PDA

View Full Version : Brad Johnson



Jeremy
04-21-2006, 10:53 PM
A lot of poeple claim Brad Johnson it a good "game manager". I think this is just there way of pumping him up with some kind of intangabe that can't be proven or verified, just because they really like him. In the NFL the coaches all the plays, other than the ocacational audible. Game management is really a reflection of plays called by the head coach or o-coordinator, not anything the quarterback has done.

With that in mind, there is some "game management" with the way a quarterback throws on 3rd and 4th down. A quarterback's "game management" boils down to how well of a job he does keeping the drive alive and the chains moving when passing on those downs.

For the 2005 season, on third and fourth down Johnson completed 55.6% of his passes. He conveted 29.5% of 3rd and 4th down attempts when passing. The guy flat out can not move the chains when asked to. I think this is why Childress keeps refering to him as the starter "for now".

Many claim that Johnson is a good decision maker and he can read a defense. Good indicators of the ability to make decisions and read defenses is performance on 3rd downs, when blitzed, and in the red zone. On 3rd downs, NFL teams basically know you are passing and the defenses are at their most creative to stop the pass. Performance on blitzes shows the QBs ability to make decisions under pressure and find the open man in a very short time. Performance in the red zone shows what he can do with a short field in critical situations.

IN 2005, Johnson's numbers in those areas were less than impressive.

3rd down - Att 85 Comp 48 Pct 56.5 Yards 505 TD 2 Int 1 (Rating 76.8)
Blitz - Att 108 Comp 59 Yards 657 Pct54.6 TD 3 Int 2 (Rating 74.5)
Red Zone - Att 38 Comp 20 Yards 170 Avg 4.47 TD 11 Int 2 (Rating 82.2)

They are much lower than or about equal(depending on the catagory) to that of a certain QB from Atlanta that almost everyone seems to rag on for his lack of passing ability. Mike Vick's statistics in those areas for the 2005 season are as follows.

3rd down - Att 107 Comp 58 Yards 721 Comp 54.2 TD 4 Int 3 (Rating 76.1)
Blitz - Comp 137 Att 79 Yards 897 Comp 57.7 TD 9 Int 3 (Rating 90.2)
Red Zone - Att 50 Comp 25 Yards 186 Comp 50.0 TD 12 Int 1 (Rating 90.5)

Can we get off the Brad Johnson bandwagon now?

Brewtal
04-21-2006, 11:01 PM
Yeah ummm, I'm sure that ring on his finger proves he would be much worse then a rookie QB this season.

WinonaVike
04-21-2006, 11:05 PM
Hmmm Couldnt move the chains, yet went 7-2, how does that work?

Jeremy
04-21-2006, 11:16 PM
"Brewtal" wrote:

Yeah ummm, I'm sure that ring on his finger proves he would be much worse then a rookie QB this season.Tems win Super Bowls not QB's. Tampa was the number one defense in the NFL when Johnson got his ring. That was also 3 seasons ago, he was benched in Tampa and no team in the NFL would give him a starting gig.

Jeremy
04-21-2006, 11:17 PM
"WinonaVike" wrote:

Hmmm Couldnt move the chains, yet went 7-2, how does that work?Defense and special teams carried the Vikings.

tastywaves
04-21-2006, 11:19 PM
In my mind Brad Johnson is not a guy thats going to win you a game, but he probably won't lose you the game either. He's a safe QB that runs the offense. Specializing in quick reads and short passes (of course last year that may have been dictated more by the poor protection he got). If you're not dominate in other aspects of the game, Brad is not going to pull something out for you. He's not going to bring a team back from a big point differential, but hopefully he won't be the reason why you're in a hole.

He's the best we've got right now and he can do his part to help us start putting a decent all around performance on the field. As the vikings go through their plethora (yes I said plethora) of changes this year, at least you've got a known entity with Brad that will hopefully play with a minimum number of mistakes allowing the rest of the team a chance to do their job.

A lot of guys on this forum are looking for basic fundamental football (as has been lacking for many years/decades in MN). Childress seems to have this philosophy and appears to be pushing hard for a team concept vs individual stars. He has not gone agressively after any star skill player, and don't think he will unless he can find one in the draft.

I also believe the QB position is a huge liability for MN right now. BJ goes down and are options are pretty damned bleak. Childress needs to find someone soon to start grooming for a franchise QB. He may not like any of his choices to this point which is why he hasn't acted, but hopefully he will find someone in the draft with that potential.

V4L
04-21-2006, 11:19 PM
I personally think he was a little overhyped too..

And I wish we had a different QB..

But what can ya do??

Jeremy
04-21-2006, 11:29 PM
"tastywaves" wrote:

In my mind Brad Johnson is not a guy thats going to win you a game, but he probably won't lose you the game either. He's a safe QB that runs the offense. Specializing in quick reads and short passes (of course last year that may have been dictated more by the poor protection he got). If you're not dominate in other aspects of the game, Brad is not going to pull something out for you. He's not going to bring a team back from a big point differential, but hopefully he won't be the reason why you're in a hole.Pittsburg

vikesoto
04-21-2006, 11:33 PM
"Jeremy" wrote:



Can we get off the Brad Johnson bandwagon now?

I'll be the first to say when Brad was starting last season and so many were screaming for him to be the starter over Daunte I wasn't sold on him. I was quick to point out that his wins came against teams with losing records.His wins came against the Lions (twice), the Rams, the Browns, and the Packers, who were all lousy last season. The win against the Giants had NOTHING to do with the play of Johnson, 'cause he and the rest of the offense did NOTHING against New York. It was the three returns that won that game. The win over the Bears was a game where the Bears SAT their starters. So if you look back at his seven victories, it wasn't all that impressive. Many seem to forget we NEEDED late season wins to make the playoffs and we lost to Pitt and Baltimore last year when he was at QB, and that he was the QB against Carolna who spanked us. We were in the game when Daunte went out. But that's ALL water under the bridge. Brad Johnson IS the QB of the Vikes . If it's controversy you want, don't worry. If the Vikings draft a QB in the draft, be it Cutler( who I think will be a bust), Young, Jacobs, or whoever, there WILL be fans screaming for him to start over Johnson. Such is life as a fan of any sports team! What can you do...

Go Vikes !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0Je5x73TklEcEIBlomjzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTBsaDc3OWcxBHNlYwNwcm9mBHZ0aWQDSTA2Ml84NA--/SIG=13i259gik/EXP=1145741431/**http%3a//i.a.cnn.net/si/2005/writers/jeffri_chadiha/11/15/chadiha.vikings/Brad-Johnson-11.15.jpg

Jeremy
04-21-2006, 11:33 PM
"Vikez4Lyfe" wrote:

I personally think he was a little overhyped too..

And I wish we had a different QB..

But what can ya do??Hope that they pick up a guy that can develop into competent QB in the draft. A team may let go of a QB when they get to the salary cap date, so FA is a possibility. They could trade for one too.

V4L
04-21-2006, 11:36 PM
"Jeremy" wrote:

"Vikez4Lyfe" wrote:

I personally think he was a little overhyped too..

And I wish we had a different QB..

But what can ya do??Hope that they pick up a guy that can develop into competent QB in the draft. A team may let go of a QB when they get to the salary cap date, so FA is a possibility. They could trade for one too.

I agree

Im hoping we trade up and get one of the big 3

vikesoto
04-21-2006, 11:47 PM
"Jeremy" wrote:

"Vikez4Lyfe" wrote:

I personally think he was a little overhyped too..

And I wish we had a different QB..

But what can ya do??Hope that they pick up a guy that can develop into competent QB in the draft. A team may let go of a QB when they get to the salary cap date, so FA is a possibility. They could trade for one too.

Like I said...controversy. But that's what makes these types of forums fun. Everybody has a right to their opinion. Just some people here forget that and like to bash other people! Pr!cks, you know who you are.......

purpleFavreEaters
04-21-2006, 11:51 PM
I honestly feel we should have a different QB. I really am not happy with Brad starting. But then again I am not sure who we could have taken though in his place, there is not a whole lot out there.

ultravikingfan
04-22-2006, 12:03 AM
Can you please go and "Edit" the title of the thread please? I do not mind people not spelling good (and everybody knows that). But, the title of a thread is a different story.

I could edit it, but I am not.

skum
04-22-2006, 12:15 AM
Remember.. This season we added Steve Hutchinson - and we have Matt Birk back - that should give Brad Johnson some more time in the pocket and also it should bring him a running-game.. that hopefully he can rely on..

We also have added a new offensive system that he have won a Superbowl in.. and we also have added a defensive system - he had when he won the superbowl..

In the new system Brad Johnson would fit much better as it rely's more on small passes.. he dosnt need to throw the deep ball.. so he's arm wont be a factor.

RK.
04-22-2006, 12:22 AM
I am tired of people ragging on BJ. Bottom line is if coach Childress didn't think he could get it done he would get rid of him for someone else. I trust Childress to know what he needs to make his offense work. BJ pulled out a winning season for us last year in spite of a losing coaching staff and and a crappy O line. Get off the guys back. He hasn't done anything but win games for us. :wink:

Slade
04-22-2006, 12:30 AM
BJ makes good decisions, good accuracy & is a great leader. Sure he may be old (38 is old??), but I agree with RK....he gets the job done

Jeremy
04-22-2006, 12:48 AM
"skum" wrote:

Remember.. This season we added Steve Hutchinson - and we have Matt Birk back - that should give Brad Johnson some more time in the pocket and also it should bring him a running-game.. that hopefully he can rely on..If the line played the way they did when Johnson started all year we would have had 37 sacks allowed on the season. Which would rank 17th in the NFL just in front of Atlanta. The blocking was average when he started last year not terrible. It was terrible the first 6 games of the season. They were on pace to give up 77 sacks at that point. Which would rank 3rd all time for sacks allowed.

"skum" wrote:


We also have added a new offensive system that he have won a Superbowl in.. and we also have added a defensive system - he had when he won the superbowl..An offensive system in which he was benced in favor of Brian Griese. He hasn't been a very good QB for quite some time now.

Same defensive system that was in Tampa, but completely different players on defense. So we'll see a much different result. Tampa's defense was loaded with stars. Sapp, McFarland, Rice, Kelly, Barber, Lynch, Brooks and Super Bowl MVP Dexter Jackson. Even Dwight Smith the nickel corner was a stud that year.

Call me crazy, but I don't think we'll be nearly as good. At least not at first.
"skum" wrote:


In the new system Brad Johnson would fit much better as it rely's more on small passes.. he dosnt need to throw the deep ball.. so he's arm wont be a factor. He only threw 28 passes last year for more than 20 yards. They shortened up the pasing game last year when he took over.

Jeremy
04-22-2006, 12:53 AM
"RK." wrote:

Bottom line is if coach Childress didn't think he could get it done he would get rid of him for someone else. I trust Childress to know what he needs to make his offense work. Oh, they've been trying.(Schaub) There is the draft still. Don't be suprised if he's riding the pine in favor of some rookie before the season is over.

sleepagent
04-22-2006, 12:56 AM
Brad Johnson is the best QB the Vikings have to win the Super Bowl. Some guys aren't spectacular, but they get the job done. We've had spectacular and NOBODY ever got the job done (I'm talking about the ring). I like our chances with BJ running the show this year!

ejmat
04-22-2006, 01:05 AM
Those of you forget the little things that are done that win and lose games. Brad Johnson s a good leader. He may never have the stats the make the HOF but there are the intangeables that people forget about. Such as turnover rate. For the people that brought up the Giant game do you remember how many times he was hit? How many times he was hit hard? Everytime he held onto the football. Something Pep has trouble doing. You also forget the drives he drove the team and Edinger missed the FG. He also drove the team in the 4th quarter when it counted. He kept the team with decent field position.

People can bring in all your little fancy stats (Jeremy I wish you would point out where you get them from) but look at the other things too. It takes a team to win. BJ just happened to perform better last year than Pep IMO. The bottom line is he had a calming effect on the team whereas in essence helped them play better. The defense rose to the occasion too. Was that all because of BJ? Who knows? The players and coaches seemed to think he had a big part to do with that. I guess those of you here that bash BJ know how things work better than the players do. I wish I had that kind of intuition. Also, remember that BJ has a winning % over 60% in his career. A lot of that is managing the game as the QB. That's 3rd best in NFL history.

That being said, if they do get another QB I wouldn't mind if it were someone to challenge Brad for the job. I feel very confident in him to get the job done but it is always good to have competition. You see what players are all made of.

One piece of advice since I know people like Jeremy will try to slam me. Read my whole post and look at the entire picture before you bash me. If you want to debate I'm all for it. Just don't put words in my mouth. Don't read anything more into it than what I typed.

Formo
04-22-2006, 01:18 AM
"skum" wrote:

Remember.. This season we added Steve Hutchinson - and we have Matt Birk back - that should give Brad Johnson some more time in the pocket and also it should bring him a running-game.. that hopefully he can rely on..

We also have added a new offensive system that he have won a Superbowl in.. and we also have added a defensive system - he had when he won the superbowl..

In the new system Brad Johnson would fit much better as it rely's more on small passes.. he dosnt need to throw the deep ball.. so he's arm wont be a factor.

Amen.

Jeremy, read that VERY carefully.

While BJ isn't the best starter out there right now, he is much better than you and alot of others are saying he is.

Remember, last year, our offensive line was non-exsistant. Favre, Steve Young (in their primes) wouldn't have been much better, and obviously Culpepper couldn't either. Their running game... Wait, did I say running game? HA! WHAT running game?! Our defense and special teams, as you've said, kept us alive.

But don't shoulder the blame on BJ. With no offensive line and no running game.. not to mention the offensive penalties we had last year.. -=shakes head=-

Before you start spouting stats comparing BJ and Vick, lets wait at least another year and see how our o-line and running game come along. Oh yeah, you forgot a minor fact in your stats.. The Falcons led the league in rushing yards. They HAD a running game. A big one at that.

t_13
04-22-2006, 01:46 AM
why not just be confident in him? it wont hurt and youll be a happy person. optimism is the key ;)

VikesfaninWis
04-22-2006, 02:01 AM
I would take BJ over Culpepper in the new WCO any day of the week. BJ brought us out of the cellar and made us a contender again. Some say that it was our defense that played better as well, that is true, but maybe they played better because they knew they had a better chance of winning with a proven leader behind center like BJ.

Jeremy
04-22-2006, 02:24 AM
"ejmat" wrote:

Those of you forget the little things that are done that win and lose games. Brad Johnson s a good leader. He may never have the stats the make the HOF but there are the intangeables that people forget about. Such as turnover rate. For the people that brought up the Giant game do you remember how many times he was hit? How many times he was hit hard? Everytime he held onto the football. Something Pep has trouble doing. You also forget the drives he drove the team and Edinger missed the FG. He also drove the team in the 4th quarter when it counted. He kept the team with decent field position. He didn't drive the team down there. He was set up with good feild position by the defense off turnovers and did squat with it. That's how he played most of the year, it's pinch, pinch, pinch and punt. If you can't move the chains when you are asked to throw the ball you are doing a bad job as a QB, magical intangables or not.

You may think driving the offense down one time in 4 quarters to only come away with a feild goal is some kind of an impressive feat, I however do not. BJ only played decent against bad teams. Go look up the total yards of offense that game against the Giants, it was horrendous.

There is a long list of QB's that don't turn the ball over when they get hit. Everyone is just so used to Culpepper and his small hands, it makes it seem like a lot more than it is.

"ejmat" wrote:


People can bring in all your little fancy stats (Jeremy I wish you would point out where you get them from) but look at the other things too. www.espn.com and www.nfl.com...... Where else?
I do look at the other things. Defense and special teams carried us. Johson did very little other than not throw picks against bad teams. The guy is really overrated.

"ejmat" wrote:


Also, remember that BJ has a winning % over 60% in his career. A lot of that is managing the game as the QB. That's 3rd best in NFL history.Most overated stat in football = QB win/loss record. QB is only one of many factors in a football game. How you can credit one player with wins and losses is beyond me. It makes about much sence to me as kicker win/loss record or RB win/loss record.

It ranks up there with history of win/loss between two teams. That stat is really only for bragging rights between rival teams. It really has no effect on the outcome of the game. None of the players from the 60's, 70's and 80's are even on the teams anymore. Most of the players from the 90's have moved on too.

UndisputedVike
04-22-2006, 02:30 AM
Well the question is if not Brad...than let me ask you this?

Whom should play? J.T O'Sullivan? Mike McMahon?

Let it go, Brad is our QB get over it and give the man a break he's our best chance at this point to win. The guy is old and might not be a Peyton Manning that puts up the numbers...He wins he has a ring, that's all that matters and to me that's what we need here in Minny.

If you don't like it jump on the Colt bandwagon.

Euphman06
04-22-2006, 02:32 AM
BJ is the MAN! And you want to know why he is the man?? Because he is the quarterback for the Minnesota Vikings of whom I am a huge fan. With our new running game that I'm hoping we'll have now with a good o-line, he will be moving chains along with cTaylor. He may not, and probably won't be, pro bowl bound, but he will get the job done.

