Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: RedskinsInsider and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Redskins and Sports  |  RSS

Guest Column

Markian, a loyal reader of the blog, send in a great email on the JC trade, and I thought it would make for a great guest colum, so here is it:

When Jason Campbell finally plays in a regular season game this Sunday, Redskin fans will get their first real peak at his abilities. His play this season will likely spur plenty of debate over whether the Redskins paid too much for his talents.

What will probably be lost in the discussion is the extra year of preparation that Gibbs bought with a 3rd and 4th round pick. In essence, in 2005, Gibbs paid the price of two draft picks, the third-round pick (No. 76) in 2005, the fourth-round picks in 2006 (No. 119), to be able to exercise the Redskins' first round draft pick, one year early.
I think it rarely makes sense for a team to trade next year's picks to choices this year. The penalty is too great.

Much as I think Rocky McIntosh has great potential. I think the cost paid to get him was too much. The second round pick in 2007 could have been a starter, perhaps a speedy cornerback or help on the defensive line.
The only position for which it really makes sense is quarterback.

Consider what would have happened if they went into the draft trying to get a quarterback this year. Even if they used a 3rd pick and a 4th round pick to trade up from the 19th spot in the first round in 2006 (the pick that went to Denver in the Campbell trade), those two additional picks were only worth a combined 266 points on the famed draft pick value chart as best I can figure. That would have moved them up to the 13th or 14th pick in the first round, two picks after Denver selected Jay Cutler.

That would have left the Redskins with the choice of Kellen Clemons or Tavaris Jackson, both promising players, but it's unlikely either would have been able to contribute right now.

By picking their 2006 rookie quarterback in 2005, the QB of the future got in a full training camp, some preseason action in 2005, work with the scout team all year long, and most importantly, a full offseason with Al Saunders, before the 2006 draft occurred. Even assuming a quarterback drafted in the first round in 2006 signed by the first day of training camp, it's unlikely he would have been able to start by week 10 of the regular season.

The chances of Campbell winning even a majority of the remaining games are probably pretty slim, particularly given the defense is arguably a bigger issue than the offense. But he will be better prepared to play this year because of an extra year of red shirting, and more likely to succeed next year, with two off-seasons in the same system under his belt.

By Jason La Canfora  |  November 16, 2006; 4:00 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Gardner, Rod
Next: Award Time


Campbell seems to have the physical tools to play the game, and he'll take his bumps and bruises. I hope the Redskins are patient with him. I can see it now. If they only win one or two more games, then they'll bring in another "veteran" next year. We've got to be patient! If he doesn't light it up here, he'll light it up somewhere else.

Posted by: rich | November 16, 2006 8:42 PM | Report abuse

Keep drinking that redskin cool-aid they keep feeding you... If campbell was so great then why did it take him this long..This organization is so a$$ed backwards in throwing around draft picks And overpaying marginal players at best...

Posted by: Laughing in Chicago | November 16, 2006 10:02 PM | Report abuse

The D hasn't been the problem the past two weeks.

Posted by: LG | November 16, 2006 10:08 PM | Report abuse

laughing in chicago,

perhaps you should take your head out of your a$$ long enough to see the real world. yes the skins are struggling. you have no idea how campbell will be, just as we don't. however, your pathetic bears are one crappy rex grossman game away from elimination. and please, don't give me the griese argument...he is mediocre at best. btw..the last time skins and bears played i believe you LOST(last year 19-17). and the last meaningful game the bears played the skins kicked their asses behind a d green punt return for a td in playoffs and skins went on to win superbowl...again under hof coach joe gibbs. so just shut your pie hole until the bears actually do something HAIL SKINS!!!

Posted by: cosmofla | November 16, 2006 10:29 PM | Report abuse

2 things from Chicago are Steers and Queers

Enough said!!!! Plus..Who the F puts a tomato on a hot dog...Losers

Posted by: Anonymous | November 16, 2006 10:40 PM | Report abuse

Wilbon is from Chicago, so back-it-down you dopes!!!


Posted by: Pink C.C.- | November 17, 2006 12:11 AM | Report abuse

For those wondering...yeah, best Bond ever. Kinda silly between the 2nd and 3rd Acts, but faithful to the book (including incorporating the book's great final line).

Oh, and Daniel Craig is a fantastic Bond.

Gonna have to stop the hatin', Megskin.

I also want to mark my territory and make it clear that I was drinking Vespers regularly, long before this movie was about to make them popular :-)

Posted by: P Diddy | November 17, 2006 6:08 AM | Report abuse

OK, so the Skins stink in the 3Q. Why? Your column offered no insight as to what is causing it. Is it better adjustment at half time by the opponent (a Joe Gibbs hallmark)?
Are our guys tired? Out of shape? What?

Posted by: Pete | November 17, 2006 7:47 AM | Report abuse

The hallmark of St. Joe I was the ability to make halftime adjustments. How many times over the years in his first era did we see an overmatched Redskins team in the first half come out of the locker room and dominate the second half and win the game? Practically all the time. Today? el zippo! Just one more reason to part company with "New Coke" Gibbs. And take Vinny with you!

