later, catching a pass from Todd Collins on a stop-and-go route. Defensively, LaRon Landry intercepted a pass that was deflected off Santana Moss.

Anecdotes such as these hardly tell the entire story on a player's development or performance in practice, but they don't encourage, either. Rather than dwell on the negative, though, let's be happy that both Kelly and Thomas are making noise in the receiving game. In the Q&A with Bugel cited above, he mentioned that the people this offense is toughest on are the quarterbacks and receivers, as it is largely the passing game that has been altered (the offensive line's pass blocking has not changed, per Bugel). It immediately struck me that, assuming -- and this is aggressive -- that both Kelly and Thomas find their way into the top 4 receivers on the depth chart, half of our starting receivers aren't really having to learn a new professional passing system, rather they're being groomed into from the get-go. For Moss and Randle El, this is a new offense. For Kelly and Thomas, this is no more a new scheme than it is for any and every rookie receiver in the NFL.

Finally, transaction news per Redskins Insider:

[T]he Redskins made two rosters moves - re-signing LB Rian Wallace and DE Dorian Smith and releasing Bryan Wilson and Eddie Jackson.

Don't know what to add besides best wishes and happy trails to Bryan Wilson and Eddie Jackson and welcome back to Wallace and Smith. I don't know enough about any of these guys to comment usefully. I will say I'm thrilled to see that Hogs Haven favorite Pete Schmitt is still with the team. Yes, it is true, I will never shut up about him.

My apologies for a short absence; I'm not used to disappearing for nearly a week, but real life monopolized my life. All I ask is that reader(s) stick with me -- regular updates this week.

Per Redskins Insider:

Zorn, who has a reputation for "thinking outside the box" (hate that term but I'm kinda rushing here so I'm taking a lazy cop-out), brought out some huge silver exercise balls and started up a game of dodgeball. For real.

One quarterback held the ball in the pocket and the other quarterbacks chucked the balls at him from various directions. The QB holding the football - not the dodgeball - would have to slither and slide away from the big silver balls, simulating having to elude an oncoming defensive player ... without the obvious risk of injury.

"It 's (a drill) I've been doing to get the quarterbacks to be able to move without a real live guy (chasing them)," Zorn said. "It's been an effective drill to help improve the quarterback's feet and his lateral movement, and what's great with those big balls we use, if we were using smaller balls all they'd have to do is duck; here you really have to move your feet to get out of the way."

Reader(s) are reminded of another unconventionally childish coaching strategy Zorn tried in Seattle, video below:

I don't think Jason Campbell has bad footwork in the pocket, but we all watched him get sacked and subsequently fumble the ball for much of the season. His rate of fumbles per sacks was downright scary; source says he was sacked 21 times but fumled the ball 13 times. No one else at Football Outsiders is listed with as many fumbles lost as Campbell, despite the fact he only played 13 games last year.

Before you use this as an opportunity to call for Todd Collins, remember that Collins was only sacked 7 times... and fumbled four of them (but lost just two).

Bottom line is that sacks turn into fumbles turn into possession change. I think Campbell moves around fine in the pocket but think he hangs on to the ball a bit too long. I also think his release is slow (but not dramatically so) which exacerbates the problem. If he can move just a little better from the pocket, more power to him because that could mean the difference between 7 lost fumbles and, say, 3. That could be the difference between 8 and 9 wins or, put differently, playoffs or no playoffs.

I also think the addition of Fred Davis and two tall receivers in Devin Thomas and Malcolm Kelly should help, since they provide large targets that can be thrown at when the pressure comes. The West Coast offense emphasizes short passes anyways, which likewise gets the ball out of our quarterback's hands before the pass rush arrives.

I'm confused as to why there exists a split of opinion among NFL fans on John Madden; I love him. I don't know how one can love football without also loving the man, the legend, the Football icon that is Madden. Even if I didn't think highly of his sometimes bizarre broadcasts (but I do think highly of his broadcasts, especially the bizarre ones) I'd love him if only for his part in the Madden video game franchise. I feel like he raised me. Ready, break.

My favorite Madden moment came years ago watching a game probably played in Arizona, though it was too long ago and too inconsequential for me to remember now. I think it was in Arizona because there were cows in it. And cactus. Maybe it was Texas. That's not important.

