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

[TSO]

: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."

:ols: Thank you!

[TSO]

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?

These are good points, however, the problem with it, and specifically, the questions you posed that I bolded is that Jason was picked by Gibbs and Gibbs changed his system while Brunell was at the helm, not Campbell. Furthermore, Campbell was not the reason Gibbs retired, who forced the change to happen. That Dan and Vinny decided a WCO would be the best fit for Campbell and the Redskins was their decision, mainly based on Zorn's successful tutelage of Hasselbeck. Campbell actually was an innocent bystander to all the change, lol! To answer your question quite bluntly, no it is not feasible that he (Campbell) is a major contributing factor for the change. Not when you take the way things changed into account. Campbell was just a product of our inability as a franchise to have continuity, among many other players and coaches.

For example, Cooley was a TD machine under Gibbs and then Saunders. When Zorn came in, his TD production fell way off. Is that because Cooley just stopped being good in the red zone, or was it the system/playcalling there? That being said, it is not debatable in my mind that Campbell hasn't handled the change as well as other QBs may have. I think all of us agree that he is nowhere near being an elite QB, and may never be. Where we all seem to diverge is that there are a group of members who are ridiculously vocal and extremely repetitive to the point of driving everyone crazy who advocate that Campbell isn't even an average QB, which is preposterous nonsense. It is arguable that he is a good QB who has the potential to be a very good one, and his stats and steady progression year after year, even in the face of a dismantled Oline (the key to any QBs success) and no running game this year, are good evidence of that supposition.

If we could all focus on debating that; whether Campbell is simply average or more than that, then I think we would do a lot better here for all of our sanity's sake. But to one, insult Campbell relentlessly and call him stupid, slow, idiotic, moronic, awful, etc... and two, act like he's one of the worst QBs in the league is just blatant ignorance and shows an unwillingness on the part of those who do it to even suspect that they may be wrong, making them arrogant beyond redemption and making it pointless to debate anything with them.

[ChillSkinzFan84]

Why is this news? Anyone who has an ounce of common sense knows thats going thru so many systems stunts ur growth and holds u back. How can it not?

I wouldnt even worry about the "JC Haters" and the "Portis Haters" because once they have one good game next year these flip flop game to game fans will hop back on their nutz.

And why does everyone trust Shanny so much as a GM? His decisions have been horrible. If you want to be real about it Vinny and Dan had more success in the draft than Shanny has. Our problem was we always traded our picks away but when we actually picked it worked out more than not.

[ChillSkinzFan84]

These are good points, however, the problem with it, and specifically, the questions you posed that I bolded is that Jason was picked by Gibbs and Gibbs changed his system while Brunell was at the helm, not Campbell. Furthermore, Campbell was not the reason Gibbs retired, who forced the change to happen. That Dan and Vinny decided a WCO would be the best fit for Campbell and the Redskins was their decision, mainly based on Zorn's successful tutelage of Hasselbeck. Campbell actually was an innocent bystander to all the change, lol! To answer your question quite bluntly, no it is not feasible that he (Campbell) is a major contributing factor for the change. Not when you take the way things changed into account. Campbell was just a product of our inability as a franchise to have continuity, among many other players and coaches.

For example, Cooley was a TD machine under Gibbs and then Saunders. When Zorn came in, his TD production fell way off. Is that because Cooley just stopped being good in the red zone, or was it the system/playcalling there? That being said, it is not debatable in my mind that Campbell hasn't handled the change as well as other QBs may have. I think all of us agree that he is nowhere near being an elite QB, and may never be. Where we all seem to diverge is that there are a group of members who are ridiculously vocal and extremely repetitive to the point of driving everyone crazy who advocate that Campbell isn't even an average QB, which is preposterous nonsense. It is arguable that he is a good QB who has the potential to be a very good one.

Ur on point homie. Its good to see a few on here still know foootball

[NewCliche21]

These are good points, however, the problem with it, and specifically, the questions you posed that I bolded is that Jason was picked by Gibbs and Gibbs changed his system while Brunell was at the helm, not Campbell. Furthermore, Campbell was not the reason Gibbs retired, who forced the change to happen. That Dan and Vinny decided a WCO would be the best fit for Campbell and the Redskins was their decision, mainly based on Zorn's successful tutelage of Hasselbeck. Campbell actually was an innocent bystander to all the change, lol! To answer your question quite bluntly, no it is not feasible that he (Campbell) is a major contributing factor for the change. Not when you take the way things changed into account. Campbell was just a product of our inability as a franchise to have continuity, among many other players and coaches.

