PDA

View Full Version : Bollinger set for QB battle



singersp
07-11-2007, 08:27 PM
NFL: Bollinger set for QB battle (http://www.grandforksherald.com/articles/rss.cfm?id=43509&forumcomm_check_return&freebie_check&CFID=42994142&CFTOKEN=23701656&jsessionid=8830ccc5722f69531141)

By Tom Miller, Herald Staff Writer
grandforksherald.com
Published Wednesday, July 11, 2007

As the NFL draft began in New York in late April, phone calls and text messages flooded Minnesota Vikings quarterback Brooks Bollinger's cell phone....

singersp
07-11-2007, 08:42 PM
“It's more exciting to know that the opportunity (to start) is out there,” said Bollinger, who is at Memorial Stadium this week for the Bollinger Quarterback and Receiver Camp. “But every training camp I get to go to is exciting. The NFL is the best job in the world. I just have to go out, trust my ability and execute.”



Execute being the optimum word there.

He wasn't executing well in the Bears game last year.

sleepagent
07-11-2007, 08:46 PM
"singersp" wrote:



“It's more exciting to know that the opportunity (to start) is out there,” said Bollinger, who is at Memorial Stadium this week for the Bollinger Quarterback and Receiver Camp. “But every training camp I get to go to is exciting. The NFL is the best job in the world. I just have to go out, trust my ability and execute.”



Execute being the optimum word there.

He wasn't executing well in the Bears game last year.


execute . . . get executed . . . same difference!
;D

VKG4LFE
07-11-2007, 09:07 PM
I pray to GOD that Bollinger is NOT our starter this year, that guy is worthless!

NDVikingFan66
07-12-2007, 02:45 AM
To say he is worthless is a bit of a stretch.
He is in the NFL, which is more than I can say for at least myself.

Anyway, he played well at Wisconsin, and he has shown flashes here and there in the NFL.

Not saying he is starter material, or anything like that, but worthless may not be the best word to use.

baumy300
07-12-2007, 02:48 AM
"VKG4LFE" wrote:


I pray to GOD that Bollinger is NOT our starter this year, that guy is worthless!

I have been saying that all along...

He's not back for a 3rd stringer though.

Caine
07-12-2007, 04:02 AM
I wouldn't say Bollinger is "worthless"....I'd say that he was unspectacular in his appearances to date.
Keep in mind that he started 9 games for the Jets after Pennington went down in '05...and he did average with a team that was pretty horrible.
Most of his games were in the 100 yards passing area - not something that sparks confidence, but he was playing for the '05 Jets.


When he played against the Bears in '06, we were already pretty much out of that game.
But, after being sacked twice in a row, he went on to complete 7 of 9 for 77.8 yards...which is pretty amazing when you consider how pathetic our receivers were (are?).

Personally, I'm not real confident in either Bollinger or Jackson.
I would have much rather seen Davis Carr brought in - a proven starter who overcame a horrendous O-Line and a no-talent team to pull some amazing games out of the fire.
But, Chilly & Company seem to think that their 2nd-round-stretch project QB will be the answer.

Now, aside from Rice....who's going to catch the ball?

Caine

singersp
07-12-2007, 06:13 AM
"Caine" wrote:


I wouldn't say Bollinger is "worthless"....I'd say that he was unspectacular in his appearances to date.
Keep in mind that he started 9 games for the Jets after Pennington went down in '05...and he did average with a team that was pretty horrible.
Most of his games were in the 100 yards passing area - not something that sparks confidence, but he was playing for the '05 Jets.


When he played against the Bears in '06, we were already pretty much out of that game.
But, after being sacked twice in a row, he went on to complete 7 of 9 for 77.8 yards...which is pretty amazing when you consider how pathetic our receivers were (are?).

Personally, I'm not real confident in either Bollinger or Jackson.
I would have much rather seen Davis Carr brought in - a proven starter who overcame a horrendous O-Line and a no-talent team to pull some amazing games out of the fire.
But, Chilly & Company seem to think that their 2nd-round-stretch project QB will be the answer.

Now, aside from Rice....who's going to catch the ball?

Caine


Childress didn't like Carr's throwing style. Here's a quote from Childress regarding Carr that I posted in an ealier thread;

“I always struggled with where his release came from,” Childress said. “It’s kind of a drop-down, three-quarter, not overhand, over-the-top release. Just in the tape I’ve watched in the four years he’s been in the league, he can make some of the throws, he can’t make all the throws. He gets some balls batted at the line of scrimmage just because of where that ball comes from. A little more difficult to throw in the seam throws because it doesn’t come from over the top. He can’t get a ball to get out of his hand, get up and get down. He’s a smart guy, he’s a decent athlete but when you’re buying a quarterback at this level and you kick the tires, there shouldn’t be a lot of things that you’re trying to straighten out. You pick a Carr, you pick a quarterback because you like all the things about him. When you’re picking him that high, you don’t want to feel like there are any perceived flaws.”

http://www.purplepride.org/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=88888914&topic=31532.180

The veteran QB pool was pretty slim this year with Schaub drawing a big price tag & Green set on going to Miami.