Posted by: Montana'Skins Fan | November 17, 2006 7:58 AM | Report abuse

Markian, nice job. Appreciate the prospective, my man. I agree 100% that when you're drafting a QB that is not a polished ready-for-the-NFL player (Manning, Leinart, Young) that it's nice to get him "a year early." Hopefully Campbell has gained from the year and a half on the sideline.

The point can be made, however, that we already had a 1st round QB on the roster and those 3 picks would have gone a long way toward providing depth on the defense that we're sorely missing. Ramsey was never really given much of a chance by the Skins.

Let's hope Gibbs puts the effort into developing Campbell and that Jason turns out to be the real deal. The trade will definitely be worth it if he is.

Posted by: Joe in Raleigh | November 17, 2006 8:53 AM | Report abuse

perspective. my bad.

Posted by: Joe in Raleigh | November 17, 2006 8:54 AM | Report abuse


nice job. Interesting perspective you bring.

I get tired of hearing it, but the reality (and cliche) is that we may not be able to fully evaluate some of these personel moves for several years. Looking back at a few, perhaps, controversial moves may also shed some light on how the folks in ashburn are doing. Not trying to be a cerrato apologist but they did get a few right 9maybe for the worng reasons, but never the less right). I loved Fred Smoot and hated to see him go, but he got injured and sat out the whole first year of his new contract.

Another one was stephen davis - loved that guy and hated to see him go. he had one good season (i still think he fumbled on that goal line play) and then injuries. I also remember that when we took Jacobs, Taylor we really needed a safety and there was some sentiment that Mike Doss was the answer - not sure that we really missed out that one.

there are probably a few other moves that would fall into this category. All I'm trying to say is that this "talent" business is tough to get right all of the time winds up being more like gambling where you should be happy if you're right 60% of the time . . .

still looking for a silver lining . . .maybe art gets in this year

Posted by: skinsfan@8KaboveMSL | November 17, 2006 9:23 AM | Report abuse

Daniel Craig is a fantastic Bond.

*gag* *barf* *hurl*

Posted by: Megskin | November 17, 2006 9:29 AM | Report abuse

Montana'Skins Fan.

Why do you keep lambasting Gibbs - and calling for his firing? HE IS NOT CALLING THE PLAYS!!!! Why is this so hard to understand? Yes, he is responsible for stupid personnel moves and yes, he is the one holding onto Brunell for so long but give the man a break! He is basically a sideline observer. And who pray tell do you suggest we will replace him with?? Our biggest concern is the lack of continuity -changing coaches is SO NOT the answer.

Posted by: Lisa | November 17, 2006 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Joe in Raleigh, it seems pretty clear that Gibbs wasn't high on Ramsey. My personal read on Ramsey is he was a guy with talent that got destroyed mentally by the beatings he took under Spurrier's system. Shook his confidence quite a bit. Right now he's more a mediocre NFL QB than a guy with potential. That aside, Gibbs obviously didn't believe Ramsey was the answer - thus Brunell, thus Campbell.

I agree with Markian. If Campbell doesn't pan out then that trade may be a failure, but when you draft QB's, unless you're desperate, you have to draft them with the mind that they'll need at least a year to develop (I can't believe all the silly talk about 1.5 seasons being too long to start a 1st round QB).

Posted by: Johnnie Futbol | November 17, 2006 9:50 AM | Report abuse

FACT: Gibbs wasn't high on Ramsey.
FACT: Gibbs thinks Brunell is a very good QB and, until now, has not been the problem with the offense.
My point: I think it's fair to call into question Gibbs decision-making at the QB position.

He had blind faith in Brunell and never gave Ramsey a shot. If he'd devoted some of his resources (remember the 30 different coaches we employ) to developing Ramsey, those 3 picks might be providing a lot of help right now. Coaches are supposed to do more than call plays. They should be teaching, running drills, and working to improve the talent.

As for Ramsey being gun-shy, I disagree. He came in for Brunell in a must-win game against the Giants last year and went 5/7, 104 yds, 1 TD, 0 INT.

How did this become a discussion of Ramsey?! I guess that's my fault. Oops. Anyway, I don't think it was a bad trade. But if they'd stuck with Ramsey those 2005/2006 picks could be making plays right now.

Posted by: Joe in Raleigh | November 17, 2006 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Joe in Raleigh, you might be right about Ramsey! I guess it's a given that Gibbs wasn't high on him - maybe it's because he had a better, more up-close perspective on Ramsey and maybe it's because Gibbs is a bad source of judgement.

That said, yes Ramsey had a good game against the Giants last year, but he also had a pretty bad preseason earlier. He was given an opportunity to win outright that starting job, and he did nothing to stand out. That I think is a significant reason why Gibbs went back to Brunell that season (and the truth is Brunell showed he earned that starting job). When Gibbs first made Brunell a Redskin, a competitive spirit could of led Ramsey to Gibbs's decision to propel himself forward as a QB. Instead, lack of confidence led him to step backwards, and I don't think he's gotten over that.

