Against Quarterbacks

First NFL game of the season tonight. I've thought things over and, damnit, if I'm going to live in DC the rest of my life (and I probably am), then it's time for me to become a Redskins fan. Conveniently, I can kick things off by defending Joe Gibbs against Bill Simmons' smears:

To the dumbest plan of the year: the Redskins investing in two free agent receivers (Antwan Randle-El and Brandon Lloyd) and an expensive offensive coordinator (Al Saunders) to go with their expensive gamebreakers (Clinton Portis and Santana Moss) … only they're going with a washed-up Mark Brunell at QB again. How does that make sense?

I like this plan. Quarterbacks are overemphasized. Obviously, a star quarterback is a wonderful thing to have. But saying your team could use one is kind of like saying your NBA team needs a dominant big man. Personally, I need a pony. The question is, what can you do about it? It's not like there was some no-brainer alternative available. Brunell, who's clearly not a great quarterback, nevertheless QBed the team to a winning season. Then the idea is to add some parts -- Randle-El, Lloyd, Saunders -- that count as clear upgrades over what the offense used to have, and you stand a very good shot of doing better next time. The only real alternative would have been some kind of crapshoot or else just doing nothing.

Comments

The question is, what can you do about it? It's not like there was some no-brainer alternative available.

Drew Brees? Daunte Culpepper? Heck, even Aaron Brooks, Steve McNair and Kerry Collins are upgrades over Brunnell.

Moreover, I think that QBs in the NFL are more important than NBA big men.

Finally, can you, as a good liberal, really switch your allegience to a team with an offensive nickname like "Redskins" Doesn't that violate some principle or other?

Posted by Al | September 7, 2006 11:09 AM

The Redskins? Come on!

Posted by Tim | September 7, 2006 11:11 AM

At least part of the criticism is that investing in receivers doesn't make sense if you don't have a QB who can deliver the ball to them. Investing in performance tires is pointless if you won't spring for gas.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 7, 2006 11:12 AM

You're rooting for the Redskins? You need a...pony? I have to question my parenting skills now.

Posted by Rafael Yglesias | September 7, 2006 11:35 AM

Redskins? Meh. Go with DC United, tho they're out of the cup this year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D.C._United

Posted by John I | September 7, 2006 11:52 AM

I grew up in NoVa, and I think being a Redskin fan is one of the great perks of being a Washingtonian. It was better in the days of RFK Stadium, I suspect -- less about skyboxes and lobbyists (and Dan Snyder). But Redskin spirit is kind of cool. They have a fight song!

All that said, I agree with Bill Simmons. If Clinton Portis isn't healthy, it could be ugly.

Posted by Dix Hill | September 7, 2006 12:28 PM

If Trent Dilfer can win a Super Bowl, then any QB can.

Posted by Brandon | September 7, 2006 12:39 PM

matt i think you're wrong on this one. brunell was ok for about 10 games last year. then he got hurt and the offense started floundering. then randy thomas got hurt and the offense was back in 2004 territory. no reason to think brunell's skills and resistance to injury won't decline this year. should have traded for culpepper or brees (though he might have been too expensive). mcnair is washed up.

Posted by jmt | September 7, 2006 12:43 PM

Google favors "dammit" over "damnit" almost 3-1. Please update your Spelchek.

Posted by John Emerson | September 7, 2006 1:02 PM

Stay away from football punditry and stick to politics and public policy, Matt. The NFL QB position is the most difficult and most important in any sport. As the Ravens example shows, you don't always need a star quarterback to win Super Bowls, but most QBs who win the big game are in the top tier of the league. The Ravens had a great, great defense and that's why they were able to win.

Mark Brunell's body just ain't what it used to be. A younger, healthier Brunell could have won a Super Bowl on the right team. Can the Skins win with him? Possibly. I'm not here to bash Brunell. My point is this: The general problem in the NFL today is that there aren't that many top-notch quarterbacks capable of winning championships. The quarterback position is critical to the success of any team in the NFL. To be a knowledgeable fan of the NFL, you have to understand that. Never underestimate the importance of the quarterback position in the NFL.

Posted by Phil from New York | September 7, 2006 1:12 PM

Seriously, I can understand wanting to switch and root for a local team, but couldn't you go with the significantly less evil Ravens?

Posted by MattT | September 7, 2006 1:14 PM

Seriously, I can understand wanting to switch and root for a local team, but couldn't you go with the significantly less evil Ravens?

