PDA

View Full Version : Vikings offense is "offensive"



singersp
09-07-2006, 07:15 AM
Topic: Vikings offense (http://www.startribune.com/510/story/660316.html)

Last update: September 06, 2006 – 8:05 PM

PETER MAGNUSON MAHTOMEDI
Vikings offense is "offensive"

The Vikings of recent vintage have been known NFL-wide as an offensive juggernaut. Unfortunately, the 2006 Vikings qualify as "offensive" only in their boorish off-the-field antics. Let's face it: these Vikings have a decidedly impotent offense. Brad Johnson is a savvy veteran, but his age and injury history make the likelihood of multiple Brooks Bollinger starts a near-certainty. Chester Taylor has done nothing to prove that he can be a productive featured back. The Purple's motley receiving corps lacks even a talented No. 2 receiver, much less a true No. 1. Worse yet, these positions are short not only on skill, but also on depth. Unless Brad Childress & Co. turn out to be miracle workers, this offense will be, well, simply "offensive."

MICHAEL RAND STAR TRIBUNE
It's not perfect, but it's functional

Peter, your points are good ones, but I think you take them too far. Brad Johnson's age is a concern, but he has played at least 12 games in six of the past seven seasons -- starting all 16 in three of them. While he's not as dyanmic as Daunte Culpepper was, Johnson has been named to two Pro Bowls and won a Super Bowl. Chester Taylor, meanwhile, isn't entirely unproven. In the three games he received 20-plus carries last year, he averaged more than 110 yards. He looked sluggish in the preseason, but he was running behind a rebuilt offensive line -- one which, when it jells, will be a significant upgrade. We can agree: This won't be the Vikings' offense of 1998. But the tools are there for a functional unit that scores enough points to win games.

Editor's note: This is the first installment of a new weekly feature called "vs." The way it works is simple: You write in with an opinion on a Vikings or NFL-related topic, and we will take the opposite stance. Please limit your entries to 125 words and send them to fanforum@startribune.com.

VikesfaninWis
09-07-2006, 07:41 AM
The only thing offensive here is that Peter Magnuson's writing ability.. He talks about BJ's history of injury? What history? BJ has been healthy most of his career.. He led us on a nice win streak last season when Pepp went, and won us games that Pepp couldn't.. That was in a offense that he didn't excell in.. Now you put him in the WCO, a system that he was won a SB in, and we are destined to be good..

Purple Floyd
09-07-2006, 09:22 AM
I agree, Brad is not injury prone and knows his job. I am not positive but Culpepper spent some time injured in his career and with the latest injury may have missed more games than Johnson in his career.

vikingbill50
09-07-2006, 09:56 AM
i find this very offenseive when people keep talking crap about brad, i have said this over and over, he is very under rated, he is one of the most accurate and one the smartest quarterbacks in the league, he doesnt get the respect he deserves and all i hear about is his age, i dont care if he is 50 years, as long as he does the job like he is doing, look at all the other quarterbacks up there in years and yet no one is talking about their age, brad will do a hell of alot better than they will..

Wiggles67
09-07-2006, 03:10 PM
What they mean by him being injury prone is that in his 15 year career in the league he has only made it through the whole year 3 times.
Thats not a very good percentage

I like Brad and think he will be a very very good QB for this offense.
But they are correct in saying he does tend to get injuried

ejmat
09-07-2006, 03:44 PM
I agree he does have a history of injuries but most QBs do.
In Brad's 15 year career, he's only been labelled the starter since 1996.
That year he wasn't the starter to begin the season.
Last year doesn't count because he started 9 games and played them all.
2004 he wasn't injured.
they decided to go with someone else after a few games.
In 2002 he missed one game and 2 they went with another QB later in the year.
That's a very skewed stat.

Pep has started since the 2000 season (6 years).
Out of those he's only went the full 16 3 times.

So what's the difference?

whackthepack
09-07-2006, 04:00 PM
PETER MAGNUSON MAHTOMEDI
Vikings offense is "offensive"

The Vikings of recent vintage have been known NFL-wide as an offensive juggernaut. Unfortunately, the 2006 Vikings qualify as "offensive" only in their boorish off-the-field antics. Let's face it: these Vikings have a decidedly impotent offense. Brad Johnson is a savvy veteran, but his age and injury history make the likelihood of multiple Brooks Bollinger starts a near-certainty. Chester Taylor has done nothing to prove that he can be a productive featured back. The Purple's motley receiving corps lacks even a talented No. 2 receiver, much less a true No. 1. Worse yet, these positions are short not only on skill, but also on depth. Unless Brad Childress & Co. turn out to be miracle workers, this offense will be, well, simply "offensive."


Is this CCthebest's real identity?

Vikes_King
09-07-2006, 05:49 PM
Brad Johnson is a savvy veteran, but his age and injury history make the likelihood of multiple Brooks Bollinger starts a near-certainty

i lol'ed when i read that =)