Last year was the year to do it & they should have.

Purple Kool Aid
07-12-2007, 10:34 AM
If I were a betting man I would bet that Bollinger is starting Week 1.
I don't agree with it and he's not going to lead us to the playoffs but TJax has far less experience.
Early on I anticipate that Brad (the Red Hot) Childress Pepper will go with Bollinger thinking he gives us the best chance to win.

http://purplekool-aid.blogspot.com/

NodakPaul
07-12-2007, 11:12 AM
"Purple" wrote:


If I were a betting man I would bet that Bollinger is starting Week 1.
I don't agree with it and he's not going to lead us to the playoffs but TJax has far less experience.
Early on I anticipate that Brad (the Red Hot) Childress Pepper will go with Bollinger thinking he gives us the best chance to win.

http://purplekool-aid.blogspot.com/


I've been saying that all offseason.
In the first third of the season, I truly believe that Bollinger will give us the best chance to win, and he stands a decent chance of starting.
He will undoubtedly be surpassed and replaced by TJ, but for now TJ is still raw and learning.

And a lot of people are jumping on the "Bollinger sucks" wagon, but if you look back at the games and look at his stats, he was actually doing better than TJ.
Bollinger is not a bad QB.
He isn't starting material, but TJ may not be ready yet.

V-Unit
07-12-2007, 11:29 AM
Winning teams don't have QB controversy.

digital420
07-12-2007, 11:29 AM
my dad made a great point the other day.

if our Oline can do what it should, and CT/AP are the rb studs we vision, then it really won't matter a lot if the QB is decent rather then dynamic.

it'll come down to consistancy, the one who show's bchill that more will be the one starting in the begining. but like the rest of you, I bet we will end this year with Tjack at the helm.

DiGiTaL

NodakPaul
07-12-2007, 11:39 AM
"V" wrote:


Winning teams don't have QB controversy.


I wouldn't say we have any type of controversy yet.
Just healthy competition.

"digital420" wrote:


my dad made a great point the other day.

if our Oline can do what it should, and CT/AP are the rb studs we vision, then it really won't matter a lot if the QB is decent rather then dynamic.

it'll come down to consistancy, the one who show's bchill that more will be the one starting in the begining. but like the rest of you, I bet we will end this year with Tjack at the helm.

DiGiTaL



I really think that is what Coach Childress is banking on.
Let's hope it pans out.

mountainviking
07-12-2007, 11:48 AM
"digital420" wrote:


my dad made a great point the other day.

if our Oline can do what it should, and CT/AP are the rb studs we vision, then it really won't matter a lot if the QB is decent rather then dynamic.

it'll come down to consistancy, the one who show's bchill that more will be the one starting in the begining. but like the rest of you, I bet we will end this year with Tjack at the helm.

DiGiTaL


True Dat!!

IMHO TJack made better decisions than BJ or BB last year as far as when to run, where to throw, and when to throw it away...AND he has never had the deer in the headlights look that Daunte became known for.

Second year in the system all the way around!
I expect improvement in every aspect of the Vikings Game!
TJack will have had an offseason and a half to learn the intricacies of the playbook which should open up the playcalling we all began to hate toward the end of last year!

NodakPaul
07-12-2007, 11:57 AM
"mountainviking" wrote:


"digital420" wrote:


my dad made a great point the other day.

if our Oline can do what it should, and CT/AP are the rb studs we vision, then it really won't matter a lot if the QB is decent rather then dynamic.

it'll come down to consistancy, the one who show's bchill that more will be the one starting in the begining. but like the rest of you, I bet we will end this year with Tjack at the helm.

DiGiTaL


True Dat!!

IMHO TJack made better decisions than BJ or BB last year as far as when to run, where to throw, and when to throw it away...AND he has never had the deer in the headlights look that Daunte became known for.

Second year in the system all the way around!
I expect improvement in every aspect of the Vikings Game!
TJack will have had an offseason and a half to learn the intricacies of the playbook which should open up the playcalling we all began to hate toward the end of last year!


I love you optimism, and I am really pulling for TJ to succeed too.
but if you let your optimism blind you you stand to lose as much credibility as the negative nancys who are bracing for the 0-16 season.

