PDA

View Full Version : When, if ever does Brad get the hook?



ItalianStallion
11-07-2006, 12:14 AM
I am just curious, and I hope to God this never happens, but for all the people who want to stay with Brad, at what point, if ever is enough, enough?
Just trying to gauge the members' opinions

At what point, if ever, do we start planning for next year?

Lets pray for 8-0 to finish the season though, then this issue will not be an issue any longer.

Gift
11-07-2006, 12:17 AM
I picked green bay cuz there wasnt a "yesterday at 4:30pm" option.

midgensa
11-07-2006, 12:26 AM
I picked if we are out of playoff contention (which by the way we are the 6th seed if it started today). I just cannot see turn it over to TJ or Bollinger right now, but I am not so sure I would not bail if we lost next week, because then without a change we are out of playoff contention.
Brad is to be blamed a lot I think. He is not making the quick reads and is making suspect decisions ... two things someone with his lack of physical gifts needs to avoid.

HornedHat
11-07-2006, 01:45 AM
If Brad fails next week...its Brooks time. It's not like he has a learning curve at 38!

digital420
11-07-2006, 03:13 AM
I think that you have to look at it as.. we need something to change..

if we loose to GarbageBay we have to see what we can change.. one of those changes is to see if things work better with either of our backups. I'd like to see it go in order though as i'm sure Tjack isn't ready yet, and i'd like him to spend more time with B.j and learn how to read D's.

I am not asking for B.j's number to be yanked, but it's one change that i'm sure coaches will be looking at and hopefully we wont need to go there.

Until the season ends, i'm expecting to see B.j start every game!! lets hope he can start running the O a bit better based on what we have atm.

DiGiTaL

Caine
11-07-2006, 03:24 AM
There are three conditions that will have to be met in order for Brad to get benched.

1:
We are eliminated from the Play-Off picture.
2:
The rest of the Offense picks it up and Brad is the achilles heel.
3:
As a result of #2, Childress decides that Johnson will not likely be the starter next season.

While I can see #1 being a possibility - especially if our Offense stays in hibernation - I doubt #2 will, or #3.
Also, while I doubt Johnson will start next season, that decision won't be made until next season.

A few quotes from the Vikings themselves:

Johnson has 'good day,' but not in points wrote:



http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/sports/football/15939242.htm
Wide receiver Travis Taylor, who had a key illegal-block-in-the-back penalty to wipe out what could have been a 65-yard touchdown pass play to Chester Taylor, said it would be unfair to pin this loss on Johnson.

Fullback Tony Richardson agreed.

"He's a quarterback," Richardson said. "He'll stand up as a man and say he'll take it, but guys on offense know it's not Brad. Obviously, he's the guy who's got to take the brunt of it, but there's no way in the world he deserves it. I'll rally behind Brad Johnson any week."

Center Matt Birk said Sunday's loss was a team effort, at least on the offensive side.

"Brad knows the deal," Birk said. "I know that Brad knows everyone here is with him. Trust me, this is the ultimate team game. It's never one guy. To a man, everyone on offense has to play better."

I think that pretty much sums it up.

Caine

ItalianStallion
11-07-2006, 08:01 AM
"Caine" wrote:


There are three conditions that will have to be met in order for Brad to get benched.

1:
We are eliminated from the Play-Off picture.
2:
The rest of the Offense picks it up and Brad is the achilles heel.
3:
As a result of #2, Childress decides that Johnson will not likely be the starter next season.

While I can see #1 being a possibility - especially if our Offense stays in hibernation - I doubt #2 will, or #3.
Also, while I doubt Johnson will start next season, that decision won't be made until next season.

A few quotes from the Vikings themselves:

Johnson has 'good day,' but not in points wrote:



http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/sports/football/15939242.htm
Wide receiver Travis Taylor, who had a key illegal-block-in-the-back penalty to wipe out what could have been a 65-yard touchdown pass play to Chester Taylor, said it would be unfair to pin this loss on Johnson.

Fullback Tony Richardson agreed.

"He's a quarterback," Richardson said. "He'll stand up as a man and say he'll take it, but guys on offense know it's not Brad. Obviously, he's the guy who's got to take the brunt of it, but there's no way in the world he deserves it. I'll rally behind Brad Johnson any week."

Center Matt Birk said Sunday's loss was a team effort, at least on the offensive side.

"Brad knows the deal," Birk said. "I know that Brad knows everyone here is with him. Trust me, this is the ultimate team game. It's never one guy. To a man, everyone on offense has to play better."

I think that pretty much sums it up.

Caine




I see what you're saying Caine, but it's difficult for the rest of the offense to pick it up when the man who gets them the ball every play (O-line excluded) is struggling.
In the end, who do you replace Birk and Richarson with?
Despite their struggles, they're
still the best we have at those positions.
In Brad's case, that remains to be seen.

BadlandsVikings
11-07-2006, 08:04 AM
I say if we lose the next 3 of 4, because after that our season is down the toilet and it won't matter who is the qb

Del Rio
11-07-2006, 08:21 AM
"ItalianStallion" wrote:


"Caine" wrote:


There are three conditions that will have to be met in order for Brad to get benched.

1:
We are eliminated from the Play-Off picture.
2:
The rest of the Offense picks it up and Brad is the achilles heel.
3:
As a result of #2, Childress decides that Johnson will not likely be the starter next season.

While I can see #1 being a possibility - especially if our Offense stays in hibernation - I doubt #2 will, or #3.
Also, while I doubt Johnson will start next season, that decision won't be made until next season.

A few quotes from the Vikings themselves:

Johnson has 'good day,' but not in points wrote:



http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/sports/football/15939242.htm
Wide receiver Travis Taylor, who had a key illegal-block-in-the-back penalty to wipe out what could have been a 65-yard touchdown pass play to Chester Taylor, said it would be unfair to pin this loss on Johnson.

Fullback Tony Richardson agreed.

"He's a quarterback," Richardson said. "He'll stand up as a man and say he'll take it, but guys on offense know it's not Brad. Obviously, he's the guy who's got to take the brunt of it, but there's no way in the world he deserves it. I'll rally behind Brad Johnson any week."

Center Matt Birk said Sunday's loss was a team effort, at least on the offensive side.

"Brad knows the deal," Birk said. "I know that Brad knows everyone here is with him. Trust me, this is the ultimate team game. It's never one guy. To a man, everyone on offense has to play better."

I think that pretty much sums it up.

Caine




I see what you're saying Caine, but it's difficult for the rest of the offense to pick it up when the man who gets them the ball every play (O-line excluded) is struggling.
In the end, who do you replace Birk and Richarson with?
Despite their struggles, they're
still the best we have at those positions.
In Brad's case, that remains to be seen.


That's a fairly big stretch. How can you say that there is no one better then Birk or Richardson and say that "It remains to be seen" that someone is better then Brad? Ryan Cook could do just as good for Birk as Tavaris could for Brad. You have no idea. If they are on the field chances are they are the best man for the job. There is no reason NOT to put the best players on the field.

Freya
11-07-2006, 08:31 AM
Actually, the hook is a vaudeville thing. And while the Vikings have stunk it up a bit over the past couple of weeks, they haven't arrived at vaudevillian quite yet.

Purple Floyd
11-07-2006, 09:09 AM
If our offense scores 3 points again and Frave put up 437 yards of offense like he did last week I think we will be at that point.

NodakPaul
11-07-2006, 09:20 AM
I chose if we lose to GB... but it is really more of how we lose to GB.
If we have another 3 point game with multiple turnovers, then I think he will get pulled.
But if BJ has a good night and GB somehow managed to rob us of a win anyway (maybe with a couple great special teams play or something), then I don't think he will.

kramer9guy
11-07-2006, 09:27 AM
When, if ever does Brad get the hook?

If we are eliminated from playoff contention.

It has been explained, debated and stated over and over again and it is very clear that Brad Johnson is not the number one, number two or number three reason that this offense is struggling. You BJ haters out there will not give up, but that's fine. There are always going to be "fans" out there who call for the starting QB's head if a team is struggling somehow. Go ahead and throw Brad to the lions. If you think that making him the sacrifical lamb for this team is going to improve our offensive performance you are sadly mistaken. Others need to step it up before we can improve as a whole. But, like I said at the beginning of this post, if we do get eliminated from playoff contention with games still left to play, I do think it will be time to let Jackson play. If we don't make it deep into the playoffs or better, Brad is done after this season IMO (one just has to look at his contract negotiations to see that). And, at that point, it will be time to look forward and see what Tarvaris can do for this team. But, until then, BJ is the man. And for his sake, this team's sake and the sake of us fans, I hope his supporting cast starts playing at a better and more consistant level.

getyourrollon!
11-07-2006, 09:45 AM
I think Brad gets the hook as soon as we get a QB on the roster that gives them a BETTER chance to win.
That is not Bollinger and that is not Jackson, at least this year by the way.

NodakPaul
11-07-2006, 10:12 AM
"kramer9guy" wrote:

There are always going to be "fans" out there who call for the starting QB's head if a team is struggling somehow.

Is this a "true fan" reference? ;)

whackthepack
11-07-2006, 10:28 AM
I had high hopes that Brad had another season left in him and that he could lead the Vikes this year and let T-Jack watch from a pro and learn from the sidelines and compete next year in preseason for the starting job!

But sadly what is he learning behind Brad?
How to throw ducks, and how to throw INT's?
Brad has happy feet, maybe it's not all his fault but right now he isn't an NFL QB!

I would give him the hook if he doesn't look good in the 1st half of the Green Bay game, and if he gets the hook it should be for good not just for the game!

But I would not bring in T-Jack!
I would bring in Bollinger and let him have 2 or 3 full games to see what he can do!
If he can't get it done then I would bring in T-Jack for the rest of the season and let him learn under fire and see how he does because at that point any chance at the post-season would probably be over!

Del Rio
11-07-2006, 10:39 AM
I have a haunting suspicion that the Vikings go after a FA QB, maybe Schuab or depending on the draft prospects draft another QB. I do not think Tavaris Jackson was drafted to be the future of the Vikings. I hope he was, but I have a feeling with Fran Foley and with the things Childress has said about TJ he is not what they have in mind for the future. Time will tell and if Brad Johnson keeps playing like he has been then we may get to see him proove me wrong.

Ltrey33
11-07-2006, 11:46 AM
"Del" wrote:


I have a haunting suspicion that the Vikings go after a FA QB, maybe Schuab or depending on the draft prospects draft another QB. I do not think Tavaris Jackson was drafted to be the future of the Vikings. I hope he was, but I have a feeling with Fran Foley and with the things Childress has said about TJ he is not what they have in mind for the future. Time will tell and if Brad Johnson keeps playing like he has been then we may get to see him proove me wrong.


I don't know what to suspect. Part of me agrees with you Del. I think that Tarvaris could be Childress's little McNabb Jr. and his physical abilities and skills as a quarterback reflect that. On the other hand, it is kind of suspect when your director of player personnel gets fired 2 or 3 days after the draft, and the future of your team comes from 1-AA and wasn't supposed to be taken until the 5th round.

I really have no idea what to think. I guess only time will tell.

As far as Brad getting the hook goes, I think if we lose to Green Bay and lose the next one, and both of those losses are on the offense, then Brad gets yanked. I really hope he starts playing well though...he's a better quarterback than what he's been showing.

ItalianStallion
11-07-2006, 12:44 PM
"Ltrey33" wrote:


"Del" wrote:


I have a haunting suspicion that the Vikings go after a FA QB, maybe Schuab or depending on the draft prospects draft another QB. I do not think Tavaris Jackson was drafted to be the future of the Vikings. I hope he was, but I have a feeling with Fran Foley and with the things Childress has said about TJ he is not what they have in mind for the future. Time will tell and if Brad Johnson keeps playing like he has been then we may get to see him proove me wrong.


I don't know what to suspect. Part of me agrees with you Del. I think that Tarvaris could be Childress's little McNabb Jr. and his physical abilities and skills as a quarterback reflect that. On the other hand, it is kind of suspect when your director of player personnel gets fired 2 or 3 days after the draft, and the future of your team comes from 1-AA and wasn't supposed to be taken until the 5th round.

I really have no idea what to think. I guess only time will tell.

As far as Brad getting the hook goes, I think if we lose to Green Bay and lose the next one, and both of those losses are on the offense, then Brad gets yanked. I really hope he starts playing well though...he's a better quarterback than what he's been showing.


Wasn't drafting Tarvaris Childress' opinion anyway?
From what I remember, he was the one who went to all his workouts.