Jeremy
04-22-2006, 02:33 AM
"Formo" wrote:

Before you start spouting stats comparing BJ and Vick, lets wait at least another year and see how our o-line and running game come along. Oh yeah, you forgot a minor fact in your stats.. The Falcons led the league in rushing yards. They HAD a running game. A big one at that.His numbers in those areas were bad. Who should I compare them to? You are probally only going to find his numbers to be better than guys like Alex Smith, Klye Orton ect....

Euphman06
04-22-2006, 02:36 AM
But what doesn't help his numbers is the fact that we couldn't run for first downs to save our lives. Of course defenses are going to be able to stop what they know is definately coming at them.

UndisputedVike
04-22-2006, 02:38 AM
"Jeremy" wrote:

"Formo" wrote:

Before you start spouting stats comparing BJ and Vick, lets wait at least another year and see how our o-line and running game come along. Oh yeah, you forgot a minor fact in your stats.. The Falcons led the league in rushing yards. They HAD a running game. A big one at that.His numbers in those areas were bad. Who should I compare them to? You are probally only going to find his numbers to be better than guys like Alex Smith, Klye Orton ect....

Exactly what are you trying to prove, Who cares about numbers...Would you rather us lose and Brad put up 4000+ Yards and 25+ TD's or win and have so so numbers...Get over yourself man.

ejmat
04-22-2006, 02:40 AM
Jeremy sometimes I question if you ever played football. Because if you did, you would know that there are the teamwork and tangeables that make a player. Heart and leadership ability. Intelligence. They all are key. True their offensive stats weren't the best. I don't know where you got the defense gave him the field position at the end of the game against the Giants. Not true!!!!

By the way, all stats can be considered over-rated. Just like the ones you put up. Let me give you an example. Look at Troy Aikman's career stats. Not the greatest in history. His poise, intelligence and leadership and knowing how to play as a team member won them 3 superbowls. A lot of it is team chemistry. Again, if you want to just show stats I can show you great stats where a person doesn't have a great win-loss record. You think that's an over-rated stat. You don't win superbowls with stats. You win with wins. How do you get those wins? By playing as a team member and as a QB providing the leadership necessary to guide the team. Also, not turning the ball over (i.e., BJ).

I'm not trying to say that the stats you provide don't count for anything. They do. The fact of the matter is since the players stated they trusted BJ and the coaches did as well, who are you or anyone else in PPO to say they are wrong? They all stated they felt more calm with him as QB and it helped there play. You can't deny that.

Jeremy
04-22-2006, 02:42 AM
"UndisputedVike" wrote:

Well the question is if not Brad...than let me ask you this?

Whom should play? J.T O'Sullivan? Mike McMahon?

Let it go, Brad is our QB get over it and give the man a break he's our best chance at this point to win. The guy is old and might not be a Peyton Manning that puts up the numbers...He wins he has a ring, that's all that matters and to me that's what we need here in Minny.
Draft somebody. They will draft or trade for someone on draft day. Johnson won't start all year. Especially if he plays the same way he did last year.

I see this team like the Browns last year. Charlie Frye taking over for Dilfer near the end of the season.

Jeremy
04-22-2006, 02:58 AM
"ejmat" wrote:

Jeremy sometimes I question if you ever played football. Because if you did, you would know that there are the teamwork and tangeables that make a player. Heart and leadership ability. Intelligence. They all are key. True their offensive stats weren't the best. I don't know where you got the defense gave him the field position at the end of the game against the Giants. He only drove them down the feild once vs. the Giants. He was given great feild position twice and couldn't put it in the endzone.

Play by Play of the Gaints game (http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay/NFL_20051113_MIN@NYG)

The defense handed him feild position on a shiny silver platter and BJ didn't eat it. Way to "manage a game" Johnson!

"ejmat" wrote:


You don't win superbowls with stats. You win with wins. How do you get those wins? By playing as a team member and as a QB providing the leadership necessary to guide the team. Also, not turning the ball over (i.e., BJ). Terrific maddenism there. "You win with wins." If you can't win the Super Bowl with stats then go find a Super Bowl team with bad stats. Good luck with that one. :grin:

"ejmat" wrote:


I'm not trying to say that the stats you provide don't count for anything. They do. The fact of the matter is since the players stated they trusted BJ and the coaches did as well, who are you or anyone else in PPO to say they are wrong? They all stated they felt more calm with him as QB and it helped there play. You can't deny that. Oh, you mean players/coaches talk good about thier starting QB? Gee, what a unique situation we have here in Minnesota. :roll:

Jeremy
04-22-2006, 03:01 AM
"UndisputedVike" wrote:

Exactly what are you trying to prove, Who cares about numbers...Would you rather us lose and Brad put up 4000+ Yards and 25+ TD's or win and have so so numbers...Get over yourself man.Brilliant! :roll:

Formo
04-22-2006, 04:23 AM
"Jeremy" wrote:

He only drove them down the feild once vs. the Giants. He was given great feild position twice and couldn't put it in the endzone.

Play by Play of the Gaints game (http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay/NFL_20051113_MIN@NYG)

The defense handed him feild position on a shiny silver platter and BJ didn't eat it. Way to "manage a game" Johnson!

With NO running game. But, hey, that's ok, lets shoulder the blame on Johnson. Because he did a HELL of alot more than Mewelde, Bennet, Williams, Fason.. Hell, EVERY RB in the Viking organization did.

Of course, the STELLAR offensive line helped a sh!t load too. :roll:

Ltrey33
04-22-2006, 04:23 AM
"Jeremy" wrote:

"Brewtal" wrote:

Yeah ummm, I'm sure that ring on his finger proves he would be much worse then a rookie QB this season.Tems win Super Bowls not QB's. Tampa was the number one defense in the NFL when Johnson got his ring. That was also 3 seasons ago, he was benched in Tampa and no team in the NFL would give him a starting gig.

Hm...a quarterback with a good defense wins the Super Bowl without havnig big stats. Sounds a lot like a good game manager to me...

Ltrey33
04-22-2006, 04:27 AM
"Jeremy" wrote:

"ejmat" wrote:

Jeremy sometimes I question if you ever played football. Because if you did, you would know that there are the teamwork and tangeables that make a player. Heart and leadership ability. Intelligence. They all are key. True their offensive stats weren't the best. I don't know where you got the defense gave him the field position at the end of the game against the Giants. He only drove them down the feild once vs. the Giants. He was given great feild position twice and couldn't put it in the endzone.

Play by Play of the Gaints game (http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay/NFL_20051113_MIN@NYG)

The defense handed him feild position on a shiny silver platter and BJ didn't eat it. Way to "manage a game" Johnson!

"ejmat" wrote:


You don't win superbowls with stats. You win with wins. How do you get those wins? By playing as a team member and as a QB providing the leadership necessary to guide the team. Also, not turning the ball over (i.e., BJ). Terrific maddenism there. "You win with wins." If you can't win the Super Bowl with stats then go find a Super Bowl team with bad stats. Good luck with that one. :grin:

"ejmat" wrote:


I'm not trying to say that the stats you provide don't count for anything. They do. The fact of the matter is since the players stated they trusted BJ and the coaches did as well, who are you or anyone else in PPO to say they are wrong? They all stated they felt more calm with him as QB and it helped there play. You can't deny that. Oh, you mean players/coaches talk good about thier starting QB? Gee, what a unique situation we have here in Minnesota. :roll:

Actually, a lot of quarterbacks get dissed by their own team when they don't like him (even good ones). For more information see:

Joey Harrington & Dre Bly
Brett Favre & Javon Walker
Donovan McNabb & T.O.
Jeff Garcia & T.O.

With the last three we're talking pro bowlers and hall of famers that got dissed!

And one more thing, do you ever wonder why a lot of your posts are treated with such hostility? It's because you are a SMARTASS. Look at your posts:


Way to "manage a game" Johnson!

If you can't win the Super Bowl with stats then go find a Super Bowl team with bad stats. Good luck with that one. :grin:

Gee, what a unique situation we have here in Minnesota.:roll:

You gotta be more diplomatic man, you seem really full of yourself because its like you demean everybody whenever you disagree. Take a chill pill and stop being so sarcastic.

ItalianStallion
04-22-2006, 04:34 AM
I like Brad, but with him at the helm I see us with almost zero chance of winning a superbowl, which is unlikely for every team but is hard to say about your own. The only way I could see us going far in the playoffs is if our defense somehow plays like the 2000 Ravens or 2002 Bucs.

Zeus
04-22-2006, 04:36 AM
"Jeremy" wrote:

"skum" wrote:

Remember.. This season we added Steve Hutchinson - and we have Matt Birk back - that should give Brad Johnson some more time in the pocket and also it should bring him a running-game.. that hopefully he can rely on..If the line played the way they did when Johnson started all year we would have had 37 sacks allowed on the season. Which would rank 17th in the NFL just in front of Atlanta. The blocking was average when he started last year not terrible. It was terrible the first 6 games of the season. They were on pace to give up 77 sacks at that point. Which would rank 3rd all time for sacks allowed.

Don't you think that Johnson had something to do with avoiding sacks by tossing the ball away quickly rather than standing in the pocket (or shuffling around) too long like Daunte did?

I don't think Brittle Brad is a long-term solution at all - but I do think he gives the team a chance to win games through good decision making and veteran poise.

=Z=

Zeus
04-22-2006, 04:39 AM
"Ltrey33" wrote:

Actually, a lot of quarterbacks get dissed by their own team when they don't like him (even good ones). For more information see:

Joey Harrington & Dre Bly
Brett Favre & Javon Walker
Donovan McNabb & T.O.
Jeff Garcia & T.O.

With the last three we're talking pro bowlers and hall of famers that got dissed!

Jeff Garcia might get into the CFL Hall-of-Fame, but there's no way that he's going to the NFL Hall.

And Donovan has a chance to be inducted, but he's FAR from a sure thing.

=Z=

Ltrey33
04-22-2006, 04:41 AM
"AWZeus" wrote:

"Ltrey33" wrote:

Actually, a lot of quarterbacks get dissed by their own team when they don't like him (even good ones). For more information see:

Joey Harrington & Dre Bly
Brett Favre & Javon Walker
Donovan McNabb & T.O.
Jeff Garcia & T.O.

With the last three we're talking pro bowlers and hall of famers that got dissed!

Jeff Garcia might get into the CFL Hall-of-Fame, but there's no way that he's going to the NFL Hall.

And Donovan has a chance to be inducted, but he's FAR from a sure thing.

=Z=

I didn't say they were all going to the hall of fame. Favre is the only one on that list, that's why I typed pro bowlers AND hall of famers. Because Garcia and McNabb are both pro bowlers, sorry I didn't make that clear.

boognish
04-22-2006, 04:43 AM
"Ltrey33" wrote:

"Jeremy" wrote:

"Brewtal" wrote:

Yeah ummm, I'm sure that ring on his finger proves he would be much worse then a rookie QB this season.Tems win Super Bowls not QB's. Tampa was the number one defense in the NFL when Johnson got his ring. That was also 3 seasons ago, he was benched in Tampa and no team in the NFL would give him a starting gig.

Hm...a quarterback with a good defense wins the Super Bowl without havnig big stats. Sounds a lot like a good game manager to me...

Big Johnson isn't the world's greatest QB, but he's the best we have right now. We will draft a rookie this year, and he won't be good enough to win the starting job. Johnson will be solid this year; there's no reason to throw a rookie into the fire and potentially screw him up. It will be good for our rookie QB to watch and learn from a quality veteran like Johnson.

We should have a solid defense, and a strong running game. Johnson will do fine in his role; the coaches won't make him carry the team.

Zeus
04-22-2006, 04:47 AM
"Ltrey33" wrote:

"AWZeus" wrote:

"Ltrey33" wrote:

Actually, a lot of quarterbacks get dissed by their own team when they don't like him (even good ones). For more information see:

Joey Harrington & Dre Bly
Brett Favre & Javon Walker
Donovan McNabb & T.O.
Jeff Garcia & T.O.

With the last three we're talking pro bowlers and hall of famers that got dissed!

Jeff Garcia might get into the CFL Hall-of-Fame, but there's no way that he's going to the NFL Hall.

And Donovan has a chance to be inducted, but he's FAR from a sure thing.

=Z=

I didn't say they were all going to the hall of fame. Favre is the only one on that list, that's why I typed pro bowlers AND hall of famers. Because Garcia and McNabb are both pro bowlers, sorry I didn't make that clear.

Could be my lousy reading comprehension skills - I'm watching the Miss USA competition while I'm doing this and all the babes are quite a distraction.

=Z=

ejmat
04-22-2006, 05:36 AM
At this point I'm just going to let Jeremy argue with himself. The guy has no idea about the whole picture in football. Don't bother quoting me or answering me anymore Jeremy because I will not answer back anymore. You're nothing but a jack@$$ as far asw I'm concerned.

Before you come into sites such as this why don't you learn about how to play football. Stats are great but they aren't the biggest thing. You want to be sarcastic about what I said the stats don't win you superbowls. Of course a team have to play at a certain level to win a superbowl. That's a given. But think about the tangeables that get you to the superbowl. There are a lot of teams that do great in the stat category in superbowls and lose too. It's not all about stats. Do you get my point yet? Let me say it again. It's not all about stats!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By the way, there are players that diss their QBs if they don't think they do a good job. Not one player on the Vikings said anything negative about him. In fact they were all pleased with him. Stop grasping. You are making an @$$ of yourself.

I want to take the time to apologize to all the other PPOers for this post. I may have been inappropriate. Just don't like it when a person has no idea about the game of football and gets sarcastic with others. Again, I apologize.

ultravikingfan
04-22-2006, 06:27 AM
"ejmat" wrote:

Those of you forget the little things that are done that win and lose games. Brad Johnson s a good leader. He may never have the stats the make the HOF but there are the intangeables that people forget about. Such as turnover rate. For the people that brought up the Giant game do you remember how many times he was hit? How many times he was hit hard? Everytime he held onto the football. Something Pep has trouble doing. You also forget the drives he drove the team and Edinger missed the FG. He also drove the team in the 4th quarter when it counted. He kept the team with decent field position.

People can bring in all your little fancy stats (Jeremy I wish you would point out where you get them from) but look at the other things too. It takes a team to win. BJ just happened to perform better last year than Pep IMO. The bottom line is he had a calming effect on the team whereas in essence helped them play better. The defense rose to the occasion too. Was that all because of BJ? Who knows? The players and coaches seemed to think he had a big part to do with that. I guess those of you here that bash BJ know how things work better than the players do. I wish I had that kind of intuition. Also, remember that BJ has a winning % over 60% in his career. A lot of that is managing the game as the QB. That's 3rd best in NFL history.

That being said, if they do get another QB I wouldn't mind if it were someone to challenge Brad for the job. I feel very confident in him to get the job done but it is always good to have competition. You see what players are all made of.

One piece of advice since I know people like Jeremy will try to slam me. Read my whole post and look at the entire picture before you bash me. If you want to debate I'm all for it. Just don't put words in my mouth. Don't read anything more into it than what I typed.

Good F-ing post!!!

ultravikingfan
04-22-2006, 06:28 AM
"ejmat" wrote:

Jeremy sometimes I question if you ever played football. Because if you did, you would know that there are the teamwork and tangeables that make a player. Heart and leadership ability. Intelligence. They all are key. True their offensive stats weren't the best. I don't know where you got the defense gave him the field position at the end of the game against the Giants. Not true!!!!

By the way, all stats can be considered over-rated. Just like the ones you put up. Let me give you an example. Look at Troy Aikman's career stats. Not the greatest in history. His poise, intelligence and leadership and knowing how to play as a team member won them 3 superbowls. A lot of it is team chemistry. Again, if you want to just show stats I can show you great stats where a person doesn't have a great win-loss record. You think that's an over-rated stat. You don't win superbowls with stats. You win with wins. How do you get those wins? By playing as a team member and as a QB providing the leadership necessary to guide the team. Also, not turning the ball over (i.e., BJ).

I'm not trying to say that the stats you provide don't count for anything. They do. The fact of the matter is since the players stated they trusted BJ and the coaches did as well, who are you or anyone else in PPO to say they are wrong? They all stated they felt more calm with him as QB and it helped there play. You can't deny that.

You are on a roll my friend!

Keep that stuff coming!

UndisputedVike
04-22-2006, 06:31 AM
"ejmat" wrote:

At this point I'm just going to let Jeremy argue with himself. The guy has no idea about the whole picture in football. Don't bother quoting me or answering me anymore Jeremy because I will not answer back anymore. You're nothing but a jack@$$ as far asw I'm concerned.


Agreed. Like I said if you want great stats and no Superbowl go hop on Manning's bandwagon. As for the giants game...Defense wins championships, We still won because of our Special Teams and Defense, I'd rather that then lose in a great offensive effort.

Which we always seemed to dow ith Culpepper and Moss.

