Drafting Sanchez/Ditching Campbell = Total Erasure of Gibbs' "Imprint" on the Skins

[skinsarethebest]

As I woke up this morning, I logged on to this site and was (surprise, surpise) greeted by more and more threads suggesting our FO was placing all its draft eggs in one basket (namely Mark Sanchez), whether via a trade with Seattle, Kansas City, Jacksonville, etc.

Whether we dump Jason and get Mark Sanchez is all a big IF at this point, but I was shocked by a singular realization: if it does happen, we have essentially turned our backs on everything Gibbs II was supposed to have bequeathed to our organization.

And let me clarify: I don't mean this in the most obvious sense. In other words, it's simply pointing out the obvious to say that we're rejecting Gibbs' hand-picked QB (Jason Campbell). It also goes without saying that Gibbs' coaching philosophy always would have favored a strong O-line, which we're clearly not following if we don't take the best available tackle with our first-round pick.

But I'm actually talking about something much deeper than even that: in terms of fundamental philosophy, taking Mark Sanchez would represent a huge seismic shift in our organizational philosophy, one which places it in direct, 180 degree opposition to everything Gibbs stood for, and which, as far as I can remember, has never really been characteristic of our team. If we do end up taking Sanchez and trading away Campbell, we would be doing two things that Gibbs would never, ever have done in a million years: A) We would be throwing a ROOKIE QB into a starting role (and one as green as Sanchez, no less!) and adopting a trial-by-fire approach to QB development, as opposed to Gibbs' learn-on-the sidelines approach; and we will be signaling to all future QBs that the window for success with the organization (even if you're essentially a rookie) is no more than two years (maybe less), which also somehow seems very different from Gibbs' tendency to display patience (some would say loyalty) to QBs he's picked.

I'm actually not passing judgment on any of this. It seems as if the league is growing ever more competitive with each passing year, and if that's the case, the wait-and-see approach to QBs just might not cut it. Perhaps the balance should be tilted in favor of those QBs who can learn quickly and deliver results "this" year rather than at some projected future date. But if that's the new Skins' mentality, it marks about as big a departure as I've ever seen.

In some ways, I think Jason Campbell, drafted during the Gibbs' regime, expected almost a kind of "tenure" with the Redskins: when you're hand-picked by a coaching legend who then says he wants to take his time to develop you into a great QB, you would automatically, even if unconsciously, think you had a window of opportunity that would last AT LEAST TWO FULL SEASONS (which technically, Jason hasn't had yet, since his first starting season was cut short by injury). Now, if the Sanchez drafting, coupled with a Campbell ouster, does take place, prospective QBs will be on notice that they've got a pretty short leash, and a pretty limited window of time, in which to take the team to the promised land (or at least something in the vicinity, like the playoffs). Maybe this will light a fire under a new QB (maybe it won't), but any new QB who joins this organization (Sanchez included) will essentially have to always be looking over his shoulder. If you do end up in DC, Mark Sanchez, welcome, but don't get too comfortable! I hear there are some good college prospects entering the draft in 2011.

[GibbsFactor]

Wha wha what?

No way man. Same line, same receivers, same back, same te, same secondary, same linebackers, same dreadful kicker, etc...

Oh... same coaches?

[WhoRUSupposed2Be]

I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by "Not" switching to Geico.

[skinsarethebest]

Wha wha what?

No way man. Same line, same receivers, same back, same te, same secondary, same linebackers, same dreadful kicker, etc...

Oh... same coaches?

Read the post, please.

My larger point, being, if this trade does happen, I highly doubt that Gibbs is having any influence at all on Snyder in terms of overall philosophy.

[WhoRUSupposed2Be]

Read the post, please.

My larger point, being, if this trade does happen, I highly doubt that Gibbs is having any influence at all on Snyder in terms of overall philosophy.

What philosphy? Character guys

Gibbs' philosphy was just as flawed as the Marfia's Bros. is. As a matter of fact, who's to say that the philosphies were not coincided together because of the level of commitment that Gibbs signed on for.

[SoCalSkins]

CP will be Gibbs lasting imprint on this team.

JC can be compared to Desmond Howard from Gibbs 1.

[skinsarethebest]

What philosphy? Character guys

Gibbs' philosphy was just as flawed as the Marfia's Bros. is. As a matter of fact, who's to say that the philosphies were not coincided together because of the level of commitment that Gibbs signed on for.

????

[Aston]

Agree on questioning the idea of throwing a rookie into the starting role.

That said, don't forget Gibbs also hand-picked Mark Brunell and seemed much more comfortable with him than Campbell.

Bottom line - today's game is changing. Passing is no longer a luxury but a necessity. The fact that we've had more overall success (in terms of win/loss) with both Brunell and Todd Collins under center might indicate that Campbell is simply not a good fit here, in any system.

