PDA

View Full Version : Emotion (and other things)



VikemanX84
11-07-2006, 09:42 AM
So I gave it a day to sink in that we actually lost to the San Francisco 49ers. Then i gave it another day to sink in that we only scored 3 points and now, after reading a couple good posts I just thought I'd give my two cents.

I could hardly stand to watch this game.
I've seen the Vikings lose and lose big before but this game and many other games this season have just been too hard to watch.
I realized what it was over these last two days - This team plays with no emotion.


Quarterback - You all probably know I don't want Brad Johnson to be our starting quarterback anymore.
Sure we have some big WR problems and our Oline isn't worth the 140 million dollars we're paying it but that doesn't mean our Quarterback isn't at fault too. I watched him lack arm strength to make many plays, I watched as he threw deep into double coverage the few times we did go deep and I didn't see him play with much emotion.
He didn't look like he was wanting to play football.
I think we could benefit from Tarvaris playing because he can make plays and might jump-kick some life into this offense with some explosiveness that Brad can't give us.
And please, for the Love of God, don't say that you are worried about shattering his confidence.
If he can't take some adversity he shouldn't be in the NFL and just because he went to a small school doesn't mean he doesn't have game and can't start so please don't anyone say that it does because I can't stand people making generalizations about players from 1-AA schools or people who want to Childress wrap Tarvaris in a pink and purple blanket and hold until big bad NFL defenses can't hurt him.


RB - Taylor has something to prove and is the most fun person on our offense to watch.
That being said he seems to actually be looking for contact a little too much.
This was one of Ricky Williams problems and I wish Taylor would cut it outside a little more instead of cutting instead where all the defenders are.
That being said he is finding initial holes and hitting them well and our Oline is doing a decent job of run-blocking.

WRs - Pitiful.
I know Williamson can catch and his problem is that he can't pick-up the ball in a game situation. I don't know what to do to help him out and I don't think our coachign staff does either.
I think they should help learn how to focus on the ball because I think he is getting distracted by other things on the field.
He just has to be able to see the ball.
That being said this group is playing completely unenergentic and seem to afraid to try and make big plays.

Oline - I'm missing a mean streak with everybody but Steve Hutchinson. No one on this line seems to be excited to explode off the ball and rerally lay a hurting to the guy on the other side.
You can't have a dominant or even good Oline without some kind of mean streak.
They don't have it and as a result they are getting beat by the more hungary defenders.

The Defense is playing great and they are playing with intensity and they are fun to watch.

So What is the problem?
I'm going with coaching.
I don't think playcalling is all that bad but you have to find a way to get a guy OPEN downfield every once in a while. I think Childress is doing a good job about 85-90% of the time calling plays.
The problem is that he is a boring coach.
He doesn't stress making plays but instead not screwing up. And you can a few football games by not screwing up but you can't do anything special.
I think teams mirror their coaches and this offense is certainly mirroring their coach.
He doesn't do anything to provide a spark and that is what you need from the leaders of your team. Bevell doesn't do it either adn Brad certainly doesn't do it so the only leader on this team that seems to any spark making capabilities is Mike Tomlin (I honestly think that Childress has very little to do with our defense besides asking for accountability.
I doubt he has a huge part in the game plan but just oversees it minimally and doesn't have much to do with coaching or play calling in practice or game situations).


Tomlin's unit is playing high-intensity football. The offense is bored, they don't want to try and make plays because that isn't what they are told to do. It's horrible to watch.
Tice had his faults but at least his teams were fun to watch play because they wanted to be out there playing for him and they were trying to make plays for him.
When the Vikings were playing their best they were getting sparks from their leaders (Carter, Moss, Culpepper, Tice, Green, etc).


Anyways, what I'm saying is this offense needs a spark.
When they start enjoying playing and trying to make plays they will fair much, much better.
I think we can with this group of guys but a change in coaching philosophy is needed and I think we'd benefit from a QB change as well.

Del Rio
11-07-2006, 10:03 AM
It's not a generalization it's a statistical fact.


Also the coaching, we do not know what he says in meetings and on the sideline, the fact that he keeps his composure does not make him boring. Having your kicker throw TD passes and your HB throw TD passes does not make you boring.

Even if you were boring it makes absolutely no Difference. Both kinds of coaches have won it all.

Not making mistakes is a priority and so far they haven't done that. Maybe if they give it a shot you will see some better results. If anything needs to be preached it needs to be NOT MAKING MISTAKES. You can't preach playmaking ability and highlight reels, that takes talent from players and right now the players are not getting the job done.

VikemanX84
11-07-2006, 10:17 AM
It's not a statistical fact, its a generalization.
I'd like to see the statistical fact that says we know without a doubt that 1-AA quarterbacks can't play in the NFL.

I don't remember the last time I saw an uptight team that didn't look like it was having fun win it all.
I also don't remember the last time a team of any kind won any kind of championship without some sort of spark from their leaders.
These are two of the most important things in football and often times a team with more energy, intensity, drive and determination can beat a team with much more talent.
Who was the last boring coach to win a super bowl?
Bill Belichek is not boring, Bill Cowher isn't boring, Gruden isn't boring, Vermeil isn't boring, Shanahan isn't boring, Parcells, Jimmy Johnson, Brian Billick, all not boring coaches. The only one to win a Championship in the last 2 decades to be boring might be The Walrus with Greenbay, but thats debatable and they had Favre as their quarterback and leader who is definitely not boring (it pains me to say something positiv about that guy).


When you preach not screwing up instead of have fun and make plays you get who only strive to not screw up.
Not everyone can be perfect on every play and when no one is making plays to make up for the guy who makes a mistake you get crap.

I watch Childress in press conferences and on the field and I don't think he's going to be so much more of a spark in the locker room.

Also 2 trick plays out of hundreds doesn't make you exciting.
All that says is that he takes a takes a chance about once ever 4 games. whoop-dee-doo.

Del Rio
11-07-2006, 10:33 AM
"VikemanX84" wrote:


It's not a statistical fact, its a generalization.
I'd like to see the statistical fact that says we know without a doubt that 1-AA quarterbacks can't play in the NFL.

I don't remember the last time I saw an uptight team that didn't look like it was having fun win it all.
I also don't remember the last time a team of any kind won any kind of championship without some sort of spark from their leaders.
These are two of the most important things in football and often times a team with more energy, intensity, drive and determination can beat a team with much more talent.
Who was the last boring coach to win a super bowl?
Bill Belichek is not boring, Bill Cowher isn't boring, Gruden isn't boring, Vermeil isn't boring, Shanahan isn't boring, Parcells, Jimmy Johnson, Brian Billick, all not boring coaches. The only one to win a Championship in the last 2 decades to be boring might be The Walrus with Greenbay, but thats debatable and they had Favre as their quarterback and leader who is definitely not boring (it pains me to say something positiv about that guy).


When you preach not screwing up instead of have fun and make plays you get who only strive to not screw up.
Not everyone can be perfect on every play and when no one is making plays to make up for the guy who makes a mistake you get crap.

I watch Childress in press conferences and on the field and I don't think he's going to be so much more of a spark in the locker room.

Also 2 trick plays out of hundreds doesn't make you exciting.
All that says is that he takes a takes a chance about once ever 4 games. whoop-dee-doo.


First of all boring is subjective. You think all of those guys you listed off are not boring I disagree with some of them.

Second you have no clue what he is or what he isn't saying. Who is or isn't having fun. Losing isn't fun.

Fact of the matter is Childress keeps his buisiness in house. You and I as fans do not get to see him joking around with players, doing the human things that most coaches do. You get to see his robot like attitude in press conferences. Woop Dee Doo as you so delicatley put it. You see 1/1000000th of the picture and all of a sudden the guy is not a leader he is just an emotionless robot calling plays. I dont buy it.

