Peyton Manning says Jason Campbell's sounded positive - guess not - MODS LOCK THIS

[Llevron]

I guess the Falcons, Ravens, and Dolphins were stupid and misguided in 2008...misguided right into the playoffs.

My point - The idea that you change coaching staff to fit the QB is stupid and misguided. And yes, had those teams done that, I would have said they were stupid and misguided too. But, they didn't.

I don't understand why this is so hard for you guys to understand. I'm actually saying that JC should have been gone a long time ago. You should be agreeing with me lol.

I don't know how to please you!!!

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

He has thrown almost 60 interceptions in the past 3 seasons combined.

It would be hard for me to call him someone who makes smart decisions or is very accurate.

Two sides to the story....

he was never THAT big of a pick machine in denver. hes a gun slinger, but its clear that the offense in chicago was not a good fit for him, hence why the entire offensive staff was fired and now hes got mike "whats a running game?" martz in charge of that offense.

note to everybody: dont draft matt forte next year for fantasy lol!

[SonnyJ]

sorry, double post.

[SonnyJ]

We aren't even arguing the same thing anymore. Seriously, I need you to tell me where I feel short in my verbage and lead you to believe I said ANYTHING about the Colts changing.....anything. I'm not being smart this time. I re-read all my post and I don't understand how you got this impression.

Really, I need to know. Communication is key. And just so we have this part clear, I dont believe you can speak (or write) in terms I wouldn't understand. You can try if you like im always up for a challenge.

I guess I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm responding to your point about Manning sticking up for Campbell and that I don't know what it's like to have to change offensive systems like Campbell does.

My contention is that it's a pretty silly thing for Manning to say, really - to compare him and Campbell at that level. The reason that Manning hasn't had any disruption in continuity was not due to some grand plan that they patiently adhered to over the years while he learned the ropes. The continuity is there because they had almost instantaneous success with it and that success has been sustained as long as Manning has been running the show.

If Campbell had of shown the same degree of success in his second year with Saunders that Manning did in his second season, we would not be having this conversation. They would keep the system in place that had proven to bring successful offensive productivity.

This is not a chicken and egg argument. They have continuity BECAUSE Manning has exhibited amazing, sustained productivity with it from almost the beginning. In other words, Manning is the system.

Why is it reflexively assumed that Campbell is just an innocent bystander to all this change? Is it not feasible that he is a major contributing factor for the change (not directed at you, based on your comment about him going with Gibbs)? That his team believes that there has to be more productivity that can be wrung from a QB with his excellent physical skills and willingness to work, even though it just doesn't seem to happen? A classic coach-killer. Fool's gold.

There, do you understand, now?

[Iced Coffee]

i am not sure how this is "huge props" i just see it a pointing out a situation and not much more.

[Llevron]

I guess I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm responding to your point about Manning sticking up for Campbell and that I don't know what it's like to have to change offensive systems like Campbell does.

My contention is that it's a pretty silly thing for Manning to say, really - to compare him and Campbell at that level. The reason that Manning hasn't had any disruption in continuity was not due to some grand plan that they patiently adhered to over the years while he learned the ropes. The continuity is there because they had almost instantaneous success with it and that success has been sustained as long as Manning has been running the show.

Ok got that part; I just didn't see how that had to do with what I was trying to talk about. I got you now though :pfft:

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one however. I don't think it was silly of him to say. They asked about how much it helps to be in the same system forever and he used a great example in JC. I also do believe that an organization such as the Colts would have a grand plan that they would have patiently adhered to for at least a few years had Manning not been success full in the very beginning. (Hell they let him set the rookie INT record lol) But that's all hypothetical so.....

If Campbell had of shown the same degree of success in his second year with Saunders that Manning did in his second season, we would not be having this conversation. They would keep the system in place that had proven to bring successful offensive productivity.

Here is my thing. I think ANY other professional organization would have questioned the QB before jumping ship with OC first. It just makes sense to me that the young QB has to sit a while (like the kid from AZ) instead of going out to find a new OC. If you can bring in another QB (vet, backup, whatever) and they play better then you know it was the QB. If they fail, then you know its the OC. But i think just two years is too short a time. Dynasty's aren't built in a season.

This is not a chicken and egg argument. They have continuity BECAUSE Manning has exhibited amazing, sustained productivity with it from almost the beginning. In other words, Manning is the system.

Well kinda. This is where we obviously disagree. They have continuity on the coaching staff because the powers that be believe in them and have bought into their plan for success. Yes a lot of it has to do with Manning. But you have to understand that MUCH of Mannings success has to do with the fact that he has been reading the same playbook since I was in middle school lol. So I guess what im saying is that they have continuity because Manning is good and Manning is good because they have continuity. I guess that does make it kinda chicken and egg...