Does anyone really see us winning game with Brooks Bollinger?
At least with Tarvaris there is an unknown factor, so he MAY be good.
All we know about Bollinger is he wasn't good last year, and he wasn't as good as Pennington, Ramsay or Clemens this year.
So say what you want about him being the #2, but when three quarterbacks on a team are better than you, including a rookie, you should not be starting in the NFL.

Bollinger is a paper #2.
He's player who is only #2 because Childress found out Tarvaris was better than our old #2.
I guarantee that if we were back in training camp Tarvaris would outplay Bollinger as well.

Gift
11-07-2006, 12:48 PM
"ItalianStallion" wrote:


"Ltrey33" wrote:


"Del" wrote:


I have a haunting suspicion that the Vikings go after a FA QB, maybe Schuab or depending on the draft prospects draft another QB. I do not think Tavaris Jackson was drafted to be the future of the Vikings. I hope he was, but I have a feeling with Fran Foley and with the things Childress has said about TJ he is not what they have in mind for the future. Time will tell and if Brad Johnson keeps playing like he has been then we may get to see him proove me wrong.


I don't know what to suspect. Part of me agrees with you Del. I think that Tarvaris could be Childress's little McNabb Jr. and his physical abilities and skills as a quarterback reflect that. On the other hand, it is kind of suspect when your director of player personnel gets fired 2 or 3 days after the draft, and the future of your team comes from 1-AA and wasn't supposed to be taken until the 5th round.

I really have no idea what to think. I guess only time will tell.

As far as Brad getting the hook goes, I think if we lose to Green Bay and lose the next one, and both of those losses are on the offense, then Brad gets yanked. I really hope he starts playing well though...he's a better quarterback than what he's been showing.


Wasn't drafting Tarvaris Childress' opinion anyway?
From what I remember, he was the one who went to all his workouts.

Does anyone really see us winning game with Brooks Bollinger?
At least with Tarvaris there is an unknown factor, so he MAY be good.
All we know about Bollinger is he wasn't good last year, and he wasn't as good as Pennington, Ramsay or Clemens this year.
So say what you want about him being the #2, but when three quarterbacks on a team are better than you, including a rookie, you should not be starting in the NFL.

Bollinger is a paper #2.
He's player who is only #2 because Childress found out Tarvaris was better than our old #2.
I guarantee that if we were back in training camp Tarvaris would outplay Bollinger as well.
I can see us winning with brooks, why not.
Why is he bad?
His stats are just as good as BJ's so what make him such a loser?

VikingPatrick
11-07-2006, 01:25 PM
Last I checked.......
BRAD was not pass protecting ($$$$$$$ offensive line )
BRAD was not dropping passes in his hands (# 7 overall pick)
BRAD was not calling the plays ( offensive genius Childress )

Brad
is 1/11th of the problem with this offense....
Has he made some poor decisions.....SURE but how much better would any one else be considering their experience.
Does he have a strong arm???? NO....but he NEVER has..
He is nothing more than a veteran stopgap QB that is here to fill the void untill the future "franchise" QB is found. Who that is is.... still debateable. But lets not drink the kool aid and assume that T.J. is the answer based on the little bit we saw of him in preseason. Yes he looked good....but how many others look good in preseason.
Any of us who truley thought this was going to be a Super Bowl year has got to have their head up their A$$!!!
New Coach
New Cordinators
New Scheems
New Players
Everthing needs time to gel......We should have a better idea where this team will be after another draft and free agency....Let Childress build HIS team....and after 3 years and it is the same......be my guest to crucify him!!!
But for now....Get off Brads back and be Gratefull your not a RAIDER FAN!!!

Webby
11-07-2006, 01:38 PM
Brad will get the hook about the time Mr. Anderson gets over his grieving man-love for the loss of Moss and all evil in the world that followed that dark day.

teasing.

ItalianStallion
11-07-2006, 01:39 PM
"Gift" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


"Ltrey33" wrote:


"Del" wrote:


I have a haunting suspicion that the Vikings go after a FA QB, maybe Schuab or depending on the draft prospects draft another QB. I do not think Tavaris Jackson was drafted to be the future of the Vikings. I hope he was, but I have a feeling with Fran Foley and with the things Childress has said about TJ he is not what they have in mind for the future. Time will tell and if Brad Johnson keeps playing like he has been then we may get to see him proove me wrong.


I don't know what to suspect. Part of me agrees with you Del. I think that Tarvaris could be Childress's little McNabb Jr. and his physical abilities and skills as a quarterback reflect that. On the other hand, it is kind of suspect when your director of player personnel gets fired 2 or 3 days after the draft, and the future of your team comes from 1-AA and wasn't supposed to be taken until the 5th round.

I really have no idea what to think. I guess only time will tell.

As far as Brad getting the hook goes, I think if we lose to Green Bay and lose the next one, and both of those losses are on the offense, then Brad gets yanked. I really hope he starts playing well though...he's a better quarterback than what he's been showing.


Wasn't drafting Tarvaris Childress' opinion anyway?
From what I remember, he was the one who went to all his workouts.

Does anyone really see us winning game with Brooks Bollinger?
At least with Tarvaris there is an unknown factor, so he MAY be good.
All we know about Bollinger is he wasn't good last year, and he wasn't as good as Pennington, Ramsay or Clemens this year.
So say what you want about him being the #2, but when three quarterbacks on a team are better than you, including a rookie, you should not be starting in the NFL.

Bollinger is a paper #2.
He's player who is only #2 because Childress found out Tarvaris was better than our old #2.
I guarantee that if we were back in training camp Tarvaris would outplay Bollinger as well.
I can see us winning with brooks, why not.
Why is he bad?
His stats are just as good as BJ's so what make him such a loser?


When you're comparing offensive stats with Brad Johnson, and you lose more football games than you win...I think that makes you a loser.

vikes09
11-07-2006, 02:40 PM
when we have no shot for the playoffs, then TJ will get his starts. i think most of the members on here if we dont end up going to the playoffs will be very disappointed in TJ, he's a AA school kid that is still very very raw. in those games childress is going to try to not have him killed and not crush his confidence his first few games. for instance, i think aaron rodgers is officialy screwed over from what i beleive was his first game agianst the ravens game. 1st play he fumbled that was returned for a TD, second pass "atempt" another fumble. thats just humiliating, and IMO, ruined his young and short career.

around week 11, 12 we could be seeing TJ be our starter, but no sooner.

ItalianStallion
11-07-2006, 02:46 PM
"vikes09" wrote:


when we have no shot for the playoffs, then TJ will get his starts. i think most of the members on here if we dont end up going to the playoffs will be very disappointed in TJ, he's a AA school kid that is still very very raw. in those games childress is going to try to not have him killed and not crush his confidence his first few games. for instance, i think aaron rodgers is officialy screwed over from what i beleive was his first game agianst the ravens game. 1st play he fumbled that was returned for a TD, second pass "atempt" another fumble. thats just humiliating, and IMO, ruined his young and short career.

around week 11, 12 we could be seeing TJ be our starter, but no sooner.



At this point I'm not sure how many people "expect" to make the playoffs, it sure would be nice, but not the way we're playing.

Mr Anderson
11-07-2006, 02:59 PM
With the rest of our schedule(starting last week) as easy as it is, we should go 11-5 12-4 but we're not going to if we beat ourselves every fucking week.

I would rather know sooner than later if we're going to make the playoffs as a wildcard or not, to put in the younger guys, especiallly TJack and get him some of those end of the year starts.

Gift
11-07-2006, 03:53 PM
"ItalianStallion" wrote:


"Gift" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


"Ltrey33" wrote:


"Del" wrote:


I have a haunting suspicion that the Vikings go after a FA QB, maybe Schuab or depending on the draft prospects draft another QB. I do not think Tavaris Jackson was drafted to be the future of the Vikings. I hope he was, but I have a feeling with Fran Foley and with the things Childress has said about TJ he is not what they have in mind for the future. Time will tell and if Brad Johnson keeps playing like he has been then we may get to see him proove me wrong.


I don't know what to suspect. Part of me agrees with you Del. I think that Tarvaris could be Childress's little McNabb Jr. and his physical abilities and skills as a quarterback reflect that. On the other hand, it is kind of suspect when your director of player personnel gets fired 2 or 3 days after the draft, and the future of your team comes from 1-AA and wasn't supposed to be taken until the 5th round.

I really have no idea what to think. I guess only time will tell.

As far as Brad getting the hook goes, I think if we lose to Green Bay and lose the next one, and both of those losses are on the offense, then Brad gets yanked. I really hope he starts playing well though...he's a better quarterback than what he's been showing.


Wasn't drafting Tarvaris Childress' opinion anyway?
From what I remember, he was the one who went to all his workouts.

Does anyone really see us winning game with Brooks Bollinger?
At least with Tarvaris there is an unknown factor, so he MAY be good.
All we know about Bollinger is he wasn't good last year, and he wasn't as good as Pennington, Ramsay or Clemens this year.
So say what you want about him being the #2, but when three quarterbacks on a team are better than you, including a rookie, you should not be starting in the NFL.

Bollinger is a paper #2.
He's player who is only #2 because Childress found out Tarvaris was better than our old #2.
I guarantee that if we were back in training camp Tarvaris would outplay Bollinger as well.
I can see us winning with brooks, why not.
Why is he bad?
His stats are just as good as BJ's so what make him such a loser?


When you're comparing offensive stats with Brad Johnson, and you lose more football games than you win...I think that makes you a loser.
Like TJ or BJ could have done better with the jets.

ItalianStallion
11-07-2006, 04:41 PM
We'll never know, all we know is Bollinger was the 4th best QB on their roster this year.
That speaks volumes to me.

Gift
11-07-2006, 04:48 PM
"ItalianStallion" wrote:


We'll never know, all we know is Bollinger was the 4th best QB on their roster this year.
That speaks volumes to me.
We don't know until he gets a shot.
He is far too young to rule him out just because he put up so-so stats 1 year for a bad team.
Even then he had more TD's than INT's, alot better than we can say for BJ right now.

kramer9guy
11-07-2006, 04:49 PM
"ItalianStallion" wrote:

At this point I'm not sure how many people "expect" to make the playoffs, it sure would be nice, but not the way we're playing.


To be honest, I still have better expectations at us making the playoffs at this point in the season than I have had at the same point over the last several seasons. Other than the Patriot game, we have been in every contest until the end. IMO, if the O-line and our WR's start playing better on a more consistant level we are easily better off than we have been in a long time.

ItalianStallion
11-07-2006, 05:05 PM
"kramer9guy" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:

At this point I'm not sure how many people "expect" to make the playoffs, it sure would be nice, but not the way we're playing.


To be honest, I still have better expectations at us making the playoffs at this point in the season than I have had at the same point over the last several seasons. Other than the Patriot game, we have been in every contest until the end. IMO, if the O-line and our WR's start playing better on a more consistant level we are easily better off than we have been in a long time.


I have no doubt that if our offense starts playing better and more consistently we have a good shot at the playoffs.
Whether they can hasn't been seen yet.

ItalianStallion
11-19-2006, 03:16 PM
Soooo, is out team planning on making any changes on offense, or are we satisfied with it not only NOT winning games, but losing us games?

We are all but eliminated from the playoffs, so does anything happen?

Ltrey33
11-19-2006, 03:23 PM
I think we switch now. We've lost 4 in a row, and although I don't think you can blame Brad for today's loss, something has to change.

BadlandsVikings
11-19-2006, 03:24 PM
He'll be benched with 3 games left.
Maybee

Purple Floyd
11-19-2006, 03:33 PM
I think we also need to bench the offensive position coaches but how the heck do you do that?If they cannot get the players prepared for the packers we have no hope.

Gift
11-19-2006, 03:42 PM
Nothing is BJ's fault, no matter what, ever. There is always some one else to blaim & that person really tried to make BJ look bad again this week, but we all saw through it.
BJ is forever!!!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

I'm am beyond frustrated at this point.

williamsontothebench
11-19-2006, 03:47 PM
Brad made really only one bad play.
The int to Taylor for the TD.
Johnson needs to sit a week or two, we need a change at qb.
I still say Jackson.


What will be out there at out pick in the draft this offseason?
Wide Revievers.
I think we will be a top 6 team for the draft.


the only bright note to the weekend Packers got crushed at home to the Patriots,
and Farve is hurt.
I have wanted to see Rogers for a year now.
I never have liked Farve!

audioghost
11-19-2006, 04:02 PM
Everybody says "Brad only made 1 mistake, or only did minor things wrong..."