No it is not a generalization, show me a stat of div 1 AA Quarterbacks who come into the NFL and succeed. Those are statistics. Does it mean without a doubt he will not be able to succeed? Absolutely not, does it mean very few have done it before him, absolutely. Given the fact that the guy is #3 on the roster and the fact that we had Fran Foley drafting him who has had some controversy over trying to strong arm the Vikes into picks they did not want,. with the fact that very few if any QB's from his div succeed or even play in the NFL that is far from a generalization.

You want fireworks and screaming spitting coaches, and 80 yard bombs from a mobile exciting QB.......that's fine. Show me a game with a camera on Childress at all times so you can see his reaction to everything.

I do not agree with your assesment of the coaching. That's all it is. I think your barking up the wrong tree, and after abusing Seattle and winning against 3 other decent teams this year it wasn't even a question. Until you devise a formula to rip a mans heart out look inside it and see what he is made of I don't think you can make those claims. Until we can see how much Childress spits when he yells at halftime I do not know we can make those claims unless of course we are.............generalizing.

I agree someone needs to be a voice on the field. I agree the players are failing at that. I just do not agree that Childress is and if he is I do not agree it even matters, and that is ok because that is what this place is about is discussion. Hopefully someone else will post thoughts about it and add some more opinions to your well written post so some other angles can get touched on.

VikemanX84
11-07-2006, 10:48 AM
"Del" wrote:


Does it mean without a doubt he will not be able to succeed? Absolutely not

Thats all I'm saying. Just because he is a 1-AA Quarterback doesn't mean by deifnition that he won't succeed and it doesn't mean that he will.
But regardless he at least has the ability to provide a spark that could turn into the fire that this offense needs.

Maybe Childress is animated at half time and in practice but I don't think his coaching philosophy (just don't screw up) can provide the spark that this offense needs.
I think that you need to find some guys that can make plays (and I think we have guys who can do that) and coach them to make plays instead of coaching them not to screw up.

Also I read that we had one (1) pass attempt into the endzone on Sunday and that was in desperation at the end of the game. We had some oppertunities (first drive) to take a shot, not doing so at all over the course of the game is unacceptable play calling and definitely doesn't provide a spark.

Del Rio
11-07-2006, 10:57 AM
"VikemanX84" wrote:


"Del" wrote:


Does it mean without a doubt he will not be able to succeed? Absolutely not

Thats all I'm saying. Just because he is a 1-AA Quarterback doesn't mean by deifnition that he won't succeed and it doesn't mean that he will.
But regardless he at least has the ability to provide a spark that could turn into the fire that this offense needs.

Maybe Childress is animated at half time and in practice but I don't think his coaching philosophy (just don't screw up) can provide the spark that this offense needs.
I think that you need to find some guys that can make plays (and I think we have guys who can do that) and coach them to make plays instead of coaching them not to screw up.

Also I read that we had one (1) pass attempt into the endzone on Sunday and that was in desperation at the end of the game. We had some oppertunities (first drive) to take a shot, not doing so at all over the course of the game is unacceptable play calling and definitely doesn't provide a spark.


We were in the redzone one time. What do you want 80 yard bombs into the endzone. Dropped passes,penalties, and turnovers kept us from even getting close to striking distance.

I understand what you are saying and I do not think many people have written Tavaris off simply because of his school. I think they are looking at many factors.

I don't know if his don't screw up will work bevcause there has only been one game where we didnt screw up and we kicked the shit out of the seahawks. If the team would not screw up then maybe we as fans could get a better feel for the effects that advice may have. Fact is however our team does screw up more then it should and it is killing us. So if that is his gameplan he isn't even getting that across to the players.

Marrdro
11-07-2006, 11:04 AM
"VikemanX84" wrote:


So I gave it a day to sink in that we actually lost to the San Francisco 49ers. Then i gave it another day to sink in that we only scored 3 points and now, after reading a couple good posts I just thought I'd give my two cents.

I could hardly stand to watch this game.
I've seen the Vikings lose and lose big before but this game and many other games this season have just been too hard to watch.
I realized what it was over these last two days - This team plays with no emotion.


Quarterback - You all probably know I don't want Brad Johnson to be our starting quarterback anymore.
Sure we have some big WR problems and our Oline isn't worth the 140 million dollars we're paying it but that doesn't mean our Quarterback isn't at fault too. I watched him lack arm strength to make many plays, I watched as he threw deep into double coverage the few times we did go deep and I didn't see him play with much emotion.
He didn't look like he was wanting to play football.
I think we could benefit from Tarvaris playing because he can make plays and might jump-kick some life into this offense with some explosiveness that Brad can't give us.
And please, for the Love of God, don't say that you are worried about shattering his confidence.
If he can't take some adversity he shouldn't be in the NFL and just because he went to a small school doesn't mean he doesn't have game and can't start so please don't anyone say that it does because I can't stand people making generalizations about players from 1-AA schools or people who want to Childress wrap Tarvaris in a pink and purple blanket and hold until big bad NFL defenses can't hurt him.


RB - Taylor has something to prove and is the most fun person on our offense to watch.
That being said he seems to actually be looking for contact a little too much.
This was one of Ricky Williams problems and I wish Taylor would cut it outside a little more instead of cutting instead where all the defenders are.
That being said he is finding initial holes and hitting them well and our Oline is doing a decent job of run-blocking.

WRs - Pitiful.
I know Williamson can catch and his problem is that he can't pick-up the ball in a game situation. I don't know what to do to help him out and I don't think our coachign staff does either.
I think they should help learn how to focus on the ball because I think he is getting distracted by other things on the field.
He just has to be able to see the ball.
That being said this group is playing completely unenergentic and seem to afraid to try and make big plays.

Oline - I'm missing a mean streak with everybody but Steve Hutchinson. No one on this line seems to be excited to explode off the ball and rerally lay a hurting to the guy on the other side.
You can't have a dominant or even good Oline without some kind of mean streak.

They don't have it and as a result they are getting beat by the more hungary defenders.

The Defense is playing great and they are playing with intensity and they are fun to watch.

So What is the problem?
I'm going with coaching.
I don't think playcalling is all that bad but you have to find a way to get a guy OPEN downfield every once in a while. I think Childress is doing a good job about 85-90% of the time calling plays.
The problem is that he is a boring coach.
He doesn't stress making plays but instead not screwing up. And you can a few football games by not screwing up but you can't do anything special.
I think teams mirror their coaches and this offense is certainly mirroring their coach.
He doesn't do anything to provide a spark and that is what you need from the leaders of your team. Bevell doesn't do it either adn Brad certainly doesn't do it so the only leader on this team that seems to any spark making capabilities is Mike Tomlin (I honestly think that Childress has very little to do with our defense besides asking for accountability.
I doubt he has a huge part in the game plan but just oversees it minimally and doesn't have much to do with coaching or play calling in practice or game situations).


Tomlin's unit is playing high-intensity football. The offense is bored, they don't want to try and make plays because that isn't what they are told to do. It's horrible to watch.
Tice had his faults but at least his teams were fun to watch play because they wanted to be out there playing for him and they were trying to make plays for him.
When the Vikings were playing their best they were getting sparks from their leaders (Carter, Moss, Culpepper, Tice, Green, etc).


Anyways, what I'm saying is this offense needs a spark.
When they start enjoying playing and trying to make plays they will fair much, much better.
I think we can with this group of guys but a change in coaching philosophy is needed and I think we'd benefit from a QB change as well.


Great comments.
Got my brain to working (my wife would say that is a scary thing) and it dawned on me that maybe, just maybe, Childress is calling a offensive scheme to match the players.

What if any changes will we see next year as a QB change (inevitable), additions/changes to the O-line and some additional WRs are added to the mix.