That he went on to the Jets and had a fairly mediocre/dissappointing preseason this year is perhaps more indication that he's not currently competing at the level of a starting NFL QB.

I was a long-time fan of Ramsey, but I think he's a case of a *young* QB thrown into a *bad* situation (Spurrier-led team) who suffered negatively because of it.

Posted by: Johnnie Futbol | November 17, 2006 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Joe In Raleigh,

I agree with you....I loved Ramsey and felt like the poor guy was never given a chance. He was pummeled to death in the Steve Spurrier experiment and Gibbs had a choke collar on him. I will NEVER forgive Gibbs for the way he treated Ramsey.

Posted by: Lisa | November 17, 2006 10:37 AM | Report abuse

I agree with you guys about Ramsey not seemingly getting a fair shake by Gibbs. But the question is why. It seems Gibbs saw something in him he didn't like right from the start because he wasted no time bringing in Brunell. Now Ramsey's play hasn't warranted starting anywhere since. So is it due to shattered confidence or subpar talent to begin with? Anyway, Go JC!!!

Posted by: skinswest | November 17, 2006 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Ramsey's flaws were evident every time he dropped back. He never looked comfortable in the pocket, could not throw with touch, and did not see the field well at all. Gibbs loyalty to Brunell baffled me, but he was dead on when it came to Ramsey -- backup material at best. Dear God, remember him in preseason last year? He threw some of the worst picks I've ever seen.

Fingers crossed on Campbell. He is known for his poise, something you have or you don't. And I still remember the beautiful deep ball td he threw to Jimmy Farris last preseason.

Posted by: Andrew | November 17, 2006 11:51 AM | Report abuse

I also want to mark my territory and make it clear that I was drinking Vespers regularly, long before this movie was about to make them popular :-)


Me too PDiddy - Me too!

Posted by: SallieMae | November 17, 2006 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Andrew, you talk about the preseason more than the OBC. We just need to get back to playing like we did in Osaka, right?

Posted by: Joe in Raleigh | November 17, 2006 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Just went back and looked at the previous thread: Skins QB Trivia. Now I'm getting worked up and it's all because of Andrew. Dagnabit!

We burned a 1st rounder on the guy and gave him FEWER THAN 2 SEASONS to play! Even at that, it was not continuous playing time. He was constantly in and out of the line-up thanks to Spurrier and Gibbs erratic personnel shifts.

You can look at Harrington in Detroit or Carr in Houston and say, ok, they had 4-5 seasons in the same system and never improved, so they suck. But how can you possibly say that about PRam? You have to give the guy a chance to know the system and his teammates before you go and say he's no good.

And I don't view being the backup to Pennington as an indictment of his ability.

Posted by: Joe in Raleigh | November 17, 2006 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Yo, Joe!

Posted by: MV Dame | November 17, 2006 12:58 PM | Report abuse

I am re-posting this. It was in the Award Time blog entry but they were too busy talking about music so I don't think that it was appropriate there.

Yesterday in the Post there was an article about -

"The Terrapins Formula"

If the result is less than 12%, you should win (well, most of the time).

The statistic is derived by adding a team's interceptions, fumbles, dropped passes, sacks and penalties during a game and dividing that by the team's total number of offensive plays. The key is to keep the result under 12 percent -- meaning that the team is committing a human error on 12 percent or less of its plays."

For one of you diehard fans (sorry, I don't have the time,) how have the Skins' games turned out when applying this formula?

Thanks ahead of time.

Posted by: charlie | November 17, 2006 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Hey CosmoFla you nimrod Who said i was bears fan. Have another Bagel or better yet a donnut. And to Mr no name you can stick the tomato where you thumb already is

Posted by: Laughing in CHICAGO | November 17, 2006 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Joe in Raleigh: I to agree with you. Ramsey is just reaching his 5th year. After his third year, we draft another QB in the 1st round. Gibbs signed Brunell before seeing the guy play a down. So you could gather that he had no intention of giving Ramsey a shot. Frankly, after the big free agent signing of Brunell, why did we need to draft Campbell in the first round? Anyway you cut it, the Skins have wasted at least 1 first round pick on top of the additional picks to get Campbell. The question I have is if Gibbs could have salvaged Ramsey's talent? I felt that if Gibbs could make a pro bowl QB out of Jay Schroeder or Mark Rypien, he could coach up Ramsey. In retrospect, we all saw some of Ramsey's weakness. He held the ball too long for one. He was careless with the ball, and would probably throw the same interception 5 out of 10 times. He would make the same mistake, and apparently not learn from the situation. Some of his mistakes were mechanical, he would be off balance or not step into passes. I thought that coming from a sling and shoot system in college, and whatever system Spurrier was running, it was probably the worst thing for him in the NFL. But Gibbs apparently had no favor for him. Given Gibbs personnel history I am praying that Campbell can play at this level. All I can think of is Desmond Howard.

Posted by: RobGreg | November 17, 2006 4:17 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company