Look, I've been saying this for weeks...its not that Brad makes a ton of mistakes, he doesn't....but he is an old, slow, immobile, safe guy that doesn't MAKE PLAYS and never forces anything (like in the stock market...low risk, low reward...FGs all day....when we had Daunte and Moss, long passes, high risk...high reward..TD after TD, Daunte having 3rd best year in NFL history in 2004)

All I'm saying is that we need someone back there who can move, take chances, unload the football and make plays. Johnson is a safe QB, but not an effective one...his best days are WAY behind him

kramer9guy
11-19-2006, 04:04 PM
I've been a BJ supporter since day one. I've defended him throughout the onslaught of posts calling for his head. And even after today, I still believe he's capable of winning games with a dependable surrounding cast, but he does not have that, and now, as our playoff hopes quickly swirl down the NFL drain, I think we might as well have a change at the QB position. At this point, I'm thinking, why not put in Brooks for a few games and then maybe even let Tarvaris close out the season with a game or two under his belt if Brooks fails miserably. A change at the QB position would probably keep the fan base watching games even if we lose out and we could also get a look at these guys in game conditions to see how they will stand up on the roster for next season. Don't get me wrong, I still want us to win the rest of our games (and I'll be watching every one of them), but it's getting to the point where it probably wouldn't be a bad time to give Brooks and even Tarvaris a look to see what they have. And who knows, a change could spark the rest of the team to play at a better and more consistant level. Because, if we have any chance at all for post-season play we must turn it around now.

audioghost
11-19-2006, 04:07 PM
"kramer9guy" wrote:


I've been a BJ supporter since day one. I've defended him throughout the onslaught of posts calling for his head. And even after today, I still believe he's capable of winning games with a dependable surrounding cast, but he does not have that, and now, as our playoff hopes quickly swirl down the NFL drain, I think we might as well have a change at the QB position. At this point, I'm thinking, why not put in Brooks for a few games and then maybe even let Tarvaris close out the season with a game or two under his belt if Brooks fails miserably. A change at the QB position would probably keep the fan base watching games even if we lose out and we could also get a look at these guys in game conditions to see how they will stand up on the roster for next season. Don't get me wrong, I still want us to win the rest of our games (and I'll be watching every one of them), but it's getting to the point where it probably wouldn't be a bad time to give Brooks and even Tarvaris a look to see what they have. And who knows, a change could spark the rest of the team to play at a better and more consistant level. Because, if we have any chance at all for post-season play we must turn it around now.


Well said

FedjeViking
11-19-2006, 04:17 PM
Again, I say it's not Brad's fault. The O line needs to work with him. If they can't work with him, what makes you think they can work with anyone else?

ultravikingfan
11-19-2006, 04:21 PM
"FedjeViking" wrote:


Again, I say it's not Brad's fault. The O line needs to work with him. If they can't work with him, what makes you think they can work with anyone else?


I dunno.
I used to feel the same way.
However, I do not think all of Brad's problems stem from the O line.
Granted, they should be doing a better job and it would help if balls were not dropped.

BadlandsVikings
11-19-2006, 04:25 PM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"FedjeViking" wrote:


Again, I say it's not Brad's fault. The O line needs to work with him. If they can't work with him, what makes you think they can work with anyone else?


I dunno.
I used to feel the same way.
However, I do not think all of Brad's problems stem from the O line.
Granted, they should be doing a better job and it would help if balls were not dropped.


He's lost a lot, and he's not the same Brad from last year.

Garland Greene
11-19-2006, 04:31 PM
Is it all BJ fault? To a point yes. I think that the team has lost all confidence in him. IS it all his fault No,
but somewhere, sonehow there needs to be a spark for the offense. So if that means Benching BJ go for it.

Tanner_QBRB8
11-19-2006, 04:39 PM
Brad will stay in the rest of the year unless he gets injured this is one of those years were every game is fun to watch and you're not expecting much or atleast im not if we do make the playoffs that would be very nice but i see it as unlikely and i hope in the offseason we can get a QB or if the coaches thing TJ will be ready then we are set cuz i've noticed a lot of young QB's are getting very good Jason Campbell for example for had a very good game today for his first start in the NFL if there is any possible way to get Leftwich from Jacksonville that would be great but the chances of that happening in my eyes is very slim

Mr Anderson
11-19-2006, 04:44 PM
Start Tarvaris Jackson next week.

We're playing the second worst team in the NFL (us being the worst). We're not making the playoffs. No reason not to start the rookie.

The Oline is bad, but not so horrible, a lot of those plays where Brad is forced to move in the pocket TJack could make gains out of, and whenever Brad has to throw it away, Tjack could run.

Passing is the death of us, on both sides of the ball.

We can run the ball, and god knows we can stop the run.

We can't defend the pass and we REALLY can't throw.

We suck bad.




At this rate, we'll have a top 5 draft pick, and maybe we can get Calvin Johnson and....

Pick up Leonard Davis or Max Starks in FA.

Move Marcus Johnson back to guard.

Pick up Nate Clements or Asante Samuel in FA.

Start Tarvaris Jackson.

Pull the stick out of Childress' ass.

Win the Super Bowl.

BrooksBollingerForQB
11-19-2006, 04:45 PM
GIVE ME BROOKS!!!!!!!!

kramer9guy
11-19-2006, 04:47 PM
"Tanner_QBRB8" wrote:


Brad will stay in the rest of the year unless he gets injured this is one of those years were every game is fun to watch and you're not expecting much or atleast im not if we do make the playoffs that would be very nice but i see it as unlikely and i hope in the offseason we can get a QB or if the coaches thing TJ will be ready then we are set cuz i've noticed a lot of young QB's are getting very good Jason Campbell for example for had a very good game today for his first start in the NFL if there is any possible way to get Leftwich from Jacksonville that would be great but the chances of that happening in my eyes is very slim


Looking at Childress's track record when it comes to change of any kind and since we've been in the majority of our games until the end, I think you are probably correct about Brad starting the rest of the games barring injury. Whether that's the right thing to do, I don't know. Now, regarding Leftwich, hell no. I wouldn't want him. He's over-rated and injury prone.

sleepagent
11-19-2006, 05:03 PM
When our WR's learn to hold onto the ball . . .
When our OL learns to block with consistency . . .
When the dumb penalties end . . .
When we get a "Red Zone" go-to guy . . .
When our play calling is executed better . . .
When our team learns to play as a team . . .

Then, if we are still losing . . .

Mr Anderson
11-19-2006, 05:09 PM
"sleepagent" wrote:


When our WR's learn to hold onto the ball . . .
When our OL learns to block with consistency . . .
When the dumb penalties end . . .
When we get a "Red Zone" go-to guy . . .
When our play calling is executed better . . .
When our team learns to play as a team . . .

Then, if we are still losing . . .


Is that not why we traded Moss?

Who might I add would fix 2 more of those problems.

vikes2456
11-19-2006, 05:24 PM
"sleepagent" wrote:


When our WR's learn to hold onto the ball . . .
When our OL learns to block with consistency . . .
When the dumb penalties end . . .
When we get a "Red Zone" go-to guy . . .
When our play calling is executed better . . .
When our team learns to play as a team . . .

Then, if we are still losing . . .

Another argument I'm growing tired of, the thing is, any quarterback can do good under those conditions, even Favre...

happy camper
11-19-2006, 05:26 PM
"Mr" wrote:


"sleepagent" wrote:


When our WR's learn to hold onto the ball . . .
When our OL learns to block with consistency . . .
When the dumb penalties end . . .
When we get a "Red Zone" go-to guy . . .
When our play calling is executed better . . .
When our team learns to play as a team . . .

Then, if we are still losing . . .


Is that not why we traded Moss?

Who might I add would fix 2 more of those problems.


and create a whole nother set of problems.

seriously, moss is a jackass and needs to stay on the west coast.

Redmption
11-19-2006, 05:30 PM
One more loss pretty much kills all playoff hopes. Vikes should give TJ the last 5 games so he gets game experience before next season and can adjust to the speed. I think Chester Taylor could be a really good back if there was a QB that defenses respected playing. But since there is no deep threat teams can play short and intermediate zones and the run game becomes weak. Even if TJ sucks the whole rest of the season teams would loosen up because of his ability to run and rocket the ball down field.

Webby
11-19-2006, 05:46 PM
"happy" wrote:


"Mr" wrote:


"sleepagent" wrote:


When our WR's learn to hold onto the ball . . .
When our OL learns to block with consistency . . .
When the dumb penalties end . . .
When we get a "Red Zone" go-to guy . . .
When our play calling is executed better . . .
When our team learns to play as a team . . .

Then, if we are still losing . . .


Is that not why we traded Moss?

Who might I add would fix 2 more of those problems.


and create a whole nother set of problems.

seriously, moss is a j~~~~~~s and needs to stay on the west coast.


the pregame shows laughed at Moss and said he wasn't worth a trade anymore.
I smiled.

Freya
11-19-2006, 05:46 PM
Well FWIW, I'm a "still not desperate enough for Bollinger" fan.

VikingsExpress
11-19-2006, 06:12 PM
Johnson isn't the problem here...atleast not the whole problem.
Although if brad just takes the 3 steps back instead of the 7 it might help with the blocking a little.
Now lets be honest here, this is the sorriest sack of recievers there probably has ever been.
I heard rumblings on here that they should hire Carter to help em out a bit.
Well, i say do it.
These recievers just aren't fast enough!

nflvikings4455
11-19-2006, 06:26 PM
With this 4th loss in a row we are pretty much out of the playoff picture...if were rebuilding for next year I think I would put TJ in to see if he is the real deal and if we can use him next year, if not we are gonna need to make a move in the offseason cause Brad is dog meat out there.

ultravikingfan
11-19-2006, 06:34 PM
"nflvikings4455" wrote:


With this 4th loss in a row we are pretty much out of the playoff picture...if were rebuilding for next year I think I would put TJ in to see if he is the real deal and if we can use him next year, if not we are gonna need to make a move in the offseason cause Brad is dog meat out there.


We are only 2 games ou of the wild card

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/standings;_ylt=AnzAE0JEl630J7qcpNY9qT9DubYF

Ltrey33
11-19-2006, 06:37 PM
"Mr" wrote:


"sleepagent" wrote:


When our WR's learn to hold onto the ball . . .
When our OL learns to block with consistency . . .
When the dumb penalties end . . .
When we get a "Red Zone" go-to guy . . .
When our play calling is executed better . . .
When our team learns to play as a team . . .

Then, if we are still losing . . .


Is that not why we traded Moss?

Who might I add would fix 2 more of those problems.


Yeah, but look at what has happened since we traded him. He's grown his hair out, turned white and all he does is snort cocaine all the time. I doubt he's very effective. Take a look...

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y126/ltrey33/mosscoke.jpg

Sorry, I had to do something to defuse your man-crush on Randy.

Prophet
11-19-2006, 06:40 PM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"nflvikings4455" wrote:


With this 4th loss in a row we are pretty much out of the playoff picture...if were rebuilding for next year I think I would put TJ in to see if he is the real deal and if we can use him next year, if not we are gonna need to make a move in the offseason cause Brad is dog meat out there.


We are only 2 games ou of the wild card

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/standings;_ylt=AnzAE0JEl630J7qcpNY9qT9DubYF


I've been eyeballing that too.
Funny stuff, the NFC is really up for grabs in the Wildcard slot, if someone can get it going out of the pile of mediocre crap teams they could make a run for it.
Right now the Girls and Panthers have two game win streaks going while the Rams have a five game slide followed closely with the Vikings four-game slide.
The Chickens are sitting pretty after a loss to the 9ers today.
What team will come alive?
There are a lot of teams in the NFC hovering within a couple game os 0.500.
Balanced teams or crappy/inconsistent?

sleepagent
11-19-2006, 06:50 PM
"vikes2456" wrote:


"sleepagent" wrote:


When our WR's learn to hold onto the ball . . .
When our OL learns to block with consistency . . .
When the dumb penalties end . . .
When we get a "Red Zone" go-to guy . . .
When our play calling is executed better . . .
When our team learns to play as a team . . .

Then, if we are still losing . . .

Another argument I'm growing tired of, the thing is, any quarterback can do good under those conditions, even Favre...


Even a 38 year old . . . or a rookie?
;D

The point is, there is plenty to fix and it's not all BJ's fault.
He shares part of the blame, but there are bigger issues that need to be addressed first.

Vikefanman2000
11-19-2006, 06:57 PM
I have been a supporter of Brad Johnson....and still do not feel that these losses all belong on his shoulders.... bad over all play by EVERYONE on the offense is to blame.... but whatever they are doing now is not working....sometimes you have to change things up just for a change....

I was glad to see Marcus "yellow flag" Johnson out in the second half....now maybe it is time to put in another QB and just see what happens....what is the worse that happens??
A Viking loss against a bad Arizona team next week??


I love the positive comments about still being able to make the playoffs....but at this point, I believe that is only possible if the offense is shaken up!

Is it TJ's time??....hell, I dont know....but why not.
BJ isnt getting it done.