Will we then finally realize what kind of offense this staff is trying to build to?
We were lucky (IMO) with the defense and the players we had/went and got.
That is why they are working toghether better than the offense.
::)

cajunvike
11-07-2006, 11:15 AM
Regarding the I-AA QBs that have succeeded in the NFL, you have TWO that have won a Super Bowl: Doug Williams and Kurt Warner...as well as others from SMALL Division I schools that are on the fringe:
Terry Bradshaw - Louisiana Tech (4), Mark Rypien - Northeast Louisiana (1), Ben Roethlisberger -
Miami (Ohio) (1), Johnny Unitas - Louisville [before they were Big East] (1)...and at least one who came within a yard of winning it all - Steve McNair (Alcorn State).

There have been SEVERAL other notable QBs from I-AA that have succeeded as well...when I have the time to do the research, I will supplement this.

We don't even want to start counting the TOTAL number of players that were from I-AA that became stars in the NFL because it would take too long...heck, just the SWAC produced dozens of superstars!

Gift
11-07-2006, 11:20 AM
It's not TJ turn to play yet, everyone forgets we have a number 2 QB,
Brooks Bollinger.
I for one would much rather give him a start (if we lose in the same fashion to GB) than put in a rookie.
He may not have the pure talent TJ does but he has had time in the league to work out the rookie mistakes & won't hurt this offense anymore than BJ does.

Again, TJ is #3.

Del Rio
11-07-2006, 11:22 AM
"cajunvike" wrote:


Regarding the I-AA QBs that have succeeded in the NFL, you have TWO that have won a Super Bowl: Doug Williams and Kurt Warner...as well as others from SMALL Division I schools that are on the fringe:
Terry Bradshaw - Louisiana Tech (4), Mark Rypien - Northeast Louisiana (1), Ben Roethlisberger -
Miami (Ohio) (1), Johnny Unitas - Louisville [before they were Big East] (1)...and at least one who came within a yard of winning it all - Steve McNair (Alcorn State).

There have been SEVERAL other notable QBs from I-AA that have succeeded as well...when I have the time to do the research, I will supplement this.

We don't even want to start counting the TOTAL number of players that were from I-AA that became stars in the NFL because it would take too long...heck, just the SWAC produced dozens of superstars!


2 guys out of hundreds and a few guys that didnt play in I-AA that you figure to throw in anyways. Wow you have certainly destroyed any doubts.

Now take your two wonderful QB's and put them in a Vikings uniform and ask yourself with our WR core do those two guys out of hundreds of QB's got what it takes to make us win. I think not.

VikemanX84
11-07-2006, 11:27 AM
We beat Seattle because we made plays.
I'll define making plays as: doing more than just your job or excelling at your job.
Brad Johnson made a nice play to pump fake off a defender and marcus Robinson made a nice play to go up and get a ball that wasn't perfectly thrown.
If they were just not screwing up Johnson wouldn't have taken the risk of holding onto the ball an extra second to pump fake and Robinson might havejust tried to play defense on an overthrown ball (not dogging the throw) and not tried to catch it because if you just aren't screwing up then you not letting turnovers happen.
Chester Taylor had to make a couple of nice cuts and break a tackle or two on his long run.


Good example of just not screwing up: throwing a 4 yard ump off with defenders all around on 3rd and 8.
You score by making plays.
You Punt by not screwing up (and occasionally score).

Another possibility is definitely that Childress just doesn't have his guys yet.
This team is just simply not talented enough to do damage.
If this is true than I think Childress bears some responsibility for the offseason (although we could probably give him a pass for havign to work with Foley).
I think he has guys to work though and I don't think that talent-wise our offense is this bad.
I know Williamson drops passes but get him space and I think he'll catch more and do more after the catch.
I mean like WR screens, slants, etc.
Less jump balls and curls.
Simplify for him. Taylor can be a weapon in the middle, Bethel Johnson and Marcus Robinson on the perimeters.
Our Line has talent and our RB is good. They just need a spark!
Koren Robinson kind of screwed us but we shouldn't have completely counted on a guy with his history.

NodakPaul
11-07-2006, 11:28 AM
I had the time to do the research, and sorry caj, but there have not been "SEVERAL other notable QBs from I-AA that have succeeded as well". ;)
Here is a list of every QB drafted out of a Div 1AA school.
Obviously it doesn't include Warner or Williams because they weren't drafted, and I think it is safe to say they were the exeption not the rule.

YEAR
ROUND SELECTION NAME COLLEGE

1982
6 154 Mike Machurek QB Idaho State
11 291 Bob Holly QB Princeton
11 296 Steve Sandon QB Northern Iowa

1983
1 24 Ken O'Brien QB Cal-Davis
5 137 Jeff ChristensenQB Eastern Illinois
12 333 Scott Lindquist QB Northern Arizona

1984
6 168 Scott Barry QB Cal-Davis
9 232 Steve Calabria QB Colgate

1987
4 98 Rich Gannon QB Delaware
7 186 Doug Hudson QB Nicholls State
9 232 Ken Lambiotte QB William & Mary
11 295 Brent Pease QB Montana

1989
4 102 Jeff Carlson QB Weber State
8 202 Paul Singer QB Western Illinois
10 278 Bob Jean QB New Hampshire

1990
6 156 Mike Buck QB Maine
11 296 Clemente Gordon QB Grambling
12 307 Todd Hammel QB Stephen F. Austin
12 311 Gene Benhart QB Western Illinois

1991
12 309 Jeff Bridewell QB Cal-Davis

1992
4 112 Chris Hakel QB William & Mary

1994
7 198 Jay Walker QB Howard

1996
6 205 Mike Cawley QB James Madison

1997
6 171 Mike Cherry QB Murray State
7 237 Tony Corbin QB Sacramento State

1999
5 151 Kevin Daft QB Cal-Davis

2000
3 65 Giovanni Carmazzi QB Hofstra
6 205 JaJuan Seider QB Florida A&M

2002
3 81 Josh McCown QB Sam Houston State
6 186 J.T. O'Sullivan QB Cal-Davis
7 216 Seth Burford QB Cal Poly-SLO
7 236 Wes Pate QB Stephen F. Austin

2005
7 250 Ryan Fitzpatrick QB Harvard

Of these, how many started one or more games their first year?
Only one.
Brent Pease, who played in a total of 20 games in his 2 year career and finished 62 for 135, with 3 TDs and 9 INTs.
Yes, there are a couple that have had moderate success, for instance Ken O'Brien was a two time pro bowler for the Jets, and Gannon went to the superbowl.
But they did not start in their first year either (and for that matter, neither did Warner).

My point isn't that being from a Div 1AA school means TJ won't be successful in the NFL.
But that success doesn't come in their first year as a pro.
It simply takes time to adjust to the NFL.

whackthepack
11-07-2006, 11:28 AM
"cajunvike" wrote:


Regarding the I-AA QBs that have succeeded in the NFL, you have TWO that have won a Super Bowl: Doug Williams and Kurt Warner...as well as others from SMALL Division I schools that are on the fringe:
Terry Bradshaw - Louisiana Tech (4), Mark Rypien - Northeast Louisiana (1), Ben Roethlisberger -
Miami (Ohio) (1), Johnny Unitas - Louisville [before they were Big East] (1)...and at least one who came within a yard of winning it all - Steve McNair (Alcorn State).

There have been SEVERAL other notable QBs from I-AA that have succeeded as well...when I have the time to do the research, I will supplement this.

We don't even want to start counting the TOTAL number of players that were from I-AA that became stars in the NFL because it would take too long...heck, just the SWAC produced dozens of superstars!



Warren Moon attended West Los Angeles College of the Western State Conference before transferring to the University of Washington.
I don't know if that counts but thought I would add it.

Del Rio
11-07-2006, 11:33 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


I had the time to do the research, and sorry caj, but there have not been "SEVERAL other notable QBs from I-AA that have succeeded as well". ;)
Here is a list of every QB drafted out of a Div 1AA school.
Obviously it doesn't include Warner or Williams because they weren't drafted, and I think it is safe to say they were the exeption not the rule.

