A Dog Named Kelso

EJ and Fitz were never on the roster together there is no way a conversation like that took place.

I am not absolving Hackett of anything, but I would probably place any blame of how the QBs regressed this year on the new QB coach who was not here last year. That is similar to what happened to Fitz when they brought in a QB coach. Its just more voices in one's hear to have to process during game day.

OK I don't have All-22, but I continue to read there are plays all over the field to be made if the QB throws to the right receiver. I also see some form of the bolded text above. Sometime from the same posters. How can, on one hand, you complain that there are plays to be made all over the field then, on the other, complain Hackett is not doing his job correctly? If the QB is not able to get the ball to players that are open how can you blame the OC? Sure I guess you can complain about the way they run the ball, but again, the line isn't built for finesse ... Its was built for size and power(which they also are not good at). I am not defending Hackett ... I am asking about the disparity of the arguments being laid out.

You seem to have a few others ... "Thank you, sir! May I have another?"

I have nothing against Brandon and would be happy if he stayed. That said, the above is parrotted out a lot on this board as if he is a genius for regionalizing. One, I just have to take the narrative that it was his idea, which is fine, but secondly, it is just common sense and a plan set forth by Green Bay. Others on the board know him pretty well apparently and say he is great at his job and I take there knowledge seriously. I really just shake my head when people bring up the regionalization aspect of what he has done as if it was a paradigm shift in marketing, it was not at the time and it is not now. That said, he certainly did it effectively.

People who are blind have eyes!

Whaley wasn't with the team for the Spiller selection

Another perspective. Maybe he is challenging Orton ... maybe he wants to suggest that a change could be out of his control. Perhaps it lights a fire for Orton?

Really? After years of losing ... a 10-6 record with a question mark at QB tells you they have a really good team, doesn't it? Sure you need to find a better than average QB to run things or hope EJ has learned what he needs, but going forward you have a based one which to build on. Some the team has not had in 14 years.

Why would he look terrible? He can say that EJ learned what he need to learn from his time behind Orton ...no?

This was my argument all along. He needed some guidance and he was not getting that from Hackett, Hackett may not have even known what he needed EJ to do. I think the whole experience will make EJ better when he gets his chance.

I seem to remember Marrone saying he lets his assistants make personnel calls but when Hackett was asked about Mike Williams not playing his response was "That's a good question" almost like he had no idea why he was not playing. Those two statement seem to contradict each other. Unless the positional coaches are making the call for who gets on the field?

Do you have any links for the offense not being prepared comments? I do not remember hearing or reading that. I do remember the trade request though.

I agree and I believe that if he were more of a pain then previous there would be some reporting on it. Also, it is not like there are not other players that have some issues now or have some injury issues. The whole situation is just bizarre and the media has also been scratching their collective heads about it. If they were reporting he was horrible in practice then there would be no debate over starting Hogan. But apparently he was moved to the practice squad so there would be no comparison.

This may very well be the most reasonable explanation, but I wonder if Whaley and Marrone were informed about what those were before the trade. It is not that he was benched as much as the "non" reason. In a vacuum one could guess there were issues, but unlike what has been stated there were no real reports as to what the cause of the rift was. Marrone has a history of being stubborn and petty so, people going siding with William's is hardly out of line. I think if there was any sort of reports as to what the rift was for the initial benching people might get in line with what has occurred since. But he has been a healthy scratch since the Detroit game for the most part.

Well they were wrong to request that until they had qualified replacement. That was not a reason to cut him. I wonder if they have spent more at that position since. They have certainly had a larger hit to the Cap because of it. The "They wanted him to take a pay cut and he didn't" is not a viable reason for him to be cut.

Yes ... but have they? Could they have kept Fitz and done better at getting a value in the draft as a project?

Who thinks they added him quickly to the will not play list so they didn't have to just not start him?

Come on ... I am in no way comparing the work ethic of Peyton to Jonny Footbal, but Manning certainly has other activities that occupy his time outside of football. Papa John's, Buick, and Nationwide come to mind.

I find this interesting ... Not that I am saying it is not true, but from the stories about his childhood(of course this could be marketing too) one would think he would be the opposite.

Yeah ... that is because he was suppose to be a project and was thrown into the starting job. Now that coaches have time to work on their project he, may in fact, fix his issues that he had in college.

Especially since he failed to mention this piece which goes against his argument completely: If anything EJ has shown a great deal of maturity compared the others like RGIII and Geno.

Yes, but Lombradi also has 6 NFL championships.

Agreed ... They have not maximized the talent on this team. In fact, the opposite, They hide or removed individuals that have had success to implement "Their scheme". We can argue over Fitz and whether we believe he was good enough or not, but there is no denying he was able to get the ball into the end zone more. We can also argue if Stevie was a number one receiver or not, but he was able to accumulate yards. You can argue whether Urbik is a quality guard or not but he see clearly superior to what was there during the first 8 weeks. With that you can argue wether Gailey's line play was really good or if Fitz made it look good, but regardless it had more success than what is instituted now. And there is certainly talent that has be shown by Mike Williams while in Tampa ... so what has happened there? If you go with the assumption that Gailey's scheme's for Offense and O-Line play were average to above average and that the Defensive was a serious problem why come in and change the average to above average because it does not fit your scheme? Even the a casual fan could see the issue with the team under Gailey was the defense so, why not try and keep all the offensive pieces in place until that was fixed and slowly, after the Freshmen coach has had success implement gradual changes? Obviously some of this is on the GM but in a collaborative environment, which they claim to have, it is on the coach to tell the GM what he needs to do that have success early on.

Why would he care about that? Is JM not suppose to attend sporting events during his down time?