Why is it reflexively assumed that Campbell is just an innocent bystander to all this change? Is it not feasible that he is a major contributing factor for the change (not directed at you, based on your comment about him going with Gibbs)? That his team believes that there has to be more productivity that can be wrung from a QB with his excellent physical skills and willingness to work, even though it just doesn't seem to happen? A classic coach-killer. Fool's gold.

I don't know about him being a coach-killer. I think the situation in the FO had much more to do with that than one player. Which is kinda my whole point. If the FO is stupid enough to keep this guy then its their fault not his. Although I DO think he got a raw deal, he still should have left with Gibbs or at the very LEAST been forced to compete for the job.

There, do you understand, now?

I do and hopefully I made myself a little more clear.

[Taylor 36]

Here is my thing. I think ANY other professional organization would have questioned the QB before jumping ship with OC first. It just makes sense to me that the young QB has to sit a while (like the kid from AZ) instead of going out to find a new OC. If you can bring in another QB (vet, backup, whatever) and they play better then you know it was the QB. If they fail, then you know its the OC. But i think just two years is too short a time. Dynasty's aren't built in a season.

Well kinda. This is where we obviously disagree. They have continuity on the coaching staff because the powers that be believe in them and have bought into their plan for success. Yes a lot of it has to do with Manning. But you have to understand that MUCH of Mannings success has to do with the fact that he has been reading the same playbook since I was in middle school lol. So I guess what im saying is that they have continuity because Manning is good and Manning is good because they have continuity. I guess that does make it kinda chicken and egg...

I do and hopefully I made myself a little more clear.

I think both of you have been making pretty good points. I'm with you, Llevron, that QB's SHOULD be replaced before the OC, but, unfortunately, that's not how it works in this league, especially when so much money is invested in QB's compared to assistant coaches. Hell, even more than HC's in some cases.

We gave up a king's ransom to get JC, and I think that Vinny and Snyder we hell bent on trying to make that square peg fit in their circle more so than just getting a round peg. I don't agree with it at all, and I think it is a pride/vanity thing as much as a financial thing, but I think that is where we completely got off the path.

Saunder's system was a proven one. A career back-up came in and executed it almost flawlessly. It has been reported by several that Gregg Williams want to keep that continuity as HC, but that the FO wanted to go forward with JC because of what they paid for him. That is why and the only reason we were stuck with Zorn. Zorn was brought in to turn JC into the first round pick they paid for.

So, I agree that continuity is part of the Manning legacy, but JC is partially responsible for why we have NOT had the same type of continuity in the past six years.

[skins2victory]

I wouldn't say that's huge props to JC. Alot of people have been saying its been hard to switch between OCs all the time. I mean wouldn't it be hard to be constantly switching bosses? I admire JC for what he has done, but honestly, what else could he do besides keep trying?

Right, but the whole point Payton was making is exactly true. Payton has had the same offensive scheme for a LONG TIME. Everyone marvals on how well Payton knows his offence and knows how to make the right audibles and such, to shread D's. JC has not had that luxury. There is a huge diffrence between learning an offence and prefecting it. Payton has been prefecting the Colts offence for years, and with his talent, there would be no excuss if he wasnt this good. JC gets to learn anouther one.

[Llevron]

I think both of you have been making pretty good points. I'm with you, Llevron, that QB's SHOULD be replaced before the OC, but, unfortunately, that's not how it works in this league, especially when so much money is invested in QB's compared to assistant coaches. Hell, even more than HC's in some cases.

We gave up a king's ransom to get JC, and I think that Vinny and Snyder we hell bent on trying to make that square peg fit in their circle more so than just getting a round peg. I don't agree with it at all, and I think it is a pride/vanity thing as much as a financial thing, but I think that is where we completely got off the path.

Saunder's system was a proven one. A career back-up came in and executed it almost flawlessly. It has been reported by several that Gregg Williams want to keep that continuity as HC, but that the FO wanted to go forward with JC because of what they paid for him. That is why and the only reason we were stuck with Zorn. Zorn was brought in to turn JC into the first round pick they paid for.

So, I agree that continuity is part of the Manning legacy, but JC is partially responsible for why we have NOT had the same type of continuity in the past six years.

It is really vain and egotistical. JC has a lot of the blame cause its his hands on the ball and not the FO. However I look at him, and our offense as a whole as a symptom of a much worse problem. Hopefully, we have fixed that problem now and we can start to be a good team again....cause I was only four in 1991

[CRobi21]

A pretty good compliment.

More of a respect thing I'd say.

[zCommander]

i am not sure how this is "huge props" i just see it a pointing out a situation and not much more.

Welcome to ExtremeSkins.

[Arsenic]

Maybe Peyton could "work with" Jason

[wvtbred]

I expect that they will address the OL as much as possible.

With the uncapped year, and the myriad of needs the line has displayed, and the possibility that the top pick will be used elsewhere, it would be unwise to forecast a complete turnaround.

I can't forecast how good they may be next season. I do know, however, how bad they have sunk.That's our starting point for the OL, and we'll hope it improves from here.