YEAR
ROUND SELECTION NAME COLLEGE

1982
6 154 Mike Machurek QB Idaho State
11 291 Bob Holly QB Princeton
11 296 Steve Sandon QB Northern Iowa

1983
1 24 Ken O'Brien QB Cal-Davis
5 137 Jeff ChristensenQB Eastern Illinois
12 333 Scott Lindquist QB Northern Arizona

1984
6 168 Scott Barry QB Cal-Davis
9 232 Steve Calabria QB Colgate

1987
4 98 Rich Gannon QB Delaware
7 186 Doug Hudson QB Nicholls State
9 232 Ken Lambiotte QB William & Mary
11 295 Brent Pease QB Montana

1989
4 102 Jeff Carlson QB Weber State
8 202 Paul Singer QB Western Illinois
10 278 Bob Jean QB New Hampshire

1990
6 156 Mike Buck QB Maine
11 296 Clemente Gordon QB Grambling
12 307 Todd Hammel QB Stephen F. Austin
12 311 Gene Benhart QB Western Illinois

1991
12 309 Jeff Bridewell QB Cal-Davis

1992
4 112 Chris Hakel QB William & Mary

1994
7 198 Jay Walker QB Howard

1996
6 205 Mike Cawley QB James Madison

1997
6 171 Mike Cherry QB Murray State
7 237 Tony Corbin QB Sacramento State

1999
5 151 Kevin Daft QB Cal-Davis

2000
3 65 Giovanni Carmazzi QB Hofstra
6 205 JaJuan Seider QB Florida A&M

2002
3 81 Josh McCown QB Sam Houston State
6 186 J.T. O'Sullivan QB Cal-Davis
7 216 Seth Burford QB Cal Poly-SLO
7 236 Wes Pate QB Stephen F. Austin

2005
7 250 Ryan Fitzpatrick QB Harvard

Of these, how many started one or more games their first year?
Only one.
Brent Pease, who played in a total of 20 games in his 2 year career and finished 62 for 135, with 3 TDs and 9 INTs.
Yes, there are a couple that have had moderate success, for instance Ken O'Brien was a two time pro bowler for the Jets, and Gannon went to the superbowl.
But they did not start in their first year either (and for that matter, neither did Warner).

My point isn't that being from a Div 1AA school means TJ won't be successful in the NFL.
But that success doesn't come in their first year as a pro.
It simply takes time to adjust to the NFL.




And there you have it. What a list of great QB's we have there. Again does it mean he will fail no, the odds are not in his favor.

VikemanX84
11-07-2006, 11:37 AM
I don't think T-Jack is going to come in and be a Pro-Bowler or anything.
I just think that could do better than BJ, which isn't hard.
I think he can make some plays with his feet that will help our line and our WRs and while he might make a couple ill-advised decisions that BJ wouldn't have overall he will help the team a little more and then he doesn't have to start getting adjusted to the NFl next year but this year.
There are many notable QBs that started halfway through their rookie season - Peyton Manning not being the worst.

Del Rio
11-07-2006, 11:40 AM
"VikemanX84" wrote:


We beat Seattle because we made plays.
I'll define making plays as: doing more than just your job or excelling at your job.
Brad Johnson made a nice play to pump fake off a defender and marcus Robinson made a nice play to go up and get a ball that wasn't perfectly thrown.
If they were just not screwing up Johnson wouldn't have taken the risk of holding onto the ball an extra second to pump fake and Robinson might havejust tried to play defense on an overthrown ball (not dogging the throw) and not tried to catch it because if you just aren't screwing up then you not letting turnovers happen.
Chester Taylor had to make a couple of nice cuts and break a tackle or two on his long run.


Good example of just not screwing up: throwing a 4 yard ump off with defenders all around on 3rd and 8.
You score by making plays.
You Punt by not screwing up (and occasionally score).

Another possibility is definitely that Childress just doesn't have his guys yet.
This team is just simply not talented enough to do damage.
If this is true than I think Childress bears some responsibility for the offseason (although we could probably give him a pass for havign to work with Foley).
I think he has guys to work though and I don't think that talent-wise our offense is this bad.
I know Williamson drops passes but get him space and I think he'll catch more and do more after the catch.
I mean like WR screens, slants, etc.
Less jump balls and curls.
Simplify for him. Taylor can be a weapon in the middle, Bethel Johnson and Marcus Robinson on the perimeters.
Our Line has talent and our RB is good. They just need a spark!
Koren Robinson kind of screwed us but we shouldn't have completely counted on a guy with his history.


Yes people made plays and that is what they are supposed to. Players are supposed to make plays. Every play that is designed can be stopped. Every defense reacts to the offensive formation and is designed to combat it. That is how it works. So you need players to make plays. Merely exsisting and running where coach tells you to run is not enough, not only for the Vikings but for every team at any level of football.

The games we have lost the players did not make plays, the balls were dropped, the penalties flew, and they played a huge role in our losses.

VikemanX84
11-07-2006, 12:03 PM
Balls get dropped and penalties happen.
These things are part of the game and the unfortunate fact that humans can't be perfect.
This is never going to change.
You need to be able to over come those and that means you have to do more than just not screw up. Expecting everyone to be perfect on every single play isn't going to work and to think it will is folly. The biggest problem is that when we get a penalty or a drop or the defense just stops us a couple plays and we have 3rd and long or facing a third down situation instead of trying to make a play and get the first down we just don't screw up and throw a 4 yard pass and then have to punt.

The Colts take the mentalty that you try and get a first down on 3rd and long and that you take chances and make plays. They are over 50% on third and 8 or more and have the best offense in the league.

Del Rio
11-07-2006, 12:13 PM
"VikemanX84" wrote:


Balls get dropped and penalties happen.
These things are part of the game and the unfortunate fact that humans can't be perfect.
This is never going to change.
You need to be able to over come those and that means you have to do more than just not screw up. Expecting everyone to be perfect on every single play isn't going to work and to think it will is folly. The biggest problem is that when we get a penalty or a drop or the defense just stops us a couple plays and we have 3rd and long or facing a third down situation instead of trying to make a play and get the first down we just don't screw up and throw a 4 yard pass and then have to punt.

The Colts take the mentalty that you try and get a first down on 3rd and long and that you take chances and make plays. They are over 50% on third and 8 or more and have the best offense in the league.


And again we are back to who is making that call? You want to hang it on Childress? You have 3rd and 15. What do you want? He calls a pass play. There are 3 available WR's two go deep and the other on breaks off. You have a TE that probably runs the check down and you can send your HB if you think that your line is going to be able to give Brad Johnson 5 seconds.

The players are in place to move the chains, so how is it BC's fault. The line needs to block long enough and Brad needs to get the ball to someone and when the ball gets there it needs to be caught.

The coach calls the play and that is it. Now if you have footage of 5 available receivers running 5 yard routes please post it.

No you do not expect players to be perfect. You expect them to make plays and make as few mistakes as possible. If you turn the ball over 3 times and win you got lucky, no ammount of coaching is going to be able to fix that.

In the course of a football game you may get 10 posessions. 10 that is it, so yeah if your players are not making plays, and your players are killing drives with penalties, turnovers, and dropped passes your options dwindle.

As posted in another thread Brad Childress' plays are far from predictable the guy passes as much as he runs on first down. He takes shots down the field. Sometimes he even takes shots on 3rd and short and he gets bitched at by fans for it. HE NEVER THROWS DEEP!!!!!!!! WHY DID HE THROW DEEP!!!!!!!!!! I am sleeping easy knowing Childress does not come here and get advice. The players need to STFU and put on the pads and start making plays.

If they aren't getting it done you grab them by the short hairs and yank their ass out and put some one in. Tavaris, Bollinger, Jason Carter, the pope I don't give a shit get someone in the game that is going to care enough about getting beat that they will catch the goddamn ball, that they will block the blitz, and that they will throw it to the correct person. That is my gripe with Childress his plays are fine.