[RedlightG20]

Gibbs was brought in to bring us immediate success. Snyder did whatever he could to get the players and coaches that Gibbs wanted. There was little insight into the future--it was strictly WIN NOW.

Now that Gibbs is gone, and the rejection of moving Gregg Williams up to HC, the FO has decided that was the end of Gibbs II. Snyder may say he learned alot from Gibbs, and he very well may have, but the imprint of Gibbs on this team was gone when Snyder cleaned house of GW, and brought in a completely new coach.

After Gibbs left, I thought that the organization was going to go into restructuring mode and begin to cut some of the high priced players in favor of younger up-and-comers. Unfortunately, Snyder still believes this team is only a player or two away from being a perennial contender, so he keeps shooting for the stars with big-name FAs and overspending for draftees that he so wants. That's why this team will never go into a true "restructuring mode", and consequently, never get built correctly from the ground up.

We'll be stuck in neutral for a while.

[scruffylookin]

Read the post, please.

My larger point, being, if this trade does happen, I highly doubt that Gibbs is having any influence at all on Snyder in terms of overall philosophy.

I'd say looking at Gibbs 2.0, Snyder had more of an influence on him than the other way around.

But I do agree that Jason Campbell was Gibbs' legacy to this organization. His one contribution to the long term health of this franchise. If Jason became the franchise QB, Gibbs 2.0 will have been slightly vindicated. But if in fact JC is on the way out (be it Saturday or next year when his contract expires), Gibbs' failure is complete.

[jweisk1]

You have to blame the FO for taking a QB that was drafted for a "Gibbs system" to then try and convert him to a West Coast offense type QB...It seems that every few years we change systems and to make it worse we trade QB's every few years as well.

Look at the great QB's in the nfl today...they are all product of the systems that were created for that specfic type QB

Peyton

Mcnabb

Brady

Big Ben

Now you can argue that all the above QB's are better than JC (from a telenst perspective) however it also helps out that they all have played in the same system built for there own strenghts and weaknesses...also for many years to fine tune there gameplay...

You can say what you want about JC...love him or hate him, a lot of blame has to be put towards the FO on how they handled the poor kid....we have a WIN now approach and unfortunaly in the NFL that approach doesnt work in most cases....

I dont recall the Colts cutting Peyton Manning after his dissappointing first few years....instead they built an offense that suited him best and they have been one of the most consistent teams in the NFL for the last 6 years or so...

It's sad how pathetic our front office handles these situations and how there is no recourse as a fan or player for mismanaging players...

[Dah-Dee]

If we do end up taking Sanchez and trading away Campbell, we would be doing two things that Gibbs would never, ever have done in a million years: A) We would be throwing a ROOKIE QB into a starting role (and one as green as Sanchez, no less!) and adopting a trial-by-fire approach to QB development, as opposed to Gibbs' learn-on-the sidelines approach; and we will be signaling to all future QBs that the window for success with the organization (even if you're essentially a rookie) is no more than two years (maybe less), which also somehow seems very different from Gibbs' tendency to display patience (some would say loyalty) to QBs he's picked.

At this point, Campbell has started just about as many games for the Redskins (39) as Gus Frerotte (46), Mark Rypien (42, including 6 starts as a rookie QB for Gibbs and 14 in his second year) or Mark Brunell (33), and significantly more than Brad Johnson (27) and Patrick Ramsey (24). Heck, Jay Schroeder only played in 36 games for the Skins., including 5 starts as a rookie QB for Gibbs and starting all 16 in his 2nd year. Doug Williams only played in 21.

Campbell's had a reasonable period of time to lead this team, and while we can find all kinds of reasons/excuses (depending on point of view) for it, the fact is we haven't won as many games with JC at the most important position on the field as just about anybody thinks we should have. Would I rather see him at QB for the Redskins this year instead of Brennan, or Collins, or Sanchez? Yes. But I also understand the reasoning for considering a change, and historically speaking, doesn't seem like much of a stretch at all from Gibbs' approach given the numbers above.

:whoknows:

[LeoDC]

I love Joe, But forreal, What really came from his tenure .. Did we really win anything???

The only thing that has been memorable about the Joe Gibbs comeback is ST and what happened with that situation

[skinsarethebest]

Believe it or not, my thread is actually not a praise Gibbs/bash the FO kind of thread. I'm simply trying to point out that, if this scenario that everyone seems to be predicting comes to pass, we have gotten about as far away from the Gibbs' approach to team-building as could be imagined. I'd say it's safe to say that Gibbs is not acting as a trusted advisor to Dan Snyder anymore (or at least not being listened to... ha!).

[Pimpey42000]

If moving forward with the coach they have and the QB they want is all they believe they need then that is what they shall get. As a fan all I can do is hope that it works out for the best, I will root for them regardless.

[elkabong82]

I really dislike when Gibbs is brought up as a subject, and people use it as a platform to try and devalue anything positive he brought here.