Hawgski
11-19-2006, 07:05 PM
Leave the O line the way it was in the second half.
Have M. Robinson and B. Johnson at WR and T. Taylor in the slot.
Put Bollinger behind center, and let's move on.

Birk looked awful today.

CCthebest
11-19-2006, 07:11 PM
Birk always looks awful. Has he had even a decent game this year?

Guruzen
11-19-2006, 07:19 PM
Even if we do make the playoffs we haven't got a chance in hell and everyone knows it. Let's throw in TJ and if it backfires, at least we'll have a high draft pick next year.

Our offense won't be fixed this year so what have we got to lose?

DeathtoDenny
11-19-2006, 08:30 PM
I think we need a new O-line coach for sure, probably a new O coordinator (who isn't a rookie, please) and a new D-backs coach.

nflvikings4455
11-19-2006, 08:34 PM
I don't think we need a new db coach...the zone isn't working i mean Joey tore it up..come on

Prophet
11-19-2006, 08:40 PM
What I don't get is why everyone is on the start Tarvaris kick every week after a loss.
The facts remain the same until we find out differently from the team.
Tarvaris was injured and is not fully recovered and Tarvaris and Childress both said that he is not ready.
I have yet to read even one member out of 7,000+ that doesn't want to see Tarvaris succeed.

BadlandsVikings
11-19-2006, 08:44 PM
"Acumen" wrote:


What I don't get is why everyone is on the start Tarvaris kick every week after a loss.
The facts remain the same until we find out differently from the team.
Tarvaris was injured and is not fully recovered and Tarvaris and Childress both said that he is not ready.
I have yet to read even one member out of 7,000+ that doesn't want to see Tarvaris succeed.


I'm one that doesn't want to see him yet, he'll get scarred for like and be worthless.

nflvikings4455
11-19-2006, 08:45 PM
"Acumen" wrote:


What I don't get is why everyone is on the start Tarvaris kick every week after a loss.
The facts remain the same until we find out differently from the team.
Tarvaris was injured and is not fully recovered and Tarvaris and Childress both said that he is not ready.
I have yet to read even one member out of 7,000+ that doesn't want to see Tarvaris succeed.



Then put bollinger in, we have nothing to lose

cajunvike
11-19-2006, 08:48 PM
"Acumen" wrote:


What I don't get is why everyone is on the start Tarvaris kick every week after a loss.
The facts remain the same until we find out differently from the team.
Tarvaris was injured and is not fully recovered and Tarvaris and Childress both said that he is not ready.
I have yet to read even one member out of 7,000+ that doesn't want to see Tarvaris succeed.


I haven't been...UNTIL NOW.
The season is lost...so we might as well find out what we have in Tarvaris.
If he can't handle the NFL, then we need to look in a different direction.
Washington is doing it...why can't we?

Caine
11-19-2006, 08:52 PM
Brad will get the hook when there is a point in giving it to him.

Brooks Bollinger will likely not be with the team next season.
Starting him now would only be done to increase his market value...how long is he under contract?
He is NOT our future, so we're not grooming him for anything.

As Acumen said, when the Coaches and Tarvaris himself both say he's not ready to start, why do we constantly have a flood of arm-chair QB's stating - quite emphatically - that he is?
Childress may suprise us all and throw him in...but I wouldn't hold my breath unless it's versus St. Louis.

So, with no other QB's on our roster, why give BJ the hook?
We're no longer playing for anything other than pride (and after losing to San Fran, Green Bay, and Miami in consecutive weeks, we have no pride left I would think).
BJ will ride out the year and will either be the back up next season or sent packing.

Either Tarvaris Jackson or Matt Schaub starts....next season.

Caine

Prophet
11-19-2006, 09:06 PM
Interesting tidbit:

Grandpa Johnson rushed for more yards than MeMo today.
8)

LuckyVike
11-19-2006, 09:07 PM
I recall a long time ago seeing Brad Childress saying that TJ wasn't ready to start but I don't know if I've seen TJ say himself that he isn't ready.
Can somebody please show me the article where he said it?
(I'm not calling you a liar by any mean Acumen, I just want to see it.)

singersp
11-19-2006, 09:13 PM
"LuckyVike" wrote:


I recall a long time ago seeing Brad Childress saying that TJ wasn't ready to start but I don't know if I've seen TJ say himself that he isn't ready.
Can somebody please show me the article where he said it?
(I'm not calling you a liar by any mean Acumen, I just want to see it.)


I'll dig it up. I posted it about a week ago.

Vikes
11-19-2006, 09:17 PM
Brad does not get pulled. He earned the spot. All the Brad Johnson haters were the same PEP haters. The Vikings are fine. We are not that good on offense. If you have not heard we were exposed by NE and now everyone is using the same playbook. This is a good thing it's making this team understand the weapons they need. Calm down and enjoy the ride.

"MEN WE STAY THE COURSE"

singersp
11-19-2006, 09:19 PM
"LuckyVike" wrote:


I recall a long time ago seeing Brad Childress saying that TJ wasn't ready to start but I don't know if I've seen TJ say himself that he isn't ready.
Can somebody please show me the article where he said it?
(I'm not calling you a liar by any mean Acumen, I just want to see it.)


I believe this is the one they are referring to;

Rookie trusts that gradual development is best plan (http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/sports/football/15965482.htm)

Prophet
11-19-2006, 09:23 PM
"LuckyVike" wrote:


I recall a long time ago seeing Brad Childress saying that TJ wasn't ready to start but I don't know if I've seen TJ say himself that he isn't ready.
Can somebody please show me the article where he said it?
(I'm not calling you a liar by any mean Acumen, I just want to see it.)


I read it a while ago too and will try to find the article.
Tarvaris has said that he trusts the judgement of the coaching staff regarding his availability and readiness to play.
There is a nice summary of Tarvaris here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarvaris_Jackson), where they talk about his background and Childress' comments:


"The day after the draft Vikings coach Childress was quoted by the St. Paul Pioneer Press as saying: "I think you judge quarterbacks a little bit differently...When you see what you want at the quarterback position, you need to go get it. And that's exactly what I see with Tarvaris Jackson is a guy that's a piece of clay, that has all the skills in terms of, No. 1, what's he look like throwing the football?...He's got a great throwing motion; he's athletic. He has all those things that we're looking for, and he's wired right. That's important for a quarterback. I think he's a flatline guy. I think he's a sponge. You're talking about a guy that never had a coach there as a quarterback coach. So what can he do with coaching?"[3] Jackson's agent, Joel Segal, said: "After the draft, there were two clubs that expressed disappointment and were mad they didn't get him. They were planning to take (Jackson) very high in the third round, and were lamenting the fact that the Vikings beat them".

On July 26, 2006, Jackson signed a four year deal with Minnesota, including a $1 million signing bonus.[4]

Jackson's 2006 pre-season passer rating was 106.1, 15th in the league out of 110 quarterbacks who performed. Only one quarterback from his draft class (Jay Cutler) did better. He also showed great scrambling skills averaging 11.3 yards in rushing (the only Viking other than Brad Johnson to average more than 3.3 yards in rushing). ESPN analyst Mike Tirico referred to Jackson as a right handed Michael Vick. His pre-season performance was enough to surpass 2nd and 3rd string QBs Mike McMahon and J.T. O'Sullivan on the depth chart. After the pre-season, McMahon and O'Sullivan were cut from the team and Brooks Bollinger was brought in, who Jackson will be competing against for the number two spot...

...On September 25, 2006, Tarvaris Jackson had minor knee surgery to repair his meniscus and is supposed to miss 4-6 weeks. He returned to limited practice after two weeks, but is expected to be rehabilitating the remainder of the year.

After Tarvaris was drafted he said this (http://www.onnidan.com/05-06/news/april/alst0429.htm):


"I just want to learn as much as possible. Brad Johnson is a great quarterback and has won a Super Bowl," Jackson said. "Coach Barlow has told me a lot about him. But I just want to learn what I can before it's my time. I just want to produce for the Minnesota Vikings."

Another Childress quote (http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=FBN-VIKINGS-04-26-06):


..."Regardless of who is starting," coach Brad Childress said, "we want to take a developmental guy. We want to develop a guy. I think it behooves you to have your eye on a guy that's got the skill set that you're looking for and try to get that guy up to speed. A guy that you're serious about to bring along within the system."...

And another article (http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/sports/football/15965482.htm) states:


Coach Brad Childress said Jackson has made good progress but doesn't see him moving out of his No. 3 role behind starter Brad Johnson and backup Brooks Bollinger this season.

Jackson said he's OK with that.

"I really don't know what's the right way to do it," he said. "I'm just going to trust coach Childress and go with the flow. I'm in a situation where I can learn from a Super Bowl quarterback and a coaching staff that's very good at getting quarterbacks ready to play."

There's more information out there, but that's enough to support my statements.

singersp
11-19-2006, 09:31 PM
"Acumen" wrote:


"LuckyVike" wrote:


I recall a long time ago seeing Brad Childress saying that TJ wasn't ready to start but I don't know if I've seen TJ say himself that he isn't ready.
Can somebody please show me the article where he said it?
(I'm not calling you a liar by any mean Acumen, I just want to see it.)


I read it a while ago too and will try to find the article.
Tarvaris has said that he trusts the judgement of the coaching staff regarding his availability and readiness to play.
There is a nice summary of Tarvaris here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarvaris_Jackson), where they talk about his background and Childress' comments:


"The day after the draft Vikings coach Childress was quoted by the St. Paul Pioneer Press as saying: "I think you judge quarterbacks a little bit differently...When you see what you want at the quarterback position, you need to go get it. And that's exactly what I see with Tarvaris Jackson is a guy that's a piece of clay, that has all the skills in terms of, No. 1, what's he look like throwing the football?...He's got a great throwing motion; he's athletic. He has all those things that we're looking for, and he's wired right. That's important for a quarterback. I think he's a flatline guy. I think he's a sponge. You're talking about a guy that never had a coach there as a quarterback coach. So what can he do with coaching?"[3] Jackson's agent, Joel Segal, said: "After the draft, there were two clubs that expressed disappointment and were mad they didn't get him. They were planning to take (Jackson) very high in the third round, and were lamenting the fact that the Vikings beat them".

On July 26, 2006, Jackson signed a four year deal with Minnesota, including a $1 million signing bonus.[4]

Jackson's 2006 pre-season passer rating was 106.1, 15th in the league out of 110 quarterbacks who performed. Only one quarterback from his draft class (Jay Cutler) did better. He also showed great scrambling skills averaging 11.3 yards in rushing (the only Viking other than Brad Johnson to average more than 3.3 yards in rushing). ESPN analyst Mike Tirico referred to Jackson as a right handed Michael Vick. His pre-season performance was enough to surpass 2nd and 3rd string QBs Mike McMahon and J.T. O'Sullivan on the depth chart. After the pre-season, McMahon and O'Sullivan were cut from the team and Brooks Bollinger was brought in, who Jackson will be competing against for the number two spot...

...On September 25, 2006, Tarvaris Jackson had minor knee surgery to repair his meniscus and is supposed to miss 4-6 weeks. He returned to limited practice after two weeks, but is expected to be rehabilitating the remainder of the year.

After Tarvaris was drafted he said this (http://www.onnidan.com/05-06/news/april/alst0429.htm):


"I just want to learn as much as possible. Brad Johnson is a great quarterback and has won a Super Bowl," Jackson said. "Coach Barlow has told me a lot about him. But I just want to learn what I can before it's my time. I just want to produce for the Minnesota Vikings."

Another Childress quote (http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=FBN-VIKINGS-04-26-06):


..."Regardless of who is starting," coach Brad Childress said, "we want to take a developmental guy. We want to develop a guy. I think it behooves you to have your eye on a guy that's got the skill set that you're looking for and try to get that guy up to speed. A guy that you're serious about to bring along within the system."...

And another article (http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/sports/football/15965482.htm) states:


Coach Brad Childress said Jackson has made good progress but doesn't see him moving out of his No. 3 role behind starter Brad Johnson and backup Brooks Bollinger this season.

Jackson said he's OK with that.

"I really don't know what's the right way to do it," he said. "I'm just going to trust coach Childress and go with the flow. I'm in a situation where I can learn from a Super Bowl quarterback and a coaching staff that's very good at getting quarterbacks ready to play."

There's more information out there, but that's enough to support my statements.




Also this that was in the same article I provided the link to;

The Vikings' rookie quarterback knows his situation is different and that this is strictly a learning season for him, even if some of the fans he thrilled during the exhibition season would like to see him in the starting lineup.

"I don't really pay attention to it," Jackson said. "It was preseason. I was going against the second and third guys. It's a different game in the regular season."