For example, Cooley was a TD machine under Gibbs and then Saunders. When Zorn came in, his TD production fell way off. Is that because Cooley just stopped being good in the red zone, or was it the system/playcalling there? That being said, it is not debatable in my mind that Campbell hasn't handled the change as well as other QBs may have. I think all of us agree that he is nowhere near being an elite QB, and may never be. Where we all seem to diverge is that there are a group of members who are ridiculously vocal and extremely repetitive to the point of driving everyone crazy who advocate that Campbell isn't even an average QB, which is preposterous nonsense. It is arguable that he is a good QB who has the potential to be a very good one, and his stats and steady progression year after year, even in the face of a dismantled Oline (the key to any QBs success) and no running game this year, are good evidence of that supposition.

If we could all focus on debating that; whether Campbell is simply average or more than that, then I think we would do a lot better here for all of our sanity's sake. But to one, insult Campbell relentlessly and call him stupid, slow, idiotic, moronic, awful, etc... and two, act like he's one of the worst QBs in the league is just blatant ignorance and shows an unwillingness on the part of those who do it to even suspect that they may be wrong, making them arrogant beyond redemption and making it pointless to debate anything with them.

I agree with all of this. Probably the best post in the entire Campbell argument, this thread or otherwise.

I'm still in favor of bringing someone else in who's new, I'm a BOB for the time being, as I feel that we just need a fresh start. I never hated Campbell and was a long-time support, but he's just been tossed around way too much at this point.

Excellent contribution!

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

These are good points, however, the problem with it, and specifically, the questions you posed that I bolded is that Jason was picked by Gibbs and Gibbs changed his system while Brunell was at the helm, not Campbell. Furthermore, Campbell was not the reason Gibbs retired, who forced the change to happen. That Dan and Vinny decided a WCO would be the best fit for Campbell and the Redskins was their decision, mainly based on Zorn's successful tutelage of Hasselbeck. Campbell actually was an innocent bystander to all the change, lol! To answer your question quite bluntly, no it is not feasible that he (Campbell) is a major contributing factor for the change. Not when you take the way things changed into account. Campbell was just a product of our inability as a franchise to have continuity, among many other players and coaches.

his point was that had campbell ever showed truly legit flashes of being great in that offense, we never would have changed offenses. campbell put up 12 TDs and 11 INTs in his first full year started, and looked very mediocre doing it. granted it was his first "full year" and i and many others gave him a pass, but honestly looking back he never really did anything that really dazzled. there were no "wow" moments where you felt like he was the guy.

had he played very well and the team responded in turn, al saunders and joe gibbs would have probably stuck around, or at least one of them to avoid another overhaul.

zorn and the WCO were only brought in because they wanted to see if switching systems would help campbell play better because he wasnt responding in saunders/gibbs system they way they had hoped.

[Higgs44]

wow... i wonder if Mannings props can make JC release the ball faster and make the right decisions.

[gortiz]

Campbell was just a product of our inability as a franchise to have continuity, among many other players and coaches.

.

this is ... the truth.

I just do not get the logic.

we agree that vinny and Dan were real, real, real bad when they ran this team.

how can we not all agree that vinny and dan and the way they ran this team are largely responsible for the failure to get the best out of campbell.

the submittedone is right ... the the argument is not that campbell is a bad qb, the argumetn should be if he can be a great qb. the man ...despite the THE ABSOULUTE TRAIN WRECK OF AN ORGANZIATION is at worst ... an average qb with upside if he is in a normal and stable situation.

[boobiemiles]

Honestly, it's a product of the Dan Snyder era and fake football fan shananagans.

There's people who would like a different QB, and then there's people who just really don't know what the hell they want.

I agree with you. I think a lot of fans look at JC and conclude he's either reached his peak, or there was no peak to speak of.

