PDA

View Full Version : Tom Powers:Do the Vikings have long-term QB plan



Marrdro
05-03-2010, 10:58 AM
Tom Powers: Do the Vikings have a long-term plan at QB? (http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_15000487?source=rss)
I know we have lots of QB threads out there, however, this is by Mr. Tom Powers. As most of you know, he is such a stellar reporter, anything he does, gets special treatment by me. ;)

Marrdro
05-03-2010, 11:00 AM
They say it takes two or three years for a young quarterback to become knowledgeable enough to step onto the field in the NFL. Working with Favre probably could cut that time in half. He is a valuable training resource that the Vikings are wasting. But apparently they'll think about tomorrow when tomorrow rolls around.

How long has TJ been around? :dry:

Marrdro
05-03-2010, 11:03 AM
Tom Powers: Brett Favre should spare us the soap opera (http://www.twincities.com/vikings/ci_14992481)

Marrdro
05-03-2010, 11:05 AM
The rest of this is nonsense. If Favre wants to play, which certainly appears to be the case, he'll have the surgery and play. All this other stuff is theater designed to ... I guess I'm not sure what it's designed to do. Just don't pay any attention to it.

Sometimes, even Mr. Powers gets it right..... ;)

Marrdro
05-03-2010, 11:23 AM
Meanwhile, the NFL draft came and went, and Minnesota passed on a couple of quarterback prospects that has media and friends concerned about Minnesota's future. Notre Dame grad Jimmy Clausen, the first-round talent who was absent in the "Green Room", was available the first two days of the draft, yet we avoided him. Later, Tony Pike of Cincinnati, sat atop the 'best available' list of draft choices, and once again the Vikings went elsewhere. Critics cried "foul", citing Favre's ego as the reason Minnesota avoided addressing the future at quarterback. Never mind that both of these QBs dropped in value faster than the riders of Valley Fair's Power Tower, the Vikings had blown it due to the coddling of their superstar. Yea, right.

What they all fail to realize is that as good as Favre was, the reason for the Vikings' success is many, not singular. The addition of Percy Harvin; the improvement of Sidney Rice; the drafting of Phil Loadholt; Adrian Peterson; the emergence of Ray Edwards; the Williams' wall. Too many factors to decide that Favre was the only reason. The fact that Minnesota won the division in 2008 with Tarvaris Jackson and Gus Frerotte at the helm should at least suggest the overall talent of the Vikings is presently superior to the Packers, Bears, and obviously the Lions.

I am not afraid of life without Favre. True, like my HD-TV, it is certainly better. I would much prefer it. But these forty plus years have taught me to be patient (a skill all true Vikings' fans have had to own). For every Tarkenton, there will be a Tommy Kramer. For every Cunningham, a Jeff George. For every Culpepper ... you get the picture. The best playoff record of any Vikings' QB is only 6-5 (Tarkenton). Brett Favre's is presently 1-1, which is no better than Joe Kapp (2-2).



Exploring LAF, or Life After Favre (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/blogs/92583639.html)
Truer words have never been spoken...... Well, almost never. ;)

jargomcfargo
05-03-2010, 11:32 AM
Marrdro wrote:


The rest of this is nonsense. If Favre wants to play, which certainly appears to be the case, he'll have the surgery and play. All this other stuff is theater designed to ... I guess I'm not sure what it's designed to do. Just don't pay any attention to it.

Sometimes, even Mr. Powers gets it right..... ;)

LOL! Marty your answering your own posts. No wonder you have a zillion posts!

I like Mr. Powers as much as you, but these articles are pretty good.

Favre is probably the best QB the Vikings have had.

But I can live without the attention seeking behavior, off the field.

Marrdro
05-03-2010, 11:35 AM
jargomcfargo wrote:

Marrdro wrote:


The rest of this is nonsense. If Favre wants to play, which certainly appears to be the case, he'll have the surgery and play. All this other stuff is theater designed to ... I guess I'm not sure what it's designed to do. Just don't pay any attention to it.

Sometimes, even Mr. Powers gets it right..... ;)

LOL! Marty your answering your own posts. No wonder you have a zillion posts!

I like Mr. Powers as much as you, but these articles are pretty good.

Favre is probably the best QB the Vikings have had.

But I can live without the attention seeking behavior, off the field.
LOL, the new site is to tough when it comes to plugging in "Marrdo's comment follows". Sooooo, to keep from confusing a few people, I just put my comments in another post.

By the way, who cares about post counts anyways? :P

C Mac D
05-03-2010, 11:39 AM
Showtime is the long-term answer at QB. I'm not sure what's so hard for people to understand about that.

Caine
05-03-2010, 11:42 AM
Marrdro wrote:

Tom Powers: Do the Vikings have a long-term plan at QB? (http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_15000487?source=rss)
I know we have lots of QB threads out there, however, this is by Mr. Tom Powers. As most of you know, he is such a stellar reporter, anything he does, gets special treatment by me. ;)

I'm not really a fan of most "journalists"....mostly because I don't think they really know tha much about their subject matter...

But this first article I agreed with. It seems that he researched his presentation by reading my posts...that may be why I approve.

Of course, it would have been nice for him to credit me...but that would be asking too much.

Caine

Marrdro
05-03-2010, 11:42 AM
C Mac D wrote:

Showtime is the long-term answer at QB. I'm not sure what's so hard for people to understand about that.
I wonder what is going to happen around these here parts when he finally gets another chance.

LOL, I bet most will jump on the bandwagon and claim they supported him the whole time.

A few of us will know better. ;)

Marrdro
05-03-2010, 11:44 AM
Caine wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Tom Powers: Do the Vikings have a long-term plan at QB? (http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_15000487?source=rss)
I know we have lots of QB threads out there, however, this is by Mr. Tom Powers. As most of you know, he is such a stellar reporter, anything he does, gets special treatment by me. ;)

I'm not really a fan of most "journalists"....mostly because I don't think they really know tha much about their subject matter...

But this first article I agreed with. It seems that he researched his presentation by reading my posts...that may be why I approve.

Of course, it would have been nice for him to credit me...but that would be asking too much.

Caine
Everyonce in awhile he does come up with a good one. I guess my axe that I grind with him is that he has never once replied to any of my "Hate Mail" emails that follow one I don't like.

Go figure huh? :laugh:

vike_mike
05-03-2010, 02:19 PM
I would like to know how Ryan Perrilloux did this weekend and what is the vibe on how he performed. This guy is a player if he can get his act straightened out.

midgensa
05-03-2010, 03:05 PM
I think it is pretty clear at this point that the Vikings and their Front Office think that Tarvaris Jackson IS the QB of the future for this team.

I am pretty meh on it. I by all means would like Favre over T-Jack ... but I am not as terrified by T-Jack as many are (though not nearly as overjoyed by him as some are either). I think that Perriloux was brought in as a "diamond in the rough" longshot that could pan out and they MAY have their eye on a QB for competition next season.

But right now it is fairly evident that when Favre is done whether he has already played his last game or plays until his is 45 the Vikes are content to move forward with T-Jack.

AngloVike
05-04-2010, 09:00 AM
Forced to look at the big picture in a moment of panic, we now know that the Vikings' backup plan at quarterback is to schlep along with what they have on the roster in the event of an emergency. OK, well that's their calculated gamble.

What really bothers me is the fact that they appear to have no medium- or long-range plan in place at quarterback. There is no quarterback in training. There is no long-term successor being groomed. Nothing. Nada. Zippo.

so TJ isn't the answer?? *shock* *horror*....

Prophet
05-04-2010, 09:04 AM
...Meanwhile, there is too much water under the bridge here with regard to Tarvaris Jackson. Besides, Jackson didn't always seem that interested in learning. When Favre would come to the sideline to discuss certain situations, T-Jack occasionally was off staring into space at a different location...

I observed that a bit, makes me nervous that Powers mentioned it because now it has no validity.

tarkenton10
05-04-2010, 09:06 AM
Marrdro wrote:

Tom Powers: Do the Vikings have a long-term plan at QB? (http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_15000487?source=rss)
I know we have lots of QB threads out there, however, this is by Mr. Tom Powers. As most of you know, he is such a stellar reporter, anything he does, gets special treatment by me. ;)

The long term solution the masterminds have is to pray the Pats let Tom Brady go in a finacial move and scoop him up. Geniuses I tell ya they are pure genius!!! :blink:

C Mac D
05-04-2010, 09:09 AM
AngloVike wrote:


Forced to look at the big picture in a moment of panic, we now know that the Vikings' backup plan at quarterback is to schlep along with what they have on the roster in the event of an emergency. OK, well that's their calculated gamble.

What really bothers me is the fact that they appear to have no medium- or long-range plan in place at quarterback. There is no quarterback in training. There is no long-term successor being groomed. Nothing. Nada. Zippo.

so TJ isn't the answer?? *shock* *horror*....

lol... People who knock on T-Jack crack me up. You act like you have "inside knowledge" that he sucks.

Well, actually... he really does seem like the answer when you look at the numbers. His last year as a starter, he had a 95+ QB rating, and for the small amount of time playing last season when filling in for Favre, he played immaculate and finished with a 113.4 QB rating.

Now, add two years behind Brett Favre, and you people STILL don't want to give him a chance and purely judge him on the 2.5 years he played coming immediately out of college with either Gus Frerotte, Brad Johnson, Brooks Bollinger or Kelly Holcomb as his "starter" to learn behind.

The people who think T-Jack sucks and doesn't deserve to have another shot at starting simply don't understand the development process of a QB... media hacks included. Those are just facts, and the coaching staff seems to agree with me. What QB did we draft this year?

Oh... right... none...

tarkenton10
05-04-2010, 09:18 AM
C Mac D wrote:

AngloVike wrote:


Forced to look at the big picture in a moment of panic, we now know that the Vikings' backup plan at quarterback is to schlep along with what they have on the roster in the event of an emergency. OK, well that's their calculated gamble.

What really bothers me is the fact that they appear to have no medium- or long-range plan in place at quarterback. There is no quarterback in training. There is no long-term successor being groomed. Nothing. Nada. Zippo.

so TJ isn't the answer?? *shock* *horror*....

lol... People who knock on T-Jack crack me up. You act like you have "inside knowledge" that he sucks.

Well, actually... he really does seem like the answer when you look at the numbers. His last year as a starter, he had a 95+ QB rating, and for the small amount of time playing last season when filling in for Favre, he played immaculate and finished with a 113.4 QB rating.

Now, add two years behind Brett Favre, and you people STILL don't want to give him a chance and purely judge him on the 2.5 years he played coming immediately out of college with either Gus Frerotte, Brad Johnson, Brooks Bollinger or Kelly Holcomb as his "starter" to learn behind.

The people who think T-Jack sucks and doesn't deserve to have another shot at starting simply don't understand the development process of a QB... media hacks included. Those are just facts, and the coaching staff seems to agree with me. What QB did we draft this year?

Oh... right... none...

It is not that we don't want to give him a chance; most feel he won't make it and there should be a backup plan. That is only smart given his past performances. You can put lipstick on a pig....oh wait that is another topic. Anyway I am not a fan at all but I will say that one more chance is the American way and I would be willing to give TJ another shot. But you have to understand he was not the answer the last few times in there, even his coach who drafted him had to feel that way of we wouldn't have Sage or Favre on our team. So please look at the other side and realize while he may deserve another chance we have good reason to doubt him. He was not that good and if he fails again is probably a bust!!

AngloVike
05-04-2010, 09:23 AM
C Mac D wrote:

AngloVike wrote:


Forced to look at the big picture in a moment of panic, we now know that the Vikings' backup plan at quarterback is to schlep along with what they have on the roster in the event of an emergency. OK, well that's their calculated gamble.

What really bothers me is the fact that they appear to have no medium- or long-range plan in place at quarterback. There is no quarterback in training. There is no long-term successor being groomed. Nothing. Nada. Zippo.

so TJ isn't the answer?? *shock* *horror*....

lol... People who knock on T-Jack crack me up. You act like you have "inside knowledge" that he sucks.

Well, actually... he really does seem like the answer when you look at the numbers. His last year as a starter, he had a 95+ QB rating, and for the small amount of time playing last season when filling in for Favre, he played immaculate and finished with a 113.4 QB rating.

Now, add two years behind Brett Favre, and you people STILL don't want to give him a chance and purely judge him on the 2.5 years he played coming immediately out of college with either Gus Frerotte, Brad Johnson, Brooks Bollinger or Kelly Holcomb as his "starter" to learn behind.

The people who think T-Jack sucks and doesn't deserve to have another shot at starting simply don't understand the development process of a QB... media hacks included. Those are just facts, and the coaching staff seems to agree with me. What QB did we draft this year?

Oh... right... none...
inside knowledge that he sucks - no.. thought that was in the public domain and available to all.
yes I'm fully aware that QBs need a developmental process and that very few come into the league and can be deemed as legitimate starters. Many do require awhile to develop and learn under an experienced QB but they have the basic capability to become starters in the league unlike TJ who, despite his best efforts, is not going to do that because he lacks the basic baseline to start from.
The best he will ever be is a half decent #2 but that is not the same as a player of starting calibre.

C Mac D
05-04-2010, 09:31 AM
lol... The best he'll be is a #2? He's played better than any other QB drafted that year, Vince Young included.

Thinking he'll simply come out of college and play like Matt Ryan (your view) is simply out of touch with reality. It's just that simple.

jargomcfargo
05-04-2010, 10:04 AM
C Mac D wrote:

AngloVike wrote:


Forced to look at the big picture in a moment of panic, we now know that the Vikings' backup plan at quarterback is to schlep along with what they have on the roster in the event of an emergency. OK, well that's their calculated gamble.

What really bothers me is the fact that they appear to have no medium- or long-range plan in place at quarterback. There is no quarterback in training. There is no long-term successor being groomed. Nothing. Nada. Zippo.

so TJ isn't the answer?? *shock* *horror*....

lol... People who knock on T-Jack crack me up. You act like you have "inside knowledge" that he sucks.

Well, actually... he really does seem like the answer when you look at the numbers. His last year as a starter, he had a 95+ QB rating, and for the small amount of time playing last season when filling in for Favre, he played immaculate and finished with a 113.4 QB rating.

Now, add two years behind Brett Favre, and you people STILL don't want to give him a chance and purely judge him on the 2.5 years he played coming immediately out of college with either Gus Frerotte, Brad Johnson, Brooks Bollinger or Kelly Holcomb as his "starter" to learn behind.

The people who think T-Jack sucks and doesn't deserve to have another shot at starting simply don't understand the development process of a QB... media hacks included. Those are just facts, and the coaching staff seems to agree with me. What QB did we draft this year?

Oh... right... none...

His numbers are pretty darn good for the stage of development he is at, when compared against several QB's who have gone on to succeed.

His time in the system and behind a veteran like Favre is the kind of development we wanted him to have originally.

He won't play like Brett, but really, who will?

There's no reason to think he won't be better than he was in the past, so I'm ok with TJ as a back up plan for now.

But I think we would all like to see a young back up to TJ in case he doesn't continue to improve.

tastywaves
05-04-2010, 10:16 AM
C Mac D wrote:

AngloVike wrote:


Forced to look at the big picture in a moment of panic, we now know that the Vikings' backup plan at quarterback is to schlep along with what they have on the roster in the event of an emergency. OK, well that's their calculated gamble.

What really bothers me is the fact that they appear to have no medium- or long-range plan in place at quarterback. There is no quarterback in training. There is no long-term successor being groomed. Nothing. Nada. Zippo.

so TJ isn't the answer?? *shock* *horror*....

lol... People who knock on T-Jack crack me up. You act like you have "inside knowledge" that he sucks.

Well, actually... he really does seem like the answer when you look at the numbers. His last year as a starter, he had a 95+ QB rating, and for the small amount of time playing last season when filling in for Favre, he played immaculate and finished with a 113.4 QB rating.

Now, add two years behind Brett Favre, and you people STILL don't want to give him a chance and purely judge him on the 2.5 years he played coming immediately out of college with either Gus Frerotte, Brad Johnson, Brooks Bollinger or Kelly Holcomb as his "starter" to learn behind.

The people who think T-Jack sucks and doesn't deserve to have another shot at starting simply don't understand the development process of a QB... media hacks included. Those are just facts, and the coaching staff seems to agree with me. What QB did we draft this year?

Oh... right... none...

Good to see you are gaining confidence in our coaching staff.

AngloVike
05-04-2010, 10:30 AM
C Mac D wrote:

lol... The best he'll be is a #2? He's played better than any other QB drafted that year, Vince Young included.

Thinking he'll simply come out of college and play like Matt Ryan (your view) is simply out of touch with reality. It's just that simple.

of course he has played better, which was why we ended up trading for Sage to compete with him in training camp last year as he was such a lock at the position and why he was not snapped up when he was tendered this off season.
Now I've looked through my post and really can't see where I said he'd play like Matt Ryan but I'm sure you'll point that out.
Rather than drag this thread into another TJ bashing thread we'll just have to agree to differ on our views of TJ. So I'll step back from this and wait to see if he proves me otherwise. If he does then great and I'll be happy to acknowledge that, so I 'll assume you'll do the same if he doesn't pan out.

Prophet
05-04-2010, 10:33 AM
AngloVike wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

lol... The best he'll be is a #2? He's played better than any other QB drafted that year, Vince Young included.

Thinking he'll simply come out of college and play like Matt Ryan (your view) is simply out of touch with reality. It's just that simple.

of course he has played better, which was why we ended up trading for Sage to compete with him in training camp last year as he was such a lock at the position and why he was not snapped up when he was tendered this off season.
Now I've looked through my post and really can't see where I said he'd play like Matt Ryan but I'm sure you'll point that out.
Rather than drag this thread into another TJ bashing thread we'll just have to agree to differ on our views of TJ. So I'll step back from this and wait to see if he proves me otherwise. If he does then great and I'll be happy to acknowledge that, so I 'll assume you'll do the same if he doesn't pan out.

One way to tell the perceived value of an NFL player is when they hit the free agency market and it is silent. Oh wait.....

ejmat
05-04-2010, 10:33 AM
C Mac D wrote:

lol... The best he'll be is a #2? He's played better than any other QB drafted that year, Vince Young included.

Thinking he'll simply come out of college and play like Matt Ryan (your view) is simply out of touch with reality. It's just that simple.

It's not really that out of touch since there are QBs out of college that do well right off the bat. But to your point it isn't common at all.

We've all been around and around about TJ. We all know each others point of view. I do think TJ can improve as I always said. I am still not confident in him that he can be a starter because quite frankly he hasn't shown the intangeables necessary. However, I do like what I've seen of him in the back up role last year and the end of the season the year prior.

I like him as a 2nd string QB right now. I have not liked him as the starter. That doesn't mean he can't prove me and others wrong because I do think he has the physical talents. It's his mental state I have issues with at this point.

I have bashed him because of his inability to read past the first option and his inability to read the defense and blitzes. All of that is trainable and he has the ability to improve. I for one, Hope to be eating crow if TJ does get his next chance. As for now though, he has been nothing better than a backup QB in the NFL. Statistics are looking good as far as ratings are concerned but they still don't tell the entire story. However, the more playing time he gets we can make a better assessment on where he lies.

Marrdro
05-04-2010, 10:42 AM
tarkenton10 wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Tom Powers: Do the Vikings have a long-term plan at QB? (http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_15000487?source=rss)
I know we have lots of QB threads out there, however, this is by Mr. Tom Powers. As most of you know, he is such a stellar reporter, anything he does, gets special treatment by me. ;)

The long term solution the masterminds have is to pray the Pats let Tom Brady go in a finacial move and scoop him up. Geniuses I tell ya they are pure genius!!! :blink:
You are a bit of a sneaky fellow as well I see...... Just added you to that new spreadsheet.....

On a side note, Dnabb hasn't signed an extension yet has he? :huh:

i_bleed_purple
05-04-2010, 10:47 AM
Marrdro wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Tom Powers: Do the Vikings have a long-term plan at QB? (http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_15000487?source=rss)
I know we have lots of QB threads out there, however, this is by Mr. Tom Powers. As most of you know, he is such a stellar reporter, anything he does, gets special treatment by me. ;)

The long term solution the masterminds have is to pray the Pats let Tom Brady go in a finacial move and scoop him up. Geniuses I tell ya they are pure genius!!! :blink:
You are a bit of a sneaky fellow as well I see...... Just added you to that new spreadsheet.....

On a side note, Dnabb hasn't signed an extension yet has he? :huh:

No, and neither has Peyton manning.

Marrdro
05-04-2010, 10:48 AM
C Mac D wrote:

The people who think T-Jack sucks and doesn't deserve to have another shot at starting simply don't understand the development process of a QB... media hacks included.

Whats even more funny is this media hack (Mr. Powers)knows how long it takes to develop a QB (He states it in his article), but refuses to acknowledge that timeframe when it comes to TJ.

I think if you read a bit into it you will see its a "Jungian Thing". ;)

Marrdro
05-04-2010, 10:49 AM
i_bleed_purple wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Tom Powers: Do the Vikings have a long-term plan at QB? (http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_15000487?source=rss)
I know we have lots of QB threads out there, however, this is by Mr. Tom Powers. As most of you know, he is such a stellar reporter, anything he does, gets special treatment by me. ;)

The long term solution the masterminds have is to pray the Pats let Tom Brady go in a finacial move and scoop him up. Geniuses I tell ya they are pure genius!!! :blink:
You are a bit of a sneaky fellow as well I see...... Just added you to that new spreadsheet.....

On a side note, Dnabb hasn't signed an extension yet has he? :huh:

No, and neither has Peyton manning.
Better yet.

LOL, I wonder what some PPO posters would say about Peyton and his happy feet in the pocket. All TJ has to do is shift his feet a bit and they say he is uncomfortable. I bet they haven't watched ole Peyton much.

That cat is jumpier than a cat on a floor covered in mouse traps... ;)

Marrdro
05-04-2010, 10:52 AM
C Mac D wrote:

lol... The best he'll be is a #2? He's played better than any other QB drafted that year, Vince Young included.

Thinking he'll simply come out of college and play like Matt Ryan (your view) is simply out of touch with reality. It's just that simple.
Shock suprise, even VY showed alot of maturity and proffesionalism last year.

Maybe there is some truth to that old cliche', you know, the one that talks about how long it takes to develop a QB. :huh:

slavinator
05-04-2010, 10:55 AM
In my opinion Chiller and the FO have gone with a couple different approaches in response to do they have a long term answer at QB.

The plan is COMPETITION, the NFL is all about it. Chilly went with his gut and drafted a guy he liked with enough talent to be a project. The project didnt work out in the timeline he planned so he did what he had to do, explore other options.

Now we have added several veterans to come in and compete and to a degree mentor TJ and the other QB's. After that he went and got an aging soon to be HOF'er who gave us a remarkable season. All the while TJ, and Sage are watching, and learning.

I am not 100% convinced that TJ is the guy but I do like that the FO and Coaching staff keep trying to improve the situation through adding more competition at the position.

I also like that they didnt reach for a QB they werent enamored with in the draft. Just because its a need does not predicate that you draft a guy if they wont fit your scheme. I dont think that they were in love with anyone in the draft class of QB's.

There are several other NFL teams with as bad or worse options at QB than we have. Really there are only a handful of teams who have a long term franchise QB's.

Marrdro
05-04-2010, 11:01 AM
slavinator wrote:

In my opinion Chiller and the FO have gone with a couple different approaches in response to do they have a long term answer at QB.

The plan is COMPETITION, the NFL is all about it. Chilly went with his gut and drafted a guy he liked with enough talent to be a project. The project didnt work out in the timeline he planned so he did what he had to do, explore other options.

Now we have added several veterans to come in and compete and to a degree mentor TJ and the other QB's. After that he went and got an aging soon to be HOF'er who gave us a remarkable season. All the while TJ, and Sage are watching, and learning.

I am not 100% convinced that TJ is the guy but I do like that the FO and Coaching staff keep trying to improve the situation through adding more competition at the position.

I also like that they didnt reach for a QB they werent enamored with in the draft. Just because its a need does not predicate that you draft a guy if they wont fit your scheme. I dont think that they were in love with anyone in the draft class of QB's.

There are several other NFL teams with as bad or worse options at QB than we have. Really there are only a handful of teams who have a long term franchise QB's.
You see, now your just making me upset.

After reading a post like that, one wonders why we don't see more of them out of you......

Top shelf my friend. Top shelf indeed. :)

Prophet
05-04-2010, 11:14 AM
Marrdro wrote:

slavinator wrote:

In my opinion Chiller and the FO have gone with a couple different approaches in response to do they have a long term answer at QB.

The plan is COMPETITION, the NFL is all about it. Chilly went with his gut and drafted a guy he liked with enough talent to be a project. The project didnt work out in the timeline he planned so he did what he had to do, explore other options.

Now we have added several veterans to come in and compete and to a degree mentor TJ and the other QB's. After that he went and got an aging soon to be HOF'er who gave us a remarkable season. All the while TJ, and Sage are watching, and learning.

I am not 100% convinced that TJ is the guy but I do like that the FO and Coaching staff keep trying to improve the situation through adding more competition at the position.

I also like that they didnt reach for a QB they werent enamored with in the draft. Just because its a need does not predicate that you draft a guy if they wont fit your scheme. I dont think that they were in love with anyone in the draft class of QB's.

There are several other NFL teams with as bad or worse options at QB than we have. Really there are only a handful of teams who have a long term franchise QB's.
You see, now your just making me upset.

After reading a post like that, one wonders why we don't see more of them out of you......

Top shelf my friend. Top shelf indeed. :)

Yes, especially when you look at the COMPETITION part of the post. Best I can tell since Childress arrived it went something like this:

DC wacked out, BJ folded, TJack gifted starting role, TJack folded Frerrote and other asshats played some games, Rosenfels brought in for FIRST QB competition since acquiring TJack and then Favre was brought in to save the day. Not until Rosenfels was brought in was there a competition.