ItalianStallion
11-07-2006, 12:24 PM
It should be noted that Childress' offense only increases the probability of players making mistakes.
The more plays your drive is, the more likely you are to make mistakes, be it penalties, drops, turnovers, missed 3rd down conversions etc.

We care currently a dink and dunk team, which is fine, but requires near flawless execution if you ever hope to reach the endzone after 10 or more plays.
We do not have the right people in there to execute this.

So although there have been a couple cases where we've pulled a trick play, the fact remains that it seems as though our kickers and running backs have taken as many shots for the endzone as our quarterback.
That will not score points people.

Del Rio
11-07-2006, 12:31 PM
"ItalianStallion" wrote:


It should be noted that Childress' offense only increases the probability of players making mistakes.
The more plays your drive is, the more likely you are to make mistakes, be it penalties, drops, turnovers, missed 3rd down conversions etc.

We care currently a dink and dunk team, which is fine, but requires near flawless execution if you ever hope to reach the endzone after 10 or more plays.
We do not have the right people in there to execute this.

So although there have been a couple cases where we've pulled a trick play, the fact remains that it seems as though our kickers and running backs have taken as many shots for the endzone as our quarterback.
That will not score points people.


We have run 502 plays this year. That puts us right in the middle of the NFL for offensive plays. Your theory of more plays = more mess ups is not true IMO.

It is not eccessive it is the Norm.

Prophet
11-07-2006, 12:33 PM
"Del" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


It should be noted that Childress' offense only increases the probability of players making mistakes.
The more plays your drive is, the more likely you are to make mistakes, be it penalties, drops, turnovers, missed 3rd down conversions etc.

We care currently a dink and dunk team, which is fine, but requires near flawless execution if you ever hope to reach the endzone after 10 or more plays.
We do not have the right people in there to execute this.

So although there have been a couple cases where we've pulled a trick play, the fact remains that it seems as though our kickers and running backs have taken as many shots for the endzone as our quarterback.
That will not score points people.


We have run 502 plays this year. That puts us right in the middle of the NFL for offensive plays. Your theory of more plays = more mess ups is not true IMO.

It is not eccessive it is the Norm.


I'm getting sick of you clouding up people's arguments with facts.

VikemanX84
11-07-2006, 12:43 PM
I'm saying that BC receives blame for this because he coaches his players to do things like throw a 4 yard dump-off on 3rd and 8 or 15.
he can put WRs past the first down markers but if he tells his Quarterback to just not screw up then Quarterback is going to just not screw up.
He'll take his chances with the 4 yard dump because he knows it won't get picked off when his 15 yard pass just might.
My beef with Childress is this philosophy and when you coach that way, your players play that way.

Marrdro
11-07-2006, 01:11 PM
"cajunvike" wrote:


Regarding the I-AA QBs that have succeeded in the NFL, you have TWO that have won a Super Bowl: Doug Williams and Kurt Warner...as well as others from SMALL Division I schools that are on the fringe:
Terry Bradshaw - Louisiana Tech (4), Mark Rypien - Northeast Louisiana (1), Ben Roethlisberger -
Miami (Ohio) (1), Johnny Unitas - Louisville [before they were Big East] (1)...and at least one who came within a yard of winning it all - Steve McNair (Alcorn State).

There have been SEVERAL other notable QBs from I-AA that have succeeded as well...when I have the time to do the research, I will supplement this.

We don't even want to start counting the TOTAL number of players that were from I-AA that became stars in the NFL because it would take too long...heck, just the SWAC produced dozens of superstars!


Cajun,



Not doubting you, but I have been trying to find this info for a while now.
Were did you dig it up at?

snowinapril
11-07-2006, 01:30 PM
"Del" wrote:


It's not a generalization it's a statistical fact.


Also the coaching, we do not know what he says in meetings and on the sideline, the fact that he keeps his composure does not make him boring. Having your kicker throw TD passes and your HB throw TD passes does not make you boring.

Even if you were boring it makes absolutely no Difference. Both kinds of coaches have won it all.

Not making mistakes is a priority and so far they haven't done that. Maybe if they give it a shot you will see some better results. If anything needs to be preached it needs to be NOT MAKING MISTAKES. You can't preach playmaking ability and highlight reels, that takes talent from players and right now the players are not getting the job done.


My brother and I had this conversation last night about the 49ers game (and somewhat true for the Pats game).
We are just making too many mistakes.
We won almost every category.
We unfortunately won the most TO category also.
We probably won the penalty category too.

About the emotion, it is a flatline attitude from the coach and it translates to the offensive players and their plays.
It is part of that not make mistakes attitude.
It also translates into a "why do I have to make a play," attitude.
"He isn't going to thread the pass into me to make a play anyway."
Expectations are low!
Oh well, we didn't get the first down, bring on the next possession.
Oooppps we didn't make a first down, brin gon the next possession, ooopps the end of the game, we lost.
Sorry guys.

ItalianStallion
11-07-2006, 01:35 PM
"Del" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


It should be noted that Childress' offense only increases the probability of players making mistakes.
The more plays your drive is, the more likely you are to make mistakes, be it penalties, drops, turnovers, missed 3rd down conversions etc.

We care currently a dink and dunk team, which is fine, but requires near flawless execution if you ever hope to reach the endzone after 10 or more plays.
We do not have the right people in there to execute this.

So although there have been a couple cases where we've pulled a trick play, the fact remains that it seems as though our kickers and running backs have taken as many shots for the endzone as our quarterback.
That will not score points people.


We have run 502 plays this year. That puts us right in the middle of the NFL for offensive plays. Your theory of more plays = more mess ups is not true IMO.

It is not eccessive it is the Norm.


I never once said that we run more plays than anyone else, nor did I say that the # of plays you run in total is the only predictor of mistakes.
I simply said that our offenseive SCORING drives require more plays, and that compounds the risk of making mistakes.
Thus if we ever want to move down the field and score points, we almost always (I can only think of a couple instances where we didn't) require 10+ plays by the design and execution of the offense.
Requiring your team to run many short plays and convert multiple 3rd downs per drive on long drives only decreases the likelyhood of scoring.


It's not like we've even been able to put many long scoring drives (or any scoring drives) together lately, so we have plenty of 3 and outs too.

Del Rio
11-07-2006, 01:41 PM
Sorry when someone says "The more plays your drive is, the more likely you are to make mistakes, be it penalties, drops, turnovers, missed 3rd down conversions etc"

That sounds like to me that person is saying "The more plays your drive is, the more likely you are to make mistakes, be it penalties, drops, turnovers, missed 3rd down conversions etc"

I mean we can say the more plays your drive is the more it wears a defense down, the more you can get your whole team involved, the more time your eating away and controlling the tempo of the game.

I thought you were making it sound like Childress' offense hurts itself by design because "The more plays your drive is, the more likely you are to make mistakes, be it penalties, drops, turnovers, missed 3rd down conversions etc"

ItalianStallion
11-07-2006, 02:30 PM
"Del" wrote:


Sorry when someone says "The more plays your drive is, the more likely you are to make mistakes, be it penalties, drops, turnovers, missed 3rd down conversions etc"

That sounds like to me that person is saying "The more plays your drive is, the more likely you are to make mistakes, be it penalties, drops, turnovers, missed 3rd down conversions etc"

I mean we can say the more plays your drive is the more it wears a defense down, the more you can get your whole team involved, the more time your eating away and controlling the tempo of the game.