[gortiz]

his point was that had campbell ever showed truly legit flashes of being great in that offense, we never would have changed offenses. campbell put up 12 TDs and 11 INTs in his first full year started, and looked very mediocre doing it. granted it was his first "full year" and i and many others gave him a pass, but honestly looking back he never really did anything that really dazzled. there were no "wow" moments where you felt like he was the guy.

had he played very well and the team responded in turn, al saunders and joe gibbs would have probably stuck around, or at least one of them to avoid another overhaul.

zorn and the WCO were only brought in because they wanted to see if switching systems would help campbell play better because he wasnt responding in saunders/gibbs system they way they had hoped.

BLC ...how on earth can you make that kind of decisions after only one year. one year?! I mean, anyone knows that is not enough time to say ..."nope, the kid does not have it, we need to make a change and figure out what works."

and than ...they hire a first time offensive coach/head coach to get the job done.

[TSO]

Jason Campbell was mentioned at the 47:00 mark.

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

Thank you for posting this... I think it's needed to quote Manning word for word here, because it's going to make some people's arguments here look as ridiculous as they are.

After being asked to comment on how having the same offense for so long has helped him, and how difficult it must be other QBs who have had many, Manning answers:

It's been a tremendous help to me, just the consistency, the same offense, the same verbiage, the same guy calling the plays in my ears for 12 years. I don't take that for granted in the least bit and so I see these Qbs... Jason Campbell for the Washington Redskins... I think he's had 6 OCs in 6 years. That would be extremely tough. I think people forget about that when they're analyzing his play, you know, it's not fair as a QB to have that many coordinators and coaches. It's too hard, I would not do well in that type of environment, so I've been thankful everyday to have Tom Moore as my coordinator for my entire 12 years and I understand this may be his last year, so I appreciate what he's done for my career and I will never take for granted the consistency.

[ChillSkinzFan84]

BLC ...how on earth can you make that kind of decisions after only one year. one year?! I mean, anyone knows that is not enough time to say ..."nope, the kid does not have it, we need to make a change and figure out what works."

and than ...they hire a first time offensive coach/head coach to get the job done.

You cant make that decision after only 1 year. But its no point in arguing BLC is gonna hate till next year when he has to eat crow about this whole thing.

And I beleieve JC had some good games that season...the GB game we should of won and he outplayed Favre and we win if Moss doesnt tip a pass that gets picked off. The game at Dallas was also a good game for him...untill the last pick by Newman which was due to misscommunication between JC and El.

I just dont get how people try to act like JC is garbage. Ive been asking this question for 3 years and nobody has yet to answer me...Tell me what game has JC lost for us...a game where u said man we would of won if it wasnt for JC...Go head ill wait for an answer...but u cant give one.

[alwaysaskin]

Thank you for posting this... I think it's needed to quote Manning word for word here, because it's going to make some people's arguments here look as ridiculous as they are.

After being asked to comment on how having the same offense for so long has helped him, and how difficult it must be other QBs who have had many, Manning answers:

that quote by Manning damns our FO, Do I think Jason is our QB of the future, maybe, but he is not the worst QB in the league,, Brady Quinn takes that honor home. Fix the O-Line and see what Jason can do next year. Relax agenda boys, if he sucks as much as you think, we'll be picking in the top five again, if not well don't you want the team to do well?

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

BLC ...how on earth can you make that kind of decisions after only one year. one year?! I mean, anyone knows that is not enough time to say ..."nope, the kid does not have it, we need to make a change and figure out what works."

and than ...they hire a first time offensive coach/head coach to get the job done.

because contrary to the popular (on this site) opinion that it takes 5 years to judge a QB, it definitely doesnt. they saw campbell play for 7 games at the end of 2006, a nice starting point for a rookie. he had an entire offseason to get better, study more, learn more, progress, and in 07 he was probably worse than he was in 06. so thats almost two years in saunders system (7 games in 06, then the first 12 of 07, and its not like he was on fire before his injury) and our FO clearly felt campbell wasnt responding like a 1st round QB should respond, especially after seeing Romo sits to pee killing it as a rookie, and watching eli take it up to the next level.

so they decided to make a change to try and help campbell. i hope all of you realize that campbell is probably 90% of the reason we moved to a WCO. they were trying anything and everything to see that he succeeded. it wasnt clicking with saunders, so they said "maybe itll click in a different offense with a different coach?"

so when people say manning benefited from stability in the colts organization, thats stupid. the reason the colts are stable (pun not intentional lol) is because from day one manning proved he could light it up in that offense. why would they switch offenses for a rookie that threw 26 TDs?