There isn't a fan with part of a brain that doesn't realize that TJack has potential. To say he's starter material or a flop is a joke. Same story since he arrived. We don't know. Now we're reaching the magical development time and we will see what he has as a starter probably next year. I wouldn't be surprised if he does ok or if he flops. I will be surprised if he ever has a career where it isn't a roller coaster ride....which can be a good thing as long as there is a hint of consistency in the mix.

If he is as good as the sniffers say he is then why was their dead silence when he was a free agent? I'll tell you why, they wanted too much for him and he is still a huge question mark. Why is he still on the roster? I'll tell you. The Vikings organization thinks he's worth keeping on the roster because he MIGHT pan out. Nothing more.

Once again, the fanatics will be left on the sidelines to discuss TJack's existence. He has been around, in the same offense, his whole NFL career. If he gets the starting role again, gifted or earned, he will be on a short-leash until he proves to the NFL world that he has progressed into starter material and not just a quality backup. He has not done that yet. Will he? Time will tell. For what it's worth, which is nothing, I think he does not have it. There have been reports where he can jot down any play from the playbook on a napkin, but, based on his performance on the field can he execute them under pressure? Ah, sometimes. Can he cross that hump into integarting his knowledge and athleticism with wisdom on the field at the NFL level? Nobody knows.

Marrdro
05-04-2010, 11:24 AM
Prophet wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

slavinator wrote:

In my opinion Chiller and the FO have gone with a couple different approaches in response to do they have a long term answer at QB.

The plan is COMPETITION, the NFL is all about it. Chilly went with his gut and drafted a guy he liked with enough talent to be a project. The project didnt work out in the timeline he planned so he did what he had to do, explore other options.

Now we have added several veterans to come in and compete and to a degree mentor TJ and the other QB's. After that he went and got an aging soon to be HOF'er who gave us a remarkable season. All the while TJ, and Sage are watching, and learning.

I am not 100% convinced that TJ is the guy but I do like that the FO and Coaching staff keep trying to improve the situation through adding more competition at the position.

I also like that they didnt reach for a QB they werent enamored with in the draft. Just because its a need does not predicate that you draft a guy if they wont fit your scheme. I dont think that they were in love with anyone in the draft class of QB's.

There are several other NFL teams with as bad or worse options at QB than we have. Really there are only a handful of teams who have a long term franchise QB's.
You see, now your just making me upset.

After reading a post like that, one wonders why we don't see more of them out of you......

Top shelf my friend. Top shelf indeed. :)

Yes, especially when you look at the COMPETITION part of the post. Best I can tell since Childress arrived it went something like this:

DC wacked out, BJ folded, TJack gifted starting role, TJack folded Frerrote and other asshats played some games, Rosenfels brought in for FIRST QB competition since acquiring TJack and then Favre was brought in to save the day. Not until Rosenfels was brought in was there a competition.

There isn't a fan with part of a brain that doesn't realize that TJack has potential. To say he's starter material or a flop is a joke. Same story since he arrived. We don't know. Now we're reaching the magical development time and we will see what he has as a starter probably next year. I wouldn't be surprised if he does ok or if he flops. I will be surprised if he ever has a career where it isn't a roller coaster ride....which can be a good thing as long as there is a hint of consistency in the mix.

If he is as good as the sniffers say he is then why was their dead silence when he was a free agent? I'll tell you why, they wanted too much for him and he is still a huge question mark. Why is he still on the roster? I'll tell you. The Vikings organization thinks he's worth keeping on the roster because he MIGHT pan out. Nothing more.

Once again, the fanatics will be left on the sidelines to discuss TJack's existence. He has been around, in the same offense, his whole NFL career. If he gets the starting role again, gifted or earned, he will be on a short-leash until he proves to the NFL world that he has progressed into starter material and not just a quality backup. He has not done that yet. Will he? Time will tell. For what it's worth, which is nothing, I think he does not have it. There have been reports where he can jot down any play from the playbook on a napkin, but, based on his performance on the field can he execute them under pressure? Ah, sometimes. Can he cross that hump into integarting his knowledge and athleticism with wisdom on the field at the NFL level? Nobody knows.
That could be said of alot of good QB's that have played in this league, to include our current starter...... ;)

Prophet
05-04-2010, 11:28 AM
Marrdro wrote:

Prophet wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

slavinator wrote:

In my opinion Chiller and the FO have gone with a couple different approaches in response to do they have a long term answer at QB.

The plan is COMPETITION, the NFL is all about it. Chilly went with his gut and drafted a guy he liked with enough talent to be a project. The project didnt work out in the timeline he planned so he did what he had to do, explore other options.

Now we have added several veterans to come in and compete and to a degree mentor TJ and the other QB's. After that he went and got an aging soon to be HOF'er who gave us a remarkable season. All the while TJ, and Sage are watching, and learning.

I am not 100% convinced that TJ is the guy but I do like that the FO and Coaching staff keep trying to improve the situation through adding more competition at the position.

I also like that they didnt reach for a QB they werent enamored with in the draft. Just because its a need does not predicate that you draft a guy if they wont fit your scheme. I dont think that they were in love with anyone in the draft class of QB's.

There are several other NFL teams with as bad or worse options at QB than we have. Really there are only a handful of teams who have a long term franchise QB's.
You see, now your just making me upset.

After reading a post like that, one wonders why we don't see more of them out of you......

Top shelf my friend. Top shelf indeed. :)

Yes, especially when you look at the COMPETITION part of the post. Best I can tell since Childress arrived it went something like this:

DC wacked out, BJ folded, TJack gifted starting role, TJack folded Frerrote and other asshats played some games, Rosenfels brought in for FIRST QB competition since acquiring TJack and then Favre was brought in to save the day. Not until Rosenfels was brought in was there a competition.

There isn't a fan with part of a brain that doesn't realize that TJack has potential. To say he's starter material or a flop is a joke. Same story since he arrived. We don't know. Now we're reaching the magical development time and we will see what he has as a starter probably next year. I wouldn't be surprised if he does ok or if he flops. I will be surprised if he ever has a career where it isn't a roller coaster ride....which can be a good thing as long as there is a hint of consistency in the mix.

If he is as good as the sniffers say he is then why was their dead silence when he was a free agent? I'll tell you why, they wanted too much for him and he is still a huge question mark. Why is he still on the roster? I'll tell you. The Vikings organization thinks he's worth keeping on the roster because he MIGHT pan out. Nothing more.

Once again, the fanatics will be left on the sidelines to discuss TJack's existence. He has been around, in the same offense, his whole NFL career. If he gets the starting role again, gifted or earned, he will be on a short-leash until he proves to the NFL world that he has progressed into starter material and not just a quality backup. He has not done that yet. Will he? Time will tell. For what it's worth, which is nothing, I think he does not have it. There have been reports where he can jot down any play from the playbook on a napkin, but, based on his performance on the field can he execute them under pressure? Ah, sometimes. Can he cross that hump into integarting his knowledge and athleticism with wisdom on the field at the NFL level? Nobody knows.
That could be said of alot of good QB's that have played in this league, to include our current starter...... ;)

Yes, it definitely could. Although, our current starter has some league MVP, SB appearances, and a splattering of NFL records to fall back on when he has a sporadic and inconsistent day. TJack has nothing because he hasn't played much and has earned little respect at the NFL level. Like I said, we do not know.

Marrdro
05-04-2010, 11:29 AM
Prophet wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Prophet wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

slavinator wrote:

In my opinion Chiller and the FO have gone with a couple different approaches in response to do they have a long term answer at QB.

The plan is COMPETITION, the NFL is all about it. Chilly went with his gut and drafted a guy he liked with enough talent to be a project. The project didnt work out in the timeline he planned so he did what he had to do, explore other options.

Now we have added several veterans to come in and compete and to a degree mentor TJ and the other QB's. After that he went and got an aging soon to be HOF'er who gave us a remarkable season. All the while TJ, and Sage are watching, and learning.

I am not 100% convinced that TJ is the guy but I do like that the FO and Coaching staff keep trying to improve the situation through adding more competition at the position.

I also like that they didnt reach for a QB they werent enamored with in the draft. Just because its a need does not predicate that you draft a guy if they wont fit your scheme. I dont think that they were in love with anyone in the draft class of QB's.

There are several other NFL teams with as bad or worse options at QB than we have. Really there are only a handful of teams who have a long term franchise QB's.
You see, now your just making me upset.

After reading a post like that, one wonders why we don't see more of them out of you......

Top shelf my friend. Top shelf indeed. :)

Yes, especially when you look at the COMPETITION part of the post. Best I can tell since Childress arrived it went something like this:

DC wacked out, BJ folded, TJack gifted starting role, TJack folded Frerrote and other asshats played some games, Rosenfels brought in for FIRST QB competition since acquiring TJack and then Favre was brought in to save the day. Not until Rosenfels was brought in was there a competition.

There isn't a fan with part of a brain that doesn't realize that TJack has potential. To say he's starter material or a flop is a joke. Same story since he arrived. We don't know. Now we're reaching the magical development time and we will see what he has as a starter probably next year. I wouldn't be surprised if he does ok or if he flops. I will be surprised if he ever has a career where it isn't a roller coaster ride....which can be a good thing as long as there is a hint of consistency in the mix.

If he is as good as the sniffers say he is then why was their dead silence when he was a free agent? I'll tell you why, they wanted too much for him and he is still a huge question mark. Why is he still on the roster? I'll tell you. The Vikings organization thinks he's worth keeping on the roster because he MIGHT pan out. Nothing more.

Once again, the fanatics will be left on the sidelines to discuss TJack's existence. He has been around, in the same offense, his whole NFL career. If he gets the starting role again, gifted or earned, he will be on a short-leash until he proves to the NFL world that he has progressed into starter material and not just a quality backup. He has not done that yet. Will he? Time will tell. For what it's worth, which is nothing, I think he does not have it. There have been reports where he can jot down any play from the playbook on a napkin, but, based on his performance on the field can he execute them under pressure? Ah, sometimes. Can he cross that hump into integarting his knowledge and athleticism with wisdom on the field at the NFL level? Nobody knows.
That could be said of alot of good QB's that have played in this league, to include our current starter...... ;)

Yes, it definitely could. Although, our current starter has some league MVP, SB appearances, and a splattering of NFL records to fall back on when he has a sporadic and inconsistent day. TJack has nothing because he hasn't played much and has earned little respect at the NFL level. Like I said, we do not know.
One would hope that he has some of that hardware. Cat has been around the league like forever.....

At somepoint he has to win something.

tastywaves
05-04-2010, 11:30 AM
Marrdro wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

lol... The best he'll be is a #2? He's played better than any other QB drafted that year, Vince Young included.

Thinking he'll simply come out of college and play like Matt Ryan (your view) is simply out of touch with reality. It's just that simple.
Shock suprise, even VY showed alot of maturity and proffesionalism last year.

Maybe there is some truth to that old cliche', you know, the one that talks about how long it takes to develop a QB. :huh:

Yea VY pretty much sucked as a rookie, oh wait he was OROY. It was his sophomore year where he came crashing down to earth and his fairy tale existence ended.

C Mac D
05-04-2010, 11:31 AM
tastywaves wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

lol... The best he'll be is a #2? He's played better than any other QB drafted that year, Vince Young included.

Thinking he'll simply come out of college and play like Matt Ryan (your view) is simply out of touch with reality. It's just that simple.
Shock suprise, even VY showed alot of maturity and proffesionalism last year.

Maybe there is some truth to that old cliche', you know, the one that talks about how long it takes to develop a QB. :huh:

Yea VY pretty much sucked as a rookie, oh wait he was OROY. It was his sophomore year where he came crashing down to earth and his fairy tale existence ended.

If Jackson threw as many INTs as Young... the fickle Minnesota fans would have assisted the suicide.

Marrdro
05-04-2010, 11:31 AM
tastywaves wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

lol... The best he'll be is a #2? He's played better than any other QB drafted that year, Vince Young included.

Thinking he'll simply come out of college and play like Matt Ryan (your view) is simply out of touch with reality. It's just that simple.
Shock suprise, even VY showed alot of maturity and proffesionalism last year.

Maybe there is some truth to that old cliche', you know, the one that talks about how long it takes to develop a QB. :huh:

Yea VY pretty much sucked as a rookie, oh wait he was OROY. It was his sophomore year where he came crashing down to earth and his fairy tale existence ended.
If I remember right, he really didn't have that good of a year his rookie year.

Heck, if memory serves, TJ's first year he was a starter (2nd) he put up better numbers that VY did. Truth of the matter is, I think TJ had better numbers than VY until last year when the light came on for VY.

ejmat
05-04-2010, 11:32 AM
Marrdro wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Tom Powers: Do the Vikings have a long-term plan at QB? (http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_15000487?source=rss)
I know we have lots of QB threads out there, however, this is by Mr. Tom Powers. As most of you know, he is such a stellar reporter, anything he does, gets special treatment by me. ;)

The long term solution the masterminds have is to pray the Pats let Tom Brady go in a finacial move and scoop him up. Geniuses I tell ya they are pure genius!!! :blink:
You are a bit of a sneaky fellow as well I see...... Just added you to that new spreadsheet.....

On a side note, Dnabb hasn't signed an extension yet has he? :huh:

No, and neither has Peyton manning.
Better yet.

LOL, I wonder what some PPO posters would say about Peyton and his happy feet in the pocket. All TJ has to do is shift his feet a bit and they say he is uncomfortable. I bet they haven't watched ole Peyton much.

That cat is jumpier than a cat on a floor covered in mouse traps... ;)

The difference. Peyton Manning is one of the best QBs to ever play the game. TJ is unproven so yes he will be criticized for every piece of mechanics that aren't the norm.

Caine
05-04-2010, 11:33 AM
Marrdro wrote:

Prophet wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

slavinator wrote:

In my opinion Chiller and the FO have gone with a couple different approaches in response to do they have a long term answer at QB.

The plan is COMPETITION, the NFL is all about it. Chilly went with his gut and drafted a guy he liked with enough talent to be a project. The project didnt work out in the timeline he planned so he did what he had to do, explore other options.

Now we have added several veterans to come in and compete and to a degree mentor TJ and the other QB's. After that he went and got an aging soon to be HOF'er who gave us a remarkable season. All the while TJ, and Sage are watching, and learning.

I am not 100% convinced that TJ is the guy but I do like that the FO and Coaching staff keep trying to improve the situation through adding more competition at the position.

I also like that they didnt reach for a QB they werent enamored with in the draft. Just because its a need does not predicate that you draft a guy if they wont fit your scheme. I dont think that they were in love with anyone in the draft class of QB's.

There are several other NFL teams with as bad or worse options at QB than we have. Really there are only a handful of teams who have a long term franchise QB's.
You see, now your just making me upset.

After reading a post like that, one wonders why we don't see more of them out of you......

Top shelf my friend. Top shelf indeed. :)

Yes, especially when you look at the COMPETITION part of the post. Best I can tell since Childress arrived it went something like this:

DC wacked out, BJ folded, TJack gifted starting role, TJack folded Frerrote and other asshats played some games, Rosenfels brought in for FIRST QB competition since acquiring TJack and then Favre was brought in to save the day. Not until Rosenfels was brought in was there a competition.

There isn't a fan with part of a brain that doesn't realize that TJack has potential. To say he's starter material or a flop is a joke. Same story since he arrived. We don't know. Now we're reaching the magical development time and we will see what he has as a starter probably next year. I wouldn't be surprised if he does ok or if he flops. I will be surprised if he ever has a career where it isn't a roller coaster ride....which can be a good thing as long as there is a hint of consistency in the mix.

If he is as good as the sniffers say he is then why was their dead silence when he was a free agent? I'll tell you why, they wanted too much for him and he is still a huge question mark. Why is he still on the roster? I'll tell you. The Vikings organization thinks he's worth keeping on the roster because he MIGHT pan out. Nothing more.

Once again, the fanatics will be left on the sidelines to discuss TJack's existence. He has been around, in the same offense, his whole NFL career. If he gets the starting role again, gifted or earned, he will be on a short-leash until he proves to the NFL world that he has progressed into starter material and not just a quality backup. He has not done that yet. Will he? Time will tell. For what it's worth, which is nothing, I think he does not have it. There have been reports where he can jot down any play from the playbook on a napkin, but, based on his performance on the field can he execute them under pressure? Ah, sometimes. Can he cross that hump into integarting his knowledge and athleticism with wisdom on the field at the NFL level? Nobody knows.
That could be said of alot of good QB's that have played in this league, to include our current starter...... ;)

You must be intentionally missing the part where he said Jackson has to prove he's progressed into starter material...

Favre did that almost two DECADES ago. Go ahead and name me some more who have to "earn" that title? Sure, you ahve guys like Smikth in San Fran who has struggled with a poor team and is on the edge, or guys like Stafford who has a crap team and only 1 year under his belt...but who else?

Jackson had a GOOD team...and couldn't get it done. Sure, you'll trot out the exceptions in another attempt to prove tah Favre had a far superior team to work with (he didn't). But, when you get right down to it, Jackson has failed to prove he can be "The Man" in almost every opportunity he's been given.

So, do we have a VIABLE long term options at QB? Not in my book. Favre is obviously not long term, Sage and Tarvaris simply aren't good enough, and we have no real prospects in line...Perilloux being a HUGE question mark.

Caine

Marrdro
05-04-2010, 11:35 AM
ejmat wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Tom Powers: Do the Vikings have a long-term plan at QB? (http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_15000487?source=rss)
I know we have lots of QB threads out there, however, this is by Mr. Tom Powers. As most of you know, he is such a stellar reporter, anything he does, gets special treatment by me. ;)

The long term solution the masterminds have is to pray the Pats let Tom Brady go in a finacial move and scoop him up. Geniuses I tell ya they are pure genius!!! :blink:
You are a bit of a sneaky fellow as well I see...... Just added you to that new spreadsheet.....

On a side note, Dnabb hasn't signed an extension yet has he? :huh:

No, and neither has Peyton manning.
Better yet.

LOL, I wonder what some PPO posters would say about Peyton and his happy feet in the pocket. All TJ has to do is shift his feet a bit and they say he is uncomfortable. I bet they haven't watched ole Peyton much.

That cat is jumpier than a cat on a floor covered in mouse traps... ;)

The difference. Peyton Manning is one of the best QBs to ever play the game. TJ is unproven so yes he will be criticized for every piece of mechanics that aren't the norm.
Nope, the difference is, Peyton was highly touted coming out of the draft so little was said about things like his happy feet.

Now he can get away with almost anything.

As to TJ, he proved he can win off the bench which makes him, if nothing else, a reliable backup at a very early age (football years). My guess is he is a very competant starter now, he just needs the chance to show it to fans who only want something "Proven" to them.

Prophet
05-04-2010, 11:35 AM
Marrdro wrote:
...One would hope that he has some of that hardware. Cat has been around the league like forever.....

At somepoint he has to win something.

Yes, everyone knows that comparing Favre and TJack makes a lot of sense. Also, everyone knows that the only reason that Favre has the longest streak of consecutive starts in the history of the game is because it was just luck. Last I checked TJack has the durability of a ballet dancer. Hasn't he sat out due to having owies every single year that he has started? In contrast, we have a guy that has played in the black and blue division for damn near his whole career and has missed, what was it again? Oh yeah, zero starts. Based on that alone you have to wonder about TJack. He was one of those kids that put a superhero bandaid on his nonbleeding wound and sat out of gym class with an excuse from his mommy. That's the impression I get regarding his toughness.

Caine
05-04-2010, 11:37 AM
Marrdro wrote:

ejmat wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Tom Powers: Do the Vikings have a long-term plan at QB? (http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_15000487?source=rss)
I know we have lots of QB threads out there, however, this is by Mr. Tom Powers. As most of you know, he is such a stellar reporter, anything he does, gets special treatment by me. ;)

The long term solution the masterminds have is to pray the Pats let Tom Brady go in a finacial move and scoop him up. Geniuses I tell ya they are pure genius!!! :blink:
You are a bit of a sneaky fellow as well I see...... Just added you to that new spreadsheet.....

On a side note, Dnabb hasn't signed an extension yet has he? :huh:

No, and neither has Peyton manning.
Better yet.

LOL, I wonder what some PPO posters would say about Peyton and his happy feet in the pocket. All TJ has to do is shift his feet a bit and they say he is uncomfortable. I bet they haven't watched ole Peyton much.

That cat is jumpier than a cat on a floor covered in mouse traps... ;)

The difference. Peyton Manning is one of the best QBs to ever play the game. TJ is unproven so yes he will be criticized for every piece of mechanics that aren't the norm.
Nope, the difference is, Peyton was highly touted coming out of the draft so little was said about things like his happy feet.

Now he can get away with almost anything.

As to TJ, he proved he can win off the bench which makes him, if nothing else, a reliable backup at a very early age (football years). My guess is he is a very competant starter now, he just needs the chance to show it to fans who only want something "Proven" to them.

I'll take that bet...

By extending your logic, Rosenfels should be a PHENOMINAL starterby now...and so should Bollinger, or Holcomb, or any of the other craptacular permanent back-up QB's that have trotted through here.

Caine

Marrdro
05-04-2010, 11:37 AM
Caine wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Prophet wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

slavinator wrote:

In my opinion Chiller and the FO have gone with a couple different approaches in response to do they have a long term answer at QB.

The plan is COMPETITION, the NFL is all about it. Chilly went with his gut and drafted a guy he liked with enough talent to be a project. The project didnt work out in the timeline he planned so he did what he had to do, explore other options.

Now we have added several veterans to come in and compete and to a degree mentor TJ and the other QB's. After that he went and got an aging soon to be HOF'er who gave us a remarkable season. All the while TJ, and Sage are watching, and learning.

I am not 100% convinced that TJ is the guy but I do like that the FO and Coaching staff keep trying to improve the situation through adding more competition at the position.

I also like that they didnt reach for a QB they werent enamored with in the draft. Just because its a need does not predicate that you draft a guy if they wont fit your scheme. I dont think that they were in love with anyone in the draft class of QB's.

There are several other NFL teams with as bad or worse options at QB than we have. Really there are only a handful of teams who have a long term franchise QB's.
You see, now your just making me upset.

After reading a post like that, one wonders why we don't see more of them out of you......

Top shelf my friend. Top shelf indeed. :)

Yes, especially when you look at the COMPETITION part of the post. Best I can tell since Childress arrived it went something like this:

DC wacked out, BJ folded, TJack gifted starting role, TJack folded Frerrote and other asshats played some games, Rosenfels brought in for FIRST QB competition since acquiring TJack and then Favre was brought in to save the day. Not until Rosenfels was brought in was there a competition.

There isn't a fan with part of a brain that doesn't realize that TJack has potential. To say he's starter material or a flop is a joke. Same story since he arrived. We don't know. Now we're reaching the magical development time and we will see what he has as a starter probably next year. I wouldn't be surprised if he does ok or if he flops. I will be surprised if he ever has a career where it isn't a roller coaster ride....which can be a good thing as long as there is a hint of consistency in the mix.

If he is as good as the sniffers say he is then why was their dead silence when he was a free agent? I'll tell you why, they wanted too much for him and he is still a huge question mark. Why is he still on the roster? I'll tell you. The Vikings organization thinks he's worth keeping on the roster because he MIGHT pan out. Nothing more.

Once again, the fanatics will be left on the sidelines to discuss TJack's existence. He has been around, in the same offense, his whole NFL career. If he gets the starting role again, gifted or earned, he will be on a short-leash until he proves to the NFL world that he has progressed into starter material and not just a quality backup. He has not done that yet. Will he? Time will tell. For what it's worth, which is nothing, I think he does not have it. There have been reports where he can jot down any play from the playbook on a napkin, but, based on his performance on the field can he execute them under pressure? Ah, sometimes. Can he cross that hump into integarting his knowledge and athleticism with wisdom on the field at the NFL level? Nobody knows.
That could be said of alot of good QB's that have played in this league, to include our current starter...... ;)

You must be intentionally missing the part where he said Jackson has to prove he's progressed into starter material...

Favre did that almost two DECADES ago. Go ahead and name me some more who have to "earn" that title? Sure, you ahve guys like Smikth in San Fran who has struggled with a poor team and is on the edge, or guys like Stafford who has a crap team and only 1 year under his belt...but who else?

Jackson had a GOOD team...and couldn't get it done. Sure, you'll trot out the exceptions in another attempt to prove tah Favre had a far superior team to work with (he didn't). But, when you get right down to it, Jackson has failed to prove he can be "The Man" in almost every opportunity he's been given.

So, do we have a VIABLE long term options at QB? Not in my book. Favre is obviously not long term, Sage and Tarvaris simply aren't good enough, and we have no real prospects in line...Perilloux being a HUGE question mark.

Caine
That is were you lost me.

Take the purple glasses off my friend.......We have a damn good team now. When TJ was a starter we didn't have even a mediocre team.

Marrdro
05-04-2010, 11:41 AM
Caine wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

ejmat wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Tom Powers: Do the Vikings have a long-term plan at QB? (http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_15000487?source=rss)
I know we have lots of QB threads out there, however, this is by Mr. Tom Powers. As most of you know, he is such a stellar reporter, anything he does, gets special treatment by me. ;)

The long term solution the masterminds have is to pray the Pats let Tom Brady go in a finacial move and scoop him up. Geniuses I tell ya they are pure genius!!! :blink:
You are a bit of a sneaky fellow as well I see...... Just added you to that new spreadsheet.....

On a side note, Dnabb hasn't signed an extension yet has he? :huh:

No, and neither has Peyton manning.
Better yet.

LOL, I wonder what some PPO posters would say about Peyton and his happy feet in the pocket. All TJ has to do is shift his feet a bit and they say he is uncomfortable. I bet they haven't watched ole Peyton much.