I thought you were making it sound like Childress' offense hurts itself by design because "The more plays your drive is, the more likely you are to make mistakes, be it penalties, drops, turnovers, missed 3rd down conversions etc"


That is what I said, but your comment earlier had no bearing on drive length whatsoever, it was in reference to total plays.
We have lots of long drives, that often that "wear a defense down, that get your whole team involved, eating away and controlling the tempo of the game."
We have even more long drives that end up stalling be it due to a penalties, drop, turnover etc.
I really don't care if we are wearing a defense down or getting our all our offense involved.
If that was the goal of an offense, we'd have a great one.
Unfortunately however, the goal of an offense is to score points, and while we may be tiring out defenses and getting everyone involved with our 2 yard runs or 4 yard passes...that isn't resulting in points.

We are:

6th in the league in Time of Possession
5th in the league in 3rd down attempts

That tells me we hold on to the ball long, and put ourselves in many 3rd down situation (generally the result of longer drives, or because 1st and second down didn't get you 10 yards...)

However we are...

24th in the league in 3rd down conversion percentage
3rd in the league in penalties
28th in the league in scoring,
31st in the league in TDs by the offense (and would be tied with Oakland for worst if not for 2 trick plays)
31st in league in average scoring offense
22nd in the league in Turning the ball over.

So I suppose I still believe there is some correlation.
I'm sure if you took away our first drive of every game we would look much worse.

NodakPaul
11-07-2006, 02:44 PM
"VikemanX84" wrote:


I don't think T-Jack is going to come in and be a Pro-Bowler or anything.
I just think that could do better than BJ, which isn't hard.
I think he can make some plays with his feet that will help our line and our WRs and while he might make a couple ill-advised decisions that BJ wouldn't have overall he will help the team a little more and then he doesn't have to start getting adjusted to the NFl next year but this year.
There are many notable QBs that started halfway through their rookie season - Peyton Manning not being the worst.


I understand your point of view, but I still think that comparing Peyton Manning to TJ is a stretch.


Peyton was groomed from birth, through grade and high school, and his entire career in college to come out an be a QB in the NFL.
The transition was not as much as a leap for him as it is for TJ, who came from a college that ran a vastly different offense at a fraction of the speed.

I actually do think that TJ possesses the skill and drive to be a pro bowler.
I am excited to see his first NFL start.
He just doesn't possess the knowledge set yet.
I honestly hope he is a quick study and is ready to go next year in training camp... but I would be very surprised if he goes in at all this year (barring an injury).

ultravikingfan
11-07-2006, 03:51 PM
As soon as I came across the part about starting Tavaris I stopped reading.

Zeus
11-07-2006, 03:54 PM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:


As soon as I came across the part about starting Tavaris I stopped reading.



That's a shame, because it was after that point that the really sizzling ideas started to pour forth from the masses.

=Z=

ultravikingfan
11-07-2006, 04:06 PM
"AWZeus" wrote:


"ultravikingfan" wrote:


As soon as I came across the part about starting Tavaris I stopped reading.



That's a shame, because it was after that point that the really sizzling ideas started to pour forth from the masses.

=Z=


Ideas that have been said many times over.


Personally, I am tired of the silly idea of starting our 3rd string rookie QB based on what he did against non-starting defenses.
I tune all that out and everything attached to it.

Prophet
11-07-2006, 04:09 PM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"AWZeus" wrote:


"ultravikingfan" wrote:


As soon as I came across the part about starting Tavaris I stopped reading.



That's a shame, because it was after that point that the really sizzling ideas started to pour forth from the masses.

=Z=


Ideas that have been said many times over.


Personally, I am tired of the silly idea of starting our 3rd string rookie QB based on what he did against non-starting defenses.
I tune all that out and everything attached to it.


Does this mean you aren't going to pay for the Tarvaris hood ornament I sent you?

2beersTommy
11-07-2006, 04:11 PM
"Acumen" wrote:


"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"AWZeus" wrote:


"ultravikingfan" wrote:


As soon as I came across the part about starting Tavaris I stopped reading.



That's a shame, because it was after that point that the really sizzling ideas started to pour forth from the masses.

=Z=


Ideas that have been said many times over.


Personally, I am tired of the silly idea of starting our 3rd string rookie QB based on what he did against non-starting defenses.
I tune all that out and everything attached to it.


Does this mean you aren't going to pay for the Tarvaris hood ornament I sent you?

maybe the Tarvaris tree ornament would have been a better idea..atleast you can shoot at it with a bb-gun
;D

ItalianStallion
11-07-2006, 04:28 PM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"AWZeus" wrote:


"ultravikingfan" wrote:


As soon as I came across the part about starting Tavaris I stopped reading.



That's a shame, because it was after that point that the really sizzling ideas started to pour forth from the masses.

=Z=


Ideas that have been said many times over.


Personally, I am tired of the silly idea of starting our 3rd string rookie QB based on what he did against non-starting defenses.
I tune all that out and everything attached to it.


No offense Ultra, but if there's something you'd rather read or post about, then start a new topic.

The purpose (or what surmise is the purpose) of this site is to provide vikings fans a forum for discussing all aspects of their favorite team with other vikings fans.


Lot's of people seem to think that its easy to point the finger at Brad, and that Tarvaris (because he from a small school, is a rookie, doesn't know how to read a playbook, can run but isn't mobile, would collapse mentally and sit in a fetal position while in the huddle...whatever) is not an option.
I'd say it's just as easy to stick your head in the sand, say that that it's everyone's fault so changes are not required, and just hope and pray things get better at some point.
When the player at the most important position in football struggles, your team will struggle.

After all. were not the coaches, so there's no point in thinking.

The "It's everyone's fault so there's nothing we can do" solution doesn't really fly with me.
And to me, it's the lack of ideas that's silly to me.
So don't trash people for suggesting change, when it's the status quo that has us at the 2nd worst offense in the league.

ultravikingfan
11-07-2006, 04:32 PM
"ItalianStallion" wrote:


"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"AWZeus" wrote:


"ultravikingfan" wrote:


As soon as I came across the part about starting Tavaris I stopped reading.



That's a shame, because it was after that point that the really sizzling ideas started to pour forth from the masses.

=Z=


Ideas that have been said many times over.


Personally, I am tired of the silly idea of starting our 3rd string rookie QB based on what he did against non-starting defenses.
I tune all that out and everything attached to it.


No offense Ultra, but if there's something you'd rather read or post about, then start a new topic.

The purpose (or what surmise is the purpose) of this site is to provide vikings fans a forum for discussing all aspects of their favorite team with other vikings fans.


Lot's of people seem to think that its easy to point the finger at Brad, and that Tarvaris (because he from a small school, is a rookie, doesn't know how to read a playbook, can run but isn't mobile, would collapse mentally and sit in a fetal position while in the huddle...whatever) is not an option.
I'd say it's just as easy to stick your head in the sand, say that that it's everyone's fault so changes are not required, and just hope and pray things get better at some point.
When the player at the most important position in football struggles, your team will struggle.

After all. were not the coaches, so there's no point in thinking.

The "It's everyone's fault so there's nothing we can do" solution doesn't really fly with me.
And to me, it's the lack of ideas that's silly to me.
So don't trash people for suggesting change, when it's the status quo that has us at the 2nd worst offense in the league.


No offense, but I know.


As a reader of the site I have stated why I chose to go no furthur.
I have many times stated my opinion about T-Jack.

I was exercising my right to chose not to read based on the content.

ItalianStallion
11-07-2006, 04:35 PM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:



No offense, but I know.


As a reader of the site I have stated why I chose to go no furthur.
I have many times stated my opinion about T-Jack.

I was exercising my right to chose not to read based on the content.