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

and sticking strictly to the topic of the thread, manning is wrong. campbell has had 3 playcallers in 5 years. alex smith is the one who has had a different playcaller every year, hes 5 playcallers in 5 years.

i guess the 49ers cant really judge him either then?

[wvtbred]

Thank you for posting this... I think it's needed to quote Manning word for word here, because it's going to make some people's arguments here look as ridiculous as they are.

After being asked to comment on how having the same offense for so long has helped him, and how difficult it must be other QBs who have had many, Manning answers:

So since Peyton is wrong about Jason (6 in 6) does that make him look ridiculous?

[Llevron]

Ive been asking this question for 3 years and nobody has yet to answer me...Tell me what game has JC lost for us...a game where u said man we would of won if it wasnt for JC...Go head ill wait for an answer...but u cant give one.

Im honestly surprised to read this. Seriously.

[gortiz]

Thank you for posting this... I think it's needed to quote Manning word for word here, because it's going to make some people's arguments here look as ridiculous as they are.

After being asked to comment on how having the same offense for so long has helped him, and how difficult it must be other QBs who have had many, Manning answers:

that ... is amazing.

I mean, Peyton F'ing Manning said it ... not me, not some other ESer'.

[ChillSkinzFan84]

because contrary to the popular (on this site) opinion that it takes 5 years to judge a QB, it definitely doesnt. they saw campbell play for 7 games at the end of 2006, a nice starting point for a rookie. he had an entire offseason to get better, study more, learn more, progress, and in 07 he was probably worse than he was in 06. so thats almost two years in saunders system (7 games in 06, then the first 12 of 07, and its not like he was on fire before his injury) and our FO clearly felt campbell wasnt responding like a 1st round QB should respond, especially after seeing Romo sits to pee killing it as a rookie, and watching eli take it up to the next level.

so they decided to make a change to try and help campbell. i hope all of you realize that campbell is probably 90% of the reason we moved to a WCO. they were trying anything and everything to see that he succeeded. it wasnt clicking with saunders, so they said "maybe itll click in a different offense with a different coach?"

so when people say manning benefited from stability in the colts organization, thats stupid. the reason the colts are stable (pun not intentional lol) is because from day one manning proved he could light it up in that offense. why would they switch offenses for a rookie that threw 26 TDs?

Thats all BS because the fact of the matter is that Saunders and Gibbs would of been back another year had Gibbs not quit. If they come back then there is no switch on offense...the same system stays.

We switched to the WCO because we had no choice when we hired Zorn and yes they thought he could improve JC which is something u would want from ur coach.

I guess thats why we wanted Fassell too...just to switch to the WCO and improve JC. Ur whole argument is BS.

And dont act like everybody knew Manning was going to be great...those first years were shaky. Where do u think the whole Jim Mora "Playoffs" outburst came from? After a game where Peyton threw 5 picks. And why was Mora even fired if things were great from day 1?

Tell that crap to someone who doesnt know any better

[ChillSkinzFan84]

Im honestly surprised to read this. Seriously.

Seriously...do u have an answer for me? If not then u just continue to prove my point

[gortiz]

So since Peyton is wrong about Jason (6 in 6) does that make him look ridiculous?

and sticking strictly to the topic of the thread, manning is wrong. campbell has had 3 playcallers in 5 years. alex smith is the one who has had a different playcaller every year, hes 5 playcallers in 5 years.

i guess the 49ers cant really judge him either then?

so if you corrected Peyton Manning and told himt he accurate number, do you think he would change his opinion?

I don't.

His point is well made and valid, despite not being accurate on some of the facts.

campbell is okay, not great, and certainlty not bad. he has been ruined by Vinny, Dan, and this FO.

[SonnyJ]

I think all of us agree that he is nowhere near being an elite QB, and may never be. Where we all seem to diverge is that there are a group of members who are ridiculously vocal and extremely repetitive to the point of driving everyone crazy who advocate that Campbell isn't even an average QB, which is preposterous nonsense. It is arguable that he is a good QB who has the potential to be a very good one, and his stats and steady progression year after year, even in the face of a dismantled Oline (the key to any QBs success) and no running game this year, are good evidence of that supposition.