I'm no fan of the Redskins, but that strikes me as an odd claim to make about a team that boasts Jamal Lewis and Ray Lewis.

Posted by Duvall | September 7, 2006 1:19 PM

Matthew, I was a huge Redskins fan from the age of 7 until my early 40s. Then the evil Dan Snyder became owner, and when he fired Marty Schottenheimer after doing countless other idiotic things to screw up the team, that was it for me. Even hiring Joe Gibbs wasn't enough to bring me back. My Sundays have never been happier. Don't do it.

Posted by anrig | September 7, 2006 1:47 PM

Do you really need a pony, Matt?

I thought only libertarians needed ponies.

Posted by MQ | September 7, 2006 1:47 PM

The Lions haven't had a good quarterback since Bobby Layne, but it certainly hasn't held them back any, so keep on with this theory.

Posted by Steve | September 7, 2006 1:58 PM

you can't truly be from/of DC unless you root for the skins. that simple. so, as someone who seems destined for policywonkishdom of some sort or another in DC, you gotta embrace the skins. and it's much easier now, with the return of st. joe (betting against joe is not a wise move).

as for brunnell, i'm sort of shocked that gibbs couldn't find some diamond in the rough to turn into a real qb. indeed, the skins woes at qb are mystifying given the number of qbs they exported to significant success elsewhere (frerotte, humphries, etc.). what happened to the pipeline? but, see, with joe, it's all about character of a certain sort. so he simply could not take culpepper, and it's not clear to me that mcnair's a better bet at this point in his career than brunnell (though i still think i'd take mcnair, echoes of doug williams and all that).

and for whoever asked, skins games at RFK were unbelievable. seriously. i've been to sporting events all over the place, never been anywhere as loud as RFK or as rocking (they legendary game is the NFC champeenship where the skins finally beat the boys, knocking danny white out of the game, the place quite literally felt like it was coming down it was shaking so hard).

Posted by dj superflat | September 7, 2006 1:58 PM

It is the net change in the team that matters. Although the addition of receivers is a positive, a diminished Brunell behind a suspect offensive line is a bigger negative. Yes, a mediocre quaterback can do the job, but only with a high quality offensive line. The Redskins should have upgraded that position, but they didn't.

Posted by Andrew Joskow | September 7, 2006 2:20 PM

Can one really just 'decide' to be a fan of a given team? Isn't real fan status a function of where you grew up, or where you went to school, or maybe something inherited from one's parents' fan leanings?

For better or worse (and beleive me, there's been lots of worse), I was born and grew up in Wisconsin, and went to the University of; I am a Packer fan, a Brewer fan, and a Badger fan. I could no more decide to be something other than could I decide to have been born somewhere else.

As far as the Redskins' fight song: everytime I hear the band strike it up, I hear the theme to "Blazing Saddles". So I like it, it makes me laugh.

Yeah, I'm ready for some football.

Posted by Robert Earle | September 7, 2006 2:20 PM

What is the point of being young if you're going to live in DC all your life?

Trust me on this one- move to Bethesda and get yourself that pony!

Posted by serial catowner | September 7, 2006 2:57 PM

I'm going to have to agree w/ Matthew here. Just remember that Simmons is on record acknowledging that he's an idiot and that you should never forget that.

Saunders doesn't count against the cap, so that's a huge red herring- not to mention that its Saunders who led the KC offense to such greatness w/ a similarly ancient QB- Trent Green.

On the other hand, I would have rather spent money on Brees or Culpepper than Lloyd and Randel El, but the Redskins think they already have their QB of the future in Jason Campbell and their are still questions marks associated w/ Brees and Culpepper.

Finally, its real easy for Simmons to criticize other teams for not having a good enough QB when his own team has Tom Brady. But not every team will have that luxury- its not exactly a liquid market, either.

Posted by mpowell | September 7, 2006 3:51 PM

as for brunnell, i'm sort of shocked that gibbs couldn't find some diamond in the rough to turn into a real qb.

Gibbs doesn't like finding diamonds in the rough. He likes veterans. That's why he went out and got Brunell in the first place, even though he had an interesting young quarterback in Ramsey.

Yes, a mediocre quaterback can do the job, but only with a high quality offensive line. The Redskins should have upgraded that position, but they didn't.