I guess we can all agree that repeating ideas is tiresome then?
::)

Gift
11-07-2006, 04:42 PM
Can't you two just meet half way & agree that starting Bollinger would be the best thing for our team.
:P

ItalianStallion
11-07-2006, 05:06 PM
"Gift" wrote:


Can't you two just meet half way & agree that starting Bollinger would be the best thing for our team.
:P


I think we can agree that Indianapolis should trade us Peyton Manning for future considerations.
:)

RK.
11-07-2006, 05:30 PM
"Acumen" wrote:



Does this mean you aren't going to pay for the Tarvaris hood ornament I sent you?
Does ultra know where to put a hood ornament?
lol




I don't care if it rains or freezes
As long as I have my plastic TJesus
Riding on the dash board of my car.
;D

ultravikingfan
11-07-2006, 06:39 PM
"Gift" wrote:


Can't you two just meet half way & agree that starting Bollinger would be the best thing for our team.
:P


Hell no.
Bollinger?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha!

I do not want to end up 4-12.
I will stick with Brad and at least go 5-11.

Del Rio
11-07-2006, 09:37 PM
I think the list Nodak posted of EVERY QB that has come from DIVI-AA is pretty cut and dry. That alone coupled with the fact that the "Chosen one" has failed to secure #2 pretty much solidifies my stance that if your calling for Tavaris and trying to pin our failures on one guy that you are the one with your head buried in something maybe it is sand, maybe it is something far worse.

VikemanX84
11-08-2006, 10:04 AM
I don't know how many of those of us calling for Tarvaris are saying that everything is Brad's fault.
I think that would be pretty stupid.
It is my opinion that Tarvaris might be able to do a little better than Brad and make some plays with his legs and strong arm that could spark this offense that has absolutely no fire right now.
I think Itallian's point is correct... we need changes.
We can't just back and assume doing the same thing with the same people will, by some miracle, work out.
My whole point has been that Tarvaris has the potential to deliver a spark and Brad just doesn't.

For the reccord I'm just as sick of people ignoring our problem at quarterback and writing off a guy because he a rookie from a AA school.
I just can't see the logic in people who sit there and don't think that he at least has a chance to be better than one of the worst quarterbacks in the league right now.
And if he doesn't turn out to be better then he'll gain needed experience or at the very worst we'll find out that he isn't the answer and we won't have to go through this next year.
And I don't think people who want to baby a grown adult have much of a point.

So, please, don't start acting like the position to start Tarvaris is so absurd that it isn't worth debating or reading what other people have to say because it is.

Del Rio
11-08-2006, 10:30 AM
If you are refering to my post, it was directed towards a poster that was suggesting that if you blame the whole team you might as well have your head burried in sand.

I say the exact opposite if you chose to ignore what the players who play the game say and the coaches who coach the game say and you feel you need to blame Brad Johnson for everything then yes your head is planted squarly in your asspipe.

YOU&YOUR being anyone who wants to lay the blame solely on BJ, and thinks that Tarvaris is some magical fairy who will sprinkle his want of greatness and fix many many problems.


I posted a WIKI article in the thread "The Future" it is pretty insightful and if it is correct Tarvaris was indeed hand selected by Childress as our Future, and perhaps with the intention of keeping Brad on to mentor him from the sidelines. It also points out that the guy just overcame a fairly significant injury and is not expected to fully recover until the offseason.

So if that is true. Everyone who wants to see #7 may need to just take a step back and calm the hell down. If he really is not 100% why put him in there. It is not babying pampering or whatever other off the wall accusation you feel like calling it. It is called being smart. It is called being a head coach in the NFL, having groomed Donovan Mcnabb having success with QB's knowing what it takes and doing what you think is best. There is a huge difference.

By not putting in his recently operated on diamond in the rough QB is not a slap in your guyses face. It is not pampering, it is him doing what he thinks needs to be done to win football games and possibly help Tarvaris in the future. They are not the same thing at all.

Here is a link to the thread that contains the WIKIPEDIA information. I suggest reading it to anyone who is concerned with Tarvaris. It seems to be well written and backs up the findings with sources. It has a pro-Tarvaris flavor but again it uses facts. I personally found it insightful and if you are one of those who doubts the young man it may be worth reading.

http://www.purplepride.org/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=149&topic=28907.100

NodakPaul
11-08-2006, 10:35 AM
"VikemanX84" wrote:

I just can't see the logic in people who sit there and don't think that he at least has a chance to be better than one of the worst quarterbacks in the league right now.
...
And I don't think people who want to baby a grown adult have much of a point.


You might not be able to see the logic because you refuse to listen to the arguements.

He does have a chance to be better than BJ is playing right now.
It is a slim one, but there is that chance.
He also has a much greater chance to be completely dominated and lost against starting defenses.
This "experience" that everyone seems to want to give him could end up affecting his growth as a QB.

And nobody here wants to "baby" him. If every single QB was ready to take the reigns directly out of college, why do we even keep the veterans around?
Why didn't Coach Childress just catapolt him directly to #1 and make BJ hte backup?
Everyone agrees that TJ is the QB of the future... why not just start him off getting "experience" right away.

Maybe it is because the vast majority of QBs coming out of college simply aren't ready for the NFL yet.
Maybe it is because QBs who develope bad habits early are very hard to correct later (Leaf, Culpepper, Vick...).
It isn't a question of babying someone, it is a question of learning.

For the record, I am absolutely fed up with BJ's performance.
But I recognize two very important things... 1) The entire offense sucks right now.
2) We don't have a better option at QB.

NodakPaul
11-08-2006, 10:39 AM
I also want to point out that just because a person thinks that Coach Childress shouldn't start TJ at this point doesn't meant that they are a TJ hater.

I was, and still am, excited about TJ.
If you look back in the threads all the way to the draft, I thought he was a great pick up then.
I can't wait to see him at QB... when he is ready.

ItalianStallion
11-08-2006, 12:34 PM
"Del" wrote:


If you are refering to my post, it was directed towards a poster that was suggesting that if you blame the whole team you might as well have your head burried in sand.

I say the exact opposite if you chose to ignore what the players who play the game say and the coaches who coach the game say and you feel you need to blame Brad Johnson for everything then yes your head is planted squarly in your asspipe.


Wow Del, you sure are on a role for reading part of a sentence and misinterpreting entire posts.
What I actually said was:

"I'd say it's just as easy to stick your head in the sand, say that that it's everyone's fault so changes are not required, and just hope and pray things get better at some point."

I'm not saying it ISN'T EVERYONE'S FAULT.
What I AM saying is that it ignorant to say "Since it's everyone's fault, making changes, especially at a position where we are really struggling will do nothing benificial, for this season or for the future".

If you honestly expect our offense to get better with the quality of play we are getting out of the quarterback position, then yes, that is sticking your head in the sand.
Sure, there are more factors to our poor offense than just Brad...but no doubt he is one of the bigger ones.
Maybe Tarvaris isn't ready, but Brad is playing about as bad as it gets as a qb in the NFL.
He'll, we are getting more offensive production out of our defense and special teams.

But you know, it should get better right?
I mean we did put up SOME points against the mighty 49ers defense, and at LEAST were not as bad as the Oakland Raiders...thanks to our rushing game.
If you honestly believe our offense will get that much better without change than you shouldn't be the one criticizing others for believing in fairy tales.

Del Rio
11-08-2006, 12:48 PM
"ItalianStallion" wrote:


"Del" wrote:


If you are refering to my post, it was directed towards a poster that was suggesting that if you blame the whole team you might as well have your head burried in sand.

I say the exact opposite if you chose to ignore what the players who play the game say and the coaches who coach the game say and you feel you need to blame Brad Johnson for everything then yes your head is planted squarly in your asspipe.


Wow Del, you sure are on a role for reading part of a sentence and misinterpreting entire posts.
What I actually said was:

"I'd say it's just as easy to stick your head in the sand, say that that it's everyone's fault so changes are not required, and just hope and pray things get better at some point."

I'm not saying it ISN'T EVERYONE'S FAULT.
What I AM saying is that it ignorant to say "Since it's everyone's fault, making changes, especially at a position where we are really struggling will do nothing benificial, for this season or for the future".