That cat is jumpier than a cat on a floor covered in mouse traps... ;)

The difference. Peyton Manning is one of the best QBs to ever play the game. TJ is unproven so yes he will be criticized for every piece of mechanics that aren't the norm.
Nope, the difference is, Peyton was highly touted coming out of the draft so little was said about things like his happy feet.

Now he can get away with almost anything.

As to TJ, he proved he can win off the bench which makes him, if nothing else, a reliable backup at a very early age (football years). My guess is he is a very competant starter now, he just needs the chance to show it to fans who only want something "Proven" to them.

I'll take that bet...

By extending your logic, Rosenfels should be a PHENOMINAL starterby now...and so should Bollinger, or Holcomb, or any of the other craptacular permanent back-up QB's that have trotted through here.

Caine
Nope, my innate ability to analyze QB skillsets lends me to believe those cats, after 4 or 5 years, are never gonna amount to anything.

TJ has shown nothing but improvement each and every year. When he quits doing that, I will give up on him and recommend we get rid of him just as I have with any other player. ;)

Caine
05-04-2010, 11:41 AM
Marrdro wrote:

Caine wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Prophet wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

slavinator wrote:

In my opinion Chiller and the FO have gone with a couple different approaches in response to do they have a long term answer at QB.

The plan is COMPETITION, the NFL is all about it. Chilly went with his gut and drafted a guy he liked with enough talent to be a project. The project didnt work out in the timeline he planned so he did what he had to do, explore other options.

Now we have added several veterans to come in and compete and to a degree mentor TJ and the other QB's. After that he went and got an aging soon to be HOF'er who gave us a remarkable season. All the while TJ, and Sage are watching, and learning.

I am not 100% convinced that TJ is the guy but I do like that the FO and Coaching staff keep trying to improve the situation through adding more competition at the position.

I also like that they didnt reach for a QB they werent enamored with in the draft. Just because its a need does not predicate that you draft a guy if they wont fit your scheme. I dont think that they were in love with anyone in the draft class of QB's.

There are several other NFL teams with as bad or worse options at QB than we have. Really there are only a handful of teams who have a long term franchise QB's.
You see, now your just making me upset.

After reading a post like that, one wonders why we don't see more of them out of you......

Top shelf my friend. Top shelf indeed. :)

Yes, especially when you look at the COMPETITION part of the post. Best I can tell since Childress arrived it went something like this:

DC wacked out, BJ folded, TJack gifted starting role, TJack folded Frerrote and other asshats played some games, Rosenfels brought in for FIRST QB competition since acquiring TJack and then Favre was brought in to save the day. Not until Rosenfels was brought in was there a competition.

There isn't a fan with part of a brain that doesn't realize that TJack has potential. To say he's starter material or a flop is a joke. Same story since he arrived. We don't know. Now we're reaching the magical development time and we will see what he has as a starter probably next year. I wouldn't be surprised if he does ok or if he flops. I will be surprised if he ever has a career where it isn't a roller coaster ride....which can be a good thing as long as there is a hint of consistency in the mix.

If he is as good as the sniffers say he is then why was their dead silence when he was a free agent? I'll tell you why, they wanted too much for him and he is still a huge question mark. Why is he still on the roster? I'll tell you. The Vikings organization thinks he's worth keeping on the roster because he MIGHT pan out. Nothing more.

Once again, the fanatics will be left on the sidelines to discuss TJack's existence. He has been around, in the same offense, his whole NFL career. If he gets the starting role again, gifted or earned, he will be on a short-leash until he proves to the NFL world that he has progressed into starter material and not just a quality backup. He has not done that yet. Will he? Time will tell. For what it's worth, which is nothing, I think he does not have it. There have been reports where he can jot down any play from the playbook on a napkin, but, based on his performance on the field can he execute them under pressure? Ah, sometimes. Can he cross that hump into integarting his knowledge and athleticism with wisdom on the field at the NFL level? Nobody knows.
That could be said of alot of good QB's that have played in this league, to include our current starter...... ;)

You must be intentionally missing the part where he said Jackson has to prove he's progressed into starter material...

Favre did that almost two DECADES ago. Go ahead and name me some more who have to "earn" that title? Sure, you ahve guys like Smikth in San Fran who has struggled with a poor team and is on the edge, or guys like Stafford who has a crap team and only 1 year under his belt...but who else?

Jackson had a GOOD team...and couldn't get it done. Sure, you'll trot out the exceptions in another attempt to prove tah Favre had a far superior team to work with (he didn't). But, when you get right down to it, Jackson has failed to prove he can be "The Man" in almost every opportunity he's been given.

So, do we have a VIABLE long term options at QB? Not in my book. Favre is obviously not long term, Sage and Tarvaris simply aren't good enough, and we have no real prospects in line...Perilloux being a HUGE question mark.

Caine
That is were you lost me.

Take the purple glasses off my friend.......We have a damn good team now. When TJ was a starter we didn't have even a mediocre team.

No purple glasses....we had a solid team in '08...and Jackson stunk. Until the Arizona game, then he started sliding back down the ratings pole, culminating in the Philly embarrasment.

Don'ty even try and sell the notion that it's all suddenly because of the 09 Roster that we're winning, or that Jackson never had a shot with a solid team - we all know better.

Caine

ejmat
05-04-2010, 11:42 AM
Marrdro wrote:

ejmat wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Tom Powers: Do the Vikings have a long-term plan at QB? (http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_15000487?source=rss)
I know we have lots of QB threads out there, however, this is by Mr. Tom Powers. As most of you know, he is such a stellar reporter, anything he does, gets special treatment by me. ;)

The long term solution the masterminds have is to pray the Pats let Tom Brady go in a finacial move and scoop him up. Geniuses I tell ya they are pure genius!!! :blink:
You are a bit of a sneaky fellow as well I see...... Just added you to that new spreadsheet.....

On a side note, Dnabb hasn't signed an extension yet has he? :huh:

No, and neither has Peyton manning.
Better yet.

LOL, I wonder what some PPO posters would say about Peyton and his happy feet in the pocket. All TJ has to do is shift his feet a bit and they say he is uncomfortable. I bet they haven't watched ole Peyton much.

That cat is jumpier than a cat on a floor covered in mouse traps... ;)

The difference. Peyton Manning is one of the best QBs to ever play the game. TJ is unproven so yes he will be criticized for every piece of mechanics that aren't the norm.
Nope, the difference is, Peyton was highly touted coming out of the draft so little was said about things like his happy feet.

Now he can get away with almost anything.

As to TJ, he proved he can win off the bench which makes him, if nothing else, a reliable backup at a very early age (football years). My guess is he is a very competant starter now, he just needs the chance to show it to fans who only want something "Proven" to them.

You are right. Peyton was highly touted coming out of college. He moves his feet so he doesn't get too complacent sitting in the pocket. TJ moves his feet because he is wondering what the hell to do. That's the difference in my book.

TJ has proven he can win off the bench. He has become a reliable backup in my book as well. The only thing that can change my mind as to whether or not he can be the starter is playing time. However it has yet to be determined when that will be. But until then he is nothing more than a reliable backup.

Caine
05-04-2010, 11:43 AM
Marrdro wrote:

Caine wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

ejmat wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Tom Powers: Do the Vikings have a long-term plan at QB? (http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_15000487?source=rss)
I know we have lots of QB threads out there, however, this is by Mr. Tom Powers. As most of you know, he is such a stellar reporter, anything he does, gets special treatment by me. ;)

The long term solution the masterminds have is to pray the Pats let Tom Brady go in a finacial move and scoop him up. Geniuses I tell ya they are pure genius!!! :blink:
You are a bit of a sneaky fellow as well I see...... Just added you to that new spreadsheet.....

On a side note, Dnabb hasn't signed an extension yet has he? :huh:

No, and neither has Peyton manning.
Better yet.

LOL, I wonder what some PPO posters would say about Peyton and his happy feet in the pocket. All TJ has to do is shift his feet a bit and they say he is uncomfortable. I bet they haven't watched ole Peyton much.

That cat is jumpier than a cat on a floor covered in mouse traps... ;)

The difference. Peyton Manning is one of the best QBs to ever play the game. TJ is unproven so yes he will be criticized for every piece of mechanics that aren't the norm.
Nope, the difference is, Peyton was highly touted coming out of the draft so little was said about things like his happy feet.

Now he can get away with almost anything.

As to TJ, he proved he can win off the bench which makes him, if nothing else, a reliable backup at a very early age (football years). My guess is he is a very competant starter now, he just needs the chance to show it to fans who only want something "Proven" to them.

I'll take that bet...

By extending your logic, Rosenfels should be a PHENOMINAL starterby now...and so should Bollinger, or Holcomb, or any of the other craptacular permanent back-up QB's that have trotted through here.

Caine
Nope, my innate ability to analyze QB skillsets lends me to believe those cats, after 4 or 5 years, are never gonna amount to anything.

TJ has shown nothing but improvement each and every year. When he quits doing that, I will give up on him and recommend we get rid of him just as I have with any other player. ;)

Minimal improvment, while retaining serious inconsistancy.

Also, if we are to beleive your previous arguement, the team around him has improved every year, which means that some of "his" improvement isn't even his...

Pick a side of the fence, Marrdro. You're starting to remind me of John Kerry.

Caine

Marrdro
05-04-2010, 11:47 AM
Caine wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Caine wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Prophet wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

slavinator wrote:

In my opinion Chiller and the FO have gone with a couple different approaches in response to do they have a long term answer at QB.

The plan is COMPETITION, the NFL is all about it. Chilly went with his gut and drafted a guy he liked with enough talent to be a project. The project didnt work out in the timeline he planned so he did what he had to do, explore other options.

Now we have added several veterans to come in and compete and to a degree mentor TJ and the other QB's. After that he went and got an aging soon to be HOF'er who gave us a remarkable season. All the while TJ, and Sage are watching, and learning.

I am not 100% convinced that TJ is the guy but I do like that the FO and Coaching staff keep trying to improve the situation through adding more competition at the position.

I also like that they didnt reach for a QB they werent enamored with in the draft. Just because its a need does not predicate that you draft a guy if they wont fit your scheme. I dont think that they were in love with anyone in the draft class of QB's.

There are several other NFL teams with as bad or worse options at QB than we have. Really there are only a handful of teams who have a long term franchise QB's.
You see, now your just making me upset.

After reading a post like that, one wonders why we don't see more of them out of you......

Top shelf my friend. Top shelf indeed. :)

Yes, especially when you look at the COMPETITION part of the post. Best I can tell since Childress arrived it went something like this:

DC wacked out, BJ folded, TJack gifted starting role, TJack folded Frerrote and other asshats played some games, Rosenfels brought in for FIRST QB competition since acquiring TJack and then Favre was brought in to save the day. Not until Rosenfels was brought in was there a competition.

There isn't a fan with part of a brain that doesn't realize that TJack has potential. To say he's starter material or a flop is a joke. Same story since he arrived. We don't know. Now we're reaching the magical development time and we will see what he has as a starter probably next year. I wouldn't be surprised if he does ok or if he flops. I will be surprised if he ever has a career where it isn't a roller coaster ride....which can be a good thing as long as there is a hint of consistency in the mix.

If he is as good as the sniffers say he is then why was their dead silence when he was a free agent? I'll tell you why, they wanted too much for him and he is still a huge question mark. Why is he still on the roster? I'll tell you. The Vikings organization thinks he's worth keeping on the roster because he MIGHT pan out. Nothing more.

Once again, the fanatics will be left on the sidelines to discuss TJack's existence. He has been around, in the same offense, his whole NFL career. If he gets the starting role again, gifted or earned, he will be on a short-leash until he proves to the NFL world that he has progressed into starter material and not just a quality backup. He has not done that yet. Will he? Time will tell. For what it's worth, which is nothing, I think he does not have it. There have been reports where he can jot down any play from the playbook on a napkin, but, based on his performance on the field can he execute them under pressure? Ah, sometimes. Can he cross that hump into integarting his knowledge and athleticism with wisdom on the field at the NFL level? Nobody knows.
That could be said of alot of good QB's that have played in this league, to include our current starter...... ;)

You must be intentionally missing the part where he said Jackson has to prove he's progressed into starter material...

Favre did that almost two DECADES ago. Go ahead and name me some more who have to "earn" that title? Sure, you ahve guys like Smikth in San Fran who has struggled with a poor team and is on the edge, or guys like Stafford who has a crap team and only 1 year under his belt...but who else?

Jackson had a GOOD team...and couldn't get it done. Sure, you'll trot out the exceptions in another attempt to prove tah Favre had a far superior team to work with (he didn't). But, when you get right down to it, Jackson has failed to prove he can be "The Man" in almost every opportunity he's been given.

So, do we have a VIABLE long term options at QB? Not in my book. Favre is obviously not long term, Sage and Tarvaris simply aren't good enough, and we have no real prospects in line...Perilloux being a HUGE question mark.

Caine
That is were you lost me.

Take the purple glasses off my friend.......We have a damn good team now. When TJ was a starter we didn't have even a mediocre team.

No purple glasses....we had a solid team in '08...and Jackson stunk. Until the Arizona game, then he started sliding back down the ratings pole, culminating in the Philly embarrasment.

Don'ty even try and sell the notion that it's all suddenly because of the 09 Roster that we're winning, or that Jackson never had a shot with a solid team - we all know better.

Caine
Oh yea, I forgot. Its not a team game. Its all about the QB.
My apologies my friend.

Marrdro
05-04-2010, 11:49 AM
Caine wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Caine wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

ejmat wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Tom Powers: Do the Vikings have a long-term plan at QB? (http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_15000487?source=rss)
I know we have lots of QB threads out there, however, this is by Mr. Tom Powers. As most of you know, he is such a stellar reporter, anything he does, gets special treatment by me. ;)

The long term solution the masterminds have is to pray the Pats let Tom Brady go in a finacial move and scoop him up. Geniuses I tell ya they are pure genius!!! :blink:
You are a bit of a sneaky fellow as well I see...... Just added you to that new spreadsheet.....

On a side note, Dnabb hasn't signed an extension yet has he? :huh:

No, and neither has Peyton manning.
Better yet.

LOL, I wonder what some PPO posters would say about Peyton and his happy feet in the pocket. All TJ has to do is shift his feet a bit and they say he is uncomfortable. I bet they haven't watched ole Peyton much.

That cat is jumpier than a cat on a floor covered in mouse traps... ;)

The difference. Peyton Manning is one of the best QBs to ever play the game. TJ is unproven so yes he will be criticized for every piece of mechanics that aren't the norm.
Nope, the difference is, Peyton was highly touted coming out of the draft so little was said about things like his happy feet.

Now he can get away with almost anything.

As to TJ, he proved he can win off the bench which makes him, if nothing else, a reliable backup at a very early age (football years). My guess is he is a very competant starter now, he just needs the chance to show it to fans who only want something "Proven" to them.

I'll take that bet...

By extending your logic, Rosenfels should be a PHENOMINAL starterby now...and so should Bollinger, or Holcomb, or any of the other craptacular permanent back-up QB's that have trotted through here.

Caine
Nope, my innate ability to analyze QB skillsets lends me to believe those cats, after 4 or 5 years, are never gonna amount to anything.

TJ has shown nothing but improvement each and every year. When he quits doing that, I will give up on him and recommend we get rid of him just as I have with any other player. ;)

Minimal improvment, while retaining serious inconsistancy.

Also, if we are to beleive your previous arguement, the team around him has improved every year, which means that some of "his" improvement isn't even his...

Pick a side of the fence, Marrdro. You're starting to remind me of John Kerry.

Caine
Arrrrrrrrrrrgh. Not Kerry.......

Of course the team has improved, to a point they could almost carry a QB if needed. Heck, even the great Noodle himself had his best year EVER.

.....and that wasn't because he took some sort of "I'm Better" pill either.

C Mac D
05-04-2010, 11:51 AM
Caine wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Caine wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Prophet wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

slavinator wrote:

In my opinion Chiller and the FO have gone with a couple different approaches in response to do they have a long term answer at QB.

The plan is COMPETITION, the NFL is all about it. Chilly went with his gut and drafted a guy he liked with enough talent to be a project. The project didnt work out in the timeline he planned so he did what he had to do, explore other options.

Now we have added several veterans to come in and compete and to a degree mentor TJ and the other QB's. After that he went and got an aging soon to be HOF'er who gave us a remarkable season. All the while TJ, and Sage are watching, and learning.

I am not 100% convinced that TJ is the guy but I do like that the FO and Coaching staff keep trying to improve the situation through adding more competition at the position.

I also like that they didnt reach for a QB they werent enamored with in the draft. Just because its a need does not predicate that you draft a guy if they wont fit your scheme. I dont think that they were in love with anyone in the draft class of QB's.

There are several other NFL teams with as bad or worse options at QB than we have. Really there are only a handful of teams who have a long term franchise QB's.
You see, now your just making me upset.

After reading a post like that, one wonders why we don't see more of them out of you......

Top shelf my friend. Top shelf indeed. :)

Yes, especially when you look at the COMPETITION part of the post. Best I can tell since Childress arrived it went something like this:

DC wacked out, BJ folded, TJack gifted starting role, TJack folded Frerrote and other asshats played some games, Rosenfels brought in for FIRST QB competition since acquiring TJack and then Favre was brought in to save the day. Not until Rosenfels was brought in was there a competition.

There isn't a fan with part of a brain that doesn't realize that TJack has potential. To say he's starter material or a flop is a joke. Same story since he arrived. We don't know. Now we're reaching the magical development time and we will see what he has as a starter probably next year. I wouldn't be surprised if he does ok or if he flops. I will be surprised if he ever has a career where it isn't a roller coaster ride....which can be a good thing as long as there is a hint of consistency in the mix.

If he is as good as the sniffers say he is then why was their dead silence when he was a free agent? I'll tell you why, they wanted too much for him and he is still a huge question mark. Why is he still on the roster? I'll tell you. The Vikings organization thinks he's worth keeping on the roster because he MIGHT pan out. Nothing more.

Once again, the fanatics will be left on the sidelines to discuss TJack's existence. He has been around, in the same offense, his whole NFL career. If he gets the starting role again, gifted or earned, he will be on a short-leash until he proves to the NFL world that he has progressed into starter material and not just a quality backup. He has not done that yet. Will he? Time will tell. For what it's worth, which is nothing, I think he does not have it. There have been reports where he can jot down any play from the playbook on a napkin, but, based on his performance on the field can he execute them under pressure? Ah, sometimes. Can he cross that hump into integarting his knowledge and athleticism with wisdom on the field at the NFL level? Nobody knows.
That could be said of alot of good QB's that have played in this league, to include our current starter...... ;)

You must be intentionally missing the part where he said Jackson has to prove he's progressed into starter material...

Favre did that almost two DECADES ago. Go ahead and name me some more who have to "earn" that title? Sure, you ahve guys like Smikth in San Fran who has struggled with a poor team and is on the edge, or guys like Stafford who has a crap team and only 1 year under his belt...but who else?

Jackson had a GOOD team...and couldn't get it done. Sure, you'll trot out the exceptions in another attempt to prove tah Favre had a far superior team to work with (he didn't). But, when you get right down to it, Jackson has failed to prove he can be "The Man" in almost every opportunity he's been given.

So, do we have a VIABLE long term options at QB? Not in my book. Favre is obviously not long term, Sage and Tarvaris simply aren't good enough, and we have no real prospects in line...Perilloux being a HUGE question mark.

Caine
That is were you lost me.

Take the purple glasses off my friend.......We have a damn good team now. When TJ was a starter we didn't have even a mediocre team.

No purple glasses....we had a solid team in '08...and Jackson stunk. Until the Arizona game, then he started sliding back down the ratings pole, culminating in the Philly embarrasment.

Don'ty even try and sell the notion that it's all suddenly because of the 09 Roster that we're winning, or that Jackson never had a shot with a solid team - we all know better.

Caine

So, you fully expected Jackson to come out of college and play like Matt Ryan or Peyton Manning? Is that it? lol... oh Caine.

Marrdro
05-04-2010, 11:52 AM
ejmat wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

ejmat wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Tom Powers: Do the Vikings have a long-term plan at QB? (http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_15000487?source=rss)
I know we have lots of QB threads out there, however, this is by Mr. Tom Powers. As most of you know, he is such a stellar reporter, anything he does, gets special treatment by me. ;)

The long term solution the masterminds have is to pray the Pats let Tom Brady go in a finacial move and scoop him up. Geniuses I tell ya they are pure genius!!! :blink:
You are a bit of a sneaky fellow as well I see...... Just added you to that new spreadsheet.....

On a side note, Dnabb hasn't signed an extension yet has he? :huh:

No, and neither has Peyton manning.
Better yet.

LOL, I wonder what some PPO posters would say about Peyton and his happy feet in the pocket. All TJ has to do is shift his feet a bit and they say he is uncomfortable. I bet they haven't watched ole Peyton much.

That cat is jumpier than a cat on a floor covered in mouse traps... ;)

The difference. Peyton Manning is one of the best QBs to ever play the game. TJ is unproven so yes he will be criticized for every piece of mechanics that aren't the norm.
Nope, the difference is, Peyton was highly touted coming out of the draft so little was said about things like his happy feet.

Now he can get away with almost anything.

As to TJ, he proved he can win off the bench which makes him, if nothing else, a reliable backup at a very early age (football years). My guess is he is a very competant starter now, he just needs the chance to show it to fans who only want something "Proven" to them.

You are right. Peyton was highly touted coming out of college. He moves his feet so he doesn't get too complacent sitting in the pocket. TJ moves his feet because he is wondering what the hell to do. That's the difference in my book.

TJ has proven he can win off the bench. He has become a reliable backup in my book as well. The only thing that can change my mind as to whether or not he can be the starter is playing time. However it has yet to be determined when that will be. But until then he is nothing more than a reliable backup.
In the natural progression of things, don't you think that is what should be expected of him during that maturation process?

At first - Sucks but shows some flashes.
Next - Still sucks but not quite as bad. Flashes increase in number. Heck, he might even get to were he can put a string of wins together.
Next - Become a competent starter that still has a few issues.
Finally - A leader emerges. Consistent, confident, ready to take the helm of the ship, so to speak.

Marrdro
05-04-2010, 11:54 AM
C Mac D wrote:

Caine wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Caine wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Prophet wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

slavinator wrote:

In my opinion Chiller and the FO have gone with a couple different approaches in response to do they have a long term answer at QB.

The plan is COMPETITION, the NFL is all about it. Chilly went with his gut and drafted a guy he liked with enough talent to be a project. The project didnt work out in the timeline he planned so he did what he had to do, explore other options.

Now we have added several veterans to come in and compete and to a degree mentor TJ and the other QB's. After that he went and got an aging soon to be HOF'er who gave us a remarkable season. All the while TJ, and Sage are watching, and learning.

I am not 100% convinced that TJ is the guy but I do like that the FO and Coaching staff keep trying to improve the situation through adding more competition at the position.

I also like that they didnt reach for a QB they werent enamored with in the draft. Just because its a need does not predicate that you draft a guy if they wont fit your scheme. I dont think that they were in love with anyone in the draft class of QB's.

There are several other NFL teams with as bad or worse options at QB than we have. Really there are only a handful of teams who have a long term franchise QB's.
You see, now your just making me upset.

After reading a post like that, one wonders why we don't see more of them out of you......

Top shelf my friend. Top shelf indeed. :)

Yes, especially when you look at the COMPETITION part of the post. Best I can tell since Childress arrived it went something like this:

DC wacked out, BJ folded, TJack gifted starting role, TJack folded Frerrote and other asshats played some games, Rosenfels brought in for FIRST QB competition since acquiring TJack and then Favre was brought in to save the day. Not until Rosenfels was brought in was there a competition.

There isn't a fan with part of a brain that doesn't realize that TJack has potential. To say he's starter material or a flop is a joke. Same story since he arrived. We don't know. Now we're reaching the magical development time and we will see what he has as a starter probably next year. I wouldn't be surprised if he does ok or if he flops. I will be surprised if he ever has a career where it isn't a roller coaster ride....which can be a good thing as long as there is a hint of consistency in the mix.

If he is as good as the sniffers say he is then why was their dead silence when he was a free agent? I'll tell you why, they wanted too much for him and he is still a huge question mark. Why is he still on the roster? I'll tell you. The Vikings organization thinks he's worth keeping on the roster because he MIGHT pan out. Nothing more.

Once again, the fanatics will be left on the sidelines to discuss TJack's existence. He has been around, in the same offense, his whole NFL career. If he gets the starting role again, gifted or earned, he will be on a short-leash until he proves to the NFL world that he has progressed into starter material and not just a quality backup. He has not done that yet. Will he? Time will tell. For what it's worth, which is nothing, I think he does not have it. There have been reports where he can jot down any play from the playbook on a napkin, but, based on his performance on the field can he execute them under pressure? Ah, sometimes. Can he cross that hump into integarting his knowledge and athleticism with wisdom on the field at the NFL level? Nobody knows.
That could be said of alot of good QB's that have played in this league, to include our current starter...... ;)

You must be intentionally missing the part where he said Jackson has to prove he's progressed into starter material...

Favre did that almost two DECADES ago. Go ahead and name me some more who have to "earn" that title? Sure, you ahve guys like Smikth in San Fran who has struggled with a poor team and is on the edge, or guys like Stafford who has a crap team and only 1 year under his belt...but who else?

Jackson had a GOOD team...and couldn't get it done. Sure, you'll trot out the exceptions in another attempt to prove tah Favre had a far superior team to work with (he didn't). But, when you get right down to it, Jackson has failed to prove he can be "The Man" in almost every opportunity he's been given.

So, do we have a VIABLE long term options at QB? Not in my book. Favre is obviously not long term, Sage and Tarvaris simply aren't good enough, and we have no real prospects in line...Perilloux being a HUGE question mark.