What's important is that I don't recall a damn thing about the game besides the fact that John Madden was really on his game that day, talking absolute nonsense about anything and everything. I was watching the game with a close friend of mine, and we were both enamored of the fact that Madden was pretty much unwilling to discuss anything football related (or at least that's what memory tells me). And it went on, and on, and on (it was long enough ago that he must've been with Pat Sumerall; that twofer remains to this day my favorite broadcast crew). It was on Fox, because I remember the da na na na na na music -- no dancing robot at the time I believe -- and as that familiar intro played they showed some cows. My friend turned to me and said:

"I bet John Madden has something to say about the cows."

As if on cue, John Madden had something to say about the cows.

"Is that cactus those cows are eating?" Says the great, battling dementia even then.

It's impossible to identify the multitude of reasons why fans have such an irrational exuberance for sports, but I'll take a stab at one: it's comfort food for the soul. I have a beer, on the television there is someone talking nonsense about a game I'm familiar with and, holy shit, I've been here before. And there is something equally comforting to know that John Madden is predictably unpredictable, that no matter who is playing he's guaranteed to talk gibberish about some such many times over the course of the game, and I get to laugh at this old man about it and not feel bad, because deep down I know he's laughing too. Or isn't. It doesn't really matter. What matters is that John Madden will never die.

As much love as I have for the man though, his newest game done screwed up bad. CptChaosSidekick knows it. As does the blogging institution that is MJD:

Jason Campbell gets disrespected with an 84, while Todd Collins, still listed as the 2nd string quarterback, gets an 85.

And Mr. Irrelevant knows it:

So I’ll address this rating the same way I addressed Bull’s query, by stating that the reason Collins excelled after Campbell struggled is that TC had been in Al Saunders’ complex offense since JC was coming out of high school. Whereas Collins unleashed looping darts without even looking, Campbell not only had to look first but also think first. Now Saunders is out, Zorn Star is in and JC is the team’s finest option for the future and present. Then I took a swig of Sierra Nevada Summerfest and flipped some burgers.

I'd say this is typical Madden giving love to a veteran player, but then how do you explain this, John?

The truth is, Jason Campbell doesn't have all that much to fear from Todd Collins until after he's thrown at least one pass, and after he does throw that pass, whatever he has to fear from Todd has everything to do with how he plays and nothing to do with his Madden rating. The Redskins just drafted a quarterback in the sixth round who, for most of the last college football season, projected as a day one draft pick. One bad game against a much better team in a nationally televised bowl game can apparently do much damage to one's perceived greatness, despite having played great according to virtually anyone's perception for the better part of two full seasons. And although Colt Brennan was a late round pick, I don't view him as likely cannon-fodder the same manner I might have a, say, Jordan Palmer. Colt Brennan has some downsides, but many wiser men than me projected him as a future starter in the NFL.

I'm not saying that Brennan is here to replace Campbell, but it didn't escape my notice that the team has a reliable third stringer and an overachieving second stringer and they have yet to do anything meaningful towards extending Campbell's contract. And, frankly, I can't blame them. I think Jason Campbell is both the present and the future franchise quarterback of Your Washington Redskins but, acknowledging he's been subject to trials and tribulations beyond his control, he hasn't really done anything besides look like a good but not great quarterback. I have every confidence that a season under quarterback's guru Jim Zorn will mean the world for him. But at some point he needs to develop from good to great or else the team will look elsewhere.

I also say why pile on John Madden, why! Campbell needs to focus on being his smooth mustached badman self and not about whether Madden players will have to make sure he's the starting qb before each game on our depth charts. I say unequivocally: he should be the starter, he is the starter, and it is his job to lose. When I fire up the new Madden, Jason Campbell will start. Right now he's >84. He can throw the ball over them mountains.

Also, Pete Schmitt should be on the roster. That is all.

Phillip Daniels is strong.

Is that what passes for a lead/lede (the debate rages on!) around here? I'm just following the big dogs, as USA Today's Inside Slant demonstrates:

Phillip Daniels is 35.

That is hot off the presses, nine-minute old news, I'm told.

But, unfortunately, very true. Phillip Daniels is old. USA Today might as well have substituted his actual age for a descriptive adjective like elderly, ancient, or antediluvian if they were feeling especially saucy. On the let's-keep-smiles front, battle-tested, seasoned, or familiar would have worked.