DaunteHOF
04-22-2006, 06:44 PM
Brad Johnson was winning for us so people had to give him some type of quality to explain it.

Ltrey33
04-22-2006, 06:55 PM
"AWZeus" wrote:

"Ltrey33" wrote:

"AWZeus" wrote:

"Ltrey33" wrote:

Actually, a lot of quarterbacks get dissed by their own team when they don't like him (even good ones). For more information see:

Joey Harrington & Dre Bly
Brett Favre & Javon Walker
Donovan McNabb & T.O.
Jeff Garcia & T.O.

With the last three we're talking pro bowlers and hall of famers that got dissed!

Jeff Garcia might get into the CFL Hall-of-Fame, but there's no way that he's going to the NFL Hall.

And Donovan has a chance to be inducted, but he's FAR from a sure thing.

=Z=

I didn't say they were all going to the hall of fame. Favre is the only one on that list, that's why I typed pro bowlers AND hall of famers. Because Garcia and McNabb are both pro bowlers, sorry I didn't make that clear.

Could be my lousy reading comprehension skills - I'm watching the Miss USA competition while I'm doing this and all the babes are quite a distraction.

=Z=

:lol: It would distract me too.

Gift
04-22-2006, 10:24 PM
I don't here alot of peeps saying brad is as good as it gets, just as good as we got. Get someone better and I'll root for him.

MensaTice
04-22-2006, 10:44 PM
Gift, your post makes no sense. there are only one or two guys that are as good as it gets. How do you suggest we get them? I'm sure the Colts would be willing to part with Manning :roll: but I doubt we can get Brady or McNabb from their teams :tard:

JEREMY: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.php

Ltrey33
04-22-2006, 11:04 PM
"MensaTice" wrote:

Gift, your post makes no sense. there are only one or two guys that are as good as it gets. How do you suggest we get them? I'm sure the Colts would be willing to part with Manning :roll: but I doubt we can get Brady or McNabb from their teams :tard:

JEREMY: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.php

Nice link Mensa! :lol:

Gift
04-22-2006, 11:49 PM
"MensaTice" wrote:

Gift, your post makes no sense. there are only one or two guys that are as good as it gets. How do you suggest we get them? I'm sure the Colts would be willing to part with Manning :roll: but I doubt we can get Brady or McNabb from their teams :tard:

JEREMY: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.php
Mensa, I was just saying that we can't always have the best guy for every position, sometimes you just gotta deal with what you got. After reading my earlier post I can see I wasn't that clear.

MensaTice
04-23-2006, 12:02 AM
Gift, My bad. I thought you were saying you wouldn't root for Brad but if we bring in someone better you would. I get it now. I'm just hungover and also sick of everyone bashing Brad. I believe we're on the same page.

Obviously there are better QBs in the league and everyone, including Brad's biggest supporters would agree with that, but its not like we have other options right now but also Brad is not a stiff. People need to just let this play out and not worry about BJ being our only QB in April. We will get someone who will eventually take over and be great for this team. Until then its Brad's team and he will do fine.

umaguma1979
04-23-2006, 12:11 AM
Brad is not a big play QB, but he is steady and does not make too many huge mistakes. Sometimes the mark of a good Qb is ho many bad plays he avoids as much as making the big play. He is good enough given the talented Vikings roster to start.

BradTheMan14
04-23-2006, 12:22 AM
BRAD IS THE MAN THATS ALL THERE IS TO IT

jonnyb
04-23-2006, 12:40 AM
"Jeremy" wrote:

"WinonaVike" wrote:

Hmmm Couldnt move the chains, yet went 7-2, how does that work?Defense and special teams carried the Vikings.

I like brad johnson but lets be honest, he wasnt all that impressive. In the two games we lost he was brutal. In a few of the wins the he wasnt very good either. 0 offensive TDs in the win agains the Giants.

brandsp
04-23-2006, 12:42 AM
Plain and simple; we all bleed purple and want the best for the team (and hence for ourselves in our greedy purple way) ----so be a little nicer to fellow Vikes fans

I was big on Brad's 3rd down failures, but I know a lot had to do with Linehan going to Miami (which no one has brought up yet) and Dante's ability to avoid the rush that our weak O-'line let come through.

With that said, Brad's running the show and I'm okay with that. He is not the man, but does a good job. If Childress and Tomlin are as good as advertised, we'll do well this season.

P.S.
Tice is gone and that is all I really care about.

farvathevikinglover
04-23-2006, 12:46 AM
While we may not be able to count on Brad to produce big plays or awesome stats, we can count on him being a good leader and not making mistakes. I'm fine with Brad playing for us until we find our franchise quarterback.

jonnyb
04-23-2006, 12:47 AM
"umaguma1979" wrote:

Brad is not a big play QB, but he is steady and does not make too many huge mistakes. Sometimes the mark of a good Qb is ho many bad plays he avoids as much as making the big play. He is good enough given the talented Vikings roster to start.

Playing not to make a mistake is the same as playing not to lose. As we all know, thats not a good way to work.

farvathevikinglover
04-23-2006, 01:09 AM
"jonnyb" wrote:

"umaguma1979" wrote:

Brad is not a big play QB, but he is steady and does not make too many huge mistakes. Sometimes the mark of a good Qb is ho many bad plays he avoids as much as making the big play. He is good enough given the talented Vikings roster to start.

Playing not to make a mistake is the same as playing not to lose. As we all know, thats not a good way to work.We may have to make do with that from Brad unless he all the sudden gets really good at making big plays again or we draft a guy who turns out to be really good.

JellyBean2144
04-23-2006, 01:11 AM
U can't be serious??? Brad Johnson is one of the best "game managers" out there. If he wasn't, a lot of teams would not have been after him so hard. All of the GMs know what Brad can do, and I am glad that he came back to Minnesota.

U must smoking.

ejmat
04-23-2006, 01:29 AM
Ultra, thanks for the support my friend. Just speaking the truth.

NeoVikesTX
04-23-2006, 01:37 AM
Is it just me or is this Jeremy guy contradicting himself? First he creates this post entitled "Brad Johnson" and basically tells us that he sucks and is not good enough for our team. Then in his very next post he insists that "teams win Superbowls, not QB's".

Well if teams win Superbowls and not QB's, then why create this thread to begin with? It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It's like you want to argue with everyone including yourself.

In my opinion, teams do win Superbowls. And if that is the case, then yes Brad Johnson is good enough because he minimized mistakes and makes good decisions.

I just wish this guy would pick a side and stick to it. It's either "Brad Johnson sucks we need a better QB to win" or "the QB position doesn't really matter, the team does". Now which one is it?

Jeremy
04-23-2006, 01:06 PM
"ejmat" wrote:

At this point I'm just going to let Jeremy argue with himself. The guy has no idea about the whole picture in football. Don't bother quoting me or answering me anymore Jeremy because I will not answer back anymore. You're nothing but a jack@$$ as far asw I'm concerned.

Before you come into sites such as this why don't you learn about how to play football. Stats are great but they aren't the biggest thing. You want to be sarcastic about what I said the stats don't win you superbowls. Of course a team have to play at a certain level to win a superbowl. That's a given. But think about the tangeables that get you to the superbowl. There are a lot of teams that do great in the stat category in superbowls and lose too. It's not all about stats. Do you get my point yet? Let me say it again. It's not all about stats!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By the way, there are players that diss their QBs if they don't think they do a good job. Not one player on the Vikings said anything negative about him. In fact they were all pleased with him. Stop grasping. You are making an @$$ of yourself.

I want to take the time to apologize to all the other PPOers for this post. I may have been inappropriate. Just don't like it when a person has no idea about the game of football and gets sarcastic with others. Again, I apologize.At this point you have resorted flaming. It in itself is a form of admittance to losing a dabate.

4 QB's getting dissed in what 5 years? The Vikings players/coaches praising thier QB is hardly unique.

Jeremy
04-23-2006, 01:07 PM
"JellyBean2144" wrote:

U can't be serious??? Brad Johnson is one of the best "game managers" out there. If he wasn't, a lot of teams would not have been after him so hard. All of the GMs know what Brad can do, and I am glad that he came back to Minnesota.

U must smoking.If they all knew what he could do why did nobody in the NFL give a starting job?

whiteviking24
04-23-2006, 01:10 PM
I remeber hearing that after we played Carolina that BJ was telling Tice he wanted to change some things up...

If I am correct the annoncers were talikng about that during the broadcast on tv when we were playin the loins for the first time last year.

Brad Johnson knows how to play the game and is the strarter and I'm glad we have him.

Jeremy
04-23-2006, 01:17 PM
"NeoVikesTX" wrote:

Is it just me or is this Jeremy guy contradicting himself? First he creates this post entitled "Brad Johnson" and basically tells us that he sucks and is not good enough for our team. Then in his very next post he insists that "teams win Superbowls, not QB's".

Well if teams win Superbowls and not QB's, then why create this thread to begin with? It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It's like you want to argue with everyone including yourself.

In my opinion, teams do win Superbowls. And if that is the case, then yes Brad Johnson is good enough because he minimized mistakes and makes good decisions.

I just wish this guy would pick a side and stick to it. It's either "Brad Johnson sucks we need a better QB to win" or "the QB position doesn't really matter, the team does". Now which one is it?
1)I site examples of how the starting QB played terribly.
2)People still claim he was the reason the Vikes won.
3)I give examples of how the team played better and still one games despite the lack of production out of the QB.

Does it make sence?

Johnson has been way overhyped. Everyone is so used to Pepps small hands fumbling the ball they think its some kind of miracle that a QB doesn't fumble when getting sacked.

The QB play IMO was rotten all year long. The second half of the season we win despite the lack production from the QB, because the defense and special teams decided to show up to the games on Sundays.

whiteviking24
04-23-2006, 01:28 PM
"Jeremy" wrote:

"NeoVikesTX" wrote:

Is it just me or is this Jeremy guy contradicting himself? First he creates this post entitled "Brad Johnson" and basically tells us that he sucks and is not good enough for our team. Then in his very next post he insists that "teams win Superbowls, not QB's".

Well if teams win Superbowls and not QB's, then why create this thread to begin with? It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It's like you want to argue with everyone including yourself.

In my opinion, teams do win Superbowls. And if that is the case, then yes Brad Johnson is good enough because he minimized mistakes and makes good decisions.

I just wish this guy would pick a side and stick to it. It's either "Brad Johnson sucks we need a better QB to win" or "the QB position doesn't really matter, the team does". Now which one is it?
1)I site examples of how the starting QB played terribly.
2)People still claim he was the reason the Vikes won.
3)I give examples of how the team played better and still one games despite the lack of production out of the QB.

Does it make sence?

Johnson has been way overhyped. Everyone is so used to Pepps small hands fumbling the ball they think its some kind of miracle that a QB doesn't fumble when getting sacked.

The QB play IMO was rotten all year long. The second half of the season we win despite the lack production from the QB, because the defense and special teams decided to show up to the games on Sundays.

I'm sorry man but the defense can play better when they can catch their breath on the sidelines, and that is hard to do when they spend alot of time on the feild because of TURNOVERS and how many of those do you see Brad throwing???

Any given sunday you can lose to a team that is not as good as yours IMO.

Please accept the fact that BJ can get the job done and can do it well.

Jeremy
04-23-2006, 01:32 PM
"whiteviking24" wrote:

"Jeremy" wrote:

"NeoVikesTX" wrote:

Is it just me or is this Jeremy guy contradicting himself? First he creates this post entitled "Brad Johnson" and basically tells us that he sucks and is not good enough for our team. Then in his very next post he insists that "teams win Superbowls, not QB's".

Well if teams win Superbowls and not QB's, then why create this thread to begin with? It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It's like you want to argue with everyone including yourself.

In my opinion, teams do win Superbowls. And if that is the case, then yes Brad Johnson is good enough because he minimized mistakes and makes good decisions.

I just wish this guy would pick a side and stick to it. It's either "Brad Johnson sucks we need a better QB to win" or "the QB position doesn't really matter, the team does". Now which one is it?
1)I site examples of how the starting QB played terribly.
2)People still claim he was the reason the Vikes won.
3)I give examples of how the team played better and still one games despite the lack of production out of the QB.

Does it make sence?

Johnson has been way overhyped. Everyone is so used to Pepps small hands fumbling the ball they think its some kind of miracle that a QB doesn't fumble when getting sacked.

The QB play IMO was rotten all year long. The second half of the season we win despite the lack production from the QB, because the defense and special teams decided to show up to the games on Sundays.

I'm sorry man but the defense can play better when they can catch their breath on the sidelines, and that is hard to do when they spend alot of time on the feild because of TURNOVERS and how many of those do you see Brad throwing???

Any given sunday you can lose to a team that is not as good as yours IMO.

Please accept the fact that BJ can get the job done and can do it well.Been brought up in a different thread. Have the stats handy.

With Pepp
29:26Tam
21:20Cin
38:13N.O.
27:23Atl
32:22CHi
30:03GB


Total 178min 47 sec
AVG is roughly 29min 48sec per game

Skip the Carolina game in which Johnson took most of the snaps. 24:09 for anyone that's curious. Not included in the totals.

With Johnson
29:39Det
24:25NYG
37:33GB
32:16Cle
30:41Det
26:11Stl
23:12Pitt
26:54Bal
26:32Chi

Total 256mins 29seconds

AVG is roughly 28min 55sec per game
They controled the ball better with the turnover machine.

You control the clock by running the football effectively, not by having a bunch of 3 and outs and minimizing turnovers.

whiteviking24
04-23-2006, 01:37 PM
I will buy that Jeremy,

Where do you get the stats about his third down percentage?

and can you compare it to other QB's in the league and post it?

I have a hard time thinking he's much worse than any other, probably average at worst, right?

Jeremy
04-23-2006, 01:43 PM
"whiteviking24" wrote:

I will buy that Jeremy,

Where do you get the stats about his third down percentage?

and can you compare it to other QB's in the league and post it?

I have a hard time thinking he's much worse than any other, probably average at worst, right?Go to www.espn.com

Go to the NFL section of the website.
Select a QB.
Click on splits.

Opp 19-1 ydline = redzone
blitz and 3rd down are named what they are.

Third down conversions came from www.nfl.com
Select a player and click situational stats.

whiteviking24
04-23-2006, 01:57 PM
"Jeremy" wrote:

"whiteviking24" wrote:

I will buy that Jeremy,

Where do you get the stats about his third down percentage?

and can you compare it to other QB's in the league and post it?

I have a hard time thinking he's much worse than any other, probably average at worst, right?Go to www.espn.com

Go to the NFL section of the website.
Select a QB.
Click on splits.

Opp 19-1 ydline = redzone
blitz and 3rd down are named what they are.

Third down conversions came from www.nfl.com
Select a player and click situational stats.

Here is what I saw on third down rating:

Brad Johnson......76%
Hasselbeck.........77%
Brady................78%
Rothlisberger......74%

keep in mind two of them were just in a superbowl and keep in mind Numbers arn't everthing.

I'm not trying to argue with ya, just tryin to see where you are coming from.

ultravikingfan
04-23-2006, 02:55 PM
http://sk1pper.com/monkeys.bmp

ejmat
04-23-2006, 03:10 PM
Jeremy don't you find it at all odd that everyone here is against you? I'm not admitting to anything. That's you again putting words in my mouth. You do that so well. All you do is read into things. I think you're a person that likes to start trouble and you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to the sport of football. You have your little stats that are very over-rated (as you said yourself). That's all you look at. When you figure out that there is much more to the game of football then talk and debate with me. Until then, know your roll and shut your trap.

Oh yea, and about controlling the clock. A portion of it is running the ball effectively. Throwing short passes is a portion too. Not turning the ball over is also a portion of it. Get over losing Pep. He is gone. Sad but true. BJ is waht we have now. With the team aspect, he is good enough. If someone challenges him for the job, so be it. That's great. If not, so be it. I'm fine either way. You don't have to like it or agree with me. You have your opinions and I have mine. I've played football. I know the intangeables and what's important. You obviously do not. The fact of the matter is It is what it is. Why don't you be a real Vikings fan and respect it? Stop trying to cause problems. You are making a jack@$$ of yourself.

whiteviking24
04-23-2006, 03:18 PM
Ultra,

I LMAO when I saw that.

Jeremy
04-23-2006, 09:33 PM
"whiteviking24" wrote:



Here is what I saw on third down rating:

Brad Johnson......76%
Hasselbeck.........77%
Brady................78%
Rothlisberger......74%

keep in mind two of them were just in a superbowl and keep in mind Numbers arn't everthing.

I'm not trying to argue with ya, just tryin to see where you are coming from.Ratings are not percents. Conversion rates when passing of those same QB's are:
Johnson...........29%
Hasselbeck......38%
Brady.............44%
Rothlisburger..38%

Brad can't move the chains. He is excessively conserative. It's thrd and 7. Hey I'll dump it off to my halfback.