Caine
That is were you lost me.

Take the purple glasses off my friend.......We have a damn good team now. When TJ was a starter we didn't have even a mediocre team.

No purple glasses....we had a solid team in '08...and Jackson stunk. Until the Arizona game, then he started sliding back down the ratings pole, culminating in the Philly embarrasment.

Don'ty even try and sell the notion that it's all suddenly because of the 09 Roster that we're winning, or that Jackson never had a shot with a solid team - we all know better.

Caine

So, you fully expected Jackson to come out of college and play like Matt Ryan or Peyton Manning? Is that it? lol... oh Caine.
Ohhhhhhhh, its even better than that. Didn't you see where he stated that a team that was completely gutted and being rebuilt was a Good team?

Caine cracks me up. :)

C Mac D
05-04-2010, 11:56 AM
Marrdro wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

Caine wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Caine wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Prophet wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

slavinator wrote:

In my opinion Chiller and the FO have gone with a couple different approaches in response to do they have a long term answer at QB.

The plan is COMPETITION, the NFL is all about it. Chilly went with his gut and drafted a guy he liked with enough talent to be a project. The project didnt work out in the timeline he planned so he did what he had to do, explore other options.

Now we have added several veterans to come in and compete and to a degree mentor TJ and the other QB's. After that he went and got an aging soon to be HOF'er who gave us a remarkable season. All the while TJ, and Sage are watching, and learning.

I am not 100% convinced that TJ is the guy but I do like that the FO and Coaching staff keep trying to improve the situation through adding more competition at the position.

I also like that they didnt reach for a QB they werent enamored with in the draft. Just because its a need does not predicate that you draft a guy if they wont fit your scheme. I dont think that they were in love with anyone in the draft class of QB's.

There are several other NFL teams with as bad or worse options at QB than we have. Really there are only a handful of teams who have a long term franchise QB's.
You see, now your just making me upset.

After reading a post like that, one wonders why we don't see more of them out of you......

Top shelf my friend. Top shelf indeed. :)

Yes, especially when you look at the COMPETITION part of the post. Best I can tell since Childress arrived it went something like this:

DC wacked out, BJ folded, TJack gifted starting role, TJack folded Frerrote and other asshats played some games, Rosenfels brought in for FIRST QB competition since acquiring TJack and then Favre was brought in to save the day. Not until Rosenfels was brought in was there a competition.

There isn't a fan with part of a brain that doesn't realize that TJack has potential. To say he's starter material or a flop is a joke. Same story since he arrived. We don't know. Now we're reaching the magical development time and we will see what he has as a starter probably next year. I wouldn't be surprised if he does ok or if he flops. I will be surprised if he ever has a career where it isn't a roller coaster ride....which can be a good thing as long as there is a hint of consistency in the mix.

If he is as good as the sniffers say he is then why was their dead silence when he was a free agent? I'll tell you why, they wanted too much for him and he is still a huge question mark. Why is he still on the roster? I'll tell you. The Vikings organization thinks he's worth keeping on the roster because he MIGHT pan out. Nothing more.

Once again, the fanatics will be left on the sidelines to discuss TJack's existence. He has been around, in the same offense, his whole NFL career. If he gets the starting role again, gifted or earned, he will be on a short-leash until he proves to the NFL world that he has progressed into starter material and not just a quality backup. He has not done that yet. Will he? Time will tell. For what it's worth, which is nothing, I think he does not have it. There have been reports where he can jot down any play from the playbook on a napkin, but, based on his performance on the field can he execute them under pressure? Ah, sometimes. Can he cross that hump into integarting his knowledge and athleticism with wisdom on the field at the NFL level? Nobody knows.
That could be said of alot of good QB's that have played in this league, to include our current starter...... ;)

You must be intentionally missing the part where he said Jackson has to prove he's progressed into starter material...

Favre did that almost two DECADES ago. Go ahead and name me some more who have to "earn" that title? Sure, you ahve guys like Smikth in San Fran who has struggled with a poor team and is on the edge, or guys like Stafford who has a crap team and only 1 year under his belt...but who else?

Jackson had a GOOD team...and couldn't get it done. Sure, you'll trot out the exceptions in another attempt to prove tah Favre had a far superior team to work with (he didn't). But, when you get right down to it, Jackson has failed to prove he can be "The Man" in almost every opportunity he's been given.

So, do we have a VIABLE long term options at QB? Not in my book. Favre is obviously not long term, Sage and Tarvaris simply aren't good enough, and we have no real prospects in line...Perilloux being a HUGE question mark.

Caine
That is were you lost me.

Take the purple glasses off my friend.......We have a damn good team now. When TJ was a starter we didn't have even a mediocre team.

No purple glasses....we had a solid team in '08...and Jackson stunk. Until the Arizona game, then he started sliding back down the ratings pole, culminating in the Philly embarrasment.

Don'ty even try and sell the notion that it's all suddenly because of the 09 Roster that we're winning, or that Jackson never had a shot with a solid team - we all know better.

Caine

So, you fully expected Jackson to come out of college and play like Matt Ryan or Peyton Manning? Is that it? lol... oh Caine.
Ohhhhhhhh, its even better than that. Didn't you see where he stated that a team that was completely gutted and being rebuilt was a Good team?

Caine cracks me up. :)

Didn't he say Ray Edwards sucks because no team came after him? Well... didn't only one (1) tendered FA get signed by different team in the entire NFL?

Oh... right....

marstc09
05-04-2010, 12:00 PM
C Mac D wrote:

AngloVike wrote:


Forced to look at the big picture in a moment of panic, we now know that the Vikings' backup plan at quarterback is to schlep along with what they have on the roster in the event of an emergency. OK, well that's their calculated gamble.

What really bothers me is the fact that they appear to have no medium- or long-range plan in place at quarterback. There is no quarterback in training. There is no long-term successor being groomed. Nothing. Nada. Zippo.

so TJ isn't the answer?? *shock* *horror*....

lol... People who knock on T-Jack crack me up. You act like you have "inside knowledge" that he sucks.

Well, actually... he really does seem like the answer when you look at the numbers. His last year as a starter, he had a 95+ QB rating, and for the small amount of time playing last season when filling in for Favre, he played immaculate and finished with a 113.4 QB rating.

Now, add two years behind Brett Favre, and you people STILL don't want to give him a chance and purely judge him on the 2.5 years he played coming immediately out of college with either Gus Frerotte, Brad Johnson, Brooks Bollinger or Kelly Holcomb as his "starter" to learn behind.

The people who think T-Jack sucks and doesn't deserve to have another shot at starting simply don't understand the development process of a QB... media hacks included. Those are just facts, and the coaching staff seems to agree with me. What QB did we draft this year?

Oh... right... none...

Actually we did draft a QB. His name is Joe Webb.

Marrdro
05-04-2010, 12:02 PM
marstc09 wrote:


Actually we did draft a QB. His name is Joe Webb.
Now the fun starts.......Mars is online. :laugh:

i_bleed_purple
05-04-2010, 12:14 PM
marstc09 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

AngloVike wrote:


Forced to look at the big picture in a moment of panic, we now know that the Vikings' backup plan at quarterback is to schlep along with what they have on the roster in the event of an emergency. OK, well that's their calculated gamble.

What really bothers me is the fact that they appear to have no medium- or long-range plan in place at quarterback. There is no quarterback in training. There is no long-term successor being groomed. Nothing. Nada. Zippo.

so TJ isn't the answer?? *shock* *horror*....

lol... People who knock on T-Jack crack me up. You act like you have "inside knowledge" that he sucks.

Well, actually... he really does seem like the answer when you look at the numbers. His last year as a starter, he had a 95+ QB rating, and for the small amount of time playing last season when filling in for Favre, he played immaculate and finished with a 113.4 QB rating.

Now, add two years behind Brett Favre, and you people STILL don't want to give him a chance and purely judge him on the 2.5 years he played coming immediately out of college with either Gus Frerotte, Brad Johnson, Brooks Bollinger or Kelly Holcomb as his "starter" to learn behind.

The people who think T-Jack sucks and doesn't deserve to have another shot at starting simply don't understand the development process of a QB... media hacks included. Those are just facts, and the coaching staff seems to agree with me. What QB did we draft this year?

Oh... right... none...

Actually we did draft a QB, WR, FB, ST player, SS, Tim Tebow, Utility player. His name is Joe Webb.
fyp

tarkenton10
05-04-2010, 12:16 PM
Caine wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Caine wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Prophet wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

slavinator wrote:

In my opinion Chiller and the FO have gone with a couple different approaches in response to do they have a long term answer at QB.

The plan is COMPETITION, the NFL is all about it. Chilly went with his gut and drafted a guy he liked with enough talent to be a project. The project didnt work out in the timeline he planned so he did what he had to do, explore other options.

Now we have added several veterans to come in and compete and to a degree mentor TJ and the other QB's. After that he went and got an aging soon to be HOF'er who gave us a remarkable season. All the while TJ, and Sage are watching, and learning.

I am not 100% convinced that TJ is the guy but I do like that the FO and Coaching staff keep trying to improve the situation through adding more competition at the position.

I also like that they didnt reach for a QB they werent enamored with in the draft. Just because its a need does not predicate that you draft a guy if they wont fit your scheme. I dont think that they were in love with anyone in the draft class of QB's.

There are several other NFL teams with as bad or worse options at QB than we have. Really there are only a handful of teams who have a long term franchise QB's.
You see, now your just making me upset.

After reading a post like that, one wonders why we don't see more of them out of you......

Top shelf my friend. Top shelf indeed. :)

Yes, especially when you look at the COMPETITION part of the post. Best I can tell since Childress arrived it went something like this:

DC wacked out, BJ folded, TJack gifted starting role, TJack folded Frerrote and other asshats played some games, Rosenfels brought in for FIRST QB competition since acquiring TJack and then Favre was brought in to save the day. Not until Rosenfels was brought in was there a competition.

There isn't a fan with part of a brain that doesn't realize that TJack has potential. To say he's starter material or a flop is a joke. Same story since he arrived. We don't know. Now we're reaching the magical development time and we will see what he has as a starter probably next year. I wouldn't be surprised if he does ok or if he flops. I will be surprised if he ever has a career where it isn't a roller coaster ride....which can be a good thing as long as there is a hint of consistency in the mix.

If he is as good as the sniffers say he is then why was their dead silence when he was a free agent? I'll tell you why, they wanted too much for him and he is still a huge question mark. Why is he still on the roster? I'll tell you. The Vikings organization thinks he's worth keeping on the roster because he MIGHT pan out. Nothing more.

Once again, the fanatics will be left on the sidelines to discuss TJack's existence. He has been around, in the same offense, his whole NFL career. If he gets the starting role again, gifted or earned, he will be on a short-leash until he proves to the NFL world that he has progressed into starter material and not just a quality backup. He has not done that yet. Will he? Time will tell. For what it's worth, which is nothing, I think he does not have it. There have been reports where he can jot down any play from the playbook on a napkin, but, based on his performance on the field can he execute them under pressure? Ah, sometimes. Can he cross that hump into integarting his knowledge and athleticism with wisdom on the field at the NFL level? Nobody knows.
That could be said of alot of good QB's that have played in this league, to include our current starter...... ;)

You must be intentionally missing the part where he said Jackson has to prove he's progressed into starter material...

Favre did that almost two DECADES ago. Go ahead and name me some more who have to "earn" that title? Sure, you ahve guys like Smikth in San Fran who has struggled with a poor team and is on the edge, or guys like Stafford who has a crap team and only 1 year under his belt...but who else?

Jackson had a GOOD team...and couldn't get it done. Sure, you'll trot out the exceptions in another attempt to prove tah Favre had a far superior team to work with (he didn't). But, when you get right down to it, Jackson has failed to prove he can be "The Man" in almost every opportunity he's been given.

So, do we have a VIABLE long term options at QB? Not in my book. Favre is obviously not long term, Sage and Tarvaris simply aren't good enough, and we have no real prospects in line...Perilloux being a HUGE question mark.

Caine
That is were you lost me.

Take the purple glasses off my friend.......We have a damn good team now. When TJ was a starter we didn't have even a mediocre team.

No purple glasses....we had a solid team in '08...and Jackson stunk. Until the Arizona game, then he started sliding back down the ratings pole, culminating in the Philly embarrasment.

Don'ty even try and sell the notion that it's all suddenly because of the 09 Roster that we're winning, or that Jackson never had a shot with a solid team - we all know better.

Caine

Amen to that!!

tarkenton10
05-04-2010, 12:25 PM
C Mac D wrote:

lol... The best he'll be is a #2? He's played better than any other QB drafted that year, Vince Young included.

Thinking he'll simply come out of college and play like Matt Ryan (your view) is simply out of touch with reality. It's just that simple.

Most didn't think he would play like Matt Ryan right out of college but we didn't expect him to play like Buddy Ryan either!! :P

Caine
05-04-2010, 12:41 PM
C Mac D wrote:

Caine wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Caine wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Prophet wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

slavinator wrote:

In my opinion Chiller and the FO have gone with a couple different approaches in response to do they have a long term answer at QB.

The plan is COMPETITION, the NFL is all about it. Chilly went with his gut and drafted a guy he liked with enough talent to be a project. The project didnt work out in the timeline he planned so he did what he had to do, explore other options.

Now we have added several veterans to come in and compete and to a degree mentor TJ and the other QB's. After that he went and got an aging soon to be HOF'er who gave us a remarkable season. All the while TJ, and Sage are watching, and learning.

I am not 100% convinced that TJ is the guy but I do like that the FO and Coaching staff keep trying to improve the situation through adding more competition at the position.

I also like that they didnt reach for a QB they werent enamored with in the draft. Just because its a need does not predicate that you draft a guy if they wont fit your scheme. I dont think that they were in love with anyone in the draft class of QB's.

There are several other NFL teams with as bad or worse options at QB than we have. Really there are only a handful of teams who have a long term franchise QB's.
You see, now your just making me upset.

After reading a post like that, one wonders why we don't see more of them out of you......

Top shelf my friend. Top shelf indeed. :)

Yes, especially when you look at the COMPETITION part of the post. Best I can tell since Childress arrived it went something like this:

DC wacked out, BJ folded, TJack gifted starting role, TJack folded Frerrote and other asshats played some games, Rosenfels brought in for FIRST QB competition since acquiring TJack and then Favre was brought in to save the day. Not until Rosenfels was brought in was there a competition.

There isn't a fan with part of a brain that doesn't realize that TJack has potential. To say he's starter material or a flop is a joke. Same story since he arrived. We don't know. Now we're reaching the magical development time and we will see what he has as a starter probably next year. I wouldn't be surprised if he does ok or if he flops. I will be surprised if he ever has a career where it isn't a roller coaster ride....which can be a good thing as long as there is a hint of consistency in the mix.

If he is as good as the sniffers say he is then why was their dead silence when he was a free agent? I'll tell you why, they wanted too much for him and he is still a huge question mark. Why is he still on the roster? I'll tell you. The Vikings organization thinks he's worth keeping on the roster because he MIGHT pan out. Nothing more.

Once again, the fanatics will be left on the sidelines to discuss TJack's existence. He has been around, in the same offense, his whole NFL career. If he gets the starting role again, gifted or earned, he will be on a short-leash until he proves to the NFL world that he has progressed into starter material and not just a quality backup. He has not done that yet. Will he? Time will tell. For what it's worth, which is nothing, I think he does not have it. There have been reports where he can jot down any play from the playbook on a napkin, but, based on his performance on the field can he execute them under pressure? Ah, sometimes. Can he cross that hump into integarting his knowledge and athleticism with wisdom on the field at the NFL level? Nobody knows.
That could be said of alot of good QB's that have played in this league, to include our current starter...... ;)

You must be intentionally missing the part where he said Jackson has to prove he's progressed into starter material...

Favre did that almost two DECADES ago. Go ahead and name me some more who have to "earn" that title? Sure, you ahve guys like Smikth in San Fran who has struggled with a poor team and is on the edge, or guys like Stafford who has a crap team and only 1 year under his belt...but who else?

Jackson had a GOOD team...and couldn't get it done. Sure, you'll trot out the exceptions in another attempt to prove tah Favre had a far superior team to work with (he didn't). But, when you get right down to it, Jackson has failed to prove he can be "The Man" in almost every opportunity he's been given.

So, do we have a VIABLE long term options at QB? Not in my book. Favre is obviously not long term, Sage and Tarvaris simply aren't good enough, and we have no real prospects in line...Perilloux being a HUGE question mark.

Caine
That is were you lost me.

Take the purple glasses off my friend.......We have a damn good team now. When TJ was a starter we didn't have even a mediocre team.

No purple glasses....we had a solid team in '08...and Jackson stunk. Until the Arizona game, then he started sliding back down the ratings pole, culminating in the Philly embarrasment.

Don'ty even try and sell the notion that it's all suddenly because of the 09 Roster that we're winning, or that Jackson never had a shot with a solid team - we all know better.

Caine

So, you fully expected Jackson to come out of college and play like Matt Ryan or Peyton Manning? Is that it? lol... oh Caine.

Again, another obvious attempt by C Mac to distort what was said in order to act like a tool...

Where did I ever say that? Ever? Oh, that's right....I never did.

Talk about cracking people up...

Now go away. The adult are trying to have a conversation.

Caine

Caine
05-04-2010, 12:46 PM
C Mac D wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

Caine wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Caine wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Prophet wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

slavinator wrote:

In my opinion Chiller and the FO have gone with a couple different approaches in response to do they have a long term answer at QB.

The plan is COMPETITION, the NFL is all about it. Chilly went with his gut and drafted a guy he liked with enough talent to be a project. The project didnt work out in the timeline he planned so he did what he had to do, explore other options.

Now we have added several veterans to come in and compete and to a degree mentor TJ and the other QB's. After that he went and got an aging soon to be HOF'er who gave us a remarkable season. All the while TJ, and Sage are watching, and learning.

I am not 100% convinced that TJ is the guy but I do like that the FO and Coaching staff keep trying to improve the situation through adding more competition at the position.

I also like that they didnt reach for a QB they werent enamored with in the draft. Just because its a need does not predicate that you draft a guy if they wont fit your scheme. I dont think that they were in love with anyone in the draft class of QB's.

There are several other NFL teams with as bad or worse options at QB than we have. Really there are only a handful of teams who have a long term franchise QB's.
You see, now your just making me upset.

After reading a post like that, one wonders why we don't see more of them out of you......

Top shelf my friend. Top shelf indeed. :)

Yes, especially when you look at the COMPETITION part of the post. Best I can tell since Childress arrived it went something like this:

DC wacked out, BJ folded, TJack gifted starting role, TJack folded Frerrote and other asshats played some games, Rosenfels brought in for FIRST QB competition since acquiring TJack and then Favre was brought in to save the day. Not until Rosenfels was brought in was there a competition.

There isn't a fan with part of a brain that doesn't realize that TJack has potential. To say he's starter material or a flop is a joke. Same story since he arrived. We don't know. Now we're reaching the magical development time and we will see what he has as a starter probably next year. I wouldn't be surprised if he does ok or if he flops. I will be surprised if he ever has a career where it isn't a roller coaster ride....which can be a good thing as long as there is a hint of consistency in the mix.

If he is as good as the sniffers say he is then why was their dead silence when he was a free agent? I'll tell you why, they wanted too much for him and he is still a huge question mark. Why is he still on the roster? I'll tell you. The Vikings organization thinks he's worth keeping on the roster because he MIGHT pan out. Nothing more.

Once again, the fanatics will be left on the sidelines to discuss TJack's existence. He has been around, in the same offense, his whole NFL career. If he gets the starting role again, gifted or earned, he will be on a short-leash until he proves to the NFL world that he has progressed into starter material and not just a quality backup. He has not done that yet. Will he? Time will tell. For what it's worth, which is nothing, I think he does not have it. There have been reports where he can jot down any play from the playbook on a napkin, but, based on his performance on the field can he execute them under pressure? Ah, sometimes. Can he cross that hump into integarting his knowledge and athleticism with wisdom on the field at the NFL level? Nobody knows.
That could be said of alot of good QB's that have played in this league, to include our current starter...... ;)

You must be intentionally missing the part where he said Jackson has to prove he's progressed into starter material...

Favre did that almost two DECADES ago. Go ahead and name me some more who have to "earn" that title? Sure, you ahve guys like Smikth in San Fran who has struggled with a poor team and is on the edge, or guys like Stafford who has a crap team and only 1 year under his belt...but who else?

Jackson had a GOOD team...and couldn't get it done. Sure, you'll trot out the exceptions in another attempt to prove tah Favre had a far superior team to work with (he didn't). But, when you get right down to it, Jackson has failed to prove he can be "The Man" in almost every opportunity he's been given.

So, do we have a VIABLE long term options at QB? Not in my book. Favre is obviously not long term, Sage and Tarvaris simply aren't good enough, and we have no real prospects in line...Perilloux being a HUGE question mark.

Caine
That is were you lost me.

Take the purple glasses off my friend.......We have a damn good team now. When TJ was a starter we didn't have even a mediocre team.

No purple glasses....we had a solid team in '08...and Jackson stunk. Until the Arizona game, then he started sliding back down the ratings pole, culminating in the Philly embarrasment.

Don'ty even try and sell the notion that it's all suddenly because of the 09 Roster that we're winning, or that Jackson never had a shot with a solid team - we all know better.

Caine

So, you fully expected Jackson to come out of college and play like Matt Ryan or Peyton Manning? Is that it? lol... oh Caine.
Ohhhhhhhh, its even better than that. Didn't you see where he stated that a team that was completely gutted and being rebuilt was a Good team?

Caine cracks me up. :)

Didn't he say Ray Edwards sucks because no team came after him? Well... didn't only one (1) tendered FA get signed by different team in the entire NFL?

Oh... right....

Are you intenmtionally this obtuse?

fact 1: I never said Ray Edwards sucks - ever. I said he's a jackass for whining. But I also stated taht he was a good DE - just not a great one.


Fact 2: 23-24 RFA's were signed to other teams this off season. I provided not only the link but he actual list in t Ray Edwards thread...but facts aren't really your strength, are they C Mac. You're more into twisting other peoples word and trying to make issues where none exit.

Caine

C Mac D
05-04-2010, 01:03 PM
tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

lol... The best he'll be is a #2? He's played better than any other QB drafted that year, Vince Young included.

Thinking he'll simply come out of college and play like Matt Ryan (your view) is simply out of touch with reality. It's just that simple.

Most didn't think he would play like Matt Ryan right out of college but we didn't expect him to play like Buddy Ryan either!! :P

HEEEYYYOOO!!!!

Burn.

C Mac D
05-04-2010, 01:04 PM
Caine wrote:


C (the most awesome) Mac D wrote:So, you fully expected Jackson to come out of college and play like Matt Ryan or Peyton Manning? Is that it? lol... oh Caine.

Again, another obvious attempt by C Mac to distort what was said in order to act like a tool...

Where did I ever say that? Ever? Oh, that's right....I never did.

Talk about cracking people up...

Now go away. The adult are trying to have a conversation.

Caine

So how long do you think it takes to develop a QB?

C Mac D
05-04-2010, 01:13 PM
C Mac D wrote:

Caine wrote:


C (the most awesome) Mac D wrote:So, you fully expected Jackson to come out of college and play like Matt Ryan or Peyton Manning? Is that it? lol... oh Caine.

Again, another obvious attempt by C Mac to distort what was said in order to act like a tool...

Where did I ever say that? Ever? Oh, that's right....I never did.

Talk about cracking people up...

Now go away. The adult are trying to have a conversation.

Caine

So how long do you think it takes to develop a QB?

(crickets...)

tarkenton10
05-04-2010, 01:21 PM
C Mac D wrote:

Caine wrote:


C (the most awesome) Mac D wrote:So, you fully expected Jackson to come out of college and play like Matt Ryan or Peyton Manning? Is that it? lol... oh Caine.

Again, another obvious attempt by C Mac to distort what was said in order to act like a tool...

Where did I ever say that? Ever? Oh, that's right....I never did.

Talk about cracking people up...

Now go away. The adult are trying to have a conversation.

Caine

So how long do you think it takes to develop a QB?

It takes no more than two years, why? How many years does TJ have in? ;)

C Mac D
05-04-2010, 01:46 PM
tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

Caine wrote:


C (the most awesome) Mac D wrote:So, you fully expected Jackson to come out of college and play like Matt Ryan or Peyton Manning? Is that it? lol... oh Caine.

Again, another obvious attempt by C Mac to distort what was said in order to act like a tool...

Where did I ever say that? Ever? Oh, that's right....I never did.

Talk about cracking people up...

Now go away. The adult are trying to have a conversation.

Caine

So how long do you think it takes to develop a QB?

It takes no more than two years, why? How many years does TJ have in? ;)

Well, if it takes two years to develop him, you can't refer to any plays during those two years as bad plays... he was developing.

So...

tastywaves
05-04-2010, 01:49 PM
Marrdro wrote:

tastywaves wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

lol... The best he'll be is a #2? He's played better than any other QB drafted that year, Vince Young included.

Thinking he'll simply come out of college and play like Matt Ryan (your view) is simply out of touch with reality. It's just that simple.
Shock suprise, even VY showed alot of maturity and proffesionalism last year.

Maybe there is some truth to that old cliche', you know, the one that talks about how long it takes to develop a QB. :huh:

Yea VY pretty much sucked as a rookie, oh wait he was OROY. It was his sophomore year where he came crashing down to earth and his fairy tale existence ended.
If I remember right, he really didn't have that good of a year his rookie year.

Heck, if memory serves, TJ's first year he was a starter (2nd) he put up better numbers that VY did. Truth of the matter is, I think TJ had better numbers than VY until last year when the light came on for VY.

