Redskins' Quarterbacks of the Future

by Burgundy and Gold on Sep 8, 2006 1:19 PM EDT

Like many Redskins fans, I will occasionally find myself frustrated with the development of Jason Campbell, especially given Joe Gibbs' backup QB system, which seems to imply that Campbell is capable of winning games, given the chance. But let's take a look at some of Washington's other "quarterbacks of the future."

Following a very successful college career at Tennessee in which he nearly won the Heisman Trophy, the Redskins drafted Heath Shuler 3rd overall in the 1994 NFL Draft, and he soon took over as the team's starting quarterback. After two dismal seasons, he was demoted to a backup role, and was eventually traded to the Saints for a third round pick. Shuler was even worse in New Orleans, throwing for 14 interceptions and only 2 touchdowns in 10 games. History now remembers him as one of the biggest flops in the history of the draft, often drawing comparisons to the miserable Ryan Leaf. Since leaving the NFL, Shuler invested all of the money the Skins gave him into a successful real estate business, and is now widely expected to win a seat in the House of Representatives, despite a movement by some to "keep Shuler out of Washington."

With the 32nd pick in the 2002 NFL draft, the Washington Redskins selected... Patrick Ramsey. This kid was destined to be great, starting his athletic career as the nation's top-ranked high school javelin thrower. In College, he shattered just about every Tulane passing record, all while distinguishing himself as a student athlete. Ramsey finished three seasons with a 10-14 record and roughly four thousand sacks. Last season, he was given the starting role for one half of one game, and has not seen much action since. In March of this year, he was finally traded for a sixth round pick to New York, and is now third on the Jets' depth chart.

What these quarterbacks have in common is they were both rushed into a starting role way too soon. While some have claimed that Joe Gibbs is too obsessed with winning now (is that even possible?), I think a strong case can be made that he is making decisions that are good for the long-term success of the team. Jason Campbell has all of the potential to be great, just as long as he is given a chance to fully develop.

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Past QBs of the Future

Obviously, Ramsey and Shuler post-date (or is it pre-date? The cycle of time is repeating) Joe Gibbs. There is no question the QB position has been mishandled since Mark Rypien went down in week 7 of the 1993 season. Cary Conklin, who had been riding the pine as the successor to Rypien, had to come in, and looked terrible. It all broke down after that.

The Rich Gannon that year was not the Rich Gannon from the Vikings before or the Raiders after. Somehow, Norv made John Friesz, a starter in SD, look like an inexperienced backup. Gus and Heath, well, they were the Odd Couple. Trent was the One That Got Away. Norv kept him on the bench, and look what happened. He matured and is still in career stride.

Limp along with Jeff George, Tony Banks (those two -- talk about gack!) until you get to Brad Johnson, who got run out of town for no good reason, and now look, it's 6 years later and he's still a starter.

Gibran Hamdan, we hardly knew ye.

The biggest thing in my opinion that changed the dynamic of player development was the new IR rule. Injured Reserve used to be known as the 'taxi squad.' A place to stash players that were future starters or better than the practice squad (because even now, another team can claim any player off the practice squad if they intend to promote him to the active roster -- the team must either promote him or give him up. Anyone rememver Redskins RB William Bell?), but not ready to play. They'd have vague injuries like 'an elbow' or 'a hip,' got to be off the starting roster, but available at any time. There was a large limit, like 12 players, that a coach could place on IR. Mark Rypien and Stan Humphries spent time on the old IR.

Then, in 1992, the league smartened up and realized, with no salary cap and free agency just then looming, rich teams like the Redskins were stashing players there with fake injuries, and that this reduced competition. So starting that year, once a team placed a player on IR, he was unavailable for the rest of the season.

So it's in that context that I would judge Gibbs and Campbell. If it were the old way, we'd never see Campbell, and Collins would be the designated backup, and some schmuck like Steve Pelleur would be #3 (anyone remember Jeff Rutledge?). If Collins got hurt or couldn't go, Campbell miraculously would recover from his 'injury' and be available for games.

Joe Gibbs, Bobby Beathard and Jack Kent Cooke were the last practitioners of the ancient and extinct art of stacking teams in an era when spending was free and players moved at the teams' will.

by thatguyben on Sep 8, 2006 1:58 PM EDT reply actions

Great follow-up

Years of frustration distilled into a comment. :)

by Burgundy and Gold on Sep 8, 2006 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions

Solid post

solid response.

I've never been given a reason to doubt Joe Gibbs' QB scouting. As stated above, neither Ramsey nor Shula had anything to do with Gibbs. Campbell does. He saw something in him that deserved development, and I trust his judgment on when JC is ready to play. The statistical gurus at Football Outsiders think you can track the future success of a quarterback using two simple measures: games started and completion percentage. Campbell had excellent College numbers in both.

I would say that based off the fact Joe Gibbs is the only person in NFL history to coach not one, not two, but three Superbowl winning Quarterbacks, I'll reserve questioning his QB development ability up until that moment JC becomes an indisputable bust.

by Skin Patrol on Sep 8, 2006 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions

Just look at what he did with Brunell

Not to bash our starter, but Gibbs was really able to turn around his career.

by Burgundy and Gold on Sep 8, 2006 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions

brunell....

i'm really anxious to see what he does this year. i don't think he'll be terrible, but i'm not convinced he's going to be as good as he was last year.

by Blitzburgh @ Hogs Haven on Sep 8, 2006 3:31 PM EDT reply actions

My take on it

I'm skeptical as to whether he will play 16 games, not that it even behooves us for him to do that; there was some suggestion that he ran out of gas as the season wore on, and the season's 1st half stats were considerably better than 2nd half (remember the playoffs as well).