PackSux!
04-23-2006, 09:40 PM
"Jeremy" wrote:

"whiteviking24" wrote:



Here is what I saw on third down rating:

Brad Johnson......76%
Hasselbeck.........77%
Brady................78%
Rothlisberger......74%

keep in mind two of them were just in a superbowl and keep in mind Numbers arn't everthing.

I'm not trying to argue with ya, just tryin to see where you are coming from.Ratings are not percents. Conversion rates when passing of those same QB's are:
Johnson...........29%
Hasselbeck......38%
Brady.............44%
Rothlisburger..38%

Brad can't move the chains. He is excessively conserative. It's thrd and 7. Hey I'll dump it off to my halfback.


So what you are trying to say is that you are not a Brad Johnson fan.

Jeremy
04-23-2006, 09:49 PM
"ejmat" wrote:

Jeremy don't you find it at all odd that everyone here is against you? I'm not admitting to anything. That's you again putting words in my mouth. You do that so well. All you do is read into things. I think you're a person that likes to start trouble and you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to the sport of football. You have your little stats that are very over-rated (as you said yourself). That's all you look at. When you figure out that there is much more to the game of football then talk and debate with me. Until then, know your roll and shut your trap.I back my opinions with facts. Stats are facts and they are used to analyze teams/players in every single professional sport, from tennis to water polo to baseball to football. They are used to find strengths and weaknesses of teams or players. Stats win games. The most simple basic stats are PF and PA. If PF is greater than PA, you win the game. If you understand stastics a little better you can come to some conclusions of your own. You might even be able to provide some actual factual data to back your opinions other than just, having your opinion.

"ejmat" wrote:


Oh yea, and about controlling the clock. A portion of it is running the ball effectively. Throwing short passes is a portion too. Not turning the ball over is also a portion of it. Get over losing Pep. He is gone. Sad but true. BJ is waht we have now. With the team aspect, he is good enough. If someone challenges him for the job, so be it. That's great. If not, so be it. I'm fine either way. You don't have to like it or agree with me. You have your opinions and I have mine. I've played football. I know the intangeables and what's important. You obviously do not. The fact of the matter is It is what it is. Why don't you be a real Vikings fan and respect it? Stop trying to cause problems. You are making a jack@$$ of yourself.I've played: football, baseball, basketball, hockey, softball, soccer and even a little golf! What's your point? Your way off topic again.....

Jeremy
04-23-2006, 10:12 PM
"PackSux!" wrote:

"Jeremy" wrote:

"whiteviking24" wrote:



Here is what I saw on third down rating:

Brad Johnson......76%
Hasselbeck.........77%
Brady................78%
Rothlisberger......74%

keep in mind two of them were just in a superbowl and keep in mind Numbers arn't everthing.

I'm not trying to argue with ya, just tryin to see where you are coming from.Ratings are not percents. Conversion rates when passing of those same QB's are:
Johnson...........29%
Hasselbeck......38%
Brady.............44%
Rothlisburger..38%

Brad can't move the chains. He is excessively conserative. It's thrd and 7. Hey I'll dump it off to my halfback.


So what you are trying to say is that you are not a Brad Johnson fan.I was elated when they traded captian dumpoff to the Skins.

The QB timeline....
Johnson traded to Washington for a first rounder that was used to select Culpepper.
Culpepper traded to Maimi for a 2nd rounder so they can start the guy they traded away(Johnson), who is now turning 38 years old.

It's going to go down like the Hershal Walker trade, count on it. In back to back years they trade away frachise players when their value is at it's absolute lowest. Buy low and sell high, it's simple economics. Vikings bought high with Hershal Walker and sold low with Moss and Pep. Very stupid moves.

At last when they traded Johnson they did it when his value was high. They recieved a 1st, future 2nd and 3rd round picks for him. Not a bad move at all form a GM standpoint.

MensaTice
04-23-2006, 10:49 PM
Here's a fact to back up everyone else's argument. Jeremy is a :tard:
Yes stats are facts. Thanks for explaning that. Anyone can look up stats and copy and paste them here. That in no way proves that BJ won't be a winning QB in this system. You can't prove that because you don't know anything about football. That is something everyone else can agree on after reading this thread. Now run along and wear your Daunte Doplfins jersey with pride.

Jeremy
04-23-2006, 10:52 PM
"MensaTice" wrote:

Here's a fact to back up everyone else's argument. Jeremy is a :tard:
Yes stats are facts. Thanks for explaning that. Anyone can look up stats and copy and paste them here. That in no way proves that BJ won't be a winning QB in this system. You can't prove that because you don't know anything about football. That is something everyone else can agree on after reading this thread. Now run along and wear your Daunte Doplfins jersey with pride.Sigh....more flaming..... :roll:

MensaTice
04-23-2006, 10:58 PM
Nice retort. Come back to this thread when you can actually analyze football instead of pasting stats. You might gain some credibility.

MaddenVodkaAddict
04-23-2006, 11:01 PM
After thinking my argument through extensively, I have come to the conclusion that statistics are overrated, except for those that appear in the "win" column and "loss" column. All too often, a negative statistic will go against a player when the fault is actually of another player. Also, let us not forget those "positive" statistics that occur toward the finale of a competition that result only due to a team's trailing by a significant deficit from the earlier stage of a competition.

MensaTice
04-23-2006, 11:09 PM
"maddenhasamancrushonfavre" wrote:

After thinking my argument through extensively, I have come to the conclusion that statistics are overrated, except for those that appear in the "win" column and "loss" column. All too often, a negative statistic will go against a player when the fault is actually of another player. Also, let us not forget those "positive" statistics that occur toward the finale of a competition that result only due to a team's trailing by a significant deficit from the earlier stage of a competition.

Clearly you haven't read Jeremy's posts. Wins/Losses are not nearly as important as third down passing efficiency. Wins is the most overrated stat according to Jeremy. So Maddenmancrush, you are wrong!

Jeremy
04-23-2006, 11:11 PM
"maddenhasamancrushonfavre" wrote:

All too often, a negative statistic will go against a player when the fault is actually of another player. These are all of the points that resulted in points off Culepper turnovers during the 5 losses at the begining of the season.

Aginst Tampa Bay one TD was scored of a Culpepper turnover. 80 yard drive. Already down 17-13. That was the pass that bounced off Moe Willaims hands near the end of the game.

Game was out of hand against Cinci because of Micheal Bennet two fumbles that lead to TD's.

Against Cinci a TD was scored off a Culpepper turnover. 53 yard drive. Already down 20-0.

Against Cinci a TD was scored off a Culpepper turnover. 16 yard drive. Already down 27-0.

Against Cinci a FG was scored off a Culpepper turnover. 67 yard drive. Already down 34-0.

Against Atlanta a TD was scroed off a Culpepper fumble. 45 yrd drive Already down 20-0.

Conclusion, Culpepper tunrovers didn't cost us any games last year. With 4 of them the Vikings were alrady down by 20 or more points. The fifth should have been a complated pass.

jonnyb
04-23-2006, 11:13 PM
The fact of the matter is that BJ is old. He was solid, but nothing special last year, and we need to find a solution at QB. Keeping Brad around another year is fine as long as we have his replacement learning underhim next season.

Jeremy
04-23-2006, 11:16 PM
"MensaTice" wrote:

"maddenhasamancrushonfavre" wrote:

After thinking my argument through extensively, I have come to the conclusion that statistics are overrated, except for those that appear in the "win" column and "loss" column. All too often, a negative statistic will go against a player when the fault is actually of another player. Also, let us not forget those "positive" statistics that occur toward the finale of a competition that result only due to a team's trailing by a significant deficit from the earlier stage of a competition.

Clearly you haven't read Jeremy's posts. Wins/Losses are not nearly as important as third down passing efficiency. Wins is the most overrated stat according to Jeremy. So Maddenmancrush, you are wrong!QB wins are overrated.

Ltrey33
04-23-2006, 11:19 PM
"Jeremy" wrote:

"PackSux!" wrote:

"Jeremy" wrote:

"whiteviking24" wrote:



Here is what I saw on third down rating:

Brad Johnson......76%
Hasselbeck.........77%
Brady................78%
Rothlisberger......74%

keep in mind two of them were just in a superbowl and keep in mind Numbers arn't everthing.

I'm not trying to argue with ya, just tryin to see where you are coming from.Ratings are not percents. Conversion rates when passing of those same QB's are:
Johnson...........29%
Hasselbeck......38%
Brady.............44%
Rothlisburger..38%

Brad can't move the chains. He is excessively conserative. It's thrd and 7. Hey I'll dump it off to my halfback.


So what you are trying to say is that you are not a Brad Johnson fan.I was elated when they traded captian dumpoff to the Skins.

The QB timeline....
Johnson traded to Washington for a first rounder that was used to select Culpepper.
Culpepper traded to Maimi for a 2nd rounder so they can start the guy they traded away(Johnson), who is now turning 38 years old.

It's going to go down like the Hershal Walker trade, count on it. In back to back years they trade away frachise players when their value is at it's absolute lowest. Buy low and sell high, it's simple economics. Vikings bought high with Hershal Walker and sold low with Moss and Pep. Very stupid moves.

At last when they traded Johnson they did it when his value was high. They recieved a 1st, future 2nd and 3rd round picks for him. Not a bad move at all form a GM standpoint.

You missed some parts in the QB timeline.

Johnson traded to Washington for a first rounder that was used to select Culpepper.
Johnson is traded to the Buccaneers who then go on to win the Super Bowl.
Culpepper only makes the playoffs twice and advances past the divisional round once. The teams he quarterbacks continually underproduce and only exceed a .500 record once.
Johnson is signed out of free agency for a very good price to become a backup. Culpepper throws 12 INTs in 6 games, sustains a massive injury to his knee, goes into hiding, Johnson goes 7-2 in his absence, Culpepper resurfaces only to complain about his contract and ask for more money.
Culpepper traded to Maimi for a 2nd rounder so they can start the guy they traded away(Johnson), who is now turning 38 years old.

ejmat
04-23-2006, 11:20 PM
Jeremy, stats are stats. They are not the entire picture. Enough said. I'm done debating with your ignorant @$$

jonnyb
04-23-2006, 11:22 PM
"Jeremy" wrote:

"maddenhasamancrushonfavre" wrote:

All too often, a negative statistic will go against a player when the fault is actually of another player. These are all of the points that resulted in points off Culepper turnovers during the 5 losses at the begining of the season.

Aginst Tampa Bay one TD was scored of a Culpepper turnover. 80 yard drive. Already down 17-13. That was the pass that bounced off Moe Willaims hands near the end of the game.

Game was out of hand against Cinci because of Micheal Bennet two fumbles that lead to TD's.

Against Cinci a TD was scored off a Culpepper turnover. 53 yard drive. Already down 20-0.

Against Cinci a TD was scored off a Culpepper turnover. 16 yard drive. Already down 27-0.

Against Cinci a FG was scored off a Culpepper turnover. 67 yard drive. Already down 34-0.

Against Atlanta a TD was scroed off a Culpepper fumble. 45 yrd drive Already down 20-0.

Conclusion, Culpepper tunrovers didn't cost us any games last year. With 4 of them the Vikings were alrady down by 20 or more points. The fifth should have been a complated pass.

Daunte's fumbleitus killed us throughout his carreer. He was a freak with a cannon and the ability to run but always dropped the ball in crunch time. Hes fun to watch but will never lead a team to a ring.

Prophet
04-23-2006, 11:45 PM
I just read this thread for the first time. Here are my thoughts regarding the topic:

http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/110500.gif

jonnyb
04-23-2006, 11:46 PM
"farvathevikinglover" wrote:

"jonnyb" wrote:

"umaguma1979" wrote:

Brad is not a big play QB, but he is steady and does not make too many huge mistakes. Sometimes the mark of a good Qb is ho many bad plays he avoids as much as making the big play. He is good enough given the talented Vikings roster to start.

Playing not to make a mistake is the same as playing not to lose. As we all know, thats not a good way to work.We may have to make do with that from Brad unless he all the sudden gets really good at making big plays again or we draft a guy who turns out to be really good.

BJ will do fine next year, dont get me wrong, I just think we need to find his replacement now

MensaTice
04-23-2006, 11:49 PM
"jonnyb" wrote:

BJ will do fine next year, dont get me wrong, I just think we need to find his replacement now

Its no secret that that's the plan

VikesFan4Life
04-23-2006, 11:51 PM
"Prophet" wrote:

I just read this thread for the first time. Here are my thoughts regarding the topic:

http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/110500.gif

:sign5: Same here, now I know why I never bothered to look.

whiteviking24
04-24-2006, 01:05 AM
"Jeremy" wrote:

"whiteviking24" wrote:



Here is what I saw on third down rating:

Brad Johnson......76%
Hasselbeck.........77%
Brady................78%
Rothlisberger......74%

keep in mind two of them were just in a superbowl and keep in mind Numbers arn't everthing.

I'm not trying to argue with ya, just tryin to see where you are coming from.Ratings are not percents. Conversion rates when passing of those same QB's are:
Johnson...........29%
Hasselbeck......38%
Brady.............44%
Rothlisburger..38%

Brad can't move the chains. He is excessively conserative. It's thrd and 7. Hey I'll dump it off to my halfback.

Okay, In the very first page of this topic you say BJ can't move the chains on third down.

Yea, I don't know why I put a percentage at the end of the QB rating for third down on the first post.

I went on www.nfl.com just like you said and looked at third down complete percentage and got this

Johnson...........56%
Hasselbeck......53%
Brady.............55%
Rothlisberger...47%

Am I doing something wrong or looking at the wrong thing or what????

Are we beating a dead horse yet?? :roll:

purplepride818
04-24-2006, 01:32 AM
"jonnyb" wrote:

"Jeremy" wrote:

"maddenhasamancrushonfavre" wrote:

All too often, a negative statistic will go against a player when the fault is actually of another player. These are all of the points that resulted in points off Culepper turnovers during the 5 losses at the begining of the season.

Aginst Tampa Bay one TD was scored of a Culpepper turnover. 80 yard drive. Already down 17-13. That was the pass that bounced off Moe Willaims hands near the end of the game.

Game was out of hand against Cinci because of Micheal Bennet two fumbles that lead to TD's.

Against Cinci a TD was scored off a Culpepper turnover. 53 yard drive. Already down 20-0.

Against Cinci a TD was scored off a Culpepper turnover. 16 yard drive. Already down 27-0.

Against Cinci a FG was scored off a Culpepper turnover. 67 yard drive. Already down 34-0.

Against Atlanta a TD was scroed off a Culpepper fumble. 45 yrd drive Already down 20-0.

Conclusion, Culpepper tunrovers didn't cost us any games last year. With 4 of them the Vikings were alrady down by 20 or more points. The fifth should have been a complated pass.
Daunte's fumbleitus killed us throughout his carreer. He was a freak with a cannon and the ability to run but always dropped the ball in crunch time. Hes fun to watch but will never lead a team to a ring.


yeah but if daunte didnt turn the ball over and scored on those it could have been a different ballgame.

Jeremy
04-24-2006, 01:55 AM
"whiteviking24" wrote:

"Jeremy" wrote:

"whiteviking24" wrote:



Here is what I saw on third down rating:

Brad Johnson......76%
Hasselbeck.........77%
Brady................78%
Rothlisberger......74%

keep in mind two of them were just in a superbowl and keep in mind Numbers arn't everthing.

I'm not trying to argue with ya, just tryin to see where you are coming from.Ratings are not percents. Conversion rates when passing of those same QB's are:
Johnson...........29%
Hasselbeck......38%
Brady.............44%
Rothlisburger..38%

Brad can't move the chains. He is excessively conserative. It's thrd and 7. Hey I'll dump it off to my halfback.

Okay, In the very first page of this topic you say BJ can't move the chains on third down.

Yea, I don't know why I put a percentage at the end of the QB rating for third down on the first post.

I went on www.nfl.com just like you said and looked at third down complete percentage and got this

Johnson...........56%
Hasselbeck......53%
Brady.............55%
Rothlisberger...47%

Am I doing something wrong or looking at the wrong thing or what????

Are we beating a dead horse yet?? :roll:You are not doing the math. The percents they list are for first downs for completeion not attempts.

Divide Attempts on 3rd down by number of first downs to get the 3rd down conversion rate.

Jeremy
04-24-2006, 01:56 AM
"purplepride818" wrote:

"jonnyb" wrote:

"Jeremy" wrote:

"maddenhasamancrushonfavre" wrote:

All too often, a negative statistic will go against a player when the fault is actually of another player. These are all of the points that resulted in points off Culepper turnovers during the 5 losses at the begining of the season.

Aginst Tampa Bay one TD was scored of a Culpepper turnover. 80 yard drive. Already down 17-13. That was the pass that bounced off Moe Willaims hands near the end of the game.

Game was out of hand against Cinci because of Micheal Bennet two fumbles that lead to TD's.

Against Cinci a TD was scored off a Culpepper turnover. 53 yard drive. Already down 20-0.

Against Cinci a TD was scored off a Culpepper turnover. 16 yard drive. Already down 27-0.