Prophet
11-19-2006, 09:43 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"Acumen" wrote:


"LuckyVike" wrote:


I recall a long time ago seeing Brad Childress saying that TJ wasn't ready to start but I don't know if I've seen TJ say himself that he isn't ready.
Can somebody please show me the article where he said it?
(I'm not calling you a liar by any mean Acumen, I just want to see it.)


I read it a while ago too and will try to find the article.
Tarvaris has said that he trusts the judgement of the coaching staff regarding his availability and readiness to play.
There is a nice summary of Tarvaris here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarvaris_Jackson), where they talk about his background and Childress' comments:


"The day after the draft Vikings coach Childress was quoted by the St. Paul Pioneer Press as saying: "I think you judge quarterbacks a little bit differently...When you see what you want at the quarterback position, you need to go get it. And that's exactly what I see with Tarvaris Jackson is a guy that's a piece of clay, that has all the skills in terms of, No. 1, what's he look like throwing the football?...He's got a great throwing motion; he's athletic. He has all those things that we're looking for, and he's wired right. That's important for a quarterback. I think he's a flatline guy. I think he's a sponge. You're talking about a guy that never had a coach there as a quarterback coach. So what can he do with coaching?"[3] Jackson's agent, Joel Segal, said: "After the draft, there were two clubs that expressed disappointment and were mad they didn't get him. They were planning to take (Jackson) very high in the third round, and were lamenting the fact that the Vikings beat them".

On July 26, 2006, Jackson signed a four year deal with Minnesota, including a $1 million signing bonus.[4]

Jackson's 2006 pre-season passer rating was 106.1, 15th in the league out of 110 quarterbacks who performed. Only one quarterback from his draft class (Jay Cutler) did better. He also showed great scrambling skills averaging 11.3 yards in rushing (the only Viking other than Brad Johnson to average more than 3.3 yards in rushing). ESPN analyst Mike Tirico referred to Jackson as a right handed Michael Vick. His pre-season performance was enough to surpass 2nd and 3rd string QBs Mike McMahon and J.T. O'Sullivan on the depth chart. After the pre-season, McMahon and O'Sullivan were cut from the team and Brooks Bollinger was brought in, who Jackson will be competing against for the number two spot...

...On September 25, 2006, Tarvaris Jackson had minor knee surgery to repair his meniscus and is supposed to miss 4-6 weeks. He returned to limited practice after two weeks, but is expected to be rehabilitating the remainder of the year.

After Tarvaris was drafted he said this (http://www.onnidan.com/05-06/news/april/alst0429.htm):


"I just want to learn as much as possible. Brad Johnson is a great quarterback and has won a Super Bowl," Jackson said. "Coach Barlow has told me a lot about him. But I just want to learn what I can before it's my time. I just want to produce for the Minnesota Vikings."

Another Childress quote (http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=FBN-VIKINGS-04-26-06):


..."Regardless of who is starting," coach Brad Childress said, "we want to take a developmental guy. We want to develop a guy. I think it behooves you to have your eye on a guy that's got the skill set that you're looking for and try to get that guy up to speed. A guy that you're serious about to bring along within the system."...

And another article (http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/sports/football/15965482.htm) states:


Coach Brad Childress said Jackson has made good progress but doesn't see him moving out of his No. 3 role behind starter Brad Johnson and backup Brooks Bollinger this season.

Jackson said he's OK with that.

"I really don't know what's the right way to do it," he said. "I'm just going to trust coach Childress and go with the flow. I'm in a situation where I can learn from a Super Bowl quarterback and a coaching staff that's very good at getting quarterbacks ready to play."

There's more information out there, but that's enough to support my statements.




Also this that was in the same article I provided the link to;

The Vikings' rookie quarterback knows his situation is different and that this is strictly a learning season for him, even if some of the fans he thrilled during the exhibition season would like to see him in the starting lineup.

"I don't really pay attention to it," Jackson said. "It was preseason. I was going against the second and third guys. It's a different game in the regular season."


I remember that quote and I also remember quoting that quote in a previous thread and saying something about how thankful I was that the upcoming field general has more sense than many of the fans.
He appears to have a good head on his shoulders and it will be fun to see him play...when he is ready.

On a sidenote, there are a few Childress haters on the site that are quick to rip Childress a new asshole every opportunity they get.
What I don't understand is ever since Childress was sworn in as the HC he has been touted as a QB developer and he made a risky move grabbing Tarvaris in the second round.
He is in the process of doing what he is theoretically best at, developing a QB for the future, and people seem to think they know better than a guy that has spent his professional career doing just that...in fact it was a key consideration given in hiring Childress very quickly after Tice's contract wasn't renewed.
Let the man do his job.
If Tarvaris is a bust and Childress made a bad call, then call him out.
Until then, wait it out and see what happens.
I'm excited to see if Tarvaris' skills will translate into real-time NFL...it will be exciting.

runtheball
11-19-2006, 09:48 PM
IF T-Jack is 100% healthy I would like to see Childress give him one series a game. Pick a spot , say 1st series of second quarter and put hime in for 1 series. Announce before the game that you are gonna do this for the rest of the season. 1 series per game. Other teams have done this with rookie QB's. It gives him some experience without too much pressure.

i_bleed_purple
11-19-2006, 11:46 PM
if we're down next week, and there's no shot at coming back, i'd love to see TJ in there.
just to see
what he is capable of.

PAvikesfan
11-19-2006, 11:58 PM
um...next game once we lose to the cards.

singersp
11-20-2006, 05:37 AM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


if we're down next week, and there's no shot at coming back, i'd love to see TJ in there.
just to see
what he is capable of.


So what your saying is, if we loose next week, lets take our rookie QB, our QB of the future who is not 100% healthy & recovering from knee surgery & throw him into a meaningless game (playoff wise),
to risk futher injury, both physically & mentally that might trickle into next season, just so we can see what he's capable of doing?

I don't think so!

You'll see Bollinger before that happens.

Purple Herring
11-20-2006, 08:53 AM
And what excatly would we do if we benched Johnson? Are you seriously suggesting that we start Brooks Bollinger???!!! Did you see any of his performances for the Jets?

Tarvaris Jackson is clearly not ready yet, or Childress would have brought him on when he benched Johnson a couple of weeks back.

happy camper
11-20-2006, 09:14 AM
I'd like to see us do what the Giants did with Eli. They put him in during his rookie year, of course he did terrible. But he was ahead of the curve for his second year.

Of course, if his knee won't hold up, then don't put him in.

Mr Anderson
11-20-2006, 09:22 AM
Who says he isnt healthy?

Arthroscopic knee surgery is a three week recovery, some guys even play after 2.

He had his surger on september 25th, nearly 2 full months ago.

I'm reading about meniscus surgery, and he had a "minor mensicus tear" that needed a surgical repair which would normally be 4-6 weeks, but since it was arthroscopic it is only a 3-4 week recovery process.

So right now we're looking at double the recovery time expected, and he's a rookie so he should heal quickly.


I think we're just making excuses to pull Brad.

Prophet
11-20-2006, 09:27 AM
"Mr" wrote:


Who says he isnt healthy?

Arthroscopic knee surgery is a three week recovery, some guys even play after 2.

He had his surger on september 25th, nearly 2 full months ago.

I'm reading about meniscus surgery, and he had a "minor mensicus tear" that needed a surgical repair which would normally be 4-6 weeks, but since it was arthroscopic it is only a 3-4 week recovery process.

So right now we're looking at double the recovery time expected, and he's a rookie so he should heal quickly.


I think we're just making excuses to pull Brad.



A quote from this write-up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarvaris_Jackson) is what this is based on.
If you have something more current, let's see it.


On September 25, 2006, Tarvaris Jackson had minor knee surgery to repair his meniscus and is supposed to miss 4-6 weeks. He returned to limited practice after two weeks, but is expected to be rehabilitating the remainder of the year.

Del Rio
11-20-2006, 09:31 AM
"Acumen" wrote:


"Mr" wrote:


Who says he isnt healthy?

Arthroscopic knee surgery is a three week recovery, some guys even play after 2.

He had his surger on september 25th, nearly 2 full months ago.

I'm reading about meniscus surgery, and he had a "minor mensicus tear" that needed a surgical repair which would normally be 4-6 weeks, but since it was arthroscopic it is only a 3-4 week recovery process.

So right now we're looking at double the recovery time expected, and he's a rookie so he should heal quickly.


I think we're just making excuses to pull Brad.



A quote from this write-up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarvaris_Jackson) is what this is based on.
If you have something more current, let's see it.


On September 25, 2006, Tarvaris Jackson had minor knee surgery to repair his meniscus and is supposed to miss 4-6 weeks. He returned to limited practice after two weeks, but is expected to be rehabilitating the remainder of the year.


Childress made the comment a while back stating he expects that TJ will not be 100% until the offseason.

It doesn't really matter if you belive it or not, because as long as he is #3 we have no reason to think he was making excuses or lying.

NodakPaul
11-20-2006, 09:37 AM
"happy" wrote:


I'd like to see us do what the Giants did with Eli. They put him in during his rookie year, of course he did terrible. But he was ahead of the curve for his second year.

Of course, if his knee won't hold up, then don't put him in.


TJ didn't enter the NFL with the amount of preparation that Eli did.
TJ didn't enter the NFl with the amount of preparation that any of the Div 1A QBs did.
While Eli started out ahead of the power curve his rookie year, TJ started out behind.

From what I heard during training camp, and what I saw in preseason, I think that TJ will be a better QB than Eli... when he is ready.
I just really think it would be a stretch to get him ready yet this year.


I think if he was both ready and healthy right now, he would be #2 instead of #3 on the depth chart.

Besides, aside from the int on the screen, BJ didn't do all that bad.
I still think the short passes on 3rd down and our ineffectiveness on anything other than our opening drive are the result of the play calling, not the play making.
Plus our Defense was WAY to porous against the pass.
When Joey Harrington can put up career numbers aginst us, we have a problem.
Benching Bj won't solve that problem...

petrodemos
11-20-2006, 10:07 AM
lets see what darren sharper can do....or dont play a QB at all!

split back option, memo on one side and CT on the other, Kleinsasser in the middle as a fullback, directly snapping to one of the RBs. lets hit em in the middle and hitem hard, its time to play aussie rules football. 4 chances to push the line 10 yards, we ought to be able to do that! and move Hutch to the other side to balance the line for crying out loud!

its going to be a revolution.... :P

Mr Anderson
11-20-2006, 10:40 AM
"Del" wrote:


"Acumen" wrote:


"Mr" wrote:


Who says he isnt healthy?

Arthroscopic knee surgery is a three week recovery, some guys even play after 2.

He had his surger on september 25th, nearly 2 full months ago.

I'm reading about meniscus surgery, and he had a "minor mensicus tear" that needed a surgical repair which would normally be 4-6 weeks, but since it was arthroscopic it is only a 3-4 week recovery process.

So right now we're looking at double the recovery time expected, and he's a rookie so he should heal quickly.


I think we're just making excuses to pull Brad.



A quote from this write-up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarvaris_Jackson) is what this is based on.
If you have something more current, let's see it.


On September 25, 2006, Tarvaris Jackson had minor knee surgery to repair his meniscus and is supposed to miss 4-6 weeks. He returned to limited practice after two weeks, but is expected to be rehabilitating the remainder of the year.


Childress made the comment a while back stating he expects that TJ will not be 100% until the offseason.

It doesn't really matter if you belive it or not, because as long as he is #3 we have no reason to think he was making excuses or lying.


Thanks for the info.

snowinapril
11-20-2006, 10:55 AM
"Del" wrote:


"Acumen" wrote:


"Mr" wrote:


Who says he isnt healthy?

Arthroscopic knee surgery is a three week recovery, some guys even play after 2.

He had his surger on september 25th, nearly 2 full months ago.

I'm reading about meniscus surgery, and he had a "minor mensicus tear" that needed a surgical repair which would normally be 4-6 weeks, but since it was arthroscopic it is only a 3-4 week recovery process.

So right now we're looking at double the recovery time expected, and he's a rookie so he should heal quickly.


I think we're just making excuses to pull Brad.



A quote from this write-up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarvaris_Jackson) is what this is based on.
If you have something more current, let's see it.


On September 25, 2006, Tarvaris Jackson had minor knee surgery to repair his meniscus and is supposed to miss 4-6 weeks. He returned to limited practice after two weeks, but is expected to be rehabilitating the remainder of the year.

Childress made the comment a while back stating he expects that TJ will not be 100% until the offseason.

It doesn't really matter if you belive it or not, because as long as he is #3 we have no reason to think he was making excuses or lying.


How much of this is spin to keep the press from asking questions about TJ starting? If he doesn't do this, then people would be saying bench BJ.
Nobody really wants Bollinger to start, but many would like to see TJ start, it equates to HOPE.