The positives of Gibbs' tenure here go beyond the field and stat sheet.

That being said, his imprint on this team goes beyond Jason Campbell.

[usapatriot]

I love Joe, But forreal, What really came from his tenure .. Did we really win anything???

The only thing that has been memorable about the Joe Gibbs comeback is ST and what happened with that situation

Gibbs took us to the playoffs twice when we had only been once since he left. Gibbs took alot of heat because he played boring football (run up the middle 3 times and punt) but he turned the team around. He deserves more credit than he gets.

[skinsarethebest]

That being said, his imprint on this team goes beyond Jason Campbell.

I agree that his legacy is more than just one person, it's a philosophy. A big part of that has to do with how to approach the most essential part of the offensive puzzle, the QB.

And as the post details, for better or worse, starting Sanchez is basically throwing that out the window.

[Hooper]

Except, you know, and you can ask Redskins insiders like Lavarleap about this, Gibbs was thinking of benching Campbell even before he got hurt. In other words, he was losing faith in him.

[skinsarethebest]

Except, you know, and you can ask Redskins insiders like Lavarleap about this, Gibbs was thinking of benching Campbell even before he got hurt. In other words, he was losing faith in him.

I would believe that. Even Gibbs has a limited amount of patience. I also doubt Gibbs believes that Campbell was the best QB he ever worked with.

I don't think it's imaginable that he would favor starting a rookie QB like Sanchez in a million years, though. What I find so shocking is now if we do start Sanchez, we are essentially following in the footsteps of the Atlantas and the Baltimores of the League. Keep in mind that even Eli Manning didn't start right off the bat for the NY Giants.

Maybe I should retitle my thread... not so much focused on Gibbs and Campbell per se, but the radical idea that we (a relatively storied and conservative organization) would essentially hand the farm over to a college QB with one college season under his belt.

[WhoRUSupposed2Be]

Except, you know, and you can ask Redskins insiders like Lavarleap about this, Gibbs was thinking of benching Campbell even before he got hurt. In other words, he was losing faith in him.

But yet, Gibbs was the very one who made the recommendation for drafting Campbell. For reputations sake, Gibbs should've been praying to the heavens for Campbell's injury that sent in Collins to lead this team to the playoffs.

[elkabong82]

I agree that his legacy is more than just one person, it's a philosophy. A big part of that has to do with how to approach the most essential part of the offensive puzzle, the QB.

And as the post details, for better or worse, starting Sanchez is basically throwing that out the window.

I can understand that, but we still have the same run game from Gibbs. But if you're talking just in terms of philosophy, that's usually going to change with a new coach. I want Jason Campbell to succeed here, and I think he can in his 2nd season in the WCO. I think the team would be best served sticking with JC for another season and trading down from #13.

However, if the team really is that smitten with Sanchez, then there must be something to the kid. Remember, it's not just Snyder saying he wants him, Zorn is there for all of it too, and he's a very upfront person. Sanchez is getting a lot of interest from other teams as well, even the Rams at #2, so it's not like this kid doesn't have potential.

Also, Gibbs approached the QB situation by signing a vet, and then drafting a QB to replace the young starter who was there before he was coach, so this approach isn't all that different in that sense.

In terms of just starting a rookie QB, yes, that would be a departure from Gibbs' philosophy.

[Horatio]

Uh, Campbell wasn't Gibbs' hand-picked favorite...Gibbs was content enough to stick with Mark "The Loser" Brunell for WAY longer than he should have...it was only the massive outcry by the fans that led to him benching Brunell. Otherwise we would still be carjacked by Number 8.

I think Gibbs was borderline senile the second time around, and was looking into the past way too much. The only things similar between Jason Campbell and Doug Williams is the color of their skin and the fact that they both play QB. Gibbs didn't exactly have the best eye for talent in the draft...remember Desmond Howard?

[Dah-Dee]

Gibbs didn't exactly have the best eye for talent in the draft...remember Desmond Howard?

I think Desmond was a Charlie Casserly pick, although Gibbs did want Howard.

[skinsdude]

Uh, Campbell wasn't Gibbs' hand-picked favorite...Gibbs was content enough to stick with Mark "The Loser" Brunell for WAY longer than he should have...it was only the massive outcry by the fans that led to him benching Brunell. Otherwise we would still be carjacked by Number 8.

I think Gibbs was borderline senile the second time around, and was looking into the past way too much. The only things similar between Jason Campbell and Doug Williams is the color of their skin and the fact that they both play QB. Gibbs didn't exactly have the best eye for talent in the draft...remember Desmond Howard?

Mark took us to the playoffs, Jason has not. Jason was hand picked by Gibbs. Gibbs in turn sold Dan on Jason. Gibbs was in love with Jason's demeanor. I don't think that there was any link to Doug Williams. The only thing that I agree with you on is that Gibbs didn't have the best eye for talent. He would be the first to tell you that.