Against Cinci a FG was scored off a Culpepper turnover. 67 yard drive. Already down 34-0.

Against Atlanta a TD was scroed off a Culpepper fumble. 45 yrd drive Already down 20-0.

Conclusion, Culpepper tunrovers didn't cost us any games last year. With 4 of them the Vikings were alrady down by 20 or more points. The fifth should have been a complated pass.
Daunte's fumbleitus killed us throughout his carreer. He was a freak with a cannon and the ability to run but always dropped the ball in crunch time. Hes fun to watch but will never lead a team to a ring.


yeah but if daunte didnt turn the ball over and scored on those it could have been a different ballgame.If you think they are going to come back down 20-0 or more you're high.

whiteviking24
04-24-2006, 02:47 AM
Jeremy....I think you are not looking at the same thing I am !!!!!!!!!!!

There is a space for a QB's percentage completion for every down!!!

Example: 1st 121-77....63%

2nd 85-58....68%

3rd 85-48....56%

4th 3-1...33%

I think one of us is not looking at this correctly.

However, IMO it doesn't really matter....if we win that is all that matters.

IT'S JUST NUMBERS-NO MATTER HOW YOU CRUNCH THEM

you are not gonna convince me that BJ is not a Great descion maker,game manager, or leader.

Even if he is not the greatest QB ever, doesn't mean we can't get places with him.

I'm just saying man........moving on

ejmat
04-24-2006, 04:39 AM
Oh but don't you know according to Jeremy stats are everything. QBs don't manage games...a good running game does. These are quotes of Jeremy.

Jeremy
04-24-2006, 03:57 PM
"ejmat" wrote:

Oh but don't you know according to Jeremy stats are everything. QBs don't manage games...a good running game does. These are quotes of Jeremy.Never wrote that. Clock management and game management are two different things. This just proves that you are either illiterate or can't comprehend.

Ltrey33
04-24-2006, 04:03 PM
"Jeremy" wrote:

"ejmat" wrote:

Oh but don't you know according to Jeremy stats are everything. QBs don't manage games...a good running game does. These are quotes of Jeremy.Never wrote that. Clock management and game management are two different things. This just proves that you are either illiterate or can't comprehend.

I think I speak for everyone when I say, "Chill the fuck out!" Agree to disagree on this one and move on.

danimal292
04-24-2006, 04:16 PM
he has won a superbowl... enough said!

NodakPaul
04-24-2006, 04:19 PM
"Prophet" wrote:

I just read this thread for the first time. Here are my thoughts regarding the topic:

http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/110500.gif

God damn it Prophet. I laughed so hard I actually had Mt Dew come out my nose (in case anybody is curious, it burns). Now I have to clean off my keyboard too...

:sign5:

Prophet
04-24-2006, 04:25 PM
"Jeremy" wrote:

I back my opinions with facts. Stats are facts and they are used to analyze teams/players in every single professional sport, from tennis to water polo to baseball to football. They are used to find strengths and weaknesses of teams or players. Stats win games. The most simple basic stats are PF and PA. If PF is greater than PA, you win the game. If you understand statistics a little better you can come to some conclusions of your own. You might even be able to provide some actual factual data to back your opinions other than just, having your opinion.


First, statistics are not facts. Statistics are taking quantitative data (in this case numbers from previous games for a player/team) and using them to estimate a population (in this case the future success of a player/team). Like you and others have mentioned, there are many intangibles that are not included in statistics so they are one mechanism for analysis, but are flawed. Better then nothing, but don't even try to say statistics are facts. I will personally send you $1,000 if you can find one reputable mathematician that will say statistics are facts.

You have a gripe about BJ not being 'the man'. I commend you for trying to support your theories with statistics, that's more then many do on the site. However, the actual numbers are facts, but when you speculate about the future using these numbers it is pure speculation. Speculation has error. The best science in the world is not fact, just supported by statistics.

If you think you are enlightening anybody about the Vikings' QB situation, well, you are not. There is not a fan in the NFL that thinks Brad Johnson is the long-term solution to the Vikings' QB situation. Brad Johnson is a veteran and he has proven that he can manage a game and not make numerous bone-headed decisions when the pressure is on. He is also an asset to the team because he is a veteran presence that can help others on the team and help train whomever the new long-term QB will be for the Vikings.

We all know that you don't think Brad Johnson is a hero. Your point was made about seven pages ago. If you think your careless use of statistics is going to sway anybody's opinion you should do a statistical analysis of your posts and the responses to your posts and rethink your approach to the argument.

Del Rio
04-24-2006, 04:51 PM
Jeremy just wasted a whole lot of time.

He could have just said "I don't like Brad Johnson" Instead he felt he needed to create a thread dedicated to stating what he has made very clear in ALL of his posts:

A) He doesn't like Brad Johnson
B) When asked about his contradictions in logic he does not respond
C) He does not hesitate to flame other members who question his "facts"
D) His "facts" are not facts but rather SELECTIVE statistics taken from a small sampling and applied to an opinion.

Basically you can let it rest now because I know for a fact that if Brad Johnson lead our team to a Superbowl this year you would be the last person to eat crow, you would backpeddle and sidestep every logical response thrown your way.

I plan on skipping on by your posts for the rest of the season. I pray to god I don't have to endure a game by game break down of why Brad Johnson doesn't make your jeans rise in the morning; because they are riddled with fallacy and half truths.

Go back to flipping over your topps football cards to gather your latest stats ammunition.

I've witnessed some members bantering with this "troll" all I can say is do it as long as it is fun, because it will not lead to anything productive. This is the same type of poster that Caine can write a 2 page logical well delivered response to and it gets completely ignored.

Euphman06
04-24-2006, 05:26 PM
Jeremy= OWNED

I guess you just got your "stats" put where the sun don't shine..

ItalianStallion
04-24-2006, 05:31 PM
...so how 'bout that draft? lol.

Euphman06
04-24-2006, 05:33 PM
PLus let's remember those "facts" or stats if you will, were in a DIFFERENT offensive system then what we are using this year. BJ may be a huge buff in the new system or he could completely fail. Who knows? It's like saying a person who failed out of Harvard is going to fail out of the local community college (not to dis anyone). A different system can produce different results. It's a waiting game.

ejmat
04-24-2006, 07:54 PM
Jeremy, you want to say I'm iliterate? I have an MBA. How about you? The only thing you proved is you made an A$$ out of yourself. You base all of football on stats. You don't look at any other part of the game. JACKA$$!!!!!!!!!!!

ItalianStallion
04-24-2006, 08:01 PM
Wow, seriously take it easy with the personal attacks and ganging up people.

ejmat
04-24-2006, 08:15 PM
You're right Italian. I'm not sorry for attacking Jeremy because he deserves everything he gets. I am sorry to the rest of you. Won't happen again.

midgensa
04-24-2006, 08:32 PM
"Del Rio" wrote:

Jeremy just wasted a whole lot of time.

He could have just said "I don't like Brad Johnson" Instead he felt he needed to create a thread dedicated to stating what he has made very clear in ALL of his posts:

A) He doesn't like Brad Johnson
B) When asked about his contradictions in logic he does not respond
C) He does not hesitate to flame other members who question his "facts"
D) His "facts" are not facts but rather SELECTIVE statistics taken from a small sampling and applied to an opinion.

Basically you can let it rest now because I know for a fact that if Brad Johnson lead our team to a Superbowl this year you would be the last person to eat crow, you would backpeddle and sidestep every logical response thrown your way.

I plan on skipping on by your posts for the rest of the season. I pray to god I don't have to endure a game by game break down of why Brad Johnson doesn't make your jeans rise in the morning; because they are riddled with fallacy and half truths.

Go back to flipping over your topps football cards to gather your latest stats ammunition.

I've witnessed some members bantering with this "troll" all I can say is do it as long as it is fun, because it will not lead to anything productive. This is the same type of poster that Caine can write a 2 page logical well delivered response to and it gets completely ignored.

I started to baneter with him a little, because I am not a huge Brad Johnson supporter and I do think C-Pep might have a little left, but he still makes crap up and it makes me seethe. And his stats are not always entirely accurate ... thanks for a quick post explaining to people who are not all that familiar that there is only one way to deal with obnoxious trolls such as this ...
That is to ignore them.

ejmat
04-24-2006, 09:49 PM
That is what I will do from now on. Thanks for the advice.

Jeremy
04-24-2006, 10:34 PM
"Prophet" wrote:

"Jeremy" wrote:

I back my opinions with facts. Stats are facts and they are used to analyze teams/players in every single professional sport, from tennis to water polo to baseball to football. They are used to find strengths and weaknesses of teams or players. Stats win games. The most simple basic stats are PF and PA. If PF is greater than PA, you win the game. If you understand statistics a little better you can come to some conclusions of your own. You might even be able to provide some actual factual data to back your opinions other than just, having your opinion.


First, statistics are not facts. Statistics are taking quantitative data (in this case numbers from previous games for a player/team) and using them to estimate a population (in this case the future success of a player/team). Like you and others have mentioned, there are many intangibles that are not included in statistics so they are one mechanism for analysis, but are flawed. Better then nothing, but don't even try to say statistics are facts. I will personally send you $1,000 if you can find one reputable mathematician that will say statistics are facts.

You have a gripe about BJ not being 'the man'. I commend you for trying to support your theories with statistics, that's more then many do on the site. However, the actual numbers are facts, but when you speculate about the future using these numbers it is pure speculation. Speculation has error. The best science in the world is not fact, just supported by statistics.

If you think you are enlightening anybody about the Vikings' QB situation, well, you are not. There is not a fan in the NFL that thinks Brad Johnson is the long-term solution to the Vikings' QB situation. Brad Johnson is a veteran and he has proven that he can manage a game and not make numerous bone-headed decisions when the pressure is on. He is also an asset to the team because he is a veteran presence that can help others on the team and help train whomever the new long-term QB will be for the Vikings.

We all know that you don't think Brad Johnson is a hero. Your point was made about seven pages ago. If you think your careless use of statistics is going to sway anybody's opinion you should do a statistical analysis of your posts and the responses to your posts and rethink your approach to the argument.

Where's my 1,000 bucks?

Source (http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:YpFsAQ41ai8J:www.olemiss.edu/courses/psy202/IntroductiontoStatistics.ppt+%22statistics+are+facts%22+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=7)


1.1 Definitions of Statistics


Common/everyday language: Statistics are facts and figures

Copyright © 2002 Wadsworth Group. Wadsworth is an imprint of the Wadsworth Group, a division of Thomson Learning

:grin:

Prophet
04-24-2006, 10:40 PM
"Prophet" wrote:

..I will personally send you $1,000 if you can find one reputable mathematician that will say statistics are facts...

"Jeremy" wrote:


Where's my 1,000 bucks?

Source (http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:YpFsAQ41ai8J:www.olemiss.edu/courses/psy202/IntroductiontoStatistics.ppt+%22statistics+are+facts%22+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=7)

1.1 Definitions of Statistics


Common/everyday language: Statistics are facts and figures

Copyright © 2002 Wadsworth Group. Wadsworth is an imprint of the Wadsworth Group, a division of Thomson Learning

:grin:

Read my quote and attempt to understand it.

Jeremy
04-24-2006, 11:55 PM
"Prophet" wrote:

"Prophet" wrote:

..I will personally send you $1,000 if you can find one reputable mathematician that will say statistics are facts...

"Jeremy" wrote:


Where's my 1,000 bucks?

Source (http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:YpFsAQ41ai8J:www.olemiss.edu/courses/psy202/IntroductiontoStatistics.ppt+%22statistics+are+facts%22+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=7)

1.1 Definitions of Statistics


Common/everyday language: Statistics are facts and figures

Copyright © 2002 Wadsworth Group. Wadsworth is an imprint of the Wadsworth Group, a division of Thomson Learning

:grin:

Read my quote and attempt to understand it.Who do you think wrote that? An english teacher?

fromos
04-24-2006, 11:58 PM
"ejmat" wrote:

He may never have the stats the make the HOF .
Actually, he's got one of the top 20 career passer ratings of all-time and is the only QB in NFl history to have completed over 60% of his passes for 10 years straight.

"ejmat" wrote:

BJ just happened to perform better last year than Pep IMO. .
Johnson also performed better than Pep in 2001 and 2002, performed almost as good in 2003.

"vikesoto" wrote:

Many seem to forget we NEEDED late season wins to make the playoffs and we lost to Pitt and Baltimore last year when he was at QB, and that he was the QB against Carolna who spanked us.
It's funny when a person goes 7-2 as a starter people still have to find ways to criticise him by picking on those 2 he lost in. Nobody won them all. Many seem to forget that Pittsburgh was the superbowl champions this season. Baltimore was one of the few teams to beat Pittsburgh too. Carolina he came into cold with at 0-7, and Carolina had the #2 ranked defense in the league this season.

"ItalianStallion" wrote:

I like Brad, but with him at the helm I see us with almost zero chance of winning a superbowl
Simply not a logical conclusion considering he won one just 3 yrs and 3 months ago. How many QBs can say that? Certainly not any proposed to be in his spot.

"jonnyb" wrote:

In the two games we lost he was brutal. In a few of the wins the he wasnt very good either. 0 offensive TDs in the win agains the Giants.
He also had 0 interceptions and 0 fumbles, which allowed us to win. Not too many offenses did very well against NY this year, considering they had the number 8 ranked defense in the league. We were lucky to beat them, and we did thanks to 0 errors, a little luck, and a game winning drive at the end.


I remeber hearing that after we played Carolina that BJ was telling Tice he wanted to change some things up...
If Childress and Tomlin are as good as advertised, we'll do well this season.
Last year's coaching wasn't suited for Johnson, this year it will be.

"Jeremy" wrote:

2)People still claim he was the reason the Vikes won.
I don't think anybody's saying Johnson is the sole reason we won 7 of our last 9 games. But I do think many are saying that the switch to Johnson is what won 7 of those last 9 games. It's not confusing when you realize that Culpepper was responsible for 12 interceptions and 5 fumbles over the first 7 games (and only threw 6 touchdowns). Culpepper did lose games for us, and Johnson did not lose games for us. So the switch to Johnson allowed us to win, which I think is what anybody saying he was the reason we won means by it.

"Ltrey33" wrote:

Johnson traded to Washington for a first rounder that was used to select Culpepper.
Johnson is traded to the Buccaneers who then go on to win the Super Bowl.
Culpepper only makes the playoffs twice and advances past the divisional round once. The teams he quarterbacks continually underproduce and only exceed a .500 record once.
Johnson is signed out of free agency for a very good price to become a backup. Culpepper throws 12 INTs in 6 games, sustains a massive injury to his knee, goes into hiding, Johnson goes 7-2 in his absence, Culpepper resurfaces only to complain about his contract and ask for more money.
Culpepper traded to Maimi for a 2nd rounder so they can start the guy they traded away(Johnson), who is now turning 38 years old.
Not to mention the year after we traded Johnson, Cunningham flopped and was benched while Johnson threw for over 4000 yards and made the Pro Bowl.

"Prophet" wrote:

First, statistics are not facts. Statistics are taking quantitative data (in this case numbers from previous games for a player/team) and using them to estimate a population (in this case the future success of a player/team). Like you and others have mentioned, there are many intangibles that are not included in statistics so they are one mechanism for analysis, but are flawed. Better then nothing, but don't even try to say statistics are facts.
That may be true to a point, but stats is all we have. Everything else is relative to opinion. You can rate QBs on how much they're paid, fan base, trade value, or how fast they run the 40. But in the end all we got is the score.

Fact is Johnson threw for over 1800 yards and 12 tds to 4 interceptions over 9 1/2 games. This was better than 3/4 of the QBs out there last season. He had a few bad games, they happened to be against top 10 rated defenses. The team had a winning season last year and almost made it to the playoffs. There's no reason we can't do better this year with an improved O line, better coaching, a running game, and a coach from last season's #1 ranked defense.

Who here honestly thought we'd have a 5 game winning streak after pep was injured? Maybe you'll be surprised again. It wouldn't be the first time a 38 yr old QB won the Superbowl, and wouldn't be the first time Johnson's won it either...

Ltrey33
04-25-2006, 12:01 AM
"fromos" wrote:

"ejmat" wrote:

He may never have the stats the make the HOF .
Actually, he's got one of the top career passer ratings of all-time and is the only QB in NFl history to have completed over 60% of his passes for 10 years straight.

"ejmat" wrote:

BJ just happened to perform better last year than Pep IMO. .
Johnson also performed better than Pep in 2001 and 2002, performed almost as good in 2003.

"vikesoto" wrote:

Many seem to forget we NEEDED late season wins to make the playoffs and we lost to Pitt and Baltimore last year when he was at QB, and that he was the QB against Carolna who spanked us.
It's funny when a person goes 7-2 as a starter people still have to find ways to criticise him by picking on those 2 he lost in. Nobody won them all. Many seem to forget that Pittsburgh was the superbowl champions this season. Baltimore was one of the few teams to beat Pittsburgh too. Carolina he came into cold with at 0-7, and Carolina had the #2 ranked defense in the league this season.