Depends on what you call "good". If you go by his passing stats he was sub-par...and probably always will be. If you judge "good" by how much he helped the team to victory, I'd say he did pretty well his rookie year, just as he did last year.

VY is a different character all together, one with a skillset that very rarely sees long term success in the NFL. The one thing he does have is a highly competitive mindset, not sure TJ has the same level of desire to win.

tarkenton10
05-04-2010, 02:14 PM
C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

Caine wrote:


C (the most awesome) Mac D wrote:So, you fully expected Jackson to come out of college and play like Matt Ryan or Peyton Manning? Is that it? lol... oh Caine.

Again, another obvious attempt by C Mac to distort what was said in order to act like a tool...

Where did I ever say that? Ever? Oh, that's right....I never did.

Talk about cracking people up...

Now go away. The adult are trying to have a conversation.

Caine

So how long do you think it takes to develop a QB?

It takes no more than two years, why? How many years does TJ have in? ;)

Well, if it takes two years to develop him, you can't refer to any plays during those two years as bad plays... he was developing.

So...

How many years has TJ been on the team?

C Mac D
05-04-2010, 02:21 PM
tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

Caine wrote:


C (the most awesome) Mac D wrote:So, you fully expected Jackson to come out of college and play like Matt Ryan or Peyton Manning? Is that it? lol... oh Caine.

Again, another obvious attempt by C Mac to distort what was said in order to act like a tool...

Where did I ever say that? Ever? Oh, that's right....I never did.

Talk about cracking people up...

Now go away. The adult are trying to have a conversation.

Caine

So how long do you think it takes to develop a QB?

It takes no more than two years, why? How many years does TJ have in? ;)

Well, if it takes two years to develop him, you can't refer to any plays during those two years as bad plays... he was developing.

So...

How many years has TJ been on the team?

Going into his 5th... and his third year, he had a QB rating of 95.6 for the year. It was even better last year, 110+... but he saw very limited action.

RK.
05-04-2010, 02:31 PM
I think Perrilloux is the future of the Vikings. I see him as a Randy Moss kind of guy. All the talent in the world he just has some issues to work out. I think he will pass up Sage and TJ pretty quickly.

C Mac D
05-04-2010, 02:37 PM
RK. wrote:

I think Perrilloux is the future of the Vikings. I see him as a Randy Moss kind of guy. All the talent in the world he just has some issues to work out. I think he will pass up Sage and TJ pretty quickly.

lol... with this fan base, he doesn't have much room for error apparently. If he's not playing like Peyton Manning by year two, dump him.

tarkenton10
05-04-2010, 02:54 PM
C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

Caine wrote:


C (the most awesome) Mac D wrote:So, you fully expected Jackson to come out of college and play like Matt Ryan or Peyton Manning? Is that it? lol... oh Caine.

Again, another obvious attempt by C Mac to distort what was said in order to act like a tool...

Where did I ever say that? Ever? Oh, that's right....I never did.

Talk about cracking people up...

Now go away. The adult are trying to have a conversation.

Caine

So how long do you think it takes to develop a QB?

It takes no more than two years, why? How many years does TJ have in? ;)

Well, if it takes two years to develop him, you can't refer to any plays during those two years as bad plays... he was developing.

So...

How many years has TJ been on the team?

Going into his 5th... and his third year, he had a QB rating of 95.6 for the year. It was even better last year, 110+... but he saw very limited action.

You can't count his pass rating last year. He played what 18 plays. That's ridiculous, if he had a QB rating of 30, you would be saying just the opposite (agrreing with me now that he had too few plays to judge). If he had 95.6 that was the worst 95.6 year a QB ever had. Ha has one more chance by my estimates and if he fails there is not a whole lot that can be said for him. He has been given every opportunity to win this job and can't do it. Not by my standards but by his coach's standards.

C Mac D
05-04-2010, 03:00 PM
tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

Caine wrote:


C (the most awesome) Mac D wrote:So, you fully expected Jackson to come out of college and play like Matt Ryan or Peyton Manning? Is that it? lol... oh Caine.

Again, another obvious attempt by C Mac to distort what was said in order to act like a tool...

Where did I ever say that? Ever? Oh, that's right....I never did.

Talk about cracking people up...

Now go away. The adult are trying to have a conversation.

Caine

So how long do you think it takes to develop a QB?

It takes no more than two years, why? How many years does TJ have in? ;)

Well, if it takes two years to develop him, you can't refer to any plays during those two years as bad plays... he was developing.

So...

How many years has TJ been on the team?

Going into his 5th... and his third year, he had a QB rating of 95.6 for the year. It was even better last year, 110+... but he saw very limited action.

You can't count his pass rating last year. He played what 18 plays. That's ridiculous, if he had a QB rating of 30, you would be saying just the opposite (agrreing with me now that he had too few plays to judge). If he had 95.6 that was the worst 95.6 year a QB ever had. Ha has one more chance by my estimates and if he fails there is not a whole lot that can be said for him. He has been given every opportunity to win this job and can't do it. Not by my standards but by his coach's standards.

All I have to go by is the time he was on the field... those are the numbers he put up after his 2-year developmental period, which is a time frame you provided.

I'm simply going by the numbers. You can ignore his stats last year because they don't agree with your opinion, but those are the numbers he put up.

And having a 95.6 year and winning the division is bad? Huh, guess I see why we disagree on opinions now. I bet if Shank had caught that TD in the... nevermind, it's not worth it.

Just the facts.

i_bleed_purple
05-04-2010, 04:13 PM
C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

Caine wrote:


C (the most awesome) Mac D wrote:So, you fully expected Jackson to come out of college and play like Matt Ryan or Peyton Manning? Is that it? lol... oh Caine.

Again, another obvious attempt by C Mac to distort what was said in order to act like a tool...

Where did I ever say that? Ever? Oh, that's right....I never did.

Talk about cracking people up...

Now go away. The adult are trying to have a conversation.

Caine

So how long do you think it takes to develop a QB?

It takes no more than two years, why? How many years does TJ have in? ;)

Well, if it takes two years to develop him, you can't refer to any plays during those two years as bad plays... he was developing.

So...

How many years has TJ been on the team?

Going into his 5th... and his third year, he had a QB rating of 95.6 for the year. It was even better last year, 110+... but he saw very limited action.

You can't count his pass rating last year. He played what 18 plays. That's ridiculous, if he had a QB rating of 30, you would be saying just the opposite (agrreing with me now that he had too few plays to judge). If he had 95.6 that was the worst 95.6 year a QB ever had. Ha has one more chance by my estimates and if he fails there is not a whole lot that can be said for him. He has been given every opportunity to win this job and can't do it. Not by my standards but by his coach's standards.

All I have to go by is the time he was on the field... those are the numbers he put up after his 2-year developmental period, which is a time frame you provided.

I'm simply going by the numbers. You can ignore his stats last year because they don't agree with your opinion, but those are the numbers he put up.

And having a 95.6 year and winning the division is bad? Huh, guess I see why we disagree on opinions now. I bet if Shank had caught that TD in the... nevermind, it's not worth it.

Just the facts.

lol, TJ didn't win the division, Gus did.

TJ started 0-2, then was benched
Gus's record was 7-3.5 (I say 3.5, as he got hurt in the lions game, then TJ came in and finished off the win
TJ then went 2.5-1

TJ - 2.5-3, .450
Gus - 7-3.5 .667

TJ didn't lead us to anything. He has yet to LEAD anybody to anything yet.

Doe he have skill? Yes, but he's shown he can't use it consistently. I'm willing to give him another shot, but to sit there saying he was responsible for winning the division is rediculous.

gregair13
05-04-2010, 04:37 PM
Short term is all that matter in the league now a days. What have you done for me lately is all that matters. We, as fans, are impatient.

C Mac D
05-04-2010, 04:39 PM
i_bleed_purple wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

Caine wrote:


C (the most awesome) Mac D wrote:So, you fully expected Jackson to come out of college and play like Matt Ryan or Peyton Manning? Is that it? lol... oh Caine.

Again, another obvious attempt by C Mac to distort what was said in order to act like a tool...

Where did I ever say that? Ever? Oh, that's right....I never did.

Talk about cracking people up...

Now go away. The adult are trying to have a conversation.

Caine

So how long do you think it takes to develop a QB?

It takes no more than two years, why? How many years does TJ have in? ;)

Well, if it takes two years to develop him, you can't refer to any plays during those two years as bad plays... he was developing.

So...

How many years has TJ been on the team?

Going into his 5th... and his third year, he had a QB rating of 95.6 for the year. It was even better last year, 110+... but he saw very limited action.

You can't count his pass rating last year. He played what 18 plays. That's ridiculous, if he had a QB rating of 30, you would be saying just the opposite (agrreing with me now that he had too few plays to judge). If he had 95.6 that was the worst 95.6 year a QB ever had. Ha has one more chance by my estimates and if he fails there is not a whole lot that can be said for him. He has been given every opportunity to win this job and can't do it. Not by my standards but by his coach's standards.

All I have to go by is the time he was on the field... those are the numbers he put up after his 2-year developmental period, which is a time frame you provided.

I'm simply going by the numbers. You can ignore his stats last year because they don't agree with your opinion, but those are the numbers he put up.

And having a 95.6 year and winning the division is bad? Huh, guess I see why we disagree on opinions now. I bet if Shank had caught that TD in the... nevermind, it's not worth it.

Just the facts.

lol, TJ didn't win the division, Gus did.

TJ started 0-2, then was benched
Gus's record was 7-3.5 (I say 3.5, as he got hurt in the lions game, then TJ came in and finished off the win
TJ then went 2.5-1

TJ - 2.5-3, .450
Gus - 7-3.5 .667

TJ didn't lead us to anything. He has yet to LEAD anybody to anything yet.

Doe he have skill? Yes, but he's shown he can't use it consistently. I'm willing to give him another shot, but to sit there saying he was responsible for winning the division is rediculous.

He was the QB for the final 3-4 games... plus we only had a one game lead in the division.

Yes, Jackson did win the division for us. Despite what you say.

Caine
05-04-2010, 05:37 PM
C Mac D wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

Caine wrote:


C (the most awesome) Mac D wrote:So, you fully expected Jackson to come out of college and play like Matt Ryan or Peyton Manning? Is that it? lol... oh Caine.

Again, another obvious attempt by C Mac to distort what was said in order to act like a tool...

Where did I ever say that? Ever? Oh, that's right....I never did.

Talk about cracking people up...

Now go away. The adult are trying to have a conversation.

Caine

So how long do you think it takes to develop a QB?

It takes no more than two years, why? How many years does TJ have in? ;)

Well, if it takes two years to develop him, you can't refer to any plays during those two years as bad plays... he was developing.

So...

How many years has TJ been on the team?

Going into his 5th... and his third year, he had a QB rating of 95.6 for the year. It was even better last year, 110+... but he saw very limited action.

You can't count his pass rating last year. He played what 18 plays. That's ridiculous, if he had a QB rating of 30, you would be saying just the opposite (agrreing with me now that he had too few plays to judge). If he had 95.6 that was the worst 95.6 year a QB ever had. Ha has one more chance by my estimates and if he fails there is not a whole lot that can be said for him. He has been given every opportunity to win this job and can't do it. Not by my standards but by his coach's standards.

All I have to go by is the time he was on the field... those are the numbers he put up after his 2-year developmental period, which is a time frame you provided.

I'm simply going by the numbers. You can ignore his stats last year because they don't agree with your opinion, but those are the numbers he put up.

And having a 95.6 year and winning the division is bad? Huh, guess I see why we disagree on opinions now. I bet if Shank had caught that TD in the... nevermind, it's not worth it.

Just the facts.

lol, TJ didn't win the division, Gus did.

TJ started 0-2, then was benched
Gus's record was 7-3.5 (I say 3.5, as he got hurt in the lions game, then TJ came in and finished off the win
TJ then went 2.5-1

TJ - 2.5-3, .450
Gus - 7-3.5 .667

TJ didn't lead us to anything. He has yet to LEAD anybody to anything yet.

Doe he have skill? Yes, but he's shown he can't use it consistently. I'm willing to give him another shot, but to sit there saying he was responsible for winning the division is rediculous.

He was the QB for the final 3-4 games... plus we only had a one game lead in the division.

Yes, Jackson did win the division for us. Despite what you say.

So he managed to preserve the lead that GUS got for us AFTER he put us in a two game hole....and he won the Division? Only in your world...

As for your previous ridiculous question, the time it takes to develop a QB is entirely speculative. There is no magic number. But in todays "Win Now" NFL, there is a shorter and shorter span of acceptability.

The gripe with Jackson isn't that he wasn't Manning in year Two, it was that he wasn't much better in year 3 as he was in year 1 and 2...despite your "Stats in a vacuum" argument. His improvement was far less profound than the TEAMS improvement. "Reasonable improvement" was looked for, but IMO was not really present...HE didn't do better, the TEAM did.

In fact, with the exception of ONE game, most of his favorable stats occured after Peterson, Taylor, or the Defense had destroyed the other team...Jackson played mop up.

The exception - Arizona. Kid was in a zone that day and everything he touched worked.

Problem is, he hasn't replicated it, nor has he come close.

Then Favre comes in and with virtually the same squad manages to blow the doors off the NFL. That night and day difference sort of highlights what I've been saying...but you and Marrdro can keep ignoring it and keep making up imaginary criteria by which Jackson can be favorably judged...


...stats in a vacuum....sheesh.

Caine

ejmat
05-04-2010, 06:13 PM
Caine wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

Caine wrote:


C (the most awesome) Mac D wrote:So, you fully expected Jackson to come out of college and play like Matt Ryan or Peyton Manning? Is that it? lol... oh Caine.

Again, another obvious attempt by C Mac to distort what was said in order to act like a tool...

Where did I ever say that? Ever? Oh, that's right....I never did.

Talk about cracking people up...

Now go away. The adult are trying to have a conversation.

Caine

So how long do you think it takes to develop a QB?

It takes no more than two years, why? How many years does TJ have in? ;)

Well, if it takes two years to develop him, you can't refer to any plays during those two years as bad plays... he was developing.

So...

How many years has TJ been on the team?

Going into his 5th... and his third year, he had a QB rating of 95.6 for the year. It was even better last year, 110+... but he saw very limited action.

You can't count his pass rating last year. He played what 18 plays. That's ridiculous, if he had a QB rating of 30, you would be saying just the opposite (agrreing with me now that he had too few plays to judge). If he had 95.6 that was the worst 95.6 year a QB ever had. Ha has one more chance by my estimates and if he fails there is not a whole lot that can be said for him. He has been given every opportunity to win this job and can't do it. Not by my standards but by his coach's standards.

All I have to go by is the time he was on the field... those are the numbers he put up after his 2-year developmental period, which is a time frame you provided.

I'm simply going by the numbers. You can ignore his stats last year because they don't agree with your opinion, but those are the numbers he put up.

And having a 95.6 year and winning the division is bad? Huh, guess I see why we disagree on opinions now. I bet if Shank had caught that TD in the... nevermind, it's not worth it.

Just the facts.

lol, TJ didn't win the division, Gus did.

TJ started 0-2, then was benched
Gus's record was 7-3.5 (I say 3.5, as he got hurt in the lions game, then TJ came in and finished off the win
TJ then went 2.5-1

TJ - 2.5-3, .450
Gus - 7-3.5 .667

TJ didn't lead us to anything. He has yet to LEAD anybody to anything yet.

Doe he have skill? Yes, but he's shown he can't use it consistently. I'm willing to give him another shot, but to sit there saying he was responsible for winning the division is rediculous.

He was the QB for the final 3-4 games... plus we only had a one game lead in the division.

Yes, Jackson did win the division for us. Despite what you say.

So he managed to preserve the lead that GUS got for us AFTER he put us in a two game hole....and he won the Division? Only in your world...

As for your previous ridiculous question, the time it takes to develop a QB is entirely speculative. There is no magic number. But in todays "Win Now" NFL, there is a shorter and shorter span of acceptability.

The gripe with Jackson isn't that he wasn't Manning in year Two, it was that he wasn't much better in year 3 as he was in year 1 and 2...despite your "Stats in a vacuum" argument. His improvement was far less profound than the TEAMS improvement. "Reasonable improvement" was looked for, but IMO was not really present...HE didn't do better, the TEAM did.

In fact, with the exception of ONE game, most of his favorable stats occured after Peterson, Taylor, or the Defense had destroyed the other team...Jackson played mop up.

The exception - Arizona. Kid was in a zone that day and everything he touched worked.

Problem is, he hasn't replicated it, nor has he come close.

Then Favre comes in and with virtually the same squad manages to blow the doors off the NFL. That night and day difference sort of highlights what I've been saying...but you and Marrdro can keep ignoring it and keep making up imaginary criteria by which Jackson can be favorably judged...


...stats in a vacuum....sheesh.

Caine

I think I'll stay out of this one for once. But +1 and I'll keep it at that.

Prophet
05-05-2010, 07:39 AM
ejmat wrote:

Caine wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

Caine wrote:


C (the most awesome) Mac D wrote:So, you fully expected Jackson to come out of college and play like Matt Ryan or Peyton Manning? Is that it? lol... oh Caine.

Again, another obvious attempt by C Mac to distort what was said in order to act like a tool...

Where did I ever say that? Ever? Oh, that's right....I never did.

Talk about cracking people up...

Now go away. The adult are trying to have a conversation.

Caine

So how long do you think it takes to develop a QB?

It takes no more than two years, why? How many years does TJ have in? ;)

Well, if it takes two years to develop him, you can't refer to any plays during those two years as bad plays... he was developing.

So...

How many years has TJ been on the team?

Going into his 5th... and his third year, he had a QB rating of 95.6 for the year. It was even better last year, 110+... but he saw very limited action.

You can't count his pass rating last year. He played what 18 plays. That's ridiculous, if he had a QB rating of 30, you would be saying just the opposite (agrreing with me now that he had too few plays to judge). If he had 95.6 that was the worst 95.6 year a QB ever had. Ha has one more chance by my estimates and if he fails there is not a whole lot that can be said for him. He has been given every opportunity to win this job and can't do it. Not by my standards but by his coach's standards.

All I have to go by is the time he was on the field... those are the numbers he put up after his 2-year developmental period, which is a time frame you provided.

I'm simply going by the numbers. You can ignore his stats last year because they don't agree with your opinion, but those are the numbers he put up.

And having a 95.6 year and winning the division is bad? Huh, guess I see why we disagree on opinions now. I bet if Shank had caught that TD in the... nevermind, it's not worth it.

Just the facts.

lol, TJ didn't win the division, Gus did.

TJ started 0-2, then was benched
Gus's record was 7-3.5 (I say 3.5, as he got hurt in the lions game, then TJ came in and finished off the win
TJ then went 2.5-1

TJ - 2.5-3, .450
Gus - 7-3.5 .667

TJ didn't lead us to anything. He has yet to LEAD anybody to anything yet.

Doe he have skill? Yes, but he's shown he can't use it consistently. I'm willing to give him another shot, but to sit there saying he was responsible for winning the division is rediculous.

He was the QB for the final 3-4 games... plus we only had a one game lead in the division.

Yes, Jackson did win the division for us. Despite what you say.

So he managed to preserve the lead that GUS got for us AFTER he put us in a two game hole....and he won the Division? Only in your world...

As for your previous ridiculous question, the time it takes to develop a QB is entirely speculative. There is no magic number. But in todays "Win Now" NFL, there is a shorter and shorter span of acceptability.

The gripe with Jackson isn't that he wasn't Manning in year Two, it was that he wasn't much better in year 3 as he was in year 1 and 2...despite your "Stats in a vacuum" argument. His improvement was far less profound than the TEAMS improvement. "Reasonable improvement" was looked for, but IMO was not really present...HE didn't do better, the TEAM did.

In fact, with the exception of ONE game, most of his favorable stats occured after Peterson, Taylor, or the Defense had destroyed the other team...Jackson played mop up.

The exception - Arizona. Kid was in a zone that day and everything he touched worked.

Problem is, he hasn't replicated it, nor has he come close.

Then Favre comes in and with virtually the same squad manages to blow the doors off the NFL. That night and day difference sort of highlights what I've been saying...but you and Marrdro can keep ignoring it and keep making up imaginary criteria by which Jackson can be favorably judged...


...stats in a vacuum....sheesh.

Caine

I think I'll stay out of this one for once. But +1 and I'll keep it at that.

You guys are idiots. As C Mac D likes to parrot from Perry Mason...Just the Facts.....

Oh wait, the facts don't support his absurd claim. I say use something a little more fitting, ah, like:

http://www.nataliedee.com/022807/play-doh.jpg

tarkenton10
05-05-2010, 08:28 AM
C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

Caine wrote:


C (the most awesome) Mac D wrote:So, you fully expected Jackson to come out of college and play like Matt Ryan or Peyton Manning? Is that it? lol... oh Caine.

Again, another obvious attempt by C Mac to distort what was said in order to act like a tool...

Where did I ever say that? Ever? Oh, that's right....I never did.

Talk about cracking people up...

Now go away. The adult are trying to have a conversation.

Caine

So how long do you think it takes to develop a QB?

It takes no more than two years, why? How many years does TJ have in? ;)

Well, if it takes two years to develop him, you can't refer to any plays during those two years as bad plays... he was developing.

So...

How many years has TJ been on the team?

Going into his 5th... and his third year, he had a QB rating of 95.6 for the year. It was even better last year, 110+... but he saw very limited action.

You can't count his pass rating last year. He played what 18 plays. That's ridiculous, if he had a QB rating of 30, you would be saying just the opposite (agrreing with me now that he had too few plays to judge). If he had 95.6 that was the worst 95.6 year a QB ever had. Ha has one more chance by my estimates and if he fails there is not a whole lot that can be said for him. He has been given every opportunity to win this job and can't do it. Not by my standards but by his coach's standards.

All I have to go by is the time he was on the field... those are the numbers he put up after his 2-year developmental period, which is a time frame you provided.

I'm simply going by the numbers. You can ignore his stats last year because they don't agree with your opinion, but those are the numbers he put up.

And having a 95.6 year and winning the division is bad? Huh, guess I see why we disagree on opinions now. I bet if Shank had caught that TD in the... nevermind, it's not worth it.

Just the facts.

I am not ignoring facts. I am stating that there isn't enough data to prove if he improved or not. If a 2nd string QB comes in for one play at the end of the game and throws a hail mary for a TD his QB rating would be 140. Is he HOF material? Does that show his improvement at reading defenses, NO. I am saying last year does not show how TJ improved. As for the 95.6 rating he did not impress me with any games I saw that year. If his third year was so great why did the coach LOOK FOR A REPLACEMENT!! Obviously the Chiller not me felt he was not good enough. If I am so offbase why isn't your guy our starter, that is a big question that statistics can't sweep away.

If ifs and buts were candy & nuts every day would be Christmas!! And if we did not get that penalty in the CG we would have most likely won the SB. So that Shank thing is a mute point. The catch didn't happen that is life get over it.

Marrdro
05-05-2010, 08:38 AM
tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

Caine wrote:


C (the most awesome) Mac D wrote:So, you fully expected Jackson to come out of college and play like Matt Ryan or Peyton Manning? Is that it? lol... oh Caine.

Again, another obvious attempt by C Mac to distort what was said in order to act like a tool...

Where did I ever say that? Ever? Oh, that's right....I never did.

Talk about cracking people up...

Now go away. The adult are trying to have a conversation.

Caine

So how long do you think it takes to develop a QB?

It takes no more than two years, why? How many years does TJ have in? ;)

Well, if it takes two years to develop him, you can't refer to any plays during those two years as bad plays... he was developing.

So...

How many years has TJ been on the team?

Going into his 5th... and his third year, he had a QB rating of 95.6 for the year. It was even better last year, 110+... but he saw very limited action.

You can't count his pass rating last year. He played what 18 plays. That's ridiculous, if he had a QB rating of 30, you would be saying just the opposite (agrreing with me now that he had too few plays to judge). If he had 95.6 that was the worst 95.6 year a QB ever had. Ha has one more chance by my estimates and if he fails there is not a whole lot that can be said for him. He has been given every opportunity to win this job and can't do it. Not by my standards but by his coach's standards.

All I have to go by is the time he was on the field... those are the numbers he put up after his 2-year developmental period, which is a time frame you provided.

I'm simply going by the numbers. You can ignore his stats last year because they don't agree with your opinion, but those are the numbers he put up.

And having a 95.6 year and winning the division is bad? Huh, guess I see why we disagree on opinions now. I bet if Shank had caught that TD in the... nevermind, it's not worth it.

Just the facts.

I am not ignoring facts. I am stating that there isn't enough data to prove if he improved or not. If a 2nd string QB comes in for one play at the end of the game and throws a hail mary for a TD his QB rating would be 140. Is he HOF material? Does that show his improvement at reading defenses, NO. I am saying last year does not show how TJ improved. As for the 95.6 rating he did not impress me with any games I saw that year. If his third year was so great why did the coach LOOK FOR A REPLACEMENT!! Obviously the Chiller not me felt he was not good enough. If I am so offbase why isn't your guy our starter, that is a big question that statistics can't sweep away.

If ifs and buts were candy & nuts every day would be Christmas!! And if we did not get that penalty in the CG we would have most likely won the SB. So that Shank thing is a mute point. The catch didn't happen that is life get over it.
Couple of thoughts on the Sage/Noodle inclusion on the roster last year.

1. Sage. I don't care what anyone tries to throw out there. There is no way he was ever gonna be the number 1 QB on this roster.

Sage is and has always been Ricky Boys boy. We needed a viable backup who could also come in and start if necessary. Enter Sage.

2. The Noodle. Even if the Chiller was 100% convinced he could win with TJ, if a HOF QB falls into your lap, that youngster is gonna take a back seat, especially if the owner wants to sell tickets.