TJ made many, many bad decisions in and out of the pocket last year.
If you didn't see the deer in the headlight look, then you weren't looking.
He was a rookie, and a lot of it was expected, and I also think he will be greatly improved after a hard working offseason.
But fooling ourselves into believing that he performed at a starting caliber in his two starts isn't going to help.

Marrdro
07-12-2007, 12:06 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"mountainviking" wrote:


"digital420" wrote:


my dad made a great point the other day.

if our Oline can do what it should, and CT/AP are the rb studs we vision, then it really won't matter a lot if the QB is decent rather then dynamic.

it'll come down to consistancy, the one who show's bchill that more will be the one starting in the begining. but like the rest of you, I bet we will end this year with Tjack at the helm.

DiGiTaL


True Dat!!

IMHO TJack made better decisions than BJ or BB last year as far as when to run, where to throw, and when to throw it away...AND he has never had the deer in the headlights look that Daunte became known for.

Second year in the system all the way around!
I expect improvement in every aspect of the Vikings Game!
TJack will have had an offseason and a half to learn the intricacies of the playbook which should open up the playcalling we all began to hate toward the end of last year!


I love you optimism, and I am really pulling for TJ to succeed too.
but if you let your optimism blind you you stand to lose as much credibility as the negative nancys who are bracing for the 0-16 season.

TJ made many, many bad decisions in and out of the pocket last year.
If you didn't see the deer in the headlight look, then you weren't looking.
He was a rookie, and a lot of it was expected, and I also think he will be greatly improved after a hard working offseason.
But fooling ourselves into believing that he performed at a starting caliber in his two starts isn't going to help.

Your right on target NP.

That is why I am a firm believer in letting him get his reps this year.


Lets find out what he is made of.


Evidently the coaching staff feel he is ready to at least move forward with his progression to the point that he is ready to learn under center during game time situations.

NodakPaul
07-12-2007, 12:08 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"mountainviking" wrote:


"digital420" wrote:


my dad made a great point the other day.

if our Oline can do what it should, and CT/AP are the rb studs we vision, then it really won't matter a lot if the QB is decent rather then dynamic.

it'll come down to consistancy, the one who show's bchill that more will be the one starting in the begining. but like the rest of you, I bet we will end this year with Tjack at the helm.

DiGiTaL


True Dat!!

IMHO TJack made better decisions than BJ or BB last year as far as when to run, where to throw, and when to throw it away...AND he has never had the deer in the headlights look that Daunte became known for.

Second year in the system all the way around!
I expect improvement in every aspect of the Vikings Game!
TJack will have had an offseason and a half to learn the intricacies of the playbook which should open up the playcalling we all began to hate toward the end of last year!


I love you optimism, and I am really pulling for TJ to succeed too.
but if you let your optimism blind you you stand to lose as much credibility as the negative nancys who are bracing for the 0-16 season.

TJ made many, many bad decisions in and out of the pocket last year.
If you didn't see the deer in the headlight look, then you weren't looking.
He was a rookie, and a lot of it was expected, and I also think he will be greatly improved after a hard working offseason.
But fooling ourselves into believing that he performed at a starting caliber in his two starts isn't going to help.

Your right on target NP.

That is why I am a firm believer in letting him get his reps this year.


Lets find out what he is made of.


Evidently the coaching staff feel he is ready to at least move forward with his progression to the point that he is ready to learn under center during game time situations.


And the coaching staff knows more about football than the vast majority of us do, which is why I will back whatever decision they come to.

V-Unit
07-12-2007, 12:08 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"V" wrote:


Winning teams don't have QB controversy.


I wouldn't say we have any type of controversy yet.
Just healthy competition.

"digital420" wrote:


my dad made a great point the other day.

if our Oline can do what it should, and CT/AP are the rb studs we vision, then it really won't matter a lot if the QB is decent rather then dynamic.

it'll come down to consistancy, the one who show's bchill that more will be the one starting in the begining. but like the rest of you, I bet we will end this year with Tjack at the helm.

DiGiTaL



I really think that is what Coach Childress is banking on.
Let's hope it pans out.


I agree that currently it is a healthy competition. As long as someone wins that competition and we stick with that guy throughout the season we'll be fine. I'm worried though that we will be back and forth between QBs all year, that would be miserable, it never works out.

Childress banking on the running attack sounds great. Let's hope the coach abandons his scheme for more of a smashmouth stlye offense.

Ltrey33
07-12-2007, 12:37 PM
I think that Bollinger ends up being the starter this year.