More to the point, the Redskins should have upgraded the offensive line. Four out of five starters are coming back from surgery and they have essentially no backups. Someone always gets injured on the OL, that's just the way that part of the game goes. It doesn't matter who the quarterback or running back is, that's going to kill them.

Posted by Antid Oto | September 7, 2006 4:56 PM

I guess I'd actually agree w/ Antid the most. The Redskins shouldn't have spent the money on WR or QBs. They should have spent it on the offensive line. That always pays dividends, in my opinion.

Posted by mpowell | September 7, 2006 5:28 PM

"Heck, even Aaron Brooks, Steve McNair and Kerry Collins are upgrades over Brunnell."

Eh, maybe...Okay Drew Brees would have been an upgrade, but these other guys all have some serious issues. McNair is past his best days. Brooks is a real question mark. Kerry Collins isn't worth much either. Culpepper also could be on the downslope. Really, how many free agent/trade qb pickups work very well anyway? In most cases, the team picking them up overpays for something that someone else usually didn't want for a good reason.

Posted by Gabe | September 7, 2006 5:42 PM

C'mon now, NFL fans. Brad Johnson, Trent Dilfer, Kurt Warner, Mark Rypien, Jeff Hostetler, Doug Williams, Phil Simms...shall I continue with this list...? None of these quarterbacks are known as great (although Warner had a great year), but they all won the Big One. These days, there's a strong argument that you don't need to invest huge money in a star quarterback to win at a team game...

As for the Redskins, I've lived in and around Washington all my life, and I have to say the days before Snyder were better. I would much rather talk fanaticly about the Wizards, who I've had to suffer with for years...

Posted by DC | September 7, 2006 5:46 PM

Oh, and its fine to switch teams at some point. I'm in Baltimore for the next 4 years or so but I'm not switching my primary alleigance from the Braves and Falcons, because after that I'll almost certainly be moving somewhere else. But you aren't required to keep rooting for the same team you grew up with forever. Switching teams is part of setting up a permanent base.

Posted by Gabe | September 7, 2006 5:47 PM

DC, in today's weakened NFL (i hate the salary cap even worse in the NFL than i do in the NBA), it is possible to win a super bowl with less than a hall-of-fame qb, but generally it requires having a supremely good defense, an excellent offensive line, and a strong running game if you're going to do it without a great qb.

that said, phil simms was a great qb. the reason you don't know it is that: a.) he never had a great wide receiver; b.) his best years were spent under a coach who preferred the running game; c.) throwing the ball in the tricky winds of the meadowlands in november and december is a fool's errand.

but go ask coach parcells and coach walsh whether simms was a great qb and see what they tell ya. and then look up who holds the super bowl record for passing accuracy.

meanwhile, i should also note that warner was a great qb when the rams won - indeed, he was a perfect fit to the system, and his throwing accuracy was as good as any quarterback i can ever remember, and that goes back to y.a. tittle, norm van brocklin, sonny jurgenson, johnny unitas, and bart starr.

johnson, williams, and hostetler were all fairly good qbs, rypien and dilfer not so much, but all benefitted from the three considerations i noted at the start.

the question is, is today's mark brunnell as good as simms or warner? no.

and while the redskin receivers are top-notch, are their o-line and defense? not in my book.

Posted by howard | September 7, 2006 6:43 PM

me, i miss jay schroeder.

kidding, of course.

Posted by dj superflat | September 7, 2006 7:02 PM

that said, phil simms was a great qb. the reason you don't know it is that: a.) he never had a great wide receiver; b.) his best years were spent under a coach who preferred the running game; c.) throwing the ball in the tricky winds of the meadowlands in november and december is a fool's errand.

but go ask coach parcells and coach walsh whether simms was a great qb and see what they tell ya. and then look up who holds the super bowl record for passing accuracy.

It really is amazing how much we agree on sports, howard. I completely agree with your entire post, but I wanted to highlight this. I know I'm partisan - the only jersey I own (other than a soccer jersey) is a Giants #11 - but Simms really was a great QB. He's not up there with the all-time best - guys like Brady/Favre/Elway/Montana/Bradshaw/Staubach - but I'd put him on the next level with the Warners and the Stablers and the Aikmans and the Fouts.

Posted by Al | September 7, 2006 8:04 PM

IIRC Gibbs won the super bowl in the past with Doug Williams and Mark Rypien. Mark Brunell, even in his aged state, is definitely comparable and perhaps better. Still, its always an easy argument to make that the dollars of the redskins could have been better spent.