None of that changes my premise, though.

They will address the oline because they want a light, quick run block scheme type of line. They will change qb's because they want a gunslinger vocal leader type.

[wvtbred]

Jason Campbell was mentioned at the 47:00 mark.

http://www.nfl.com/superbowl/44/live/app#pid:man515097

Thank you for this.

First off I can't hear the question but the way Peyton opens his hand to the reporter I would bet he/she brought up Jason to begin with. Secondly P is wrong Jason has not had 6 in 6 but he is that poster child I guess.

No HUGE props barely a discussion and probably planted by reported. Non-event.

Thread is a waste of cyberspace IMO.

[PCS]

Thread is a waste of cyberspace IMO.

No offense and this is as a member not a mod and not directly at you specifically. But. By now,so is anything you and several others,(on both sides of this),post in these threads. I mean for crying out loud. There seems to be a select few of you who just seem to gravitate these threads time after time after time. Same thing over and over. Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee*********.

Rant over.

That said,carry on. You all seem to want to keep talking about this,feel free.

[wvtbred]

On offense and this is as a member not a mod and not directly at you specifically. But. By now,so is anything you and several others,(on both sides of this),post in these threads. I mean for crying out loud. There seems to be a select few of you who just seem to gravitate these threads time after time after time. Same thing over and over. Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee*********.

Rant over.

That said,carry on. You all seem to want to keep talking about this,feel free.

I understand what you are saying but it's only because it is brought up over and over. Making mountains out of molehills so to speak.

I guess it is the nature of the message board. One strikes one way and others strike back.

[CRobi21]

I understand what you are saying but it's only because it is brought up over and over.

:secret:

There are only 2 threads on the front page with dealing with JC. Both well over 5 pages.

Its not brought up over and over, it's just all some of you talk about. And its ALWAYS the same thing. That is what happens "over and over."

[dc1]

But of course, random internet hacks would have a far more valid opinion of JC than just some outstanding franchise QB of the decade so we can all ignore this. I mean really, what would Peyton Manning know?:ack:

You get the 'un-common' sense award! ..in short - you're spot on!

[wvtbred]

:secret:

There are only 2 threads on the front page with dealing with JC. Both well over 5 pages.

Its not brought up over and over, it's just all some of you talk about. And its ALWAYS the same thing. That is what happens "over and over."

Trust me the last thing I want to do with my day is discuss Jason. One side stops making threads about it and I will stop posting about it, promise.

[Taylor 36]

:secret:

There are only 2 threads on the front page with dealing with JC. Both well over 5 pages.

Its not brought up over and over, it's just all some of you talk about. And its ALWAYS the same thing. That is what happens "over and over."

And, look, you are here too, adding one of many posts that you've contributed to both of those threads.

My point, don't throw stones when you, yourself, are living in a glass house.

[CRobi21]

And, look, you are here too, adding one of many posts that you've contributed to both of those threads.

My point, don't throw stones when you, yourself, are living in a glass house.

Hmm.

After this post, I will have 3 in each.

Not sure that equals to "many." But ok.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

:secret:

There are only 2 threads on the front page with dealing with JC. Both well over 5 pages.

Its not brought up over and over, it's just all some of you talk about. And its ALWAYS the same thing. That is what happens "over and over."

its definitely brought up over and over. everyday there are new threads about JC being made. id love to see a flat number of just how many threads over the past 16 months were centered around an article about campbell, a comment about campbell, etc.

[darrelgreenie]

Thanks for passing along the info; and i'll take you at your word.

I wish there was a transcript or audio file somewhere so i could here it myself.

But, regardless of Manning's tone the mere fact that he mentions Jason Campbell's situation i.e. lack on continuity at OC should let all the fans know how much of a big deal changing offensive coordinator/system is in the development process of a young QB. The QB and OC are 2 of the main cogs in any offense, the OC along with the QB coach are a young QBs lifeline and are responsible for his guidance.

Jason Campbell was mentioned at the 47:00 mark.

http://www.nfl.com/superbowl/44/live/app#pid:man515097

Thanks bro,

This confirmed what i initially thought.

The fact that some Redskins 'fans' in this forum are basically disagreeing with Peyton Manning should be prime example that their views are suspect.

One is not in position to perfect a skill if the teacher and method are constantly changing while you're still learning the skill.

[RedskinsTime]

I understand what you are saying but it's only because it is brought up over and over. Making mountains out of molehills so to speak.

I guess it is the nature of the message board. One strikes one way and others strike back.

There are plenty of other threads about plenty of other topics, yet you only seem to post in the JC threads. Oh, that and the one about new uniforms.

Thanks for your contribution to ES. :thumbsup:

[wvtbred]

There are plenty of other threads about plenty of other topics, yet you only seem to post in the JC threads. Oh, that and the one about new uniforms.

Thanks for your contribution to ES. :thumbsup:

I only have so much time