If you honestly expect our offense to get better with the quality of play we are getting out of the quarterback position, then yes, that is sticking your head in the sand.
Sure, there are more factors to our poor offense than just Brad...but no doubt he is one of the bigger ones.
Maybe Tarvaris isn't ready, but Brad is playing about as bad as it gets as a qb in the NFL.
He'll, we are getting more offensive production out of our defense and special teams.

But you know, it should get better right?
I mean we did put up SOME points against the mighty 49ers defense, and at LEAST were not as bad as the Oakland Raiders...thanks to our rushing game.
If you honestly believe our offense will get that much better without change than you shouldn't be the one criticizing others for believing in fairy tales.



It's pretty simple, if that is what you intend to say then you say that. If I misinterpreted what you were trying to say I apologize.

There is absoultely no reason to believe if your teams problems are all over that replacing one guy will fix it. Your reaching out and grasping air.

If your WR's can't catch a ball that hits their hands how does a new QB fix that? You fix fundemental errors then move on. Last time I checked Brad Johnson is the starter next week, so apparently the coaching staff agrees so far.

Del Rio
11-08-2006, 01:14 PM
"ItalianStallion" wrote:


"Del" wrote:


Sorry when someone says "The more plays your drive is, the more likely you are to make mistakes, be it penalties, drops, turnovers, missed 3rd down conversions etc"

That sounds like to me that person is saying "The more plays your drive is, the more likely you are to make mistakes, be it penalties, drops, turnovers, missed 3rd down conversions etc"

I mean we can say the more plays your drive is the more it wears a defense down, the more you can get your whole team involved, the more time your eating away and controlling the tempo of the game.

I thought you were making it sound like Childress' offense hurts itself by design because "The more plays your drive is, the more likely you are to make mistakes, be it penalties, drops, turnovers, missed 3rd down conversions etc"


That is what I said, but your comment earlier had no bearing on drive length whatsoever, it was in reference to total plays.
We have lots of long drives, that often that "wear a defense down, that get your whole team involved, eating away and controlling the tempo of the game."
We have even more long drives that end up stalling be it due to a penalties, drop, turnover etc.
I really don't care if we are wearing a defense down or getting our all our offense involved.
If that was the goal of an offense, we'd have a great one.
Unfortunately however, the goal of an offense is to score points, and while we may be tiring out defenses and getting everyone involved with our 2 yard runs or 4 yard passes...that isn't resulting in points.

We are:

6th in the league in Time of Possession
5th in the league in 3rd down attempts

That tells me we hold on to the ball long, and put ourselves in many 3rd down situation (generally the result of longer drives, or because 1st and second down didn't get you 10 yards...)

However we are...

24th in the league in 3rd down conversion percentage
3rd in the league in penalties
28th in the league in scoring,
31st in the league in TDs by the offense (and would be tied with Oakland for worst if not for 2 trick plays)
31st in league in average scoring offense
22nd in the league in Turning the ball over.

So I suppose I still believe there is some correlation.
I'm sure if you took away our first drive of every game we would look much worse.


What I posted absolutely is directly related to what you said. Because we do not run any more plays then any other team in the NFL and yet we make more mistakes. Hence the ammount of plays you run makes absolutely no difference in how many mistakes you have.

You have teams that run more plays then us that make fewer mistakes. You want to look at drives? Same situation.

We do not need the wham bam thank you mam 70 yard pass. We need our players to not makes stupid mistakes. Plain and simple. You want to equate long drives, time of possession, and dinks and dunks to mistakes?

Lets look at the logic. If by being in possession of the ball on a drive for too long gives your team more opportunity to make a mistake, it also gives you the same opportunity to make a big play. No matter what at the end of the day it is on the players to not make a mistake and TO make a play.

VikemanX84
11-09-2006, 09:03 AM
He also has a much greater chance to be completely dominated and lost against starting defenses.

Our current Quarterback is getting completely dominated and looks lost against starting defenses so what if Tarvaris does?

I am very much for sitting quarterbacks their first year if:
They truly aren't the best option (you've got a guy perfroming well and we don't), they haven't given any sign of grasping the offense or competing against NFL-talent (I know it was against back-ups but he showed lots of signs of grasping the offense and being able to compete in the pre-season), or they are injured.

Now I seem to remember a certain current Minnesota Vikings coach getting on his young quarterback's case for not returning from the injury sooner.
That lead me to believe Tarvaris is ready to play.
If that isn't the case then I wish he would say it (not like he is holding some grand strategy because he says Tarvaris isn't going to play anyway) and also why did he need to question Tarvaris' toughness publically? Perhaps Tarvaris is injured and in that case we'll just have to make do with lifelessness from our offense, probably continued mistakes, football that isn't fun to play or watch, and doubtfull playoff hopes.

I guess as long as Brad Johnson is in there I'll be looking forward to some Chris Kluwe domination and a hopefully fun defense. My guess is that if things keep going this way it will create some locker room animosity and could end up being really, really, bad and hurting our team down the stretch.

Del Rio
11-09-2006, 09:06 AM
"VikemanX84" wrote:



He also has a much greater chance to be completely dominated and lost against starting defenses.

Our current Quarterback is getting completely dominated and looks lost against starting defenses so what if Tarvaris does?

I am very much for sitting quarterbacks their first year if:
They truly aren't the best option (you've got a guy perfroming well and we don't), they haven't given any sign of grasping the offense or competing against NFL-talent (I know it was against back-ups but he showed lots of signs of grasping the offense and being able to compete in the pre-season), or they are injured.

Now I seem to remember a certain current Minnesota Vikings coach getting on his young quarterback's case for not returning from the injury sooner.
That lead me to believe Tarvaris is ready to play.
If that isn't the case then I wish he would say it (not like he is holding some grand strategy because he says Tarvaris isn't going to play anyway) and also why did he need to question Tarvaris' toughness publically? Perhaps Tarvaris is injured and in that case we'll just have to make do with lifelessness from our offense, probably continued mistakes, football that isn't fun to play or watch, and doubtfull playoff hopes.

I guess as long as Brad Johnson is in there I'll be looking forward to some Chris Kluwe domination and a hopefully fun defense. My guess is that if things keep going this way it will create some locker room animosity and could end up being really, really, bad and hurting our team down the stretch.


Coach Childress pretty much said Tarvaris will not play this year, and Tarvaris said he is ok with that and still needs time to learn.

I think the Tarvaris issue went from being a possibility to being out of the question.

cajunvike
11-09-2006, 09:12 AM
"Del" wrote:


"VikemanX84" wrote:



He also has a much greater chance to be completely dominated and lost against starting defenses.

Our current Quarterback is getting completely dominated and looks lost against starting defenses so what if Tarvaris does?

I am very much for sitting quarterbacks their first year if:
They truly aren't the best option (you've got a guy perfroming well and we don't), they haven't given any sign of grasping the offense or competing against NFL-talent (I know it was against back-ups but he showed lots of signs of grasping the offense and being able to compete in the pre-season), or they are injured.

Now I seem to remember a certain current Minnesota Vikings coach getting on his young quarterback's case for not returning from the injury sooner.
That lead me to believe Tarvaris is ready to play.
If that isn't the case then I wish he would say it (not like he is holding some grand strategy because he says Tarvaris isn't going to play anyway) and also why did he need to question Tarvaris' toughness publically? Perhaps Tarvaris is injured and in that case we'll just have to make do with lifelessness from our offense, probably continued mistakes, football that isn't fun to play or watch, and doubtfull playoff hopes.

I guess as long as Brad Johnson is in there I'll be looking forward to some Chris Kluwe domination and a hopefully fun defense. My guess is that if things keep going this way it will create some locker room animosity and could end up being really, really, bad and hurting our team down the stretch.


Coach Childress pretty much said Tarvaris will not play this year, and Tarvaris said he is ok with that and still needs time to learn.

I think the Tarvaris issue went from being a possibility to being out of the question.


End of debate...lock the thread!
;D