Posted by Roy | September 7, 2006 8:59 PM

i'm a lifelong steeler fan, and still stunned that the 'skins paid randle el a shocking amount of $ to hang out as a #2/3 wideout. i don't really care a whit about the the 'skins, but if i did, i'd be interested to see if he wouldn't be an improvement over brunell at qb. the guy was a pretty solid qb in college - he's rather prone to bouts of "wtf" decisions, but he'd certainly be more exciting than the zombie corpse of brunell. he'd probably throw a ton of picks, but he's got a decent arm, and could excel in broken play situations. i mean, i wouldn't build a franchise around him, but since they need to draft or sign a qb for the future anyway, would randle el be that much worse a qb than mike vickin the interim?

meanwhile, santonio holmes just pulled in a nice catch for 1st down. i always had a soft spot for randle el, but i don't think that the world champion steelers are much worse off w/o him.

lastly, re: the qb's don't matter much theory, i'd add the caveat that at the very least, they should have sufficient integrity to not purposefully tank a super bowl for the mob (i'm looking at you, neil o'donnell).

Posted by matty | September 7, 2006 9:15 PM

guys like Brady/Favre/Elway/Montana/Bradshaw/Staubach - but I'd put him on the next level with the Warners and the Stablers and the Aikmans and the Fouts

No space for Dan Marino in that crew?

Posted by DMonteith | September 7, 2006 9:24 PM

I'll respectfully disagree that Simms was a "great" NFL quarterback, as that term should be reserved for the truly "great," over the course of his career. Montana, Elway, Marino, Aikman, and so forth. That said, you still have to be really, really good to hold a starting job in the NFL for ten or more seasons. You can make a long list of QBs who fit that measure (although they might not have won the championship like Simms did). I think Jim Kelly was a much more gifted QB than Simms, in the same era, even though he never won it. That said, I'm biased, as I was a big 'Skins fan when Simms and his fat buddy Jim Burt played.

Posted by DC | September 7, 2006 9:34 PM

Why not go with the team from Ballmer?

Sunday Night Football or the Wire?

Posted by theCoach | September 7, 2006 9:44 PM

I'm glad to hear about your switch of allegiance, Matt. I'll have you over to my mom's place to eat wings and watch the game sometime when I'm back in town. I started rooting for the 49ers when I moved to SF, and my lifelong hatred of the cowboys (as a skins fan) was the pivot that helped me make the move. just focus on a white hot seething hatred of dallas, and you'll do fine. I'm trying to keep the gibbs faith, but I agree that they should have thrown $ at the OL.

Posted by belle waring | September 7, 2006 10:32 PM

I'm a Giants fan, so I have to weigh in on Phil Simms. He wasn't a "great" quarterback as in Montana or Unitas "great," but he was a very good quarterback in his time in the league. Sure, Jim Kelly was probably better than Simms, but Kelly's in the Hall of Fame, so that shouldn't be a knock on Simms. Also, wasn't Warner the MMV in the league when he won the Super Bowl? So he was one of the top quarterbacks in the league at time. If he hadn't gotten injured, he would probably have continued to play pretty well.

I agree about Rypen and Williams not being "great," but they were in top form the years the Skins won the Super Bowl. Plus, it doesn't hurt when Joe Gibbs is your coach. I'll grant you that.

I'm not saying everybody who wins the Super Bowl has to be a "great" quarterback, but the ones who win tend to be in top form at the time they win. Not many mediocre QBs win Super Bowls unless they have strong defenses or strong running games or both. You guys out there who are suggesting otherwise had better hope your teams have great defenses and great running games with great offensive lines. If you have all of those, yeah, you might win a Super Bowl with a mediocre or below average quarterback. But I don't know a coach or general manager in the NFL who would want to have less than the best quarterback they can get.

I'm a big NBA fan myself, but I don't see the same parallels between point guards and quarterbacks.

Posted by phil from new york | September 7, 2006 10:40 PM

Al, that's why we have our compact (i still remember the afternoon i was drinking at the Eliot Lounge in Boston and George Kimball, then of the Phoenix and later of the Boston Herald, came in and said the giants had drafted someone no one had ever heard of named phil simms: it was all uphill from there!)