"ItalianStallion" wrote:

I like Brad, but with him at the helm I see us with almost zero chance of winning a superbowl
Simply not a logical conclusion considering he won one just 3 yrs and 3 months ago. How many QBs can say that? Certainly not any proposed to be in his spot.

"jonnyb" wrote:

In the two games we lost he was brutal. In a few of the wins the he wasnt very good either. 0 offensive TDs in the win agains the Giants.
He also had 0 interceptions and 0 fumbles, which allowed us to win. Not too many offenses did very well against NY this year, considering they had the number 8 ranked defense in the league. We were lucky to beat them, and we did thanks to 0 errors, a little luck, and a game winning drive at the end.


I remeber hearing that after we played Carolina that BJ was telling Tice he wanted to change some things up...
If Childress and Tomlin are as good as advertised, we'll do well this season.
Last year's coaching wasn't suited for Johnson, this year it will be.

"Jeremy" wrote:

2)People still claim he was the reason the Vikes won.
I don't think anybody's saying Johnson is the sole reason we won 7 of our last 9 games. But I do think many are saying that the switch to Johnson is what won 7 of those last 9 games. It's not confusing when you realize that Culpepper was responsible for 12 interceptions and 5 fumbles over the first 7 games (and only threw 4 touchdowns). Culpepper did lose games for us, and Johnson did not lose games for us. So the switch to Johnson allowed us to win, which I think is what anybody saying he was the reason we won means by it.

"Ltrey33" wrote:

Johnson traded to Washington for a first rounder that was used to select Culpepper.
Johnson is traded to the Buccaneers who then go on to win the Super Bowl.
Culpepper only makes the playoffs twice and advances past the divisional round once. The teams he quarterbacks continually underproduce and only exceed a .500 record once.
Johnson is signed out of free agency for a very good price to become a backup. Culpepper throws 12 INTs in 6 games, sustains a massive injury to his knee, goes into hiding, Johnson goes 7-2 in his absence, Culpepper resurfaces only to complain about his contract and ask for more money.
Culpepper traded to Maimi for a 2nd rounder so they can start the guy they traded away(Johnson), who is now turning 38 years old.
Not to mention the year after we traded Johnson, Cunningham flopped and was benched while Johnson threw for over 4000 yards and made the Pro Bowl.

"Prophet" wrote:

First, statistics are not facts. Statistics are taking quantitative data (in this case numbers from previous games for a player/team) and using them to estimate a population (in this case the future success of a player/team). Like you and others have mentioned, there are many intangibles that are not included in statistics so they are one mechanism for analysis, but are flawed. Better then nothing, but don't even try to say statistics are facts.
That may be true to a point, but stats is all we have. Everything else is relative to opinion. You can rate QBs on how much they're paid, fan base, trade value, or how fast they run the 40. But in the end all we got is the score.

Fact is Johnson threw for over 1800 yards and 12 tds to 4 interceptions over 9 1/2 games. This was better than 3/4 of the QBs out there last season. He had a few bad games, they happened to be against top 10 rated defenses. The team had a winning season last year and almost made it to the playoffs. There's no reason we can't do better this year.

Who here honestly thought we'd have a 5 game winning streak after pep was injured? Maybe you'll be surprised again...

Thank you! If Brad would have started when he came back, we would have a Super Bowl banner hanging in the dome right now. Good post.

Slade
04-25-2006, 12:05 AM
I agree that Brad came up huge last year, but the teams we beat (except the Giants) were kinda pushovers. In the Giants game, we had a great special teams day. But if I remember correctly, Brad played like pooh in that game

Lotza
04-25-2006, 12:05 AM
damn that was a nicely posted post fromos!

ItalianStallion
04-25-2006, 12:13 AM
"ItalianStallion wrote:
I like Brad, but with him at the helm I see us with almost zero chance of winning a superbowl

Simply not a logical conclusion considering he won one just 3 yrs and 3 months ago. How many QBs can say that? Certainly not any proposed to be in his spot."

How is that not a logical conclusion? Your doing exactly the same thing that people are lambasting Jeremy for doing, that is, making predictions about the future based on his past performance in a completely different situation. Simply put, our defense will not be as good (or high scoring) as Tampa's was that year. Without the #1 defense in the league, Brad Johnson wins no superbowl. Without Rich Gannon imploding, Brad Johnson wins no superbowl. Don't give the guy credit for winning that game, because he did play that well.

Brad Johnson did not play that well last year against above average defenses, in fact he played horribly. In the playoffs you will likely play teams with above average defenses. Brad Johnson is 38 years old, and according to YOUR logic, he has as much chance of winning another superbowl as Trent Dilfer because he did it "recently".

MaddenVodkaAddict
04-25-2006, 12:28 AM
"Slade" wrote:

I agree that Brad came up huge last year, but the teams we beat (except the Giants) were kinda pushovers. In the Giants game, we had a great special teams day. But if I remember correctly, Brad played like pooh in that game

Although Mr. Johnson did not complete any passes into the end zone, one must also remember that he did not complete any passes into the hands of the opposing team, which is the New York Giants.

ItalianStallion
04-25-2006, 12:34 AM
"maddenhasamancrushonfavre" wrote:

"Slade" wrote:

I agree that Brad came up huge last year, but the teams we beat (except the Giants) were kinda pushovers. In the Giants game, we had a great special teams day. But if I remember correctly, Brad played like pooh in that game

Although Mr. Johnson did not complete any passes into the end zone, one must also remember that he did not complete any passes into the hands of the opposing team, which is the New York Giants.

If all you have to do is not throw interceptions to be a good NFL QB, sign me up.

ejmat
04-25-2006, 12:41 AM
It's easier said than done Italian. But seriously, BJ has been a solid QB his entire career. Again, he may not have the stats that other QBs have. But IMO opinion the stats he does have are just as important. Not making turnovers and career winning % are just 2 examples. His leadership and game management skills are just as good as almost anyone in the league. That may not be important to some people but to me it is. BJ has been solid. What he still has left, I don't know. Heck, Rich Gannon didn't have elite stats till he reached his mid to upper 30s. You just never know. I can say this. I feel comfortable with BJ as the starter for right now. He is not the long term answer but he still has a couple of good years left. He can handle just about any type of offense. Not a lot of QBs can do that. If someone challenges him for the job that would be terrific. If he's the clear cut starter than so be it.

MaddenVodkaAddict
04-25-2006, 12:43 AM
"ItalianStallion" wrote:

"maddenhasamancrushonfavre" wrote:

"Slade" wrote:

I agree that Brad came up huge last year, but the teams we beat (except the Giants) were kinda pushovers. In the Giants game, we had a great special teams day. But if I remember correctly, Brad played like pooh in that game

Although Mr. Johnson did not complete any passes into the end zone, one must also remember that he did not complete any passes into the hands of the opposing team, which is the New York Giants.

If all you have to do is not throw interceptions to be a good NFL QB, sign me up.

I did not specifically state that he played a "good game". However, if Mr. Culpepper were playing, I would guess that he would have thrown enough interceptions or fumbled the ball too many times to lose the game.

fromos
04-25-2006, 12:46 AM
"ItalianStallion" wrote:

"ItalianStallion wrote:
I like Brad, but with him at the helm I see us with almost zero chance of winning a superbowl

Simply not a logical conclusion considering he won one just 3 yrs and 3 months ago. How many QBs can say that? Certainly not any proposed to be in his spot."

How is that not a logical conclusion?
Because once someone wins the Superbowl it's not logical anymore to say they can't win it.

"ItalianStallion" wrote:

Simply put, our defense will not be as good (or high scoring) as Tampa's was that year.
How do you know? We've got their defensive back coach.

"ItalianStallion" wrote:

Without the #1 defense in the league, Brad .Johnson wins no superbowl. .
You seem to be forgetting Johnson had the #1 passer rating in the whole NFC that year and broke the Tampa record for touchdowns.

"ItalianStallion" wrote:

Don't give the guy credit for winning that game, because he did play that well..
Why not? He threw 215 yards, 2 touchdowns, and 1 interception that game. This was better than Roethlisberger did in this year's Superbowl and about as good as Brady did in the Superbowl the year before.

Slade
04-25-2006, 12:54 AM
"maddenhasamancrushonfavre" wrote:

"ItalianStallion" wrote:

"maddenhasamancrushonfavre" wrote:

"Slade" wrote:

I agree that Brad came up huge last year, but the teams we beat (except the Giants) were kinda pushovers. In the Giants game, we had a great special teams day. But if I remember correctly, Brad played like pooh in that game

Although Mr. Johnson did not complete any passes into the end zone, one must also remember that he did not complete any passes into the hands of the opposing team, which is the New York Giants.

If all you have to do is not throw interceptions to be a good NFL QB, sign me up.

I did not specifically state that he played a "good game". However, if Mr. Culpepper were playing, I would guess that he would have thrown enough interceptions or fumbled the ball too many times to lose the game.

~ True, he did not turn the ball over...but without our kick,INT & punt returns for TD's we would have lost. Now don't get me wrong, I'm glad Brad is here. He will be a great mentor to who ever we get as our future QB. But last year he did his job, nothing special. The one game I think he did real well, despite losing is vs the Ravens: 25/36, 248 yards, 2 TD's, 0 INT's & 107.2 QB rating. That was against a good D that needed to win that game as much as we did. Brads not bad, but I'm kinda on the fence this year on how he will do

ItalianStallion
04-25-2006, 04:21 AM
"fromos" wrote:

"ItalianStallion" wrote:

"ItalianStallion wrote:
I like Brad, but with him at the helm I see us with almost zero chance of winning a superbowl

Simply not a logical conclusion considering he won one just 3 yrs and 3 months ago. How many QBs can say that? Certainly not any proposed to be in his spot."

How is that not a logical conclusion?
Because once someone wins the Superbowl it's not logical anymore to say they can't win it.

"ItalianStallion" wrote:

Simply put, our defense will not be as good (or high scoring) as Tampa's was that year.
How do you know? We've got their defensive back coach.

"ItalianStallion" wrote:

Without the #1 defense in the league, Brad .Johnson wins no superbowl. .
You seem to be forgetting Johnson had the #1 passer rating in the whole NFC that year and broke the Tampa record for touchdowns.

"ItalianStallion" wrote:

Don't give the guy credit for winning that game, because he did play that well..
Why not? He threw 215 yards, 2 touchdowns, and 1 interception that game. This was better than Roethlisberger did in this year's Superbowl and about as good as Brady did in the Superbowl the year before.

I never said Brad CAN'T win another superbowl, I simply said I don't see us winning one with him as our starter. Any quarterback CAN win a superbowl. Joe Montana won a superbowl, do you think he still can?

Our defense will not be as good as Tampa's was that year because we do not have the personnel that they had. Simply having a DB coach from a previously great defense does not come anything close to guaranteeing we will have a #1 defense in the league.

Both Brady and Roethlisberger would not have won a superbowl without their great defenses either. Is that to say they aren't good QBs? No, but in those specific superbowls, they didn't win in large part because of them. I mean come on, the TB defense scored 21 points, Brad was only responsible for 14.

Seriously, the guy is 38 and didn't contribute a lot in the way of offense against even bad teams last year. Can we win with him? Sure, as long as our Defense and special teams play amazing, which will not happen (at least on a consistent basis)

DarrinNelsonguy
04-25-2006, 04:24 AM
We will win 10 games next year and it will be due to a stellar run offense and decent defensive play. I love the fact we are going to win a lot of 17-10 type games this year.

ultravikingfan
04-25-2006, 05:28 AM
http://sk1pper.com/omg.bmp

DarrinNelsonguy
04-25-2006, 05:29 AM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:

http://sk1pper.com/omg.bmp

WTF is the pic for?

ultravikingfan
04-25-2006, 05:47 AM
This thread. :lol:

fromos
04-25-2006, 04:41 PM
"ItalianStallion" wrote:


Any quarterback CAN win a superbowl.

I'd disagree. Some quarterbacks would choke and not put up the performance needed to win a Superbowl. We already know Johnson is capable of that performance, can't say the same for some of the unproven QBs out there.

"ItalianStallion" wrote:

Simply having a DB coach from a previously great defense does not come anything close to guaranteeing we will have a #1 defense in the league.
Well, they weren't just previously a great defense... they currently are a great defense too. They were ranked #1 in the NFL this season too giving up half the yards of #2. Maybe it takes more than a coach of theirs, but it's certainly gonna help isn't it? I wouldn't guarantee a #1 ranked defense next season either, but then again neither of us knows for sure how they are going to perform. They weren't all that bad this season and might surprise us next season.

"ItalianStallion" wrote:

TB defense scored 21 points, Brad was only responsible for 14.
The Tampa offense scored 27 points to the other teams 21 pts. Even without an exceptional performance by Tampa's defense they would have still won. It was a 48-21 blow out. Some seem to forget that.

"ItalianStallion" wrote:

Seriously, the guy is 38 and didn't contribute a lot in the way of offense against even bad teams last year... Joe Montana won a superbowl, do you think he still can?
Wouldn't be the first time a 38 yr old QB has won the Superbowl, and wouldn't be the first time Johnson's won it either. All I'm saying is it's possible, in fact it wouldn't come as too much of a surprise to some people (the commentators would probably be saying "well of course, he did it 3-4 yrs ago too".)

Joe Montana's not in playing condition and didn't take a team 7-2 as a starter this season, Johnson did. And next season we'll have Hutchinson, Birk, a running game, and a West Coast offense (Johnson needs a West Coast Offense.) Isn't it a bit early to be throwing in the towel?

ItalianStallion
04-25-2006, 05:22 PM
I'm not throwing in the towel, I think we can be very competitive next year, and I am definitely expecting to make the playoffs. Its just my opinion that Brad doesn't still have the ability to put together strong offensive performances consistently (especially against good defenses), that we'll probably require to win most of our games. I believe our winning streak had more to do with our defense, special teams and not having Culpepper to turn the ball over 5 times a game than it did with any production from Brad.

But alas, some people seem to have infinite faith in this guy because he didn't lose the superbowl once, I just hope everyone realizes that we need to address the future of the QB position in this years draft.

ultravikingfan
04-25-2006, 05:24 PM
Why not next years draft or FA next year? Whats the rush?

Thanks for the towel. :razz:

Del Rio
04-25-2006, 05:29 PM
"Its just my opinion that Brad doesn't still have the ability to put together strong offensive performances consistently"

and there is no way to "proove" that opinion using statistics

Johnson has the third-highest winning percentage among active quarterbacks who have started at least 50 games.

That's a stat I can rest my head on at night and feel ok.

BBQ Platypus
04-25-2006, 05:38 PM
I agree. The guy can win games given enough support. Hopefully, with the improved and better-managed offense we have now, we won't be seeing too many games like the ones he had against the Giants and Steelers.

NodakPaul
04-25-2006, 05:47 PM
"ItalianStallion" wrote:

I'm not throwing in the towel, I think we can be very competitive next year, and I am definitely expecting to make the playoffs. Its just my opinion that Brad doesn't still have the ability to put together strong offensive performances consistently (especially against good defenses), that we'll probably require to win most of our games. I believe our winning streak had more to do with our defense, special teams and not having Culpepper to turn the ball over 5 times a game than it did with any production from Brad.

But alas, some people seem to have infinite faith in this guy because he didn't lose the superbowl once, I just hope everyone realizes that we need to address the future of the QB position in this years draft.

I am there with you IS. I think BJ is a good QB. I am glad he is our starter this year instead of DC. I like the fact that he doesn't give up many turnovers. I think he is not just a good QB, but a great person. He is a leader, he is intelligent, and he makes good, quick decisions.

But he is not our answer for a super bowl. Not going into his 15th year in the NFL. I would love to be proven wrong but I just don't see it happening.

cajunvike
04-25-2006, 05:52 PM
Brad could easily have an average season and STILL lead us to the Super Bowl. We don't need a superstar QB, just one that won't lose games by making stupid mistakes. Brad can easily handle that job...just as long as we surround him with people that he can get the ball to...and a STUD DEFENSE to shut the opposing offense down. Baltimore did it, Pittsburgh did it and Tampa did it...all within the last 5 or 6 years.

badbois
04-25-2006, 05:57 PM
"ItalianStallion" wrote:

I'm not throwing in the towel, I think we can be very competitive next year, and I am definitely expecting to make the playoffs. Its just my opinion that Brad doesn't still have the ability to put together strong offensive performances consistently (especially against good defenses), that we'll probably require to win most of our games. I believe our winning streak had more to do with our defense, special teams and not having Culpepper to turn the ball over 5 times a game than it did with any production from Brad.

But alas, some people seem to have infinite faith in this guy because he didn't lose the superbowl once, I just hope everyone realizes that we need to address the future of the QB position in this years draft.
I love the correct statment "didn't lose the superbowl once!" that is awesome. I am sick of everyone saying bj won the sb like it was all him.

fromos
04-25-2006, 05:58 PM
"Del Rio" wrote:

and there is no way to "proove" that opinion using statistics

Johnson has the third-highest winning percentage among active quarterbacks who have started at least 50 games
Well we can all have our own opinions. Part of what makes boards like this great is we don't all speak with the same voice. Some opinions are bound to be more rooted in fact than others.