Just a thought.

Big C
11-20-2006, 10:59 AM
I went with keeping Brad till end of the season because yesterdays game was not his fault. Yes he threw an interception but that was a GREAT play by Taylor rather than BJs fault.

The offense is coming around now. The playcalling was better yesterday. Finding a new #1 WR is helping (Troy was the #4 WR yesterday). The O-line gave BJ an extra 1.5 seconds on pass plays.

What killed us yesterday was poor execution on offense (2 fumbles, 1 int, 2 dropped passes on 3rd down).

snowinapril
11-20-2006, 11:17 AM
"Big" wrote:


I went with keeping Brad till end of the season because yesterdays game was not his fault. Yes he threw an interception but that was a GREAT play by Taylor rather than BJs fault.

The offense is coming around now. The playcalling was better yesterday. Finding a new #1 WR is helping (Troy was the #4 WR yesterday). The O-line gave BJ an extra 1.5 seconds on pass plays.

What killed us yesterday was poor execution on offense (2 fumbles, 1 int, 2 dropped passes on 3rd down).


Chicken or the Egg?

Coaches calling screen play or Coaches handcuffed by the abilities of their QB?

Yes, Taylor had a good play, I am sure he would attribute that play to watching film on us.
He was expecting it.
He saw it unfold, had the instinct to get in the passing lane, pick six.
Great play!

None of us know the "right" answer but going forward, taking that step forward provides hope to the fans.
We all have a good idea that Brad won't be the starter next year.
That would be a good poll.

theNorthmenshorns
11-20-2006, 12:21 PM
Hails!!
1st post-and just wanted to say this is by far the most interesting-most thought out message board re: the Vikes that I have seen.
Especially Acumen.
While I do not agree w/ some of his thoughts, he is incredibly knowledgeable about football.

The Vikes are on the verge of having this season end, as far as playoffs are concerned.
What do we think. one more loss?? Then it's 2007.
Which while this year possibly being a bust, there is much to look forward to.
Hopefully a much healthier defense with Greenway, Tank, Erasmus all rehab'd & ready to go.
If we get bumped next weekend, I think its safe to say we have entered "experimental explorative surgery" time and maybe it is not a bad idea to work out Bollinger-or even Jackson.
The only downfall I see to starting jackson-what if he gets wacked and is out for a large portion of next year?? And for what??
I loved Johnson.
I have always appreciated the way he has played.
I think any knowledgable football fan recognizes this (please stat mongers-dont bombard w. stats).
But it is not working. Almost every thread on this message board has gone over the multiple reasons why our O is not working.
Is it the scheme?
Maybe.
We see the drops-we see the turnovers.
What we do not see is the dynamics that go into implementing plays created by professional football minds.
I am not a coach, nor am Ianything but rudimentary in my knowledge of reading formations.
But there has to be a level of accountability placed on the head coach.
The fans, the press, all have been quick to point out the "seeming" success of Mike T.

Bottom line, Childress will show me something about him if he pulls Brad after another bad offensive performance.
Whether it be Bollinger or Jackson.
I think Childress will eventually become a very good coach.
He has a pedigree.
He has brought in some solid players.
His concept of the West Coast (what he has told us anyway) is not a bad take on that style.
I think running the ball effectively is SO important.
Especially with a quarterback like Johnson.
Which is why I thought the offense would be effective.
I still think we should change QB's, but receivers need to be upgraded.
I wonder what would have been if KROB could have stayed sober & still had Nate??

http://www.purplepride.org/media/kunena/attachments/legacy/images/img9692058.jpg (http://www.purplepride.org/media/kunena/attachments/legacy/images/img9692058.jpg)

ski-doo dude
11-20-2006, 04:14 PM
Ok die hards I have a serious poblem with our QB here is what I wrote in another thread and I have more to add:
Back to the horse that has been beat to death.
"BRAD JOHNSON" the offence has no confedence in his ability and either do I ! tug his arse out and put in TJ what better team or time to break him into the NFL with. The Cards D is week and the season is shot unless Brad gets in a time machine and travels 5 years back in time. Shoot Tj can do what Brad is doing!!!!
(LOSING!!!!!!!)

Now lets look at what is working around the NFL as far as "NEW QB's"
Drew Bledsoe stunk it up-----Romo comes in changes Cowboys season!
Byron Leftwich goes out
-----David Garrard comes in plays better than BRAD!



Drew Brees gets traded-----------Phillip Rivers is on fire!!! better than BRAD!
Kurt Warner sucked it up----Lienart steps in and shows he can play!
Trent Green gets hurt-------------Damon Huard rocks KC !!!(Green who?)
Matt Hasslebeck
Injured---------Senica Wallace showed Seatle he can play!
Tennesse's x QB ?????
---Vince Young showed he is just as bad as BRAD!
Chris Simms gets hurt-------------Bruce Gradkowski doing better than BJ!
Brett Farve fakes injury------ Aaron Rodgers breaks foot ;D

But in all seriousnes What do we have to lose shoot we will still have "Brad" if it goes sour. Look at the GREEN BAY team they can't move foward cause of an older QB (FARVE) still playing. Shoot Farve took a dive I think too let Rodgers play a little. (BACKFIRE) ;D But lets look at GREEN GAY for our insperation on how and when to say "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH LETS MOVE FOWARD" TJ for QB !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
These are a few examples of teams that were forced to move on and look what luck most have had! Change is good and a good change would be W in that win collum. And if it ends up a L cause of a rookie I will still feel like we won something!
A FUTURE! lets face it Brad has to go now or later?

Prophet
11-20-2006, 04:21 PM
My guess is that the odds of your head being on a platter are greater than the odds of Brad's head being on a platter.
Why?
Posting in caps and creating a new thread about something that has been discussed to death in numerous other threads.
The comparisons you have made aren't even equivalent in nature, also discussed in numerous threads.

Rant on.

ski-doo dude
11-20-2006, 04:24 PM
I will :o I feel better now
;D Sorry I expressed myself on your site GOD!

shockzilla
11-20-2006, 04:25 PM
"Acumen" wrote:


My guess is that the odds of your head being on a platter are greater than the odds of Brad's head being on a platter.
Why?
Posting in caps and creating a new thread about something that has been discussed to death in numerous other threads.
The comparisons you have made aren't even equivalent in nature, also discussed in numerous threads.

Rant on.


Acumen, my words exactly - but you beat me to the punch.

Yeah, those points he makes are REALLY valid - let's just get rid of Brad as soon as possible! Who needs a previous-Super Bowl-winning QB over an untested ROOKIE and a retread anyway?

::)

ski-doo dude
11-20-2006, 04:27 PM
What i guess I was trying to say in the comparisons is that change is good sometimes

Prophet
11-20-2006, 04:30 PM
"ski-doo" wrote:


I will :o I feel better now
;D Sorry I expressed myself on your site GOD!


It's not my site.
If you look around for two seconds you will see these topics are currently being discussed.
People don't want to say the same thing in 100 different threads.
Also if you look around you will see your theory addressed in detail by people that won't reiterate their points.
Your comparisons are severely flawed, addressed by others in different threads.


There is no doubt that change is good.
You won't be seeing Tarvaris this week for reasons that have been discussed to death.

Keep posting, just don't get excited if someone doesn't agree with you....that makes it more fun anyway.
Right?

triedandtruevikesfan
11-20-2006, 04:33 PM
We do not have a realistic back up.
Bollinger proved that he can't move back there and he would start above Tavaris Jackson.
So what does any of this discussion do?
I for one am not ready to throw in the towel for the season and thats exactly what we would be doing by starting anyone over BJ.

ski-doo dude
11-20-2006, 04:34 PM
I really don't care what others think buy the way! and second, this is my first day on the site. So give a brother a break. You were kinda rude. But I understand your side of it. And we are all here for the same cause the "Vikings" so leason learned on posting!

Prophet
11-20-2006, 04:38 PM
"ski-doo" wrote:


I really don't care what others think buy the way! and second, this is my first day on the site. So give a brother a break. You were kinda rude. But I understand your side of it. And we are all here for the same cause the "Vikings" so leason learned on posting!


I am perceived as rude, but the rules to the forum are written at the 2nd grade level, so not that tough.

If you don't care what others think than why come to the site?
If Childress and Tarvaris both say that Tarvaris is not ready he is not ready.
They don't care what Ski-doo dude thinks nor what acumen thinks.
It is that simple.

Desertvikingfan
11-20-2006, 04:39 PM
"ski-doo" wrote:


What i guess I was trying to say in the comparisons is that change is good sometimes

Nobody's going to argue with you that change can be good "dude' But the situations you listed aren't even remotely like the Vikes. Come back when you have something solid to back your claim that a change would be good, and maybe someone will listen. Brad Johnson is old and he sucks and all these guys did all right coming in as #2 QBs so why shouldn't we play Tavaris doesn't cut it. ANd your right that horse is dead and I think we should give him a decent burial and move on or move back to a previous thread where he was running through the pastures with glee.

marcosMN
11-20-2006, 04:41 PM
What are we trying to salvage? Do you really still see hope this season?

The Vikings themselves have convinced me that the towel has already been thrown.

We started the game doing what we should do all game long: shifts, motions, etc.

Why did all that dissappear?

whackthepack
11-20-2006, 04:41 PM
Drew Bledsoe stunk it up-----Romo comes in changes Cowboys season!
Byron Leftwich goes out
-----David Garrard comes in plays better than BRAD!



Drew Brees gets traded-----------Phillip Rivers is on fire!!! better than BRAD!
Kurt Warner sucked it up----Lienart steps in and shows he can play!
Trent Green gets hurt-------------Damon Huard rocks KC !!!(Green who?)
Matt Hasslebeck
Injured---------Senica Wallace showed Seatle he can play!
Tennesse's x QB ??
---Vince Young showed he is just as bad as BRAD!



Sorry just have to add a few things

Romo 3 year veteran
Garrard 5 year veteran
Rivers 3 year veteran
Leinart (should have been the 2nd pick overall pick in draft)
Trent Green started this week replacing Huard!
Wallace is Ok, lets not go crazy.
Hassellbeck starts next week.
Vince Young is not doing well.

triedandtruevikesfan
11-20-2006, 04:48 PM
"ski-doo" wrote:


I really don't care what others think buy the way! and second, this is my first day on the site. So give a brother a break. You were kinda rude. But I understand your side of it. And we are all here for the same cause the "Vikings" so leason learned on posting!


Welcome to the site.
Check out our rules http://www.purplepride.org/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=150&topic=1048.0 and things should go a little smoother.
No posting in all caps... title included.
Making topics are fine, but please check to make sure there isn't already a thread on the subject.

BadlandsVikings
11-20-2006, 05:40 PM
"ski-doo" wrote:


I will :o I feel better now
;D Sorry I expressed myself on your site GOD!


Who pooped in your corn flakes?

singersp
11-20-2006, 06:36 PM
"ski-doo" wrote:


I will :o I feel better now
;D Sorry I expressed myself on your site GOD!


You called? What do you ask of me?

By the way, this is not my site, just one I frequent because it's the best one out there.

1. T-Jack is not ready for prime time yet.
2. Childress is in charge.
3. Childress stated T-Jack is not ready for prime time yet.
4. Bollinger is the #2 QB, T-Jack is #3. #2 comes before #3.

BrooksBollingerForQB
11-20-2006, 06:47 PM
"triedandtruevikesfan" wrote:


We do not have a realistic back up.
Bollinger proved that he can't move back there and he would start above Tavaris Jackson.
So what does any of this discussion do?
I for one am not ready to throw in the towel for the season and thats exactly what we would be doing by starting anyone over BJ.


Yep a couple series in garabage time of blowout your team is losing. That tells you all you ever need to know about a qb. period. In fact we should cut brooks now, just since we already now, he couldn't play well.

triedandtruevikesfan
11-21-2006, 11:26 AM
"BrooksBollingerForQB" wrote:


"triedandtruevikesfan" wrote:


We do not have a realistic back up.
Bollinger proved that he can't move back there and he would start above Tavaris Jackson.
So what does any of this discussion do?
I for one am not ready to throw in the towel for the season and thats exactly what we would be doing by starting anyone over BJ.


Yep a couple series in garabage time of blowout your team is losing. That tells you all you ever need to know about a qb. period. In fact we should cut brooks now, just since we already now, he couldn't play well.


I agree.
We should get a real back up QB.

olson_10
11-21-2006, 12:01 PM
"triedandtruevikesfan" wrote:


"BrooksBollingerForQB" wrote:


"triedandtruevikesfan" wrote:


We do not have a realistic back up.
Bollinger proved that he can't move back there and he would start above Tavaris Jackson.
So what does any of this discussion do?
I for one am not ready to throw in the towel for the season and thats exactly what we would be doing by starting anyone over BJ.