DC, phil from new york, i suppose i would modulate my comments by saying that you go into the hall of fame based on your actual record, and on that basis, simms is not a hall-of-famer, and if that's your standard for "greatness," then simms really is the next level down.

my contention, though, is that it was his location and the style of play his primary coach preferred (and the absence of a great wideout) that keep the numbers from being there. Walsh, who treasures accuracy above all, once called Simms one of the most accurate ever, and Parcells, who treasures game management above all, always cites Simms as the man.

Posted by howard | September 7, 2006 10:54 PM

Agreed - I'm not saying that Simms is a hall of famer either. He doesn't have the stats for it. But in terms of doing what he was asked to do, and under the circumstances under which he was asked to do it, yeah, he was a pretty great QB. Moreover, QBs are judged a lot based on their post season accomplishments, like it or not. That's why Aikman is judged higher than Jim Kelly; Brady higher than Peyton. And Simms was pretty good in the post season.

(Also, DMonteith, I didn't mean to post an exhaustive list - yeah, Marino is a top level QB, although the lack of a Super Bowl hurts.)

Posted by Al | September 7, 2006 11:19 PM

As a Dolphins fan, I would point out that Miami had the league's leading rusher a few years ago with Ricky Williams AND one of the top defenses but failed to even make the playoffs with Jay Fiedler at QB. There is a certain level of competence that is required for the position.

My feeling on Brunell is that he's too old and injury prone to make it through the season. He hit a wall in about week 10 last year, and I suspect that wall will show up even sooner this year.

As for Simms, I wouldn't say "great". Lawrence Taylor and Mark Bavaro were the great players on those Giants teams. Simms was a decent ball control QB. I think he only threw 25 passes for that accuracy record in Super Bowl. I know he only threw 2 passes in the second half of their playoff game against the Redskins that year.

Posted by Just Karl | September 8, 2006 12:26 AM

Matt,
HAIL!

Posted by Mike P | September 8, 2006 12:49 AM

i didn't mean to hijack this thread to phil simms, but just karl, he was 22-25 for 268 yards and 3 TDs. he didn't throw more passes because he didn't need to; his team was clobbering the broncos in the second half and won 39-20.

as i've implied and al stated more directly, simms played on a team that was perfectly happy to throw only a handful of passes if they could control the game on the ground and with defense. take a look sometime at some of bob griese's post-season games in particular and you'll see the same thing.

Posted by howard | September 8, 2006 2:07 AM

I dunno about geographic fan-changing. I'd like to give up on the Lions, I can take the losing, the Millen-coddling and the ownership of the team by a doddering, frivolous plutocrat. It really irks me, though, that they've built now not only one, but two frickin' domes. Then there's the playing on artificial turf.

Both these are stupid and wrong. Precisely one dome team has won the Super Bowl and Detroit would have a Green Bay/Buffaloish advantage in December and January if they tore the damn roof off. Artificial turf hurts your players' knees more then grass does. I think it always will, no matter the engineering.

Posted by witless chum | September 8, 2006 7:43 AM

As bad as Culpepper looked in the last 5 minutes last night, he's still a lot better than Brunell. Hell, Charlie Batch looked a lot better than Brunell. What is Gibbs thinking?

Posted by vanya | September 8, 2006 9:30 AM

there's a lot of o-line bashing of a team that had a 1500 yard rusher last year.

was there some key injury or loss that i didn't hear of? seriously, i don't follow this as close as some on this thread.

joshb

Posted by joshb | September 8, 2006 2:05 PM

They're talented, joshb, they're just not deep enough. Jansen had surgery on both thumbs in the offseason. Randy Thomas is recovering from a broken leg. Chris Samuels had arthroscopic surgery on both knees. Casey Rabach had rotator cuff surgery and then crashed his ATV. Their one veteran backup O-lineman, Ray Brown, retired in the offseason, so they basically have no one experienced to step in if one of those guys gets hurt, and someone always gets hurt on an offensive line. You rarely see any team make it through all 16 games with all 5 of their starting O-linemen intact.

Posted by Antid Oto | September 8, 2006 2:22 PM

Forget whether or not Phil Simms was great. Putting him in that company is offensive; Brad Johnson, Trent Dilfer, Kurt Warner, Mark Rypien, Jeff Hostetler, Doug Williams, Phil Simms? Do you really not see the difference?

Posted by Tim | September 8, 2006 2:44 PM