Throughout Johnson's whole football career there's been a theme of underratedness, undervaluedness, and unappreciatedness. He wasn't a full time starter in college, drafted in the 9th round, backup for 4 years, and traded off and cut 4 times for retread QBs. Why should this season be any different? He's never been the most athletic, exciting, or inspired the most confidence - not even close. But he's always gotten the job done: sports one of the top 20 career passer ratings in NFL history, is the only QB to have completed over 60% for 10 years straight, broken records at every team he's played for, 2 Pro Bowls, and 1 Superbowl win.

When Culpepper got injured last season people said we were done, they said the season was over. And Johnson surprised us again. He turned out to be exactly what we needed. When there's nothing left to criticise anymore people criticise his age and the 2 or 3 games he didn't play so well in last season.

Does he have it in him to make another run at the championship? Nobody really knows for sure, we're all left to our own opinions. But based on Johnson's performance last season and his career about the only safer bets out there at the QB position are Tom Brady and Peyton Manning and they won't be suiting up as Vikings any time soon.

badbois
04-25-2006, 05:59 PM
"cajunvike" wrote:

Brad could easily have an average season and STILL lead us to the Super Bowl. We don't need a superstar QB, just one that won't lose games by making stupid mistakes. Brad can easily handle that job...just as long as we surround him with people that he can get the ball to...and a STUD DEFENSE to shut the opposing offense down. Baltimore did it, Pittsburgh did it and Tampa did it...all within the last 5 or 6 years.
our defence is not in that catagory

NodakPaul
04-25-2006, 05:59 PM
"cajunvike" wrote:

Brad could easily have an average season and STILL lead us to the Super Bowl. We don't need a superstar QB, just one that won't lose games by making stupid mistakes. Brad can easily handle that job...just as long as we surround him with people that he can get the ball to...and a STUD DEFENSE to shut the opposing offense down. Baltimore did it, Pittsburgh did it and Tampa did it...all within the last 5 or 6 years.

You are correct. Brad can have an average season and still lead us to the Superbowl... IF our defense picks up and excels in the Cover-2 quickly, IF our running back corps can move the ball on the ground, IF the right side of our O-Line doesn't give up constant sacks...

IF all these things happen, we can get to the superbowl. And IF the queen had balls, she'd be the king.

In all seriousness, if all these things happen (and I truely hope they will), is it really BJ leading us to the superbowl, or is he just along for the ride?

badbois
04-25-2006, 06:07 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:

"cajunvike" wrote:

Brad could easily have an average season and STILL lead us to the Super Bowl. We don't need a superstar QB, just one that won't lose games by making stupid mistakes. Brad can easily handle that job...just as long as we surround him with people that he can get the ball to...and a STUD DEFENSE to shut the opposing offense down. Baltimore did it, Pittsburgh did it and Tampa did it...all within the last 5 or 6 years.

You are correct. Brad can have an average season and still lead us to the Superbowl... IF our defense picks up and excels in the Cover-2 quickly, IF our running back corps can move the ball on the ground, IF the right side of our O-Line doesn't give up constant sacks...

IF all these things happen, we can get to the superbowl. And IF the queen had balls, she'd be the king.

In all seriousness, if all these things happen (and I truely hope they will), is it really BJ leading us to the superbowl, or is he just along for the ride?
I agree with you 100%. I've been saying these things for a bit and eveyone jusmps on me like I'm retarded. bj is not the savior!

Del Rio
04-25-2006, 06:08 PM
How in the realm of everything possible does one credit Brad Johnsons wins to a team effort and then in the same breath hold him accountable for a loss?

It is just beyond me. I am not pointing out anyone in specific, but that just seems to be a trend around here lately. Brad Johnson won because his team was good. Brad Johnson loses because He is old, his arm, is weak, he isn't mobile...........

God damn it must suck to be Brad Johnson. You don't get credit for a win, and you get blamed for a loss.

I will agree you need a good team around him for him to win, I will say that about anyone. I will not agree however that he will keep us from going to a superbowl or winning. It just doesn't make sense. People are suggesting that he will KEEP US from success...that he in some way will be a detriment to the TEAM. That just doesn't hold water.

You can't have it both ways people. You can't say Brad wins because his team was good and he loses because he is bad.

The problem with Brad Johnson is he isn't on many highlight reels. Actually that's not true. He has been on plenty but he has a knack for blending in so that his 140 QB rating games, his 4000+ yard seasons, even his superbowl are overlooked.........and you know what? That is a good thing. Sure you have to suffer people making up stats, making up slander because they are not impressed by his lack of LOOK AT ME factor, but in the end it is good for the team.

He shows up for work, takes the young one's under his wings, he works hard, studies hard, makes few mistakes, and most importantly by him being so dull it gives the perfect opportunity for his teamates to shine. That may not be what Madden 06 is all about, it may not be what NFL BLITZ is all about, what ESPN is all about, but it is what football is all about.

I find that quality very appealing in a QB the guy puts up good numbers, he wins more games then most active QB's 3rd most in fact.....and yet he squeaks by with hardly a glance. He isn't in the news, he isn't throwing dice, he isn't in court, he doesn't have herpies, he's not raping girls, he's not wearing that 5 million dollar necklace with a self proclaimed nickname on it........

He does his job and he does it well, and it's pretty god damn sad that people like that do not get credit in todays society. It's pretty god damn sad that we have to endure bullshit, because he doesn't wear his problems,emotions, and trials on his sleeve.

IMO Brad Johnson will be fine this season. If he can stay on the field without getting hurt he will take us into the playoffs. Obviously we need a young QB in here, I prefer to get him in here sooner then later, NOT so he can replace Brad but so he can learn from him. I wouldn't even be so sure the new QB could win the spot. Of course you wont read Brad saying he will win the spot on ESPN all you will see is him opening day wearing the uniform.

He is dull, he succeeds without drawing attention to himself, and he makes his team better. That will do pig, that will do.

jargomcfargo
04-25-2006, 06:12 PM
"ItalianStallion" wrote:

I'm not throwing in the towel, I think we can be very competitive next year, and I am definitely expecting to make the playoffs. Its just my opinion that Brad doesn't still have the ability to put together strong offensive performances consistently (especially against good defenses), that we'll probably require to win most of our games. I believe our winning streak had more to do with our defense, special teams and not having Culpepper to turn the ball over 5 times a game than it did with any production from Brad.

But alas, some people seem to have infinite faith in this guy because he didn't lose the superbowl once, I just hope everyone realizes that we need to address the future of the QB position in this years draft.

I can't compare Brad Johnson this year to last year because we should have a much better line with Birk back,Hutchinson aquired, and M. Johnson with more experience in addition to a scheme better suited to Brad Johnson with the WCO and the use of a Fullback.

I can compare Brad Johnson to Daunte last year because they played with the same team surrounding them.

Brad played much better than Daunte with lousy protection.

I think he will be fine this year if he stays healthy.

And I think we will likely obtain a QB prospect in the draft.

fromos
04-25-2006, 06:14 PM
"Del Rio" wrote:

The problem with Brad Johnson is he isn't on many highlight reels. Actually that's not true. He has been on plenty but he has a knack for blending in so that his 140 QB rating games, his 4000+ yard seasons, even his superbowl are overlooked..........
Been NFC Offensive Player of the Week 7 times through his career too, not too many can say that. Of course nobody can tell you this about Johnson either.

Del Rio
04-25-2006, 06:14 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:

"cajunvike" wrote:

Brad could easily have an average season and STILL lead us to the Super Bowl. We don't need a superstar QB, just one that won't lose games by making stupid mistakes. Brad can easily handle that job...just as long as we surround him with people that he can get the ball to...and a STUD DEFENSE to shut the opposing offense down. Baltimore did it, Pittsburgh did it and Tampa did it...all within the last 5 or 6 years.

You are correct. Brad can have an average season and still lead us to the Superbowl... IF our defense picks up and excels in the Cover-2 quickly, IF our running back corps can move the ball on the ground, IF the right side of our O-Line doesn't give up constant sacks...

IF all these things happen, we can get to the superbowl. And IF the queen had balls, she'd be the king.

In all seriousness, if all these things happen (and I truely hope they will), is it really BJ leading us to the superbowl, or is he just along for the ride?

In all seriousness no he wouldn't be just along for the ride. He would be a guy touching the ball every single snap of the game. Making a decision, a move, a play.......every.......single......possesion.

It's a team sport friends. When the team plays well everyone prospers. If you choose a person off that team and decide they weren't good, but they were just mooching off other talent your not talking sense. Your talking bullshit.

Especially if your going to try and make that argument about a QB, one of the two guys directly involved on every single play of the game and the season.

Del Rio
04-25-2006, 06:16 PM
"fromos" wrote:

"Del Rio" wrote:

The problem with Brad Johnson is he isn't on many highlight reels. Actually that's not true. He has been on plenty but he has a knack for blending in so that his 140 QB rating games, his 4000+ yard seasons, even his superbowl are overlooked..........
Been NFC Offensive Player of the Week 7 times through his career too, not too many can say that. Of course nobody can tell you this about Johnson either.

What do you expect fromos, half the people wouldn't know what color underwear they had on unless they saw a great big shit stain in them.

Del Rio
04-25-2006, 06:19 PM
"fromos" wrote:

"Del Rio" wrote:

and there is no way to "proove" that opinion using statistics

Johnson has the third-highest winning percentage among active quarterbacks who have started at least 50 games
Well we can all have our own opinions. Part of what makes boards like this great is we don't all speak with the same voice. Some opinions are bound to be more rooted in fact than others.


Yes I understand that. You are entitled to your opinion. You are also entitled to attempt to prove your opinion with fact. All I said is there is no way for him to prove his opinion with statistics so there is no point is grabbing at random statistics in an attempt to do so. Just chaulk it up as what it is.

I was not judging the fact that he had an opinion nor was I suggesting you can't have an opinion. I do not need to be reminded what makes these boards great.

badbois
04-25-2006, 06:31 PM
I think at this point you have to look at bj as the starter for this season. I do think we need to draft a qb this season who can start next year and possibly this year if things don't go well. I really don't want to see mcmahn touch the field unless it's late season, bj gets hurt, and we have a shot at the playoffs. then we prob. wouldn't start a rookie. but it is time to start developing someone.

NodakPaul
04-25-2006, 06:51 PM
"jargomcfargo" wrote:

I can compare Brad Johnson to Daunte last year because they played with the same team surrounding them.

Brad played much better than Daunte with lousy protection.

This is half of the problem. People fail to look at the fact that BJ and Daunte played under different circumstances. You cannot compare the team's record with BJ against the team's record with Daunte and decide that BJ is better because you are failing to take into account other factors.

1) The effectiveness of our defense
2) The effectiveness of our special teams
3) The quality of teams played

There is more to football than just the Quarterback!

NodakPaul
04-25-2006, 07:04 PM
"Del Rio" wrote:

"NodakPaul" wrote:

"cajunvike" wrote:

Brad could easily have an average season and STILL lead us to the Super Bowl. We don't need a superstar QB, just one that won't lose games by making stupid mistakes. Brad can easily handle that job...just as long as we surround him with people that he can get the ball to...and a STUD DEFENSE to shut the opposing offense down. Baltimore did it, Pittsburgh did it and Tampa did it...all within the last 5 or 6 years.

You are correct. Brad can have an average season and still lead us to the Superbowl... IF our defense picks up and excels in the Cover-2 quickly, IF our running back corps can move the ball on the ground, IF the right side of our O-Line doesn't give up constant sacks...

IF all these things happen, we can get to the superbowl. And IF the queen had balls, she'd be the king.

In all seriousness, if all these things happen (and I truely hope they will), is it really BJ leading us to the superbowl, or is he just along for the ride?

In all seriousness no he wouldn't be just along for the ride. He would be a guy touching the ball every single snap of the game. Making a decision, a move, a play.......every.......single......possesion.

It's a team sport friends. When the team plays well everyone prospers. If you choose a person off that team and decide they weren't good, but they were just mooching off other talent your not talking sense. Your talking kaka del toro.

Especially if your going to try and make that argument about a QB, one of the two guys directly involved on every single play of the game and the season.

Yes! It is a team sport. How can we give sole credit for wins to one person?

Let's say, hypothetically, of course, that a QB goes three and out almost every series, and never scores an offensive touchdown in the game. However, the defense, the punt return team, the kickoff return team, and the field goal unit all put up points and the team wins (barely). Did that QB really lead us to victory? Or did the entire team come together, and each do what they could to ensure the victory? There is a big difference between leading us to victory and simply not blowing the game.

Matt Birk also touches the ball every single snap of the game. He directs the line coverage and identifies defenses, so he is also making a decision, a move, a play.......every.......single......possesion. Why is BJ so much more important than him? If anybody thinks that he wasn't missed sorely last year, then they weren't watching the same games as I was.

What about defensive captians? Who is responsible for calling coverage adjustments on the field (I honestly don't know off hand)? Aren't they important too? It only takes one blown defensive play to give the other team 7 points.

I am not saying, nor did I ever say, that BJ was not a good QB. I just don't think he is our automatic ticket to the Superbowl. IF we go to the big game this year, it will because our entire team makes a contribution, not just because BJ is the quarterback.

ItalianStallion
04-25-2006, 07:05 PM
"Del Rio" wrote:

"fromos" wrote:

"Del Rio" wrote:

and there is no way to "proove" that opinion using statistics

Johnson has the third-highest winning percentage among active quarterbacks who have started at least 50 games
Well we can all have our own opinions. Part of what makes boards like this great is we don't all speak with the same voice. Some opinions are bound to be more rooted in fact than others.


Yes I understand that. You are entitled to your opinion. You are also entitled to attempt to prove your opinion with fact. All I said is there is no way for him to prove his opinion with statistics so there is no point is grabbing at random statistics in an attempt to do so. Just chaulk it up as what it is.

I was not judging the fact that he had an opinion nor was I suggesting you can't have an opinion. I do not need to be reminded what makes these boards great.

I don't even think it is possible to prove an opinion. I mean sure you can find some random stats or whatever from the past to help support your opinion, but that doesn't make it right or infallible.

I'm not necessarily debating that Brad Johnson hasn't been a proven winner, I'm simply skeptical that he can carry the team (which may be neccessary at times this season/playoffs as our defense is very unproven) or repeat what he has done in the past given his age.

And Ultra the reason I think we need to address QB now is because we have no idea what the FA market for QBs will be like next year, AND I prefer it that we wouldn't have to start a rookie QB. Not to mention the BIG 3 are all likely better prospects than anyone in next year's draft.

Big C
04-25-2006, 07:11 PM
I agree that Brad is not the best thing sliced bread. I also agree that his 7-2 record is NOT an indication of how good a QB he is. I still think Dante was the better QB.

That all being said, I would rather Brad start over a rookie QB, McMahon and JT. That means he is our starter for 2006. That means I put on my purple shades, and see him as the best starting QB in the league this year.

If (god forbid) circumstances has JT starting for us and he throws 4 INTs per game, then JT will be the best QB in the league.

The purple jersey distorts perception. That's the best part of being a fan.

Here's to Brad Johnson's 500 rushing yards this season (heh, behind our O-Line and FB I'm sure that is at least remotely possible).

Del Rio
04-25-2006, 07:48 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:

"Del Rio" wrote:

"NodakPaul" wrote:

"cajunvike" wrote:

Brad could easily have an average season and STILL lead us to the Super Bowl. We don't need a superstar QB, just one that won't lose games by making stupid mistakes. Brad can easily handle that job...just as long as we surround him with people that he can get the ball to...and a STUD DEFENSE to shut the opposing offense down. Baltimore did it, Pittsburgh did it and Tampa did it...all within the last 5 or 6 years.

You are correct. Brad can have an average season and still lead us to the Superbowl... IF our defense picks up and excels in the Cover-2 quickly, IF our running back corps can move the ball on the ground, IF the right side of our O-Line doesn't give up constant sacks...

IF all these things happen, we can get to the superbowl. And IF the queen had balls, she'd be the king.

In all seriousness, if all these things happen (and I truely hope they will), is it really BJ leading us to the superbowl, or is he just along for the ride?

In all seriousness no he wouldn't be just along for the ride. He would be a guy touching the ball every single snap of the game. Making a decision, a move, a play.......every.......single......possesion.

It's a team sport friends. When the team plays well everyone prospers. If you choose a person off that team and decide they weren't good, but they were just mooching off other talent your not talking sense. Your talking kaka del toro.

Especially if your going to try and make that argument about a QB, one of the two guys directly involved on every single play of the game and the season.

Yes! It is a team sport. How can we give sole credit for wins to one person?