Yep a couple series in garabage time of blowout your team is losing. That tells you all you ever need to know about a qb. period. In fact we should cut brooks now, just since we already now, he couldn't play well.


I agree.
We should get a real back up QB.

tarvaris outright WON that job..he kicked 2 veteran QBs out of town with his great preseason/training camp play..and then suddenly we make a trade and hes booted to #3 in favor of a schmo who couldnt even be 3rd string on the jets?

ultravikingfan
11-21-2006, 02:46 PM
"olson_10" wrote:


"triedandtruevikesfan" wrote:


"BrooksBollingerForQB" wrote:


"triedandtruevikesfan" wrote:


We do not have a realistic back up.
Bollinger proved that he can't move back there and he would start above Tavaris Jackson.
So what does any of this discussion do?
I for one am not ready to throw in the towel for the season and thats exactly what we would be doing by starting anyone over BJ.


Yep a couple series in garabage time of blowout your team is losing. That tells you all you ever need to know about a qb. period. In fact we should cut brooks now, just since we already now, he couldn't play well.


I agree.
We should get a real back up QB.

tarvaris outright WON that job..he kicked 2 veteran QBs out of town with his great preseason/training camp play..and then suddenly we make a trade and hes booted to #3 in favor of a schmo who couldnt even be 3rd string on the jets?


Who was grading him when he WON that job?
You?
Was he playing opposing teams #1 defenses?
Where you at training camp and do you attend practices?

Look, I am not saying he would be a great #1.
But how can YOU say he won the #1 job?

shawn9876uss
11-21-2006, 02:51 PM
I think that if TJ starts at all this season, it will be when there is no hope, and no expectations.
I would think it would be the last 4 games, after we play Chicago.

Ltrey33
11-21-2006, 02:56 PM
"olson_10" wrote:


"triedandtruevikesfan" wrote:


"BrooksBollingerForQB" wrote:


"triedandtruevikesfan" wrote:


We do not have a realistic back up.
Bollinger proved that he can't move back there and he would start above Tavaris Jackson.
So what does any of this discussion do?
I for one am not ready to throw in the towel for the season and thats exactly what we would be doing by starting anyone over BJ.


Yep a couple series in garabage time of blowout your team is losing. That tells you all you ever need to know about a qb. period. In fact we should cut brooks now, just since we already now, he couldn't play well.


I agree.
We should get a real back up QB.

tarvaris outright WON that job..he kicked 2 veteran QBs out of town with his great preseason/training camp play..and then suddenly we make a trade and hes booted to #3 in favor of a schmo who couldnt even be 3rd string on the jets?


Bollinger wasn't necessarily booted out because the other quarterbacks were better than him. IMO he was traded for financial reasons. First of all, Clemens is the future of the Jets (or so it was said), so they obviously aren't going to trade their 2nd round pick a few months after drafting him. Their other quarterback is Patrick Ramsey, who they spent a decent amount of money for in free agency. So it's unlikely they'd trade him. With 4 healthy quarterbacks (remember, they didn't think Chad would be back this early) they had to get rid of one, so they took the one that was easiest to get rid of and traded him.

Also, I'm pretty sure that we should give Brooks a shot before we say he is garbage. He started 9 games last year and threw 7 TDs and 6 INTs. That's not exactly setting the world on fire, but he was playing behind a terrible (and injured) offensive line and a team that had no running game once Curtis Martin went down. Don't blame Brooks for everything that went wrong. It's hard to be a successful quarterback in those circumstances.

Prophet
11-21-2006, 03:06 PM
"Ltrey33" wrote:


"olson_10" wrote:


"triedandtruevikesfan" wrote:


"BrooksBollingerForQB" wrote:


"triedandtruevikesfan" wrote:


We do not have a realistic back up.
Bollinger proved that he can't move back there and he would start above Tavaris Jackson.
So what does any of this discussion do?
I for one am not ready to throw in the towel for the season and thats exactly what we would be doing by starting anyone over BJ.


Yep a couple series in garabage time of blowout your team is losing. That tells you all you ever need to know about a qb. period. In fact we should cut brooks now, just since we already now, he couldn't play well.


I agree.
We should get a real back up QB.

tarvaris outright WON that job..he kicked 2 veteran QBs out of town with his great preseason/training camp play..and then suddenly we make a trade and hes booted to #3 in favor of a schmo who couldnt even be 3rd string on the jets?


Bollinger wasn't necessarily booted out because the othe quarterbacks were better than him. IMO he was gone traded for financial reasons. First of all, Clemens is the future of the Jets (or so it was said), so they obviously aren't going to trade their 2nd round pick a few months after drafting him. Their othe quarterback is Patrick Ramsey, who they spent a decent amount of money for in free agency. So it's unlikely they'd sign him. With 4 healthy quarterbacks (remember, they didn't think Chad would be back this early) they had to get rid of one, so they took the one that was easiest to get rid of and traded him.

Also, I'm pretty sure that we should give Brooks a shot before we say he is garbage. He started 9 games last year and threw 7 TDs and 6 INTs. That's not exactly setting the world on fire, but he was playing behind a terrible (and injured) offensive line and a team that had no running game once Curtis Martin went down. Don't blame Brooks for everything that went wrong. It's hard to be a successful quarterback in those circumstances.


Bollinger is crap.
I had to get that out of my system, maybe he would provide a spark.
will we ever know?

As far as Tarvaris goes, he beat out Mike McMahon and J.T. O'Sullivan in the preseason and was in at the #2 slot.
On Sept. 25, 2006 he had surgery to repair his meniscus and was out 4-6 weeks.
He's expected to rehabilitate the remainder of the year.
However, on Oct. 20 Tarvaris practiced and was supposedly ready to play, but has been inactivated every week since.
Bollinger is still listed as the #2 based on Childress' last discussion that I know of on Sept. 16, 2006 when he said Bollinger seemed a little more comfortable in his second week in the offense. "It's the second time through the information and second time through our cadence and snap count," Childress said, "little things that you don't even think about. It's just becoming more kind of user-friendly for him."
The last time that Tarvaris was listed as the #2 was in week 1 due to Bollinger just being signed on Aug. 31, 2006.

We can only assume that A) Tarvaris isn't healthy enough and/or B)Tarvaris didn't beat out Bollinger.

ItalianStallion
11-21-2006, 03:11 PM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"olson_10" wrote:


"triedandtruevikesfan" wrote:


"BrooksBollingerForQB" wrote:


"triedandtruevikesfan" wrote:


We do not have a realistic back up.
Bollinger proved that he can't move back there and he would start above Tavaris Jackson.
So what does any of this discussion do?
I for one am not ready to throw in the towel for the season and thats exactly what we would be doing by starting anyone over BJ.


Yep a couple series in garabage time of blowout your team is losing. That tells you all you ever need to know about a qb. period. In fact we should cut brooks now, just since we already now, he couldn't play well.


I agree.
We should get a real back up QB.

tarvaris outright WON that job..he kicked 2 veteran QBs out of town with his great preseason/training camp play..and then suddenly we make a trade and hes booted to #3 in favor of a schmo who couldnt even be 3rd string on the jets?


Who was grading him when he WON that job?
You?
Was he playing opposing teams #1 defenses?
Where you at training camp and do you attend practices?

Look, I am not saying he would be a great #1.
But how can YOU say he won the #1 job?


He didn't say that.
He SAID he won the #2 job in preseason by proving himself to be a better player that Mike McMahon or JT.
He wasn't playing team #1 defenses, but neither were the other 2, nor were they playing with our #1 offense.

All we know is that we don't know what we can expect from Tarvaris, what we DO know is Brad isn't getting the job done against #1 defenses.

Teams don't cut players because of "financial" commitments to other backups.
No commitment to a back up is so big that outplaying them will still result in getting cut...only Bollinger didn't do that...

The fact is we have the Jets 4th string quarterback as our backup, yipee.
Obviously the Jets didn't see much from him last year, what makes anyone think we will...on an offense that is just as bad or worse.

Ltrey33
11-21-2006, 03:29 PM
"Acumen" wrote:


"Ltrey33" wrote:


"olson_10" wrote:


"triedandtruevikesfan" wrote:


"BrooksBollingerForQB" wrote:




We do not have a realistic back up.
Bollinger proved that he can't move back there and he would start above Tavaris Jackson.
So what does any of this discussion do?
I for one am not ready to throw in the towel for the season and thats exactly what we would be doing by starting anyone over BJ.


Yep a couple series in garabage time of blowout your team is losing. That tells you all you ever need to know about a qb. period. In fact we should cut brooks now, just since we already now, he couldn't play well.


I agree.
We should get a real back up QB.

tarvaris outright WON that job..he kicked 2 veteran QBs out of town with his great preseason/training camp play..and then suddenly we make a trade and hes booted to #3 in favor of a schmo who couldnt even be 3rd string on the jets?


Bollinger wasn't necessarily booted out because the othe quarterbacks were better than him. IMO he was gone traded for financial reasons. First of all, Clemens is the future of the Jets (or so it was said), so they obviously aren't going to trade their 2nd round pick a few months after drafting him. Their othe quarterback is Patrick Ramsey, who they spent a decent amount of money for in free agency. So it's unlikely they'd sign him. With 4 healthy quarterbacks (remember, they didn't think Chad would be back this early) they had to get rid of one, so they took the one that was easiest to get rid of and traded him.

Also, I'm pretty sure that we should give Brooks a shot before we say he is garbage. He started 9 games last year and threw 7 TDs and 6 INTs. That's not exactly setting the world on fire, but he was playing behind a terrible (and injured) offensive line and a team that had no running game once Curtis Martin went down. Don't blame Brooks for everything that went wrong. It's hard to be a successful quarterback in those circumstances.


Bollinger is crap.
I had to get that out of my system, maybe he would provide a spark.
will we ever know?




That's an odd statement coming from you Acumen. You rarely deal in absolutes like that when you don't have evidence to back it up.

How can you say that he is crap? We've made excuses for Brad a lot of the year because of poor O-line play and bad receivers, yet we're not willing to cut Brooks the same break when he put up better numbers for a worse team last year? Brooks hasn't even taken one snap for us, so I think it's unfair to say that he's a horrible quarterback that can't win us games.

verovike
11-21-2006, 04:12 PM
I'm pretty sure that we should give Brooks a shot before we say he is garbage.

Mildly understated, but very true.
To make such a harsh judgement based on the very limited opportunities he has recieved is a bit irrational.
I have said that a more mobile QB could spark a little more offensive production, and will stand by that.
I think that Brooks is the guy.
While I have great respect for Brad, and what he has done throughout his career, anyone can see that his skills have diminished. Heck, he never was a vey nimble guy anyway.
He could probably lead the Pats or Chiefs (both teams with solid O lines) very deep in the post season, but he is a sitting duck behind our line.
He can't avoid the rush and takes too many hard hits.
Those hits would take their toll on a young man, not to mention an aging veteren like him.
I hope that Brooks has been getting a lot of practice snaps and is getting comfortable with the first team, because, every defense we play is going to be launching missles at Brad, and Brooks is only one hit from being the man.
I am not wishing this, it's just the truth.
I would like to see what Brooks could do if given a more level playing field, thats all.

Prophet
11-21-2006, 04:16 PM
"Ltrey33" wrote:


"Acumen" wrote:


"Ltrey33" wrote:


"olson_10" wrote:


"triedandtruevikesfan" wrote:






We do not have a realistic back up.
Bollinger proved that he can't move back there and he would start above Tavaris Jackson.
So what does any of this discussion do?
I for one am not ready to throw in the towel for the season and thats exactly what we would be doing by starting anyone over BJ.


Yep a couple series in garabage time of blowout your team is losing. That tells you all you ever need to know about a qb. period. In fact we should cut brooks now, just since we already now, he couldn't play well.


I agree.
We should get a real back up QB.

tarvaris outright WON that job..he kicked 2 veteran QBs out of town with his great preseason/training camp play..and then suddenly we make a trade and hes booted to #3 in favor of a schmo who couldnt even be 3rd string on the jets?


Bollinger wasn't necessarily booted out because the othe quarterbacks were better than him. IMO he was gone traded for financial reasons. First of all, Clemens is the future of the Jets (or so it was said), so they obviously aren't going to trade their 2nd round pick a few months after drafting him. Their othe quarterback is Patrick Ramsey, who they spent a decent amount of money for in free agency. So it's unlikely they'd sign him. With 4 healthy quarterbacks (remember, they didn't think Chad would be back this early) they had to get rid of one, so they took the one that was easiest to get rid of and traded him.