Or just old.

The reality in the NFL is that actually quite young human beings can be approaching their professional twilight by their mid-30s, especially when that person's job description says something like: Must outrun or out power a large, probably younger superhuman.

At 35 I'm not certain how much success Daniels will have outrunning his younger opponents, but on this latter challenge there is some reason for optimism. Because though Phillip Daniels might be old in football years -- he's the third oldest on the team, behind Todd Collins and Ethan Albright -- he's strong even by football standards. Really strong:

And Daniels is certainly stronger. In his first competitive powerlifting event since 1999, the 6-4, 290-pound Daniels won his weight class with a 633-pound squat and a 600-pound dead-lift at the American Powerlifting Federation Nationals in March.

"That was in March so who knows what I can lift now?" Daniels said. "I took two weeks off (after the Jan. 5 wild-card loss at Seattle) and I went right into powerlifting. I hadn't done this since just before my last year in Seattle.

Not so coincidentally, that's when Daniels had a career-high 9.0 sacks, which resulted in a hefty, four-year deal with the Bears. And Daniels had 8.0 sacks with the Redskins in 2005, the healthiest of his first four seasons in Washington.

You've hooked me, USA Today, but I learn best with pictures. Six hundred pounds, huh? Consider:

via www.all-creatures.org

I'm told the feller on the left weighs 600 lbs. (Fat ass on the right is beyond even the comic strength of Daniels; he's a 700 pound tortoise.) There are no 600 pound offensive linemen in the NFL. As of this writing, I should add.

I must acknowledge that Daniels hasn't exactly been the sackmaster recently. His sack totals have steadily declined since 2005 from 8 to 3 to 2.5 last season. His tackles haven't moved in the right direction, either, from 48 total in 2005 to 37 in both '06 and '07. But tackling and sacks (and the latter requires the former) is not the only thing a defensive end can do to help the defense.

Sacks aren't some glorious end in and of themselves, even if fans love watching them. They're great because they kill the opponent's down while also taking from them some yards. Even when they fail to accomplish the yardage decrease by any substantial amount, sacks are still extremely valuable for the defense. A negative inches sack is still a useful means towards the ultimate end of forcing the other poor bastard to die three times then punt. Another, comparably debilitating means towards that end is swatting the ball down. It doesn't get the yards, it isn't nearly as sexy a stat as the sack, but it always kills the opponent's down and sometimes leads to an immediate possession change; batted passes sometimes get intercepted.

Phillip Daniels is a ball-hawk. At least in so far as the term can be used for defensive linemen.

See for yourself: Daniels can claim that he had more passes defensed than LaRon Landry last year. Only Shawn Springs, London Fletcher, and Fred Smoot had more. If you combined all the passes defensed by other defensive linemen last season it would be nine, or, the same amount Daniels had. Nine passes defensed.

I am not certain that all nine were swatted balls, but it's doubtful that the Redskins were often putting a 276 pound, thirty-something linemen into coverage. I also know that many of those passes defensed were balls swatted at or near the line of scrimmage, because I watched him do it. (CNNSI says 8 of them were, in fact, batted down at the LOS.)

Would I trade every sack for a ball swatted at the line of scrimmage? No, but it's close, or at least a lot closer than most fans would be willing to admit. And if you counted them as comparable than Phillip Daniels goes from an over-the-hill defensive end in steady decline in 2007 to similarly disposed towards ending the opponent's play as Andre Carter. Carter had 10.5 sacks and 2 passes defensed. Daniels very nearly swapped, with 9 defensed passes and 2.5 sacks.

Admittedly, none of that takes into consideration hurries or pressures or simply presence. At some point trying to turn Phillip Daniels in 2007 into Andre Carter in 2007 is asking reader(s) to deny what their eyes told them; Carter was the better defensive end. But I'm saying it's close, or at least closer than your eyes said.

Phillip Daniels is old. He does have twelve years, almost certainly his best years, of NFL experience behind him. Somewhere in the future a younger player is going to have to supplant him as the starter. But that doesn't mean he's finished tomorrow; the man still knows how to rush a passer with his head up, focused on the only really important thing in dispute, which has been, and always will be, the actual football. Also:

Phillip Daniels can lift a hippopotamus.