That said, for games he is in I have every reason to believe that Brunell actually improves. He has added weapons on offense and an offensive coordinator who has gotten the most out Trent Green.

There's this repeated over-and-over again that Mark Brunell is just too old to have repeated success in the National Football League. Yet Trent Green, who is older than Mark Brunell, put up over 4,000 yards the past three seasons.

Saunders knows how to produce yards, even with old quarterbacks. Especially with old quarterbacks. And I tend to think that Santana Moss is an upgrade over Eddie Kennison and Brandon Lloyd/ARE are both better than Samie Parker.

Brunell has the weapons and the coach to match and exceed last season's success.

by Skin Patrol on Sep 8, 2006 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions

That being said...

I would put the Priest Holmes/Larry Johnson combo ahead of any the Redskins could produce. Not taking anything away from Portis, but Betts/Duckett/the others are just of no compare. Also, I would Tony Gonzalez ahead of Cooley as far a pure TE would go. Also, a pre-concussion Gus showed great promise, the same promise he has shown in the role of backup in Minn, among other places. Thirdly, or maybe fourthly, Brunell had a much different beginning of his career than did Green, where his style of play (that of a great scrambling quarterback) would cause a lot more wear and tear on his body. I would also say that at all points of their career, Green had a much stronger arm, something that would bode well in the twilight of a carrer. (Look at the longevity of a say, Jeff George or a Bledsoe, over a say Jeff Garcia or, digging way back in Redskin lore, Jay Schroeder.) Not to point out anything about effectiveness as a starter, which is a separate issue entirely, just pointing out the opportunities they were given much later in their football career.

by TexSkins on Sep 8, 2006 7:10 PM EDT up reply actions

For the record...

When I typed that message, it totally had paragraph breaks in it...

by TexSkins on Sep 8, 2006 7:11 PM EDT up reply actions

So it's a trade off

Though we'll see how good Portis/LJ/Gonzales would've been without Saunders. A lot of their success, and Trent Green's, should be attributed to a successful Offensive Coordinator. How much one leaned on the other will be decided by history.

I too am skeptical about whether or not Brunell can survive an entire season, but I don't think the wear and tear on him necessarily precludes a good season. Case in point being 2005.

However something you didn't mention was that Green didn't experience the wear and tear of his first five seasons, as he rode those out on the bench. That would seem to weigh in Green's favor in a longevity argument.

It's really a question of whether or not you think someone can be "old" and produce. I still think Green is a fair comparison, a fairer one than, say, Brunell and Favre who produced great numbers throughout his career (ignore the last one).

I think the running aspect makes him more of an injury risk, but I don't think it affects the longevity of his throwing arm. Brunell can still make the throws, and his age gives him something a younger QB might lack; smart decision making. Mark Brunell had 10 picks on 454 attempts last year. To contrast, Matt Hassleback had 9 on 449 and Manning had 10 on 453. I'm not comparing Brunell to either of those guys, but if I had to choose between a QB who threw picks and one who didn't, I'd take the one that did not. Joe Gibbs places a huge emphasis on decision making. Trent Green, to his enormous credit, also happened to be a guy last year who threw few picks : attempts.

Also I am insulted by the Bledsoe comparison. He had a lower QB rating, the same amount of touchdowns, but 7 more interceptions thrown than Brunell last year. In terms of "longevity", Brunell was a better passer last year despite being 2 years older tahn Bledsoe. Bledsoe's career QB rating is 77 and he's never finished a season over 90. He's a very meh kind of QB.

by Skin Patrol on Sep 8, 2006 7:33 PM EDT up reply actions

Doh

first sentence: Preist/LJ/Gonzales

by Skin Patrol on Sep 8, 2006 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions

So we meet again...

First, the comment on Bledsoe was merely an example about arm strength, which I prefaced my statement with. Secondly, the running aspect of Brunell's earlier career was to demonstrate his injury risk and the increased possibility of him flat out not being able to hack it anymore. I don't think either case is of particular concern, both both need to be addressed. I meant to imply Green's more effective back end of his career because of his lack of wear and tear, but I see how I didn't fully address that. And to say that Brunell CAN still make all the throws is foolish. I think his strength lies in the knowledge of what throws he can and cannot make and in which situations to either attempt a higher risk throw or simply throw it away and live to play another down. I think the real upside to this entire QB situation is having Campbell learning Saunders' offense without the immediate pressure to produce. He does have a quite capable arm, as well as that escapability which Green never had and Brunell seems to be losing. I am very excited to see not only what he can do with this abiulity on broken plays but also how Saunders might gameplan using this ability. With Collins (who I am very much not a fan of) as the gameday backup, Campbell gets to learn and watch and ask questions without the very real fear that ever #2 QB has of being ready at every snap of the ball (or as Gus proved, at every TD celebration.) Though complicated in theory, I think it makes perfect sense in practice. Brunell has a limited number of snaps left in him. If Collins is ever a #1, there is a very big problem. Campbell is the ONLY long term solution the Skins have (by trading away Ramsey) and yet he also seems to be the least plausible short term solution. This is very much a classic "Gibbs" team: tough running and a strong defense. For a productive season, Brunell has to be less great than he needs to be healthy and smart with the ball.

by TexSkins on Sep 9, 2006 3:11 AM EDT reply actions