If we could all focus on debating that; whether Campbell is simply average or more than that, then I think we would do a lot better here for all of our sanity's sake. But to one, insult Campbell relentlessly and call him stupid, slow, idiotic, moronic, awful, etc... and two, act like he's one of the worst QBs in the league is just blatant ignorance and shows an unwillingness on the part of those who do it to even suspect that they may be wrong, making them arrogant beyond redemption and making it pointless to debate anything with them.

Blatant ignorance is blatant disregard for how other teams have chosen to attack the Redskins. Stack lines, play tight coverage, bring pressure, put the ball in Campbell's hands and force him to make quick decisions. The proof is in the pudding.

I think it's the absolute height of arrogance to suggest that since we disagree with your rose-colored view of Campbell, that we are the "bad guys" in the debate and are completely ignoring all facts. From my standpoint, the exact opposite is the case - the Campbell crowd is full of excuse-mongering.

If you do not like the debate, simply avoid it. If you all are so sick of discussing it, then don't respond. The debate is not whether or not he is average - the debate is if he can take the ball and win a game for you. There should be no debate about that. Others seem to think that that is unfair and what is really needed is a team with a crushing running game, fortress-like OL, swift and flypaper-handed receivers, and a punishing defense - the QB is just an afterthought. In this scenario, Campbell gets to watch while the running game and defense pound the opposing team into submission. Then, Campbell can fake a hand-off and then...well, I guess throw it to a guy who is wide open and not moving about 15-20 yards away. So, the FO sucks and his teammates suck because they do not give him the luxury of doing this.

Sorry, I don't think that is acceptable in this day and age for an NFL QB. YMMV.

[wvtbred]

so if you corrected Peyton Manning and told himt he accurate number, do you think he would change his opinion?

I don't.

His point is well made and valid, despite not being accurate on some of the facts.

campbell is okay, not great, and certainlty not bad. he has been ruined by Vinny, Dan, and this FO.

I still believe the only reason Jason was brought up was because the reporter did but you can't hear him or her.

[SonnyJ]

BLC ...how on earth can you make that kind of decisions after only one year. one year?! I mean, anyone knows that is not enough time to say ..."nope, the kid does not have it, we need to make a change and figure out what works."

and than ...they hire a first time offensive coach/head coach to get the job done.

They could make it because it had been TWO years. He had been in the Saunders system for two years (and the organization for 3) - I think a reasonable judgment can be made within that timeframe.

What if Williams/Saunders said after Gibbs left - we want to play Collins, we just don't think Jason is getting it. Preparing Campbell was apparently a big determinant in the coaching search of 2008. If the guys who had been coaching him for the last 2 seasons (Saunders), or observing him for 3 (Williams) didn't think he was cutting it, would that not be a fair assessment?

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

Thats all BS because the fact of the matter is that Saunders and Gibbs would of been back another year had Gibbs not quit. If they come back then there is no switch on offense...the same system stays.

We switched to the WCO because we had no choice when we hired Zorn and yes they thought he could improve JC which is something u would want from ur coach.

I guess thats why we wanted Fassell too...just to switch to the WCO and improve JC. Ur whole argument is BS.

And dont act like everybody knew Manning was going to be great...those first years were shaky. Where do u think the whole Jim Mora "Playoffs" outburst came from? After a game where Peyton threw 5 picks. And why was Mora even fired if things were great from day 1?

Tell that crap to someone who doesnt know any better

lol, so because gibbs quit, we were forced to fire saunders, remove his offense, and install a completely new offense? are you really that dense? we didnt have to fire saunders, there was no reason to keep him because campbell sucked in his offense, so they wanted to see if campbell would perform better in another offense. they wanted a spark, so they hired zorn to run a WCO and hopefully make campbell improve because theyd seen him succeed with hasselbeck.

nobody knew manning would be great? hes like the unanimous answer on "can you name a QB that you knew would be great", he was also the #1 overall draft pick. but yeah, usually rookies that throw for 26 TDs get their offense changed because it wasnt working for them. itll be a long time before we see another rookie throw that many TDs from a clean slate at the NFL level.