I believe (TJ alluded to some of that in his comments on Sirius yesterday) they were just as ready last year to run TJ out there (contract or not for the Chiller) until the Noodle became available, which by the way, I think the staff knew was going to happen. Except Spielman of course.

He thought he found a job for Sage.

tarkenton10
05-05-2010, 08:55 AM
Marrdro wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

Caine wrote:


C (the most awesome) Mac D wrote:So, you fully expected Jackson to come out of college and play like Matt Ryan or Peyton Manning? Is that it? lol... oh Caine.

Again, another obvious attempt by C Mac to distort what was said in order to act like a tool...

Where did I ever say that? Ever? Oh, that's right....I never did.

Talk about cracking people up...

Now go away. The adult are trying to have a conversation.

Caine

So how long do you think it takes to develop a QB?

It takes no more than two years, why? How many years does TJ have in? ;)

Well, if it takes two years to develop him, you can't refer to any plays during those two years as bad plays... he was developing.

So...

How many years has TJ been on the team?

Going into his 5th... and his third year, he had a QB rating of 95.6 for the year. It was even better last year, 110+... but he saw very limited action.

You can't count his pass rating last year. He played what 18 plays. That's ridiculous, if he had a QB rating of 30, you would be saying just the opposite (agrreing with me now that he had too few plays to judge). If he had 95.6 that was the worst 95.6 year a QB ever had. Ha has one more chance by my estimates and if he fails there is not a whole lot that can be said for him. He has been given every opportunity to win this job and can't do it. Not by my standards but by his coach's standards.

All I have to go by is the time he was on the field... those are the numbers he put up after his 2-year developmental period, which is a time frame you provided.

I'm simply going by the numbers. You can ignore his stats last year because they don't agree with your opinion, but those are the numbers he put up.

And having a 95.6 year and winning the division is bad? Huh, guess I see why we disagree on opinions now. I bet if Shank had caught that TD in the... nevermind, it's not worth it.

Just the facts.

I am not ignoring facts. I am stating that there isn't enough data to prove if he improved or not. If a 2nd string QB comes in for one play at the end of the game and throws a hail mary for a TD his QB rating would be 140. Is he HOF material? Does that show his improvement at reading defenses, NO. I am saying last year does not show how TJ improved. As for the 95.6 rating he did not impress me with any games I saw that year. If his third year was so great why did the coach LOOK FOR A REPLACEMENT!! Obviously the Chiller not me felt he was not good enough. If I am so offbase why isn't your guy our starter, that is a big question that statistics can't sweep away.

If ifs and buts were candy & nuts every day would be Christmas!! And if we did not get that penalty in the CG we would have most likely won the SB. So that Shank thing is a mute point. The catch didn't happen that is life get over it.
Couple of thoughts on the Sage/Noodle inclusion on the roster last year.

1. Sage. I don't care what anyone tries to throw out there. There is no way he was ever gonna be the number 1 QB on this roster.

Sage is and has always been Ricky Boys boy. We needed a viable backup who could also come in and start if necessary. Enter Sage.

2. The Noodle. Even if the Chiller was 100% convinced he could win with TJ, if a HOF QB falls into your lap, that youngster is gonna take a back seat, especially if the owner wants to sell tickets.

I believe (TJ alluded to some of that in his comments on Sirius yesterday) they were just as ready last year to run TJ out there (contract or not for the Chiller) until the Noodle became available, which by the way, I think the staff knew was going to happen. Except Spielman of course.

He thought he found a job for Sage.

I don't buy it is Spielman's boy. I think he had a great chance to start, and TJ scares the hell out of Chiller. He has all the tools but plays like one more than he would like.

Favre did not fall into his lap, I am sure Chilly worked hard to make it happen. And Favre & Sage aside they have been looking for FA QBs since his second year. After he started his third year they were looking, if he started why go back if he has the potential? Once you have him in there you try to continue with a project IF HE IS IMPROVING! you don't yank him for a one or two year fix (even if it was Favre). Why do you think GB wouldn't take Favre back. a future starter for ten years or one or two more years of greatness. Most would do what GB did, and I would have done the same if I thought I had a talented youngster who could start for me for the next ten to fifteen years. Your theory just doesn't make sense to me.

His comments to run TJ out there doesn't impress me at all. I can't imagine The Chiller telling someone I think TJ is a terd but that is all we got so I am going to trot him out. Of course he is going to say he has faith in him. Actions speak louder than words. What he said may sound like he has faith but every chance he gets he is looking to replace him.

gagarr
05-05-2010, 08:57 AM
Marrdro wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

Caine wrote:


C (the most awesome) Mac D wrote:So, you fully expected Jackson to come out of college and play like Matt Ryan or Peyton Manning? Is that it? lol... oh Caine.

Again, another obvious attempt by C Mac to distort what was said in order to act like a tool...

Where did I ever say that? Ever? Oh, that's right....I never did.

Talk about cracking people up...

Now go away. The adult are trying to have a conversation.

Caine

So how long do you think it takes to develop a QB?

It takes no more than two years, why? How many years does TJ have in? ;)

Well, if it takes two years to develop him, you can't refer to any plays during those two years as bad plays... he was developing.

So...

How many years has TJ been on the team?

Going into his 5th... and his third year, he had a QB rating of 95.6 for the year. It was even better last year, 110+... but he saw very limited action.

You can't count his pass rating last year. He played what 18 plays. That's ridiculous, if he had a QB rating of 30, you would be saying just the opposite (agrreing with me now that he had too few plays to judge). If he had 95.6 that was the worst 95.6 year a QB ever had. Ha has one more chance by my estimates and if he fails there is not a whole lot that can be said for him. He has been given every opportunity to win this job and can't do it. Not by my standards but by his coach's standards.

All I have to go by is the time he was on the field... those are the numbers he put up after his 2-year developmental period, which is a time frame you provided.

I'm simply going by the numbers. You can ignore his stats last year because they don't agree with your opinion, but those are the numbers he put up.

And having a 95.6 year and winning the division is bad? Huh, guess I see why we disagree on opinions now. I bet if Shank had caught that TD in the... nevermind, it's not worth it.

Just the facts.

I am not ignoring facts. I am stating that there isn't enough data to prove if he improved or not. If a 2nd string QB comes in for one play at the end of the game and throws a hail mary for a TD his QB rating would be 140. Is he HOF material? Does that show his improvement at reading defenses, NO. I am saying last year does not show how TJ improved. As for the 95.6 rating he did not impress me with any games I saw that year. If his third year was so great why did the coach LOOK FOR A REPLACEMENT!! Obviously the Chiller not me felt he was not good enough. If I am so offbase why isn't your guy our starter, that is a big question that statistics can't sweep away.

If ifs and buts were candy & nuts every day would be Christmas!! And if we did not get that penalty in the CG we would have most likely won the SB. So that Shank thing is a mute point. The catch didn't happen that is life get over it.
Couple of thoughts on the Sage/Noodle inclusion on the roster last year.

1. Sage. I don't care what anyone tries to throw out there. There is no way he was ever gonna be the number 1 QB on this roster.

Sage is and has always been Ricky Boys boy. We needed a viable backup who could also come in and start if necessary. Enter Sage.

2. The Noodle. Even if the Chiller was 100% convinced he could win with TJ, if a HOF QB falls into your lap, that youngster is gonna take a back seat, especially if the owner wants to sell tickets.

I believe (TJ alluded to some of that in his comments on Sirius yesterday) they were just as ready last year to run TJ out there (contract or not for the Chiller) until the Noodle became available, which by the way, I think the staff knew was going to happen. Except Spielman of course.

He thought he found a job for Sage.

I'm not a TJ fan but given that he's had a year to sit behind Favre and HOPEFULLY he is learning all he can on reading D's and how to go through his progressions. Both most think are his two glaring weaknesses that study and teaching can improve.

I'm all up for giving TJ another shot, unless a clearly better option appears which is NOT a aging QB again.

Marrdro
05-05-2010, 09:03 AM
tarkenton10 wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

Caine wrote:


C (the most awesome) Mac D wrote:So, you fully expected Jackson to come out of college and play like Matt Ryan or Peyton Manning? Is that it? lol... oh Caine.

Again, another obvious attempt by C Mac to distort what was said in order to act like a tool...

Where did I ever say that? Ever? Oh, that's right....I never did.

Talk about cracking people up...

Now go away. The adult are trying to have a conversation.

Caine

So how long do you think it takes to develop a QB?

It takes no more than two years, why? How many years does TJ have in? ;)

Well, if it takes two years to develop him, you can't refer to any plays during those two years as bad plays... he was developing.

So...

How many years has TJ been on the team?

Going into his 5th... and his third year, he had a QB rating of 95.6 for the year. It was even better last year, 110+... but he saw very limited action.

You can't count his pass rating last year. He played what 18 plays. That's ridiculous, if he had a QB rating of 30, you would be saying just the opposite (agrreing with me now that he had too few plays to judge). If he had 95.6 that was the worst 95.6 year a QB ever had. Ha has one more chance by my estimates and if he fails there is not a whole lot that can be said for him. He has been given every opportunity to win this job and can't do it. Not by my standards but by his coach's standards.

All I have to go by is the time he was on the field... those are the numbers he put up after his 2-year developmental period, which is a time frame you provided.

I'm simply going by the numbers. You can ignore his stats last year because they don't agree with your opinion, but those are the numbers he put up.

And having a 95.6 year and winning the division is bad? Huh, guess I see why we disagree on opinions now. I bet if Shank had caught that TD in the... nevermind, it's not worth it.

Just the facts.

I am not ignoring facts. I am stating that there isn't enough data to prove if he improved or not. If a 2nd string QB comes in for one play at the end of the game and throws a hail mary for a TD his QB rating would be 140. Is he HOF material? Does that show his improvement at reading defenses, NO. I am saying last year does not show how TJ improved. As for the 95.6 rating he did not impress me with any games I saw that year. If his third year was so great why did the coach LOOK FOR A REPLACEMENT!! Obviously the Chiller not me felt he was not good enough. If I am so offbase why isn't your guy our starter, that is a big question that statistics can't sweep away.

If ifs and buts were candy & nuts every day would be Christmas!! And if we did not get that penalty in the CG we would have most likely won the SB. So that Shank thing is a mute point. The catch didn't happen that is life get over it.
Couple of thoughts on the Sage/Noodle inclusion on the roster last year.

1. Sage. I don't care what anyone tries to throw out there. There is no way he was ever gonna be the number 1 QB on this roster.

Sage is and has always been Ricky Boys boy. We needed a viable backup who could also come in and start if necessary. Enter Sage.

2. The Noodle. Even if the Chiller was 100% convinced he could win with TJ, if a HOF QB falls into your lap, that youngster is gonna take a back seat, especially if the owner wants to sell tickets.

I believe (TJ alluded to some of that in his comments on Sirius yesterday) they were just as ready last year to run TJ out there (contract or not for the Chiller) until the Noodle became available, which by the way, I think the staff knew was going to happen. Except Spielman of course.

He thought he found a job for Sage.

I don't buy it is Spielman's boy. I think he had a great chance to start, and TJ scares the hell out of Chiller. He has all the tools but plays like one more than he would like.

Favre did not fall into his lap, I am sure Chilly worked hard to make it happen. And Favre & Sage aside they have been looking for FA QBs since his second year. After he started his third year they were looking, if he started why go back if he has the potential? Once you have him in there you try to continue with a project IF HE IS IMPROVING! you don't yank him for a one or two year fix (even if it was Favre). Why do you think GB wouldn't take Favre back. a future starter for ten years or one or two more years of greatness. Most would do what GB did, and I would have done the same if I thought I had a talented youngster who could start for me for the next ten to fifteen years. Your theory just doesn't make sense to me.

His comments to run TJ out there doesn't impress me at all. I can't imagine The Chiller telling someone I think TJ is a terd but that is all we got so I am going to trot him out. Of course he is going to say he has faith in him. Actions speak louder than words. What he said may sound like he has faith but every chance he gets he is looking to replace him.
Replace or just find someone to hold the fort down while he got ready?

tarkenton10
05-05-2010, 09:11 AM
Marrdro wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

Caine wrote:


C (the most awesome) Mac D wrote:So, you fully expected Jackson to come out of college and play like Matt Ryan or Peyton Manning? Is that it? lol... oh Caine.

Again, another obvious attempt by C Mac to distort what was said in order to act like a tool...

Where did I ever say that? Ever? Oh, that's right....I never did.

Talk about cracking people up...

Now go away. The adult are trying to have a conversation.

Caine

So how long do you think it takes to develop a QB?

It takes no more than two years, why? How many years does TJ have in? ;)

Well, if it takes two years to develop him, you can't refer to any plays during those two years as bad plays... he was developing.

So...

How many years has TJ been on the team?

Going into his 5th... and his third year, he had a QB rating of 95.6 for the year. It was even better last year, 110+... but he saw very limited action.

You can't count his pass rating last year. He played what 18 plays. That's ridiculous, if he had a QB rating of 30, you would be saying just the opposite (agrreing with me now that he had too few plays to judge). If he had 95.6 that was the worst 95.6 year a QB ever had. Ha has one more chance by my estimates and if he fails there is not a whole lot that can be said for him. He has been given every opportunity to win this job and can't do it. Not by my standards but by his coach's standards.

All I have to go by is the time he was on the field... those are the numbers he put up after his 2-year developmental period, which is a time frame you provided.

I'm simply going by the numbers. You can ignore his stats last year because they don't agree with your opinion, but those are the numbers he put up.

And having a 95.6 year and winning the division is bad? Huh, guess I see why we disagree on opinions now. I bet if Shank had caught that TD in the... nevermind, it's not worth it.

Just the facts.

I am not ignoring facts. I am stating that there isn't enough data to prove if he improved or not. If a 2nd string QB comes in for one play at the end of the game and throws a hail mary for a TD his QB rating would be 140. Is he HOF material? Does that show his improvement at reading defenses, NO. I am saying last year does not show how TJ improved. As for the 95.6 rating he did not impress me with any games I saw that year. If his third year was so great why did the coach LOOK FOR A REPLACEMENT!! Obviously the Chiller not me felt he was not good enough. If I am so offbase why isn't your guy our starter, that is a big question that statistics can't sweep away.

If ifs and buts were candy & nuts every day would be Christmas!! And if we did not get that penalty in the CG we would have most likely won the SB. So that Shank thing is a mute point. The catch didn't happen that is life get over it.
Couple of thoughts on the Sage/Noodle inclusion on the roster last year.

1. Sage. I don't care what anyone tries to throw out there. There is no way he was ever gonna be the number 1 QB on this roster.

Sage is and has always been Ricky Boys boy. We needed a viable backup who could also come in and start if necessary. Enter Sage.

2. The Noodle. Even if the Chiller was 100% convinced he could win with TJ, if a HOF QB falls into your lap, that youngster is gonna take a back seat, especially if the owner wants to sell tickets.

I believe (TJ alluded to some of that in his comments on Sirius yesterday) they were just as ready last year to run TJ out there (contract or not for the Chiller) until the Noodle became available, which by the way, I think the staff knew was going to happen. Except Spielman of course.

He thought he found a job for Sage.

I don't buy it is Spielman's boy. I think he had a great chance to start, and TJ scares the hell out of Chiller. He has all the tools but plays like one more than he would like.

Favre did not fall into his lap, I am sure Chilly worked hard to make it happen. And Favre & Sage aside they have been looking for FA QBs since his second year. After he started his third year they were looking, if he started why go back if he has the potential? Once you have him in there you try to continue with a project IF HE IS IMPROVING! you don't yank him for a one or two year fix (even if it was Favre). Why do you think GB wouldn't take Favre back. a future starter for ten years or one or two more years of greatness. Most would do what GB did, and I would have done the same if I thought I had a talented youngster who could start for me for the next ten to fifteen years. Your theory just doesn't make sense to me.

His comments to run TJ out there doesn't impress me at all. I can't imagine The Chiller telling someone I think TJ is a terd but that is all we got so I am going to trot him out. Of course he is going to say he has faith in him. Actions speak louder than words. What he said may sound like he has faith but every chance he gets he is looking to replace him.
Replace or just find someone to hold the fort down while he got ready?

It has been five years if they go Dnab it is to replace him.

Marrdro
05-05-2010, 09:14 AM
tarkenton10 wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

Caine wrote:


C (the most awesome) Mac D wrote:So, you fully expected Jackson to come out of college and play like Matt Ryan or Peyton Manning? Is that it? lol... oh Caine.

Again, another obvious attempt by C Mac to distort what was said in order to act like a tool...

Where did I ever say that? Ever? Oh, that's right....I never did.

Talk about cracking people up...

Now go away. The adult are trying to have a conversation.

Caine

So how long do you think it takes to develop a QB?

It takes no more than two years, why? How many years does TJ have in? ;)

Well, if it takes two years to develop him, you can't refer to any plays during those two years as bad plays... he was developing.

So...

How many years has TJ been on the team?

Going into his 5th... and his third year, he had a QB rating of 95.6 for the year. It was even better last year, 110+... but he saw very limited action.

You can't count his pass rating last year. He played what 18 plays. That's ridiculous, if he had a QB rating of 30, you would be saying just the opposite (agrreing with me now that he had too few plays to judge). If he had 95.6 that was the worst 95.6 year a QB ever had. Ha has one more chance by my estimates and if he fails there is not a whole lot that can be said for him. He has been given every opportunity to win this job and can't do it. Not by my standards but by his coach's standards.

All I have to go by is the time he was on the field... those are the numbers he put up after his 2-year developmental period, which is a time frame you provided.

I'm simply going by the numbers. You can ignore his stats last year because they don't agree with your opinion, but those are the numbers he put up.

And having a 95.6 year and winning the division is bad? Huh, guess I see why we disagree on opinions now. I bet if Shank had caught that TD in the... nevermind, it's not worth it.

Just the facts.

I am not ignoring facts. I am stating that there isn't enough data to prove if he improved or not. If a 2nd string QB comes in for one play at the end of the game and throws a hail mary for a TD his QB rating would be 140. Is he HOF material? Does that show his improvement at reading defenses, NO. I am saying last year does not show how TJ improved. As for the 95.6 rating he did not impress me with any games I saw that year. If his third year was so great why did the coach LOOK FOR A REPLACEMENT!! Obviously the Chiller not me felt he was not good enough. If I am so offbase why isn't your guy our starter, that is a big question that statistics can't sweep away.

If ifs and buts were candy & nuts every day would be Christmas!! And if we did not get that penalty in the CG we would have most likely won the SB. So that Shank thing is a mute point. The catch didn't happen that is life get over it.
Couple of thoughts on the Sage/Noodle inclusion on the roster last year.

1. Sage. I don't care what anyone tries to throw out there. There is no way he was ever gonna be the number 1 QB on this roster.

Sage is and has always been Ricky Boys boy. We needed a viable backup who could also come in and start if necessary. Enter Sage.

2. The Noodle. Even if the Chiller was 100% convinced he could win with TJ, if a HOF QB falls into your lap, that youngster is gonna take a back seat, especially if the owner wants to sell tickets.

I believe (TJ alluded to some of that in his comments on Sirius yesterday) they were just as ready last year to run TJ out there (contract or not for the Chiller) until the Noodle became available, which by the way, I think the staff knew was going to happen. Except Spielman of course.

He thought he found a job for Sage.

I don't buy it is Spielman's boy. I think he had a great chance to start, and TJ scares the hell out of Chiller. He has all the tools but plays like one more than he would like.

Favre did not fall into his lap, I am sure Chilly worked hard to make it happen. And Favre & Sage aside they have been looking for FA QBs since his second year. After he started his third year they were looking, if he started why go back if he has the potential? Once you have him in there you try to continue with a project IF HE IS IMPROVING! you don't yank him for a one or two year fix (even if it was Favre). Why do you think GB wouldn't take Favre back. a future starter for ten years or one or two more years of greatness. Most would do what GB did, and I would have done the same if I thought I had a talented youngster who could start for me for the next ten to fifteen years. Your theory just doesn't make sense to me.

His comments to run TJ out there doesn't impress me at all. I can't imagine The Chiller telling someone I think TJ is a terd but that is all we got so I am going to trot him out. Of course he is going to say he has faith in him. Actions speak louder than words. What he said may sound like he has faith but every chance he gets he is looking to replace him.
Replace or just find someone to hold the fort down while he got ready?

It has been five years if they go Dnab it is to replace him.
I can agree with that.

C Mac D
05-05-2010, 09:16 AM
Caine wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

Caine wrote:


C (the most awesome) Mac D wrote:So, you fully expected Jackson to come out of college and play like Matt Ryan or Peyton Manning? Is that it? lol... oh Caine.

Again, another obvious attempt by C Mac to distort what was said in order to act like a tool...

Where did I ever say that? Ever? Oh, that's right....I never did.

Talk about cracking people up...

Now go away. The adult are trying to have a conversation.

Caine

So how long do you think it takes to develop a QB?

It takes no more than two years, why? How many years does TJ have in? ;)

Well, if it takes two years to develop him, you can't refer to any plays during those two years as bad plays... he was developing.

So...

How many years has TJ been on the team?

Going into his 5th... and his third year, he had a QB rating of 95.6 for the year. It was even better last year, 110+... but he saw very limited action.

You can't count his pass rating last year. He played what 18 plays. That's ridiculous, if he had a QB rating of 30, you would be saying just the opposite (agrreing with me now that he had too few plays to judge). If he had 95.6 that was the worst 95.6 year a QB ever had. Ha has one more chance by my estimates and if he fails there is not a whole lot that can be said for him. He has been given every opportunity to win this job and can't do it. Not by my standards but by his coach's standards.

All I have to go by is the time he was on the field... those are the numbers he put up after his 2-year developmental period, which is a time frame you provided.

I'm simply going by the numbers. You can ignore his stats last year because they don't agree with your opinion, but those are the numbers he put up.

And having a 95.6 year and winning the division is bad? Huh, guess I see why we disagree on opinions now. I bet if Shank had caught that TD in the... nevermind, it's not worth it.

Just the facts.

lol, TJ didn't win the division, Gus did.

TJ started 0-2, then was benched
Gus's record was 7-3.5 (I say 3.5, as he got hurt in the lions game, then TJ came in and finished off the win
TJ then went 2.5-1

TJ - 2.5-3, .450
Gus - 7-3.5 .667

TJ didn't lead us to anything. He has yet to LEAD anybody to anything yet.

Doe he have skill? Yes, but he's shown he can't use it consistently. I'm willing to give him another shot, but to sit there saying he was responsible for winning the division is rediculous.

He was the QB for the final 3-4 games... plus we only had a one game lead in the division.

Yes, Jackson did win the division for us. Despite what you say.

So he managed to preserve the lead that GUS got for us AFTER he put us in a two game hole....and he won the Division? Only in your world...

As for your previous ridiculous question, the time it takes to develop a QB is entirely speculative. There is no magic number. But in todays "Win Now" NFL, there is a shorter and shorter span of acceptability.

The gripe with Jackson isn't that he wasn't Manning in year Two, it was that he wasn't much better in year 3 as he was in year 1 and 2...despite your "Stats in a vacuum" argument. His improvement was far less profound than the TEAMS improvement. "Reasonable improvement" was looked for, but IMO was not really present...HE didn't do better, the TEAM did.

In fact, with the exception of ONE game, most of his favorable stats occured after Peterson, Taylor, or the Defense had destroyed the other team...Jackson played mop up.

The exception - Arizona. Kid was in a zone that day and everything he touched worked.

Problem is, he hasn't replicated it, nor has he come close.

Then Favre comes in and with virtually the same squad manages to blow the doors off the NFL. That night and day difference sort of highlights what I've been saying...but you and Marrdro can keep ignoring it and keep making up imaginary criteria by which Jackson can be favorably judged...


...stats in a vacuum....sheesh.

Caine

lol... you still never answered my question: How long, in your opinion, does it take to develop a QB?

Oh, and wouldn't it be more apt to blame that Colts loss on Shank? I mean, here's the video.... (http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2008091405/2008/REG2/colts@vikings#tab:watch) the dropped pass by Shank in the endzone is at 00:57. We lost by 3.

Speaking of living in a vacuum... I choose to look at the TEAM'S FAULTS rather than just attribute it to just one player.

By the way, how long do you think it takes to develop a QB?

Still waiting...

tarkenton10
05-05-2010, 09:19 AM
The other thing about Dnab is they are bringing him for at least three years if they sign him. I don't know many QB prospects that have an EIGHT YEAR PLAN! Things that make you go HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!

Marrdro
05-05-2010, 09:26 AM
tarkenton10 wrote:

The other thing about Dnab is they are bringing him for at least three years if they sign him. I don't know many QB prospects that have an EIGHT YEAR PLAN! Things that make you go HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!
If they bring in Dnabb it doesn't mean the end of TJ as a Viking. It just means we have a viable backup who has a 10 and 10 record as a starter who has proven he can win games coming off the bench.

Not sure why that is a bad thing? Teams do it all the time, i.e. Sorgi.

tarkenton10
05-05-2010, 09:36 AM
Marrdro wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

The other thing about Dnab is they are bringing him for at least three years if they sign him. I don't know many QB prospects that have an EIGHT YEAR PLAN! Things that make you go HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!
If they bring in Dnabb it doesn't mean the end of TJ as a Viking. It just means we have a viable backup who has a 10 and 10 record as a starter who has proven he can win games coming off the bench.

Not sure why that is a bad thing? Teams do it all the time, i.e. Sorgi.

Never said that was a bad thing, just that I have my doubts about TJ and his abilty to start, plain & simple.

I stated in a different thread earlier that I would like to see TJ start if Brett does not come back. I would like to get it over with, does he have it or not.

The only problem with that is the TJ sniffers and there are at least two ;) will find reasons why He failed if he does. The line didn't block for him, the receiver didn't catch the ball (Cmac-Indy- this ones for you), AP wasn't running hard enough. But TJ he is the fishizzle, the coaches just don't like him.