Let's say, hypothetically, of course, that a QB goes three and out almost every series, and never scores an offensive touchdown in the game. However, the defense, the punt return team, the kickoff return team, and the field goal unit all put up points and the team wins (barely). Did that QB really lead us to victory? Or did the entire team come together, and each do what they could to ensure the victory? There is a big difference between leading us to victory and simply not blowing the game.

Matt Birk also touches the ball every single snap of the game. He directs the line coverage and identifies defenses, so he is also making a decision, a move, a play.......every.......single......possesion. Why is BJ so much more important than him? If anybody thinks that he wasn't missed sorely last year, then they weren't watching the same games as I was.

What about defensive captians? Who is responsible for calling coverage adjustments on the field (I honestly don't know off hand)? Aren't they important too? It only takes one blown defensive play to give the other team 7 points.

I am not saying, nor did I ever say, that BJ was not a good QB. I just don't think he is our automatic ticket to the Superbowl. IF we go to the big game this year, it will because our entire team makes a contribution, not just because BJ is the quarterback.

Where on this planet did I say Brad Johnson was more important then Matt Birk? If you .......READ.....what I said you would notice I said he was one of the two guys directly involved on every single play

Hypothetically is right because it never happened. Our QB never did go 3 and out every down. I'm not even sure any QB has ever done that in the history of the NFL.

So the answer is still an astounding no. He would not be along for the ride.

I guess I could answer yes to the question if we lived in hypothetical town, but we don't. So no.

Why are you asking about defensive captains? You are way off track now. I never said any one is any less important. In fact I was saying it is a TEAM game. A select few perhaps you included however are trying to solo one guy out. I am saying you cannot do that. You cannot credit Johnsons success to a team and his failures his own......that was the point. It has never been a discussion on the level of importance between positions other then to state the obvious that of all the players on the field the QB seems one of the two least likely to " GET A FREE RIDE" since he is always involved in ever play in some way and since he has his hand on the ball every snap.

No one ever said Brad Johnson would lead us single handedly to the superbowl not that I have seen, and yet somehow that is the perception of those who see people supporting him.

He does need a good team, so did Joe Montana. So has every QB since the dawn of time. I have no idea why people feel the need to seperate the two. He needs a team to win, so would Matt Schaub...so would Vince Young......he has prooven when he has a team he can win, no one has prooven they can win without a team......I have never seen a QB on the field alone.

Of course Brad has prooven he can pass to himself for a TD though so if in hypothetical town we needed Brad to single handedly lead us to the promise land he could do it.

NodakPaul
04-26-2006, 12:04 AM
"Del Rio" wrote:

A select few perhaps you included however are trying to solo one guy out. I am saying you cannot do that. You cannot credit Johnsons success to a team and his failures his own......that was the point.

A point that I agreed with. You credit the team with the wins, and you credit the team with the losses. No one person is that important that they deserve all of the glory either way. I am not soloing anybody out.

"Del Rio" wrote:

No one ever said Brad Johnson would lead us single handedly to the superbowl not that I have seen, and yet somehow that is the perception of those who see people supporting him.

From this thread alone (I don't even want to dig through the 1000's of other posts in other threads that think BJ's pooh doesn't stink):

Brad Johnson is the best QB the Vikings have to win the Super Bowl. Some guys aren't spectacular, but they get the job done. We've had spectacular and NOBODY ever got the job done (I'm talking about the ring). I like our chances with BJ running the show this year!

BJ brought us out of the cellar and made us a contender again. Some say that it was our defense that played better as well, that is true, but maybe they played better because they knew they had a better chance of winning with a proven leader behind center like BJ.

You don't win superbowls with stats. You win with wins. How do you get those wins? By playing as a team member and as a QB providing the leadership necessary to guide the team. Also, not turning the ball over (i.e., BJ).

BRAD IS THE MAN THATS ALL THERE IS TO IT

Brad Johnson is one of the best "game managers" out there. If he wasn't, a lot of teams would not have been after him so hard. All of the GMs know what Brad can do, and I am glad that he came back to Minnesota.

he has won a superbowl... enough said!

It wouldn't be the first time a 38 yr old QB won the Superbowl, and wouldn't be the first time Johnson's won it either...

Thank you! If Brad would have started when he came back, we would have a Super Bowl banner hanging in the dome right now. Good post.

based on Johnson's performance last season and his career about the only safer bets out there at the QB position are Tom Brady and Peyton Manning and they won't be suiting up as Vikings any time soon.

Gee, I wonder where that perception comes from... Yes, he is a good QB (like I said in my previous posts), but he is not the answer to all things football.

"Del Rio" wrote:

Of course Brad has prooven he can pass to himself for a TD though so if in hypothetical town we needed Brad to single handedly lead us to the promise land he could do it.

LOL. That did make me laugh. I fondly remember watching that game from a test in Saudi Arabia...

Anyway, I will say one more time, and then hopefully let this thread die, that I am not a BJ hater. It is just that I am not a BJ lover either. I think that some people are giving too much credit to BJ and not enough to the team for the second half of last season.

fromos
04-26-2006, 03:03 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:

Yes, he is a good QB (like I said in my previous posts), but he is not the answer to all things football.

And nobody here is saying he's the answer to all things football, none of the texts you quoted can be accurately translated as "Brad Johnson is the answer to all things football." The closest that comes to it is "BRAD IS THE MAN THATS ALL THERE IS TO IT." In fact nobody's saying any quarterback is the answer to all things football. All we're really saying is that Brad's an exceptionally good quarterback, to translate it any differently would be foolish. And true enough, his record shows he's an exceptionally good quarterback.

If you want to argue that any of the stuff you quoted is wrong, you're effectively arguing Brad is not an exceptionally good QB, not that he's not the answer to all things football. And if that's the case so be it, you're entitled to your opinion- but you'll have an argument on hand. There's plenty of facts and stats (both recent and past) to show he's exceptionally good, few to show otherwise.

Brewtal
04-26-2006, 03:04 AM
Frankly I am a big BJ fan, I don't understand how anyone couldn't like a BJ trust me there are few things that are better.

ultravikingfan
04-26-2006, 03:39 AM
"Brewtal" wrote:

Frankly I am a big BJ fan, I don't understand how anyone couldn't like a BJ trust me there are few things that are better.

:shock:

Are we talking about the same thing here?

:razz:

ThorSPL
04-26-2006, 04:16 AM
HAHAHA

A friend, a dog, and a BJ.... what's different about them?

You can beat a friend, you can beat a dog, but NOTHING beats a BJ!

jaymz7
04-26-2006, 04:40 AM
"Del Rio" wrote:



Of course Brad has prooven he can pass to himself for a TD though so if in hypothetical town we needed Brad to single handedly lead us to the promise land he could do it.

:sign5: I remember that play well. I went from cursing to cheering in a span of 1.5 seconds.

Del Rio
04-26-2006, 01:04 PM
Not to be a dick about it Nodak, but I fail to see in any of your quotes from this thread, someone saying Brad Johnson alone will take us to the superbowl.

I read a lot of he is the right piece of the puzzle, he won the bowl before (which people chaulk up to his team), he is the man (yeah so?), we started winning when he stepped on the field....(we did)

Again no one I have seen has said he alone will take us all the way.

There is a huge difference in people feeling he is the right fit for the team. That he in all his UN-glory will make the team better.

And

People saying he will carry our team on his skill. That if all else fails on the team his performance alone will get us where we want to be (No one has said that)

NodakPaul
04-26-2006, 03:41 PM
"Del Rio" wrote:

Not to be a slick willy about it Nodak, but I fail to see in any of your quotes from this thread, someone saying Brad Johnson alone will take us to the superbowl.

I don't think you are being a dick at all Del. I don't mind debating our differing opinions regarding this season's starting QB. I guess I interpret the posts differently as you, for instance, "If Brad would have started when he came back, we would have a Super Bowl banner hanging in the dome right now." sounds to me like the only reason the Vikings didn't win the super bowl last year was because BJ wasn't our starter. While I guess I can't prove otherwise, I think that may be reaching a little.

I expect the Vikings to be moderately successful this year. If we are, and BJ continues to have a low mistake rate, then I will give him some of the credits for the wins. Just not all of it. I think our improved O line, strengthened running game, new defensive scheme and better coaching will all make a bigger difference in the success of our team than Brad will as the QB.

I do think, given the current roster options, BJ is the best QB for our team.

Del Rio
04-26-2006, 03:51 PM
All I can say is if there are people who feel Brad Johnson can carry the team on his exceptional talent alone I would say they are wrong. I would say if there have been QB's that can do that they are few and far between.

I like to think the majority of people who support him feel he is a great fit and will work well withing the team, therefore making the team better.

He has prooven in the past he can lead a comback with little supporting cast. The TB vs Redskins game was a prime example. Nose bloody starting WR's out he took control.

I can see where your coming from Nodak, maybe you are right maybe there are people who think Brad is a god. I agree with you they are wrong. I think those people are few and far between. I think most people weather you like Brad or not feel alright with him back there for now, and want to bring in new blood for the future.

Probably the only position we differ is I believe with Brad Johnson as our QB we do have a shot at the bowl this year. Not because Brad Johnson is the best thing since sliced bread, but because I feel he will make the entire team better and give them a direction/leader that they have sorely missed the last few years.

Del Rio
04-26-2006, 03:55 PM
Some fun stats to kick around:

Holds team record for lowest interception to attempt ratio.

Has one of the top 20 career passer ratings in NFL history.

Currently the 3rd best win-loss ratio among active QBs with over 50 starting games.

Has connected on over 60% of his passes for last 10 straight seasons, 1996-05 (minimum 100 attempts), passing Joe Montana and Steve Young for longest all-times streaks.

ejmat
04-27-2006, 01:08 AM
Personally I don't think BJ alone can carry the team to win the bowl. I don't think there is any one person that can plain out do that. It takes a team to win the bowl. I think BJ is a solid QB. Not the greatest in the world but solid. That's evident with the stats Del Rio quoted above. To me, those are important stats. He has the intellect necessary to be a successful QB in the NFL. He doesn't have the best talent but he has what it takes to lead a team well. Of course, he needs help to win the bowl. Are there better options than BJ? Probably so. But I think he is good enough to lead the team with the help he has around him. As far as FAs still out there I think he is better than all of them. I think getting a rookie QB this year or some young QB to learn from BJ is a great option. If things aren't going well during the season then give the other QB a chance.

Jeremy
12-26-2006, 06:50 PM
We still in love with Brad Johnson?
;)

Ltrey33
12-26-2006, 06:58 PM
"Jeremy" wrote:


We still in love with Brad Johnson?
;)


Yes, yes. We're all SO glad that you were right.
::) Was this post necessary?

IMO, this post just shows your immaturity Jeremy.

ultravikingfan
12-26-2006, 08:26 PM
"Jeremy" wrote:


We still in love with Brad Johnson?
;)


Yup.

Name another Viking QB with more wins than him this year.









I thought so,
;D

BadlandsVikings
12-26-2006, 09:06 PM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"Jeremy" wrote:


We still in love with Brad Johnson?
;)


Yup.

Name another Viking QB with more wins than him this year.









I thought so,

;D


LMAO
;D

ejmat
12-26-2006, 09:31 PM
To answer the question, yes I still do like Brad Johnson.
For people that know the game they know that Brad Johnson wasn't the sole reason for their poor season.
He didn't have a good year but then again how many NFC QBs did?
Think about that.
How did Romo make the probowl?

ultravikingfan
12-26-2006, 11:06 PM
"ejmat" wrote:


To answer the question, yes I still do like Brad Johnson.
For people that know the game they know that Brad Johnson wasn't the sole reason for their poor season.
He didn't have a good year but then again how many NFC QBs did?
Think about that.
How did Romo make the probowl?



I feel bad for Brad and I do not think everything should het lumped on him.

Romo is the product of hype; that's why.

Potus2028
12-26-2006, 11:12 PM
agreed.. i'm still going to wear my johnson jersey..

he just tried to make things happen, and thats when he got out of character. he went from game manager, to whenever we got a little behind, he compunded on the problems by trying to force something.

ViKing24
12-26-2006, 11:51 PM
the guy doesn't complain that he's surrounded by mediocre receivers and some bad coaching by the offensive coordinator or beg for a pay raise. So we shouldn't complain about him either

ejmat
12-27-2006, 09:13 AM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


To answer the question, yes I still do like Brad Johnson.
For people that know the game they know that Brad Johnson wasn't the sole reason for their poor season.
He didn't have a good year but then again how many NFC QBs did?
Think about that.
How did Romo make the probowl?



I feel bad for Brad and I do not think everything should het lumped on him.

Romo is the product of hype; that's why.


Exactly Ultra.
It also shows the lack of productive QBs in the NFC.
He only played about 1/2 the season and he makes the probowl.
I like the guy and think he's done a great job.
But, probowl this year shows the lack of quality QBs in the NFC.
IMO Kitna should have been picked over him.
Other than that, no one else deserves to be there other than Brees and Bulger.
Pretty pathetic huh?

whackthepack
12-27-2006, 09:19 AM
"Jeremy" wrote:


We still in love with Brad Johnson?
;)



A little slow on the draw did you just wake up from a month long coma?


Maybe you should have brought this back a month ago and it would have had some relevance!

JDogg926
12-27-2006, 10:43 AM
It's sad to say, but I miss the days when our offense was capable of amassing 150 yards of passing.
I hate to see Brad go, but he wasn't doing much to help us anymore.

whiteviking24
01-07-2007, 12:31 AM
I didn't read through the 18 pages of this , but has anyone else heard about how Childress told Johnson he had to run the plays that Childress called....I mean Childress told Johnson if he didn't like the way the play was looking agaisnt their defense he was NOT alllowed to call an audible I mean at all??

Kinda tuff to make something happen when you can't adjust. Doesn't really matter as its water under the bridge now, but none the less food for thought!

Ltrey33
01-07-2007, 12:32 AM
"whiteviking24" wrote:


I didn't read through the 18 pages of this , but has anyone else heard about how Childress told Johnson he had to run the plays that Childress called....I mean Childress told Johnson if he didn't like the way the play was looking agaisnt their defense he was NOT alllowed to call an audible I mean at all??

Kinda tuff to make something happen when you can't adjust. Doesn't really matter as its water under the bridge now, but none the less food for thought!


Where did you hear that?

whiteviking24
01-07-2007, 12:38 AM
Apperantly my buddy was listing to Kfan or something and told me .... If anyone has taped games from the season watch them and tell me if you see him call an audible in any of the last 8 games...that he played in anyway

PurpleGator
01-07-2007, 10:26 AM
Are you sure about that?
He would be the first coach in NFL history to do that.

Stonecoldet3
01-07-2007, 10:40 AM
I read that somewhere too, it was a small blurb in an article about the Brad Childress putting severe limitations in audibles that Brad Johnson can call if any.
Can not really remember where I read it.

PurpleGator
01-07-2007, 10:48 AM
Are you sure its not for a few plays?

It couldn't be for an entire game?
Could it?

singersp
01-07-2007, 10:55 AM
"Stonecoldet3" wrote:


I read that somewhere too, it was a small blurb in an article about the Brad Childress putting severe limitations in audibles that Brad Johnson can call if any.
Can not really remember where I read it.



It was in more than one article I posted.

As I recall, it happenned in the latter half of the season, after Brad had thrown those 3 picks.

Childress then limited his ability to call audibles, making him less dimensional.

ejmat
01-08-2007, 12:17 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"Stonecoldet3" wrote:


I read that somewhere too, it was a small blurb in an article about the Brad Childress putting severe limitations in audibles that Brad Johnson can call if any.
Can not really remember where I read it.



It was in more than one article I posted.

As I recall, it happenned in the latter half of the season, after Brad had thrown those 3 picks.

Childress then limited his ability to call audibles, making him less dimensional.


I remember you posting them Singer.
Yes it is difficult to make things happen when you can't control an offense you are supposed to be controlling.
I'm not criticizing Childress here but IMO he was part of the reason why BJ's career has basically ended.
Maybe that is a criticism but it's my belief.

marantzo
01-10-2007, 08:05 PM
The major problem that Childress has exhibited and it is a major problem, is that he is a rookie head coach and is not interested in learning on the job. His schemes seem to be set in stone as if he were a veteran coach who had an impressive records of wins. He isn't, but he seems to think so. Johnson is a veteran and he's seen many coaches. Because he has one very bad game, and then throw out your confidence in his judgement by severely restricting him is a bone head decision.

Guruzen
01-10-2007, 08:24 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"Stonecoldet3" wrote:


I read that somewhere too, it was a small blurb in an article about the Brad Childress putting severe limitations in audibles that Brad Johnson can call if any.
Can not really remember where I read it.



It was in more than one article I posted.

As I recall, it happenned in the latter half of the season, after Brad had thrown those 3 picks.

Childress then limited his ability to call audibles, making him less dimensional.


I've never read the article about that but I've seen it mentioned here many times (so it must be true!). Why would a coach do that with a veteran QB? I can understand keeping a rookie on a short leash but if BJ could see an opportunity at the line why wouldn't Childress let him call the audible?