Also, I'm pretty sure that we should give Brooks a shot before we say he is garbage. He started 9 games last year and threw 7 TDs and 6 INTs. That's not exactly setting the world on fire, but he was playing behind a terrible (and injured) offensive line and a team that had no running game once Curtis Martin went down. Don't blame Brooks for everything that went wrong. It's hard to be a successful quarterback in those circumstances.


Bollinger is crap.
I had to get that out of my system, maybe he would provide a spark.
will we ever know?




That's an odd statement coming from you Acumen. You rarely deal in absolutes like that when you don't have evidence to back it up.

How can you say that he is crap? We've made excuses for Brad a lot of the year because of poor O-line play and bad receivers, yet we're not willing to cut Brooks the same break when he put up better numbers for a worse team last year? Brooks hasn't even taken one snap for us, so I think it's unfair to say that he's a horrible quarterback that can't win us games.


I was just getting it out of my system.
If I was coaching I would see what's happening in the Cards game and if the offense is still lackluster I would toss him into the mix and see what happens.
It is really sad that we only have that option available this year.
I just hope Tarvaris is pulling all-nighters and getting up to par as fast as he can.
We need him in the lineup as soon as possible, next year hopefully...or there will be some free agent deals going on this offseason.
I just don't buy into Schaub being a superhero, I would much rather see Tarvaris if he is ready and keep BJ at minimum wage as his backup and use the additional coin to shore up the many other needs.

Mr Anderson
11-21-2006, 04:22 PM
"verovike" wrote:



I'm pretty sure that we should give Brooks a shot before we say he is garbage.

Mildly understated, but very true.
To make such a harsh judgement based on the very limited opportunities he has recieved is a bit irrational.
I have said that a more mobile QB could spark a little more offensive production, and will stand by that.
I think that Brooks is the guy.
While I have great respect for Brad, and what he has done throughout his career, anyone can see that his skills have diminished. Heck, he never was a vey nimble guy anyway.
He could probably lead the Pats or Chiefs (both teams with solid O lines) very deep in the post season, but he is a sitting duck behind our line.
He can't avoid the rush and takes too many hard hits.
Those hits would take their toll on a young man, not to mention an aging veteren like him.
I hope that Brooks has been getting a lot of practice snaps and is getting comfortable with the first team, because, every defense we play is going to be launching missles at Brad, and Brooks is only one hit from being the man.
I am not wishing this, it's just the truth.
I would like to see what Brooks could do if given a more level playing field, thats all.






I've said it before and I'll say it again.

I have seen Bollinger play, he started 9 games for the Jets last season.

He shined at moments, but in several games had QB ratings under 50.

He is not a good quarterback, there is truly nothing special about him, I'd rather keep Brad in there then throw in Brooks.

Gift
11-21-2006, 04:29 PM
"Mr" wrote:


He is not a good quarterback, there is truly nothing special about him, I'd rather keep Brad in there then throw in Brooks.


So a guaranteed loss is better than a potential loss?

verovike
11-21-2006, 04:48 PM
"Mr" wrote:


"verovike" wrote:



I'm pretty sure that we should give Brooks a shot before we say he is garbage.

Mildly understated, but very true.
To make such a harsh judgement based on the very limited opportunities he has recieved is a bit irrational.
I have said that a more mobile QB could spark a little more offensive production, and will stand by that.
I think that Brooks is the guy.
While I have great respect for Brad, and what he has done throughout his career, anyone can see that his skills have diminished. Heck, he never was a vey nimble guy anyway.
He could probably lead the Pats or Chiefs (both teams with solid O lines) very deep in the post season, but he is a sitting duck behind our line.
He can't avoid the rush and takes too many hard hits.
Those hits would take their toll on a young man, not to mention an aging veteren like him.
I hope that Brooks has been getting a lot of practice snaps and is getting comfortable with the first team, because, every defense we play is going to be launching missles at Brad, and Brooks is only one hit from being the man.
I am not wishing this, it's just the truth.
I would like to see what Brooks could do if given a more level playing field, thats all.







I've said it before and I'll say it again.

I have seen Bollinger play, he started 9 games for the Jets last season.

He shined at moments, but in several games had QB ratings under 50.

He is not a good quarterback, there is truly nothing special about him, I'd rather keep Brad in there then throw in Brooks.



Well, you've got the coaches in your corner, and sadly, Brad may be our best chance right now. I, however, would like to see Brooks get a start at home.
We wouldn't be benching Johnny U for Pete's sake. We're talking about sitting a player that has been performing at a poor level.
There are no guarantees, he may stink the place up.
If he does, put Brad back in.
Brooks is not the second coming of Fran the Man , but he's probably better than what we've seen this year.

ejmat
11-21-2006, 05:04 PM
I still have a problem with people saying BJ is playing at a poor level.
I will admit this isn't his best season and I'm not going to make excuses for some of his passes.
I will back him up and say this woefull offense is not entirely his fault.
we have WRs dropping passes every game.
We have people making foolish penalties and refs making penalties calls where they do not happen.
We have a right side of the line that is having their difficulties as well.
Defenses know that and stack that side.

That being said, IMO I think they should give TJack some playing time.
If this guy is the future and since this season isn't going anywhere, why not give him the experience?
This way maybe he will be ready for next year.
I'm not sure about all of you but all these rebuilding seasons are getting old.
This year is considered another one at this point.
Give the kid some playing time so next year can be a season of competing.

Prophet
11-21-2006, 05:09 PM
"ejmat" wrote:


I still have a problem with people saying BJ is playing at a poor level.
I will admit this isn't his best season and I'm not going to make excuses for some of his passes.
I will back him up and say this woefull offense is not entirely his fault.
we have WRs dropping passes every game.
We have people making foolish penalties and refs making penalties calls where they do not happen.
We have a right side of the line that is having their difficulties as well.
Defenses know that and stack that side....

Thankfully, the coaching staff is bright enough, contrary to some people's thinking on this site, to tell the difference between a blind-sided fumble, a tipped ball for an INT, and a bone-headed play by the QB.
The offensive woes are many, but most are relatively easily correctable.

Del Rio summed it up best saying that the reason the QB change would happen if it does is because they need a spark and there is always a scapegoat, rightful or not.
The QB is an easy target.
BJ has not been a superhero, but you cannot pin all the blame on him like many so skillfully do.

Mr Anderson
11-21-2006, 05:13 PM
"verovike" wrote:


"Mr" wrote:


"verovike" wrote:



I'm pretty sure that we should give Brooks a shot before we say he is garbage.

Mildly understated, but very true.
To make such a harsh judgement based on the very limited opportunities he has recieved is a bit irrational.
I have said that a more mobile QB could spark a little more offensive production, and will stand by that.
I think that Brooks is the guy.
While I have great respect for Brad, and what he has done throughout his career, anyone can see that his skills have diminished. Heck, he never was a vey nimble guy anyway.
He could probably lead the Pats or Chiefs (both teams with solid O lines) very deep in the post season, but he is a sitting duck behind our line.
He can't avoid the rush and takes too many hard hits.
Those hits would take their toll on a young man, not to mention an aging veteren like him.
I hope that Brooks has been getting a lot of practice snaps and is getting comfortable with the first team, because, every defense we play is going to be launching missles at Brad, and Brooks is only one hit from being the man.
I am not wishing this, it's just the truth.
I would like to see what Brooks could do if given a more level playing field, thats all.






I've said it before and I'll say it again.

I have seen Bollinger play, he started 9 games for the Jets last season.

He shined at moments, but in several games had QB ratings under 50.

He is not a good quarterback, there is truly nothing special about him, I'd rather keep Brad in there then throw in Brooks.



Well, you've got the coaches in your corner, and sadly, Brad may be our best chance right now. I, however, would like to see Brooks get a start at home.
We wouldn't be benching Johnny U for Pete's sake. We're talking about sitting a player that has been performing at a poor level.
There are no guarantees, he may stink the place up.
If he does, put Brad back in.
Brooks is not the second coming of Fran the Man , but he's probably better than what we've seen this year.


He's not.

Gift
11-21-2006, 05:22 PM
"Mr" wrote:

He's not.


I would rather find that out myself than throw the rest of the season away on BJ.

And what do you base your conclusions on exactly? His first actual season of playtime with the jets?
How fair is that?
Most people 1st seasons arent that great, but he still had a better QB rating than BJ does now.

Desertvikingfan
11-21-2006, 06:15 PM
"Acumen" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


I still have a problem with people saying BJ is playing at a poor level.
I will admit this isn't his best season and I'm not going to make excuses for some of his passes.
I will back him up and say this woefull offense is not entirely his fault.
we have WRs dropping passes every game.
We have people making foolish penalties and refs making penalties calls where they do not happen.
We have a right side of the line that is having their difficulties as well.
Defenses know that and stack that side....

Thankfully, the coaching staff is bright enough, contrary to some people's thinking on this site, to tell the difference between a blind-sided fumble, a tipped ball for an INT, and a bone-headed play by the QB.
The offensive woes are many, but most are relatively easily correctable.

Del Rio summed it up best saying that the reason the QB change would happen if it does is because they need a spark and there is always a scapegoat, rightful or not.
The QB is an easy target.
BJ has not been a superhero, but you cannot pin all the blame on him like many so skillfully do.

Most of the blame is really just generalizations about his arm strength or lack of ability to avoid the rush. Fact is if you take a look at the games (get TIVO) you'll see that teams aren't playing a majority in 8 and 9 man fronts. Brad is hitting receivers downfield and has been able tomove around in the pocket to get time. If you want to argue that change may spark the team then fine, but you can't argue that BB is going to be a better QB than Brad has been. QB ratings are lame, QB can't catch the ball and he can't call the plays.

ejmat
11-21-2006, 06:52 PM
"Desertvikingfan" wrote:


"Acumen" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


I still have a problem with people saying BJ is playing at a poor level.
I will admit this isn't his best season and I'm not going to make excuses for some of his passes.
I will back him up and say this woefull offense is not entirely his fault.
we have WRs dropping passes every game.
We have people making foolish penalties and refs making penalties calls where they do not happen.
We have a right side of the line that is having their difficulties as well.
Defenses know that and stack that side....

Thankfully, the coaching staff is bright enough, contrary to some people's thinking on this site, to tell the difference between a blind-sided fumble, a tipped ball for an INT, and a bone-headed play by the QB.
The offensive woes are many, but most are relatively easily correctable.

Del Rio summed it up best saying that the reason the QB change would happen if it does is because they need a spark and there is always a scapegoat, rightful or not.
The QB is an easy target.
BJ has not been a superhero, but you cannot pin all the blame on him like many so skillfully do.

Most of the blame is really just generalizations about his arm strength or lack of ability to avoid the rush. Fact is if you take a look at the games (get TIVO) you'll see that teams aren't playing a majority in 8 and 9 man fronts. Brad is hitting receivers downfield and has been able tomove around in the pocket to get time. If you want to argue that change may spark the team then fine, but you can't argue that BB is going to be a better QB than Brad has been. QB ratings are lame, QB can't catch the ball and he can't call the plays.


Agreed.
Like I've stated I will back BJ because he's getting the rap for things beyond his control.
I wish people would look and see the VIkings offense is ranked 16th in the league.
That's better than half of the teams.
That's also with a lack of skills at the WR position.
I've also been saying it would be a top 10 offense if the WRs had caught balls placed in the hands and a less amount of penalties.
I still don't understand why people have such a difficult time understanding this.
BJ is probably the least of the worries when it comes to the Viking offense.
At the same time I agree with Del Rio.
The team may need a spark (i.e. when BJ took over last year).
That's where I say, give TJack playing time.
If he's the future let him get the experience to build on next year.

Ltrey33
11-21-2006, 07:12 PM
"verovike" wrote:



I'm pretty sure that we should give Brooks a shot before we say he is garbage.

Mildly understated, but very true.
To make such a harsh judgement based on the very limited opportunities he has recieved is a bit irrational.
I have said that a more mobile QB could spark a little more offensive production, and will stand by that.
I think that Brooks is the guy.
While I have great respect for Brad, and what he has done throughout his career, anyone can see that his skills have diminished. Heck, he never was a vey nimble guy anyway.
He could probably lead the Pats or Chiefs (both teams with solid O lines) very deep in the post season, but he is a sitting duck behind our line.
He can't avoid the rush and takes too many hard hits.
Those hits would take their toll on a young man, not to mention an aging veteren like him.
I hope that Brooks has been getting a lot of practice snaps and is getting comfortable with the first team, because, every defense we play is going to be launching missles at Brad, and Brooks is only one hit from being the man.
I am not wishing this, it's just the truth.
I would like to see what Brooks could do if given a more level playing field, thats all.






Pretty good post there...