That will be the next phase of this saga; mark my words my friend!

Caine
05-05-2010, 12:31 PM
C Mac D wrote:

Caine wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

Caine wrote:


C (the most awesome) Mac D wrote:So, you fully expected Jackson to come out of college and play like Matt Ryan or Peyton Manning? Is that it? lol... oh Caine.

Again, another obvious attempt by C Mac to distort what was said in order to act like a tool...

Where did I ever say that? Ever? Oh, that's right....I never did.

Talk about cracking people up...

Now go away. The adult are trying to have a conversation.

Caine

So how long do you think it takes to develop a QB?

It takes no more than two years, why? How many years does TJ have in? ;)

Well, if it takes two years to develop him, you can't refer to any plays during those two years as bad plays... he was developing.

So...

How many years has TJ been on the team?

Going into his 5th... and his third year, he had a QB rating of 95.6 for the year. It was even better last year, 110+... but he saw very limited action.

You can't count his pass rating last year. He played what 18 plays. That's ridiculous, if he had a QB rating of 30, you would be saying just the opposite (agrreing with me now that he had too few plays to judge). If he had 95.6 that was the worst 95.6 year a QB ever had. Ha has one more chance by my estimates and if he fails there is not a whole lot that can be said for him. He has been given every opportunity to win this job and can't do it. Not by my standards but by his coach's standards.

All I have to go by is the time he was on the field... those are the numbers he put up after his 2-year developmental period, which is a time frame you provided.

I'm simply going by the numbers. You can ignore his stats last year because they don't agree with your opinion, but those are the numbers he put up.

And having a 95.6 year and winning the division is bad? Huh, guess I see why we disagree on opinions now. I bet if Shank had caught that TD in the... nevermind, it's not worth it.

Just the facts.

lol, TJ didn't win the division, Gus did.

TJ started 0-2, then was benched
Gus's record was 7-3.5 (I say 3.5, as he got hurt in the lions game, then TJ came in and finished off the win
TJ then went 2.5-1

TJ - 2.5-3, .450
Gus - 7-3.5 .667

TJ didn't lead us to anything. He has yet to LEAD anybody to anything yet.

Doe he have skill? Yes, but he's shown he can't use it consistently. I'm willing to give him another shot, but to sit there saying he was responsible for winning the division is rediculous.

He was the QB for the final 3-4 games... plus we only had a one game lead in the division.

Yes, Jackson did win the division for us. Despite what you say.

So he managed to preserve the lead that GUS got for us AFTER he put us in a two game hole....and he won the Division? Only in your world...

As for your previous ridiculous question, the time it takes to develop a QB is entirely speculative. There is no magic number. But in todays "Win Now" NFL, there is a shorter and shorter span of acceptability.

The gripe with Jackson isn't that he wasn't Manning in year Two, it was that he wasn't much better in year 3 as he was in year 1 and 2...despite your "Stats in a vacuum" argument. His improvement was far less profound than the TEAMS improvement. "Reasonable improvement" was looked for, but IMO was not really present...HE didn't do better, the TEAM did.

In fact, with the exception of ONE game, most of his favorable stats occured after Peterson, Taylor, or the Defense had destroyed the other team...Jackson played mop up.

The exception - Arizona. Kid was in a zone that day and everything he touched worked.

Problem is, he hasn't replicated it, nor has he come close.

Then Favre comes in and with virtually the same squad manages to blow the doors off the NFL. That night and day difference sort of highlights what I've been saying...but you and Marrdro can keep ignoring it and keep making up imaginary criteria by which Jackson can be favorably judged...


...stats in a vacuum....sheesh.

Caine

lol... you still never answered my question: How long, in your opinion, does it take to develop a QB?

Oh, and wouldn't it be more apt to blame that Colts loss on Shank? I mean, here's the video.... (http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2008091405/2008/REG2/colts@vikings#tab:watch) the dropped pass by Shank in the endzone is at 00:57. We lost by 3.

Speaking of living in a vacuum... I choose to look at the TEAM'S FAULTS rather than just attribute it to just one player.

By the way, how long do you think it takes to develop a QB?

Still waiting...

Boy, you really don't read entire posts, do you?

I've already stated above, there is no magic number. That would be the "answer" to your unanswerable question. Some QB's are instantly ready, some not. A 2-3 year window is typical, and if consistant elevated performance is not manifested, teams start looking. Jackson had that...and his performace was neither consistant nor elevated.

Caine

Marrdro
05-05-2010, 12:35 PM
tarkenton10 wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

The other thing about Dnab is they are bringing him for at least three years if they sign him. I don't know many QB prospects that have an EIGHT YEAR PLAN! Things that make you go HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!
If they bring in Dnabb it doesn't mean the end of TJ as a Viking. It just means we have a viable backup who has a 10 and 10 record as a starter who has proven he can win games coming off the bench.

Not sure why that is a bad thing? Teams do it all the time, i.e. Sorgi.

Never said that was a bad thing, just that I have my doubts about TJ and his abilty to start, plain & simple.

I stated in a different thread earlier that I would like to see TJ start if Brett does not come back. I would like to get it over with, does he have it or not.

The only problem with that is the TJ sniffers and there are at least two ;) will find reasons why He failed if he does. The line didn't block for him, the receiver didn't catch the ball (Cmac-Indy- this ones for you), AP wasn't running hard enough. But TJ he is the fishizzle, the coaches just don't like him.

That will be the next phase of this saga; mark my words my friend!
Not me. I've thrown him under the bus atleast 3 times already. If he doesn't play up to snuff, I will do it again.

C Mac D
05-05-2010, 12:37 PM
Caine wrote:

Boy, you really don't read entire posts, do you?

I've already stated above, there is no magic number. That would be the "answer" to your unanswerable question. Some QB's are instantly ready, some not. A 2-3 year window is typical, and if consistant elevated performance is not manifested, teams start looking. Jackson had that...and his performace was neither consistant nor elevated.

Caine
So... what your saying is that you are using stats from his developmental period (2-3 years... you're words) to argue against him? lol...

Seems sort of close-minded and myopic... oh right, forgot who I was talking to.

And yes... it was elevated. I have a graph to prove it.

Marrdro
05-05-2010, 12:44 PM
C Mac D wrote:

Caine wrote:

Boy, you really don't read entire posts, do you?

I've already stated above, there is no magic number. That would be the "answer" to your unanswerable question. Some QB's are instantly ready, some not. A 2-3 year window is typical, and if consistant elevated performance is not manifested, teams start looking. Jackson had that...and his performace was neither consistant nor elevated.

Caine
So... what your saying is that you are using stats from his developmental period (2-3 years... you're words) to argue against him? lol...

Seems sort of close-minded and myopic... oh right, forgot who I was talking to.

And yes... it was elevated. I have a graph to prove it.
I wish my spreadsheets were as popular as your graphs. :silly:

tarkenton10
05-05-2010, 01:55 PM
C Mac D wrote:

Caine wrote:

Boy, you really don't read entire posts, do you?

I've already stated above, there is no magic number. That would be the "answer" to your unanswerable question. Some QB's are instantly ready, some not. A 2-3 year window is typical, and if consistant elevated performance is not manifested, teams start looking. Jackson had that...and his performace was neither consistant nor elevated.

Caine
So... what your saying is that you are using stats from his developmental period (2-3 years... you're words) to argue against him? lol...

Seems sort of close-minded and myopic... oh right, forgot who I was talking to.

And yes... it was elevated. I have a graph to prove it.

This post is where you lose people. You give your side and now someone who does not agree with you is now CLOSEMINDED & MYOPIC. No need for that when discussing this already worn out record. Many people could say some adjectives to describe you, maybe sutbborn, shortsighted, prideful, etc. Those all could be said of someone who is constantly trying to say TJ is the best QB we have when many have seen him play and have a different opinion. So I suggest you stay to the facts and try not to inject your opinion of someone. Remember when you point a finger at someone you have three pointing back at you!!

C Mac D
05-05-2010, 02:48 PM
tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

Caine wrote:

Boy, you really don't read entire posts, do you?

I've already stated above, there is no magic number. That would be the "answer" to your unanswerable question. Some QB's are instantly ready, some not. A 2-3 year window is typical, and if consistant elevated performance is not manifested, teams start looking. Jackson had that...and his performace was neither consistant nor elevated.

Caine
So... what your saying is that you are using stats from his developmental period (2-3 years... you're words) to argue against him? lol...

Seems sort of close-minded and myopic... oh right, forgot who I was talking to.

And yes... it was elevated. I have a graph to prove it.

This post is where you lose people. You give your side and now someone who does not agree with you is now CLOSEMINDED & MYOPIC. No need for that when discussing this already worn out record. Many people could say some adjectives to describe you, maybe sutbborn, shortsighted, prideful, etc. Those all could be said of someone who is constantly trying to say TJ is the best QB we have when many have seen him play and have a different opinion. So I suggest you stay to the facts and try not to inject your opinion of someone. Remember when you point a finger at someone you have three pointing back at you!!

lol... so you think it's perfectly logical to say it takes 2-3 years to develop an NFL ready QB... but then point to his first 2.5 years of playing time to criticize? And I'm in the wrong?

Anyone with common sense can see how myopic that is.

Oh, and I'm not sure you understand what those adjectives you listed even mean.

Short-sighted: Yet I choose to give Jackson another chance because I've seen his progress during his time with the Vikings? lol, Interesting.

Stubborn: Probably. But it's tough being a intelligent individual on an internet football forum.

Prideful: Absolutely. It's because I'm smart, intelligent, handsome, talented and awesome.

i_bleed_purple
05-05-2010, 02:53 PM
C Mac D wrote:

But it's tough being a intelligent individual on an internet football forum.

We know, and we're glad that you try :)

i_bleed_purple
05-05-2010, 02:54 PM
C Mac D wrote:



Prideful: Absolutely. It's because I'm smart, intelligent, handsome, talented and awesome.

You forgot humble.

C Mac D
05-05-2010, 03:02 PM
i_bleed_purple wrote:

C Mac D wrote:



Prideful: Absolutely. It's because I'm smart, intelligent, handsome, talented and awesome.

You forgot humble.

Oh, and endowed.

i_bleed_purple
05-05-2010, 03:44 PM
C Mac D wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

C Mac D wrote:



Prideful: Absolutely. It's because I'm smart, intelligent, handsome, talented and awesome.

You forgot humble.

Oh, and endowed.

poorly endowed?

C Mac D
05-05-2010, 04:07 PM
i_bleed_purple wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

C Mac D wrote:



Prideful: Absolutely. It's because I'm smart, intelligent, handsome, talented and awesome.

You forgot humble.

Oh, and endowed.

poorly endowed?

Depends on the grading scale.

Caine
05-05-2010, 04:22 PM
C Mac D wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

Caine wrote:

Boy, you really don't read entire posts, do you?

I've already stated above, there is no magic number. That would be the "answer" to your unanswerable question. Some QB's are instantly ready, some not. A 2-3 year window is typical, and if consistant elevated performance is not manifested, teams start looking. Jackson had that...and his performace was neither consistant nor elevated.

Caine
So... what your saying is that you are using stats from his developmental period (2-3 years... you're words) to argue against him? lol...

Seems sort of close-minded and myopic... oh right, forgot who I was talking to.

And yes... it was elevated. I have a graph to prove it.

This post is where you lose people. You give your side and now someone who does not agree with you is now CLOSEMINDED & MYOPIC. No need for that when discussing this already worn out record. Many people could say some adjectives to describe you, maybe sutbborn, shortsighted, prideful, etc. Those all could be said of someone who is constantly trying to say TJ is the best QB we have when many have seen him play and have a different opinion. So I suggest you stay to the facts and try not to inject your opinion of someone. Remember when you point a finger at someone you have three pointing back at you!!

lol... so you think it's perfectly logical to say it takes 2-3 years to develop an NFL ready QB... but then point to his first 2.5 years of playing time to criticize? And I'm in the wrong?

Anyone with common sense can see how myopic that is.

Oh, and I'm not sure you understand what those adjectives you listed even mean.

Short-sighted: Yet I choose to give Jackson another chance because I've seen his progress during his time with the Vikings? lol, Interesting.

Stubborn: Probably. But it's tough being a intelligent individual on an internet football forum.

Prideful: Absolutely. It's because I'm smart, intelligent, handsome, talented and awesome.

And what, exactly, is the purpose of the 2-3 year guideline? Are you under the mistaken impression that nothing counts UNTIL that point in time? How pleasant that would be for your point of view...but how woefully inaccurate for the real world.

The 2-3 year window is an arbitrary number - as stated repeatedly before, and repeatedly ignored by you. During that developmental period of time, the player is CONSTANTLY being evaluated and critiqued. And, if sufficient progress is not evidenced, the player is replaced.

Except, of course, in the Cranial-rectally intrusive world of C Mac D. In THIS world it seems, the player is wrapped in a protective cocoon of "development" or "project", and is only released for scrutiny after the magic window has elapsed.

At that time, of course, the litany of excuses flow from the handful of "believers" in a never ending torrent of moronic blather that seeks to obfuscate the relevant facts of the issue at hand, and repace them with subjective "truisms" that can neither be proven nor unproven...all in an effort to discredit anyone who might actually have a factual basis for thier opinions, and instead promote an envoroment where it is acceptable to push opinion as fact...so long as it's C Mac's opinion.

Sadly, whenever you post, I hear the sound of the small dag barking wildly from behind the safety of a screen door. All noise, and no substance.

Caine

i_bleed_purple
05-05-2010, 04:30 PM
At that time, of course, the litany of excuses flow from the handful of "believers" in a never ending torrent of moronic blather that seeks to obfuscate the relevant facts of the issue at hand, and repace them with subjective "truisms" that can neither be proven nor unproven...

lol... sentence of the hour right there

C Mac D
05-05-2010, 05:03 PM
Caine wrote:

Except, of course, in the Cranial-rectally intrusive world of C Mac D. In THIS world it seems, the player is wrapped in a protective cocoon of "development" or "project", and is only released for scrutiny after the magic window has elapsed.


lol... Caine, buddy. He was drafted as a project.

Honestly, sometimes I wonder why I take the time to try to explain the logic behind grooming a QB... it's lost on the fickle and uneducated though.

C Mac D
05-05-2010, 05:09 PM
i_bleed_purple wrote:


At that time, of course, the litany of excuses flow from the handful of "believers" in a never ending torrent of moronic blather that seeks to obfuscate the relevant facts of the issue at hand, and repace them with subjective "truisms" that can neither be proven nor unproven...

lol... sentence of the hour right there

Even funnier that he says it takes 2-3 years to develop a NFL QB, yet tears Jackson apart for his play his second and third year? Despite playing better than any other QB drafted in his class? Despite finishing 2008 with a 95+ QB rating? Despite helping us get to the playoffs?

I see promise in Jackson, Caine doesn't. His hatred for Jackson flows beyond football though, I'm sure of it.

Not really concerned if Caine sees the idiocy in that or not... I assume most rational people do though.

slavinator
05-05-2010, 05:28 PM
Just to throw a little gasoline on this topic, Romo sat for 4 years before they put him in the mix........

The fact is we haven't had a franchise QB since Dante, and before that I guess you would have to say 2 beer Tommy, or Fran Tarkenton. We need to address the position but as stated before; given current available need/value at the position and the level of competition on team as well as in the league they needed to wait and not make a knee jerk reaction and reach for a guy. That is what they have done so often in the past, and it has failed miserably.

This regime whether any of us like or not has CHANGED the team, and how we approach our roster. While we did go out again and get an aging QB with some gas left in the tank, they are waiting for a guy (TJ or Otherwise) to give them a flash or a spark on the practice field or on film and then IMO we will get a new QB. Until then the plan will be: PLAY D, RUN the Ball, Keep Gpa Favre upright, and Dont F it up in Special teams area.

Again I do NOT believe TJ is the answer as the starter moving forward but I could be wrong.

What matters to me is that the Vikings are finally running a real top notch organization, not just trying to 'get by' as we did in the McCombs days.

i_bleed_purple
05-05-2010, 05:32 PM
slavinator wrote:

Just to throw a little gasoline on this topic, Romo sat for 4 years before they put him in the mix........

The fact is we haven't had a franchise QB since Dante, and before that I guess you would have to say 2 beer Tommy, or Fran Tarkenton. We need to address the position but as stated before; given current available need/value at the position and the level of competition on team as well as in the league they needed to wait and not make a knee jerk reaction and reach for a guy. That is what they have done so often in the past, and it has failed miserably.
Please enlighten me, when was the last time we made a knee jerk reaction and reached for a guy prior to Tarvaris?

I can count on one hand all the 1st, second and third round quarterbacks we've EVER drafted.



This regime whether any of us like or not has CHANGED the team, and how we approach our roster. While we did go out again and get an aging QB with some gas left in the tank, they are waiting for a guy (TJ or Otherwise) to give them a flash or a spark on the practice field or on film and then IMO we will get a new QB. Until then the plan will be: PLAY D, RUN the Ball, Keep Gpa Favre upright, and Dont F it up in Special teams area.
Odd, our gameplan last season was run, pass, pass more, play tolerable D at times, until it really matters, then pass some more.

i_bleed_purple
05-05-2010, 05:40 PM
I heard a very interesting quote from Bill Walsh, went something like this:

'When we were leading the league in passing, we were often also leading the league in scoring. When we led the league in rushing, we were 12th in scoring'

What does that tell you? That was back in the 90's as well, the game has evolved since then even to be even more passing oriented.

Chilly's initial philosophy, Run the ball and stop the run doesn't really work in todays day and age.

Looking over the past bunch of Superbowl winners since 2000

Ravens*, Patriots, Bucs, Patriots, Patriots, Steelers*, Colts, Giants, Steelers, Saints

only two of those teams were 'run and stop the run' philosophies. The rest of them won with balanced or heavy passing offenses.

The top three quarterbacks in the league have combined for five superbowls already.

another popular cliche is 'defense wins championships', which is true, but more importantly quarterbacks win championships.

sometimes if your D is truly good enough, and I mean some of the best ever, or at least best in the league (Bears, Steelers, Patriots), you can carry a young or mediocre QB. HOwever, Once Brady matured more, he was leading that team, and their steller defense just sealed the deal. Manning manges to win without a Defense, Brad johnson was still pretty decent in Tampa, and Eli & the Giants O had their way with the Pats.

ejmat
05-05-2010, 05:47 PM
C Mac D wrote:

Caine wrote:

Boy, you really don't read entire posts, do you?

I've already stated above, there is no magic number. That would be the "answer" to your unanswerable question. Some QB's are instantly ready, some not. A 2-3 year window is typical, and if consistant elevated performance is not manifested, teams start looking. Jackson had that...and his performace was neither consistant nor elevated.

Caine
So... what your saying is that you are using stats from his developmental period (2-3 years... you're words) to argue against him? lol...

Seems sort of close-minded and myopic... oh right, forgot who I was talking to.

And yes... it was elevated. I have a graph to prove it.

NOOOOO! PLEASE! Not the graphs! For the love of all that is holy please don't post the graphs again.

slavinator
05-05-2010, 06:38 PM
i_bleed_purple wrote:

slavinator wrote:

Just to throw a little gasoline on this topic, Romo sat for 4 years before they put him in the mix........

The fact is we haven't had a franchise QB since Dante, and before that I guess you would have to say 2 beer Tommy, or Fran Tarkenton. We need to address the position but as stated before; given current available need/value at the position and the level of competition on team as well as in the league they needed to wait and not make a knee jerk reaction and reach for a guy. That is what they have done so often in the past, and it has failed miserably.
Please enlighten me, when was the last time we made a knee jerk reaction and reached for a guy prior to Tarvaris?

I can count on one hand all the 1st, second and third round quarterbacks we've EVER drafted.

WE may not have reached via the draft for a QB per se, but we have certainly reached in the Veteran FA department. (Moon,Fiedler,Brister, Holcomb, Bollinger, Frerrote, Brad Johnson x2)


This regime whether any of us like or not has CHANGED the team, and how we approach our roster. While we did go out again and get an aging QB with some gas left in the tank, they are waiting for a guy (TJ or Otherwise) to give them a flash or a spark on the practice field or on film and then IMO we will get a new QB. Until then the plan will be: PLAY D, RUN the Ball, Keep Gpa Favre upright, and Dont F it up in Special teams area.
Odd, our gameplan last season was run, pass, pass more, play tolerable D at times, until it really matters, then pass some more.

But our offense was significantly better because of the QB we have. Without that we go back to the hand it off 2x, then do a TJ roll out pass with a one receiver route. Not exactly the same as having the diverse attack we have with Favre.

My sole point is that Favre has made a huge difference in this offense. We need to find a guy who fits the WCO like Favre, McNabb etc or a college kid who plays in a similar system in order to be successful. Until then we will have the QB by platoon as a long term plan.

All I am saying is we need to find the 'right' guy.

slavinator
05-05-2010, 06:43 PM
slavinator wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

slavinator wrote:

Just to throw a little gasoline on this topic, Romo sat for 4 years before they put him in the mix........

The fact is we haven't had a franchise QB since Dante, and before that I guess you would have to say 2 beer Tommy, or Fran Tarkenton. We need to address the position but as stated before; given current available need/value at the position and the level of competition on team as well as in the league they needed to wait and not make a knee jerk reaction and reach for a guy. That is what they have done so often in the past, and it has failed miserably.
Please enlighten me, when was the last time we made a knee jerk reaction and reached for a guy prior to Tarvaris?

I can count on one hand all the 1st, second and third round quarterbacks we've EVER drafted.

WE may not have reached via the draft for a QB per se, but we have certainly reached in the Veteran FA department. (Moon,Fiedler,Brister, Holcomb, Bollinger, Frerrote, Brad Johnson x2)


This regime whether any of us like or not has CHANGED the team, and how we approach our roster. While we did go out again and get an aging QB with some gas left in the tank, they are waiting for a guy (TJ or Otherwise) to give them a flash or a spark on the practice field or on film and then IMO we will get a new QB. Until then the plan will be: PLAY D, RUN the Ball, Keep Gpa Favre upright, and Dont F it up in Special teams area.
Odd, our gameplan last season was run, pass, pass more, play tolerable D at times, until it really matters, then pass some more.

But our offense was significantly better because of the QB we have. Without that we go back to the hand it off 2x, then do a TJ roll out pass with a one receiver route. Not exactly the same as having the diverse attack we have with Favre.

My sole point is that Favre has made a huge difference in this offense. We need to find a guy who fits the WCO like Favre, McNabb etc or a college kid who plays in a similar system in order to be successful. Until then we will have the QB by platoon as a long term plan.

All I am saying is we need to find the 'right' guy.

PS I apologize for the Bold type

Caine
05-05-2010, 07:10 PM
C Mac D wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:


At that time, of course, the litany of excuses flow from the handful of "believers" in a never ending torrent of moronic blather that seeks to obfuscate the relevant facts of the issue at hand, and repace them with subjective "truisms" that can neither be proven nor unproven...

lol... sentence of the hour right there

Even funnier that he says it takes 2-3 years to develop a NFL QB, yet tears Jackson apart for his play his second and third year? Despite playing better than any other QB drafted in his class? Despite finishing 2008 with a 95+ QB rating? Despite helping us get to the playoffs?

I see promise in Jackson, Caine doesn't. His hatred for Jackson flows beyond football though, I'm sure of it.

Not really concerned if Caine sees the idiocy in that or not... I assume most rational people do though.

I don't know why you insist on attributing feelings or statements to me that I don't have or haven't made...I suppose it's all a part of your "Grand Illusion" that you require to maintain the notion that you have ever had anything credible to add to any conversation anywhere...

1: I don't hate Jackson - never have. I simply have not seen sufficient IMPROVEMENT (there's that critical term you keep ignoring) to warrant a continuation of the notion taht he is starter-ready. That is no more hatred than someone claiming that Fred Smoot was not an effective cornerback here...it's an observation.

2: The idiocy lies in the fact that you continually and consistantly ignore every fact or point that doesn't fall in line with your own hyperinflated opinion. You don't refute them, or debate them...you simply ignore them, then you claim victory based on the notion that no one has a keener grasp on the situation than you.

3: If it takes 2-3 years - a subjective notion at best (Another point you've ignored) - then the player is judged on a continuous basis during the entire process. Something else you've ignored. He doesn't emerge after 2-3 years and THEN the judging begins...that would be moronic in the extreme...much like most of your opinions.

Caine

Marrdro
05-06-2010, 07:00 AM
C Mac D wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:


At that time, of course, the litany of excuses flow from the handful of "believers" in a never ending torrent of moronic blather that seeks to obfuscate the relevant facts of the issue at hand, and repace them with subjective "truisms" that can neither be proven nor unproven...

lol... sentence of the hour right there

Even funnier that he says it takes 2-3 years to develop a NFL QB, yet tears Jackson apart for his play his second and third year? Despite playing better than any other QB drafted in his class? Despite finishing 2008 with a 95+ QB rating? Despite helping us get to the playoffs?

I see promise in Jackson, Caine doesn't. His hatred for Jackson flows beyond football though, I'm sure of it.

Not really concerned if Caine sees the idiocy in that or not... I assume most rational people do though.
Don't ya just get mad at guys who seem to single out one player or two and just hack on him for no obvious reason? :blink:

Marrdro
05-06-2010, 07:02 AM
i_bleed_purple wrote:

I heard a very interesting quote from Bill Walsh, went something like this:

'When we were leading the league in passing, we were often also leading the league in scoring. When we led the league in rushing, we were 12th in scoring'

What does that tell you? That was back in the 90's as well, the game has evolved since then even to be even more passing oriented.

Chilly's initial philosophy, Run the ball and stop the run doesn't really work in todays day and age.

Looking over the past bunch of Superbowl winners since 2000

Ravens*, Patriots, Bucs, Patriots, Patriots, Steelers*, Colts, Giants, Steelers, Saints

only two of those teams were 'run and stop the run' philosophies. The rest of them won with balanced or heavy passing offenses.

The top three quarterbacks in the league have combined for five superbowls already.

another popular cliche is 'defense wins championships', which is true, but more importantly quarterbacks win championships.

sometimes if your D is truly good enough, and I mean some of the best ever, or at least best in the league (Bears, Steelers, Patriots), you can carry a young or mediocre QB. HOwever, Once Brady matured more, he was leading that team, and their steller defense just sealed the deal. Manning manges to win without a Defense, Brad johnson was still pretty decent in Tampa, and Eli & the Giants O had their way with the Pats.
I know how we can finance the stadium.......Get rid of the defense and all the other players. We just need a QB. :lol:

tarkenton10
05-06-2010, 07:28 AM
i_bleed_purple wrote:

I heard a very interesting quote from Bill Walsh, went something like this:

'When we were leading the league in passing, we were often also leading the league in scoring. When we led the league in rushing, we were 12th in scoring'

What does that tell you? That was back in the 90's as well, the game has evolved since then even to be even more passing oriented.

Chilly's initial philosophy, Run the ball and stop the run doesn't really work in todays day and age.

Looking over the past bunch of Superbowl winners since 2000

Ravens*, Patriots, Bucs, Patriots, Patriots, Steelers*, Colts, Giants, Steelers, Saints

only two of those teams were 'run and stop the run' philosophies. The rest of them won with balanced or heavy passing offenses.

The top three quarterbacks in the league have combined for five superbowls already.

another popular cliche is 'defense wins championships', which is true, but more importantly quarterbacks win championships.

sometimes if your D is truly good enough, and I mean some of the best ever, or at least best in the league (Bears, Steelers, Patriots), you can carry a young or mediocre QB. HOwever, Once Brady matured more, he was leading that team, and their steller defense just sealed the deal. Manning manges to win without a Defense, Brad johnson was still pretty decent in Tampa, and Eli & the Giants O had their way with the Pats.

The trouble is we don't have a Brady if Favre retires. You have to use your talent to the best of THEIR ability. Our best players led us to a running game. Now we have drafted Rice, Harvin and traded for Shank but we still do not have a Fanchise QB without Favre. That's like having a ferrarri in your driveway but no keys. Franchise QBs are not easy to find; there are only a few in the league. If we lose Favre we will again be run heavy when gameplanning mark my words my friend (Marrdrroeze)

Marrdro
05-06-2010, 07:39 AM
tarkenton10 wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

I heard a very interesting quote from Bill Walsh, went something like this:

'When we were leading the league in passing, we were often also leading the league in scoring. When we led the league in rushing, we were 12th in scoring'

What does that tell you? That was back in the 90's as well, the game has evolved since then even to be even more passing oriented.

Chilly's initial philosophy, Run the ball and stop the run doesn't really work in todays day and age.

Looking over the past bunch of Superbowl winners since 2000

Ravens*, Patriots, Bucs, Patriots, Patriots, Steelers*, Colts, Giants, Steelers, Saints

only two of those teams were 'run and stop the run' philosophies. The rest of them won with balanced or heavy passing offenses.

The top three quarterbacks in the league have combined for five superbowls already.

another popular cliche is 'defense wins championships', which is true, but more importantly quarterbacks win championships.

sometimes if your D is truly good enough, and I mean some of the best ever, or at least best in the league (Bears, Steelers, Patriots), you can carry a young or mediocre QB. HOwever, Once Brady matured more, he was leading that team, and their steller defense just sealed the deal. Manning manges to win without a Defense, Brad johnson was still pretty decent in Tampa, and Eli & the Giants O had their way with the Pats.

The trouble is we don't have a Brady if Favre retires. You have to use your talent to the best of THEIR ability. Our best players led us to a running game. Now we have drafted Rice, Harvin and traded for Shank but we still do not have a Fanchise QB without Favre. That's like having a ferrarri in your driveway but no keys. Franchise QBs are not easy to find; there are only a few in the league. If we lose Favre we will again be run heavy when gameplanning mark my words my friend (Marrdrroeze)
Good stuff my friend (tarkenton10eze), just one comment/discussion point.

As you said, we should use our talent to the best of THIER ability. Isn't most of our talent on this team geared to support the running game?

Even our WR's are lauded as the top of the class when it comes to downfield blocking. Our best TE is a true "Inline" TE who can run block just as well as he can catch passes. Our OL is taught the ZBing scheme which is geared to exploit the run game. We just drafted arguably the biggest, baddest RB in this year draft class. We are gonna convert a BIG QB into a BIG WR. Our T's are behemouths. Heck, we don't even use our FB as a offensive weapon, just as a lead blocker.......Etc etc etc.

Was it fun to watch the Noodle slinging it all over the field? Sure, but it is also just as fun watching AD shove it down peoples throat Sunday after Sunday.

When TJ (or any other QB) takes over this team, it will revert back to a run on first down, run on second down, dink dunk on 3rd if you don't think you can get the first by running.

tarkenton10
05-06-2010, 07:44 AM
Marrdro wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

I heard a very interesting quote from Bill Walsh, went something like this:

'When we were leading the league in passing, we were often also leading the league in scoring. When we led the league in rushing, we were 12th in scoring'

What does that tell you? That was back in the 90's as well, the game has evolved since then even to be even more passing oriented.

Chilly's initial philosophy, Run the ball and stop the run doesn't really work in todays day and age.

Looking over the past bunch of Superbowl winners since 2000

Ravens*, Patriots, Bucs, Patriots, Patriots, Steelers*, Colts, Giants, Steelers, Saints

only two of those teams were 'run and stop the run' philosophies. The rest of them won with balanced or heavy passing offenses.

The top three quarterbacks in the league have combined for five superbowls already.

another popular cliche is 'defense wins championships', which is true, but more importantly quarterbacks win championships.

sometimes if your D is truly good enough, and I mean some of the best ever, or at least best in the league (Bears, Steelers, Patriots), you can carry a young or mediocre QB. HOwever, Once Brady matured more, he was leading that team, and their steller defense just sealed the deal. Manning manges to win without a Defense, Brad johnson was still pretty decent in Tampa, and Eli & the Giants O had their way with the Pats.

The trouble is we don't have a Brady if Favre retires. You have to use your talent to the best of THEIR ability. Our best players led us to a running game. Now we have drafted Rice, Harvin and traded for Shank but we still do not have a Fanchise QB without Favre. That's like having a ferrarri in your driveway but no keys. Franchise QBs are not easy to find; there are only a few in the league. If we lose Favre we will again be run heavy when gameplanning mark my words my friend (Marrdrroeze)
Good stuff my friend (tarkenton10eze), just one comment/discussion point.

As you said, we should use our talent to the best of THIER ability. Isn't most of our talent on this team geared to support the running game?

Even our WR's are lauded as the top of the class when it comes to downfield blocking. Our best TE is a true "Inline" TE who can run block just as well as he can catch passes. Our OL is taught the ZBing scheme which is geared to exploit the run game. We just drafted arguably the biggest, baddest RB in this year draft class. We are gonna convert a BIG QB into a BIG WR. Our T's are behemouths. Heck, we don't even use our FB as a offensive weapon, just as a lead blocker.......Etc etc etc.

Was it fun to watch the Noodle slinging it all over the field? Sure, but it is also just as fun watching AD shove it down peoples throat Sunday after Sunday.

When TJ (or any other QB) takes over this team, it will revert back to a run on first down, run on second down, dink dunk on 3rd if you don't think you can get the first by running.

I agree we are built for the run but have gotten significantly better weapons for the passing game and with the right QB could be a very balanced and scary team.

Good post my friend!

Marrdro
05-06-2010, 07:55 AM
tarkenton10 wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

I heard a very interesting quote from Bill Walsh, went something like this:

'When we were leading the league in passing, we were often also leading the league in scoring. When we led the league in rushing, we were 12th in scoring'

What does that tell you? That was back in the 90's as well, the game has evolved since then even to be even more passing oriented.

Chilly's initial philosophy, Run the ball and stop the run doesn't really work in todays day and age.

Looking over the past bunch of Superbowl winners since 2000

Ravens*, Patriots, Bucs, Patriots, Patriots, Steelers*, Colts, Giants, Steelers, Saints

only two of those teams were 'run and stop the run' philosophies. The rest of them won with balanced or heavy passing offenses.

The top three quarterbacks in the league have combined for five superbowls already.

another popular cliche is 'defense wins championships', which is true, but more importantly quarterbacks win championships.

sometimes if your D is truly good enough, and I mean some of the best ever, or at least best in the league (Bears, Steelers, Patriots), you can carry a young or mediocre QB. HOwever, Once Brady matured more, he was leading that team, and their steller defense just sealed the deal. Manning manges to win without a Defense, Brad johnson was still pretty decent in Tampa, and Eli & the Giants O had their way with the Pats.

The trouble is we don't have a Brady if Favre retires. You have to use your talent to the best of THEIR ability. Our best players led us to a running game. Now we have drafted Rice, Harvin and traded for Shank but we still do not have a Fanchise QB without Favre. That's like having a ferrarri in your driveway but no keys. Franchise QBs are not easy to find; there are only a few in the league. If we lose Favre we will again be run heavy when gameplanning mark my words my friend (Marrdrroeze)
Good stuff my friend (tarkenton10eze), just one comment/discussion point.

As you said, we should use our talent to the best of THIER ability. Isn't most of our talent on this team geared to support the running game?

Even our WR's are lauded as the top of the class when it comes to downfield blocking. Our best TE is a true "Inline" TE who can run block just as well as he can catch passes. Our OL is taught the ZBing scheme which is geared to exploit the run game. We just drafted arguably the biggest, baddest RB in this year draft class. We are gonna convert a BIG QB into a BIG WR. Our T's are behemouths. Heck, we don't even use our FB as a offensive weapon, just as a lead blocker.......Etc etc etc.

Was it fun to watch the Noodle slinging it all over the field? Sure, but it is also just as fun watching AD shove it down peoples throat Sunday after Sunday.

When TJ (or any other QB) takes over this team, it will revert back to a run on first down, run on second down, dink dunk on 3rd if you don't think you can get the first by running.

I agree we are built for the run but have gotten significantly better weapons for the passing game and with the right QB could be a very balanced and scary team.

Good post my friend!
Thanks. Even a blind squirrel can find an acorn he he looks long enough.

I know he isn't real popular, but just for one second, put TJ in that offense, especially on a rollout.

Is he gonna run, is he gonna pass, who shadows him etc etc etc.

If, and I know its a big if, we are right and he has matured enough to make the correct decision, this can be a damn scary defense and I'm not talking about long deep passes either. I'm talking about a offense that will dictate to a defense whether that be via the pass or via the run.

tarkenton10
05-06-2010, 08:13 AM
Marrdro wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

I heard a very interesting quote from Bill Walsh, went something like this:

'When we were leading the league in passing, we were often also leading the league in scoring. When we led the league in rushing, we were 12th in scoring'

What does that tell you? That was back in the 90's as well, the game has evolved since then even to be even more passing oriented.

Chilly's initial philosophy, Run the ball and stop the run doesn't really work in todays day and age.

Looking over the past bunch of Superbowl winners since 2000

Ravens*, Patriots, Bucs, Patriots, Patriots, Steelers*, Colts, Giants, Steelers, Saints

only two of those teams were 'run and stop the run' philosophies. The rest of them won with balanced or heavy passing offenses.

The top three quarterbacks in the league have combined for five superbowls already.

another popular cliche is 'defense wins championships', which is true, but more importantly quarterbacks win championships.

sometimes if your D is truly good enough, and I mean some of the best ever, or at least best in the league (Bears, Steelers, Patriots), you can carry a young or mediocre QB. HOwever, Once Brady matured more, he was leading that team, and their steller defense just sealed the deal. Manning manges to win without a Defense, Brad johnson was still pretty decent in Tampa, and Eli & the Giants O had their way with the Pats.

The trouble is we don't have a Brady if Favre retires. You have to use your talent to the best of THEIR ability. Our best players led us to a running game. Now we have drafted Rice, Harvin and traded for Shank but we still do not have a Fanchise QB without Favre. That's like having a ferrarri in your driveway but no keys. Franchise QBs are not easy to find; there are only a few in the league. If we lose Favre we will again be run heavy when gameplanning mark my words my friend (Marrdrroeze)
Good stuff my friend (tarkenton10eze), just one comment/discussion point.

As you said, we should use our talent to the best of THIER ability. Isn't most of our talent on this team geared to support the running game?

Even our WR's are lauded as the top of the class when it comes to downfield blocking. Our best TE is a true "Inline" TE who can run block just as well as he can catch passes. Our OL is taught the ZBing scheme which is geared to exploit the run game. We just drafted arguably the biggest, baddest RB in this year draft class. We are gonna convert a BIG QB into a BIG WR. Our T's are behemouths. Heck, we don't even use our FB as a offensive weapon, just as a lead blocker.......Etc etc etc.

Was it fun to watch the Noodle slinging it all over the field? Sure, but it is also just as fun watching AD shove it down peoples throat Sunday after Sunday.

When TJ (or any other QB) takes over this team, it will revert back to a run on first down, run on second down, dink dunk on 3rd if you don't think you can get the first by running.

I agree we are built for the run but have gotten significantly better weapons for the passing game and with the right QB could be a very balanced and scary team.

Good post my friend!
Thanks. Even a blind squirrel can find an acorn he he looks long enough.

I know he isn't real popular, but just for one second, put TJ in that offense, especially on a rollout.

Is he gonna run, is he gonna pass, who shadows him etc etc etc.

If, and I know its a big if, we are right and he has matured enough to make the correct decision, this can be a damn scary defense and I'm not talking about long deep passes either. I'm talking about a offense that will dictate to a defense whether that be via the pass or via the run.

I have said before and will say again if Favre retires I hope TJ starts. I want this over I am so tired of he has matured or he is not starter material I really just want it over one way or the other. My feelings are he will never be a starter but I would like to see him get another chance. But if he plays well the TJ sniffers will be "I told you so" If he fails it will be someone elses fault. I just want it over.

Marrdro
05-06-2010, 08:17 AM
tarkenton10 wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

I heard a very interesting quote from Bill Walsh, went something like this:

'When we were leading the league in passing, we were often also leading the league in scoring. When we led the league in rushing, we were 12th in scoring'

What does that tell you? That was back in the 90's as well, the game has evolved since then even to be even more passing oriented.

Chilly's initial philosophy, Run the ball and stop the run doesn't really work in todays day and age.

Looking over the past bunch of Superbowl winners since 2000

Ravens*, Patriots, Bucs, Patriots, Patriots, Steelers*, Colts, Giants, Steelers, Saints

only two of those teams were 'run and stop the run' philosophies. The rest of them won with balanced or heavy passing offenses.

The top three quarterbacks in the league have combined for five superbowls already.

another popular cliche is 'defense wins championships', which is true, but more importantly quarterbacks win championships.

sometimes if your D is truly good enough, and I mean some of the best ever, or at least best in the league (Bears, Steelers, Patriots), you can carry a young or mediocre QB. HOwever, Once Brady matured more, he was leading that team, and their steller defense just sealed the deal. Manning manges to win without a Defense, Brad johnson was still pretty decent in Tampa, and Eli & the Giants O had their way with the Pats.

The trouble is we don't have a Brady if Favre retires. You have to use your talent to the best of THEIR ability. Our best players led us to a running game. Now we have drafted Rice, Harvin and traded for Shank but we still do not have a Fanchise QB without Favre. That's like having a ferrarri in your driveway but no keys. Franchise QBs are not easy to find; there are only a few in the league. If we lose Favre we will again be run heavy when gameplanning mark my words my friend (Marrdrroeze)
Good stuff my friend (tarkenton10eze), just one comment/discussion point.

As you said, we should use our talent to the best of THIER ability. Isn't most of our talent on this team geared to support the running game?

Even our WR's are lauded as the top of the class when it comes to downfield blocking. Our best TE is a true "Inline" TE who can run block just as well as he can catch passes. Our OL is taught the ZBing scheme which is geared to exploit the run game. We just drafted arguably the biggest, baddest RB in this year draft class. We are gonna convert a BIG QB into a BIG WR. Our T's are behemouths. Heck, we don't even use our FB as a offensive weapon, just as a lead blocker.......Etc etc etc.

Was it fun to watch the Noodle slinging it all over the field? Sure, but it is also just as fun watching AD shove it down peoples throat Sunday after Sunday.

When TJ (or any other QB) takes over this team, it will revert back to a run on first down, run on second down, dink dunk on 3rd if you don't think you can get the first by running.

I agree we are built for the run but have gotten significantly better weapons for the passing game and with the right QB could be a very balanced and scary team.

Good post my friend!
Thanks. Even a blind squirrel can find an acorn he he looks long enough.

I know he isn't real popular, but just for one second, put TJ in that offense, especially on a rollout.

Is he gonna run, is he gonna pass, who shadows him etc etc etc.

If, and I know its a big if, we are right and he has matured enough to make the correct decision, this can be a damn scary defense and I'm not talking about long deep passes either. I'm talking about a offense that will dictate to a defense whether that be via the pass or via the run.

I have said before and will say again if Favre retires I hope TJ starts. I want this over I am so tired of he has matured or he is not starter material I really just want it over one way or the other. My feelings are he will never be a starter but I would like to see him get another chance. But if he plays well the TJ sniffers will be "I told you so" If he fails it will be someone elses fault. I just want it over.
I think you will find that the "I told you so's" will be mostly directed at just a few posters who really took a stance one way or another.

On a side note, even if he does start, and performs well, there will still be times/games were he will struggle regardless of how competent he is.

Those instances will allow for the other side to poke back with a few "I told you so's" of thier own. ;)

Prophet
05-06-2010, 02:21 PM
Marrdro wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

I heard a very interesting quote from Bill Walsh, went something like this:

'When we were leading the league in passing, we were often also leading the league in scoring. When we led the league in rushing, we were 12th in scoring'

What does that tell you? That was back in the 90's as well, the game has evolved since then even to be even more passing oriented.

Chilly's initial philosophy, Run the ball and stop the run doesn't really work in todays day and age.

Looking over the past bunch of Superbowl winners since 2000

Ravens*, Patriots, Bucs, Patriots, Patriots, Steelers*, Colts, Giants, Steelers, Saints

only two of those teams were 'run and stop the run' philosophies. The rest of them won with balanced or heavy passing offenses.

The top three quarterbacks in the league have combined for five superbowls already.

another popular cliche is 'defense wins championships', which is true, but more importantly quarterbacks win championships.

sometimes if your D is truly good enough, and I mean some of the best ever, or at least best in the league (Bears, Steelers, Patriots), you can carry a young or mediocre QB. HOwever, Once Brady matured more, he was leading that team, and their steller defense just sealed the deal. Manning manges to win without a Defense, Brad johnson was still pretty decent in Tampa, and Eli & the Giants O had their way with the Pats.

The trouble is we don't have a Brady if Favre retires. You have to use your talent to the best of THEIR ability. Our best players led us to a running game. Now we have drafted Rice, Harvin and traded for Shank but we still do not have a Fanchise QB without Favre. That's like having a ferrarri in your driveway but no keys. Franchise QBs are not easy to find; there are only a few in the league. If we lose Favre we will again be run heavy when gameplanning mark my words my friend (Marrdrroeze)
Good stuff my friend (tarkenton10eze), just one comment/discussion point.

As you said, we should use our talent to the best of THIER ability. Isn't most of our talent on this team geared to support the running game?

Even our WR's are lauded as the top of the class when it comes to downfield blocking. Our best TE is a true "Inline" TE who can run block just as well as he can catch passes. Our OL is taught the ZBing scheme which is geared to exploit the run game. We just drafted arguably the biggest, baddest RB in this year draft class. We are gonna convert a BIG QB into a BIG WR. Our T's are behemouths. Heck, we don't even use our FB as a offensive weapon, just as a lead blocker.......Etc etc etc.

Was it fun to watch the Noodle slinging it all over the field? Sure, but it is also just as fun watching AD shove it down peoples throat Sunday after Sunday.

When TJ (or any other QB) takes over this team, it will revert back to a run on first down, run on second down, dink dunk on 3rd if you don't think you can get the first by running.

I agree we are built for the run but have gotten significantly better weapons for the passing game and with the right QB could be a very balanced and scary team.

Good post my friend!
Thanks. Even a blind squirrel can find an acorn he he looks long enough.

I know he isn't real popular, but just for one second, put TJ in that offense, especially on a rollout.

Is he gonna run, is he gonna pass, who shadows him etc etc etc.

If, and I know its a big if, we are right and he has matured enough to make the correct decision, this can be a damn scary defense and I'm not talking about long deep passes either. I'm talking about a offense that will dictate to a defense whether that be via the pass or via the run.

I have said before and will say again if Favre retires I hope TJ starts. I want this over I am so tired of he has matured or he is not starter material I really just want it over one way or the other. My feelings are he will never be a starter but I would like to see him get another chance. But if he plays well the TJ sniffers will be "I told you so" If he fails it will be someone elses fault. I just want it over.
I think you will find that the "I told you so's" will be mostly directed at just a few posters who really took a stance one way or another.

On a side note, even if he does start, and performs well, there will still be times/games were he will struggle regardless of how competent he is.

Those instances will allow for the other side to poke back with a few "I told you so's" of thier own. ;)

Which brings the discussion full circle. He will have a few good games and a few horrible games if he plays anything like he has in the past. I don't think anyone wants to see him fail, they just can't say logically if he will fail or if he will succeed until he gets the reigns again and shows us. One thing for sure, there will be people pulling things out of context from previous threads and trying to pin 'i told you sos' no matter what happens.

Caine
05-06-2010, 02:40 PM
Prophet wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

tarkenton10 wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

I heard a very interesting quote from Bill Walsh, went something like this:

'When we were leading the league in passing, we were often also leading the league in scoring. When we led the league in rushing, we were 12th in scoring'

What does that tell you? That was back in the 90's as well, the game has evolved since then even to be even more passing oriented.

Chilly's initial philosophy, Run the ball and stop the run doesn't really work in todays day and age.

Looking over the past bunch of Superbowl winners since 2000

Ravens*, Patriots, Bucs, Patriots, Patriots, Steelers*, Colts, Giants, Steelers, Saints

only two of those teams were 'run and stop the run' philosophies. The rest of them won with balanced or heavy passing offenses.

The top three quarterbacks in the league have combined for five superbowls already.

another popular cliche is 'defense wins championships', which is true, but more importantly quarterbacks win championships.

sometimes if your D is truly good enough, and I mean some of the best ever, or at least best in the league (Bears, Steelers, Patriots), you can carry a young or mediocre QB. HOwever, Once Brady matured more, he was leading that team, and their steller defense just sealed the deal. Manning manges to win without a Defense, Brad johnson was still pretty decent in Tampa, and Eli & the Giants O had their way with the Pats.

The trouble is we don't have a Brady if Favre retires. You have to use your talent to the best of THEIR ability. Our best players led us to a running game. Now we have drafted Rice, Harvin and traded for Shank but we still do not have a Fanchise QB without Favre. That's like having a ferrarri in your driveway but no keys. Franchise QBs are not easy to find; there are only a few in the league. If we lose Favre we will again be run heavy when gameplanning mark my words my friend (Marrdrroeze)
Good stuff my friend (tarkenton10eze), just one comment/discussion point.

As you said, we should use our talent to the best of THIER ability. Isn't most of our talent on this team geared to support the running game?

Even our WR's are lauded as the top of the class when it comes to downfield blocking. Our best TE is a true "Inline" TE who can run block just as well as he can catch passes. Our OL is taught the ZBing scheme which is geared to exploit the run game. We just drafted arguably the biggest, baddest RB in this year draft class. We are gonna convert a BIG QB into a BIG WR. Our T's are behemouths. Heck, we don't even use our FB as a offensive weapon, just as a lead blocker.......Etc etc etc.

Was it fun to watch the Noodle slinging it all over the field? Sure, but it is also just as fun watching AD shove it down peoples throat Sunday after Sunday.

When TJ (or any other QB) takes over this team, it will revert back to a run on first down, run on second down, dink dunk on 3rd if you don't think you can get the first by running.

I agree we are built for the run but have gotten significantly better weapons for the passing game and with the right QB could be a very balanced and scary team.

Good post my friend!
Thanks. Even a blind squirrel can find an acorn he he looks long enough.

I know he isn't real popular, but just for one second, put TJ in that offense, especially on a rollout.

Is he gonna run, is he gonna pass, who shadows him etc etc etc.

If, and I know its a big if, we are right and he has matured enough to make the correct decision, this can be a damn scary defense and I'm not talking about long deep passes either. I'm talking about a offense that will dictate to a defense whether that be via the pass or via the run.

I have said before and will say again if Favre retires I hope TJ starts. I want this over I am so tired of he has matured or he is not starter material I really just want it over one way or the other. My feelings are he will never be a starter but I would like to see him get another chance. But if he plays well the TJ sniffers will be "I told you so" If he fails it will be someone elses fault. I just want it over.
I think you will find that the "I told you so's" will be mostly directed at just a few posters who really took a stance one way or another.

On a side note, even if he does start, and performs well, there will still be times/games were he will struggle regardless of how competent he is.

Those instances will allow for the other side to poke back with a few "I told you so's" of thier own. ;)

Which brings the discussion full circle. He will have a few good games and a few horrible games if he plays anything like he has in the past. I don't think anyone wants to see him fail, they just can't say logically if he will fail or if he will succeed until he gets the reigns again and shows us. One thing for sure, there will be people pulling things out of context from previous threads and trying to pin 'i told you sos' no matter what happens.

You can put me firmly in the "I hope he succeeds, but I don't think he will" category.

Caine