Honestly, is anyone going to question Childress if he says that Tarvaris isn't "ready" and that Bollinger gives us the best chance to win? (Sounds eerily familiar) Hell, most of US don't think Tarvaris is ready. Plus, Brooks is a Childress guy.

It would not surprise me one bit if Brooks ends up starting this year.

Marrdro
07-12-2007, 12:45 PM
"V" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"V" wrote:


Winning teams don't have QB controversy.


I wouldn't say we have any type of controversy yet.
Just healthy competition.

"digital420" wrote:


my dad made a great point the other day.

if our Oline can do what it should, and CT/AP are the rb studs we vision, then it really won't matter a lot if the QB is decent rather then dynamic.

it'll come down to consistancy, the one who show's bchill that more will be the one starting in the begining. but like the rest of you, I bet we will end this year with Tjack at the helm.

DiGiTaL



I really think that is what Coach Childress is banking on.
Let's hope it pans out.


I agree that currently it is a healthy competition. As long as someone wins that competition and we stick with that guy throughout the season we'll be fine. I'm worried though that we will be back and forth between QBs all year, that would be miserable, it never works out.

Childress banking on the running attack sounds great. Let's hope the coach abandons his scheme for more of a smashmouth stlye offense.

V, because he has the owners backing, I think you will see B-chill stick with TJ this year through thick and thin.

Gonna be tough for some of us fans to watch him (as he will struggle) but I think we will find out what he is made of this year.

My feeling is he won't have to win games but just manage them, however, this is gonna be a team effort of IF's that will decide how our young QB matures/performs......

If the O-line can keep from having pre-snap penalties......
If the right side of the O-line isn't like a bunch of turnstyles.....
If our new WR corp can hang get off the line quickly and run good routes (can you say B-wade
;D)
If our new WR corp (RB & TE's included) can catch the ball when it hits them in the hands......
If our D can keep the opposing O off the field (Hopefully giving us the ball back often and in great field position)..........

For TJ Part.....

If he can read a defense (recognize the blitz and make hot read).......
If he doesn't force the ball (throws it away or runs)......
ect ect.

Again, I think there will be some games were we just go ARRRRGGGGHHH but there will be others that will give us some hope as our team comes together.

mr.woo
07-12-2007, 01:22 PM
"V" wrote:


Winning teams don't have QB controversy.


as much as it pains me to say it....2006/2007 flordia gators.

singersp
07-12-2007, 06:43 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Purple" wrote:


If I were a betting man I would bet that Bollinger is starting Week 1.
I don't agree with it and he's not going to lead us to the playoffs but TJax has far less experience.
Early on I anticipate that Brad (the Red Hot) Childress Pepper will go with Bollinger thinking he gives us the best chance to win.

http://purplekool-aid.blogspot.com/


I've been saying that all offseason.
In the first third of the season, I truly believe that Bollinger will give us the best chance to win, and he stands a decent chance of starting.
He will undoubtedly be surpassed and replaced by TJ, but for now TJ is still raw and learning.

And a lot of people are jumping on the "Bollinger sucks" wagon, but if you look back at the games and look at his stats, he was actually doing better than TJ.
Bollinger is not a bad QB.
He isn't starting material, but TJ may not be ready yet.


If he isn't starting material, then why start him?

Everyone knows T-Jack is still raw, but if he's going to be our "starting" QB of the future &
Childress thinks he can handle the pressure both physically & mentally, let the kid gain his experience on the field.

PurpleHornsOfDestruction
07-12-2007, 07:36 PM
I think it's kind of stupid to think theres no way he'll be our starter. I think he will. T-Jack is still "raw" whether you think he's the future or not. Bollinger was the 2nd string until he got injured. So thats in his favor and he did better in week 13 for the little he played (7-9, 70 yrds in the cold Soliders Feild).

When Bollinger replaced Johnson in Week 13, he was 7-for-9 passing for 70 yards in a 23-13 loss to the Bears.

That was better then Tarvaris Jacksons whole game in Green Bay(Who was 10-20, 50 yrds,1 fumble and an interception). Bollinger had no prepration, less time, less attempts but more yards, less interceptions, less fumbles, better passing perceptage and against a better defense.

Link lovers here you go. Jackson in Green Bay.
http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/live/NFL_20061221_MIN@GB

So to say he won't be the starter is in my opinion having Tarvaris Jackson shades on. He's better stat-wise and there's a good chance he would have started those two games against Green Bay and St. Louis if he wasn't injured. Keep in mind he was the 2nd string not TJack until he got injured.
I just say my prediction is that Bollinger will win the
quarterback battle. I'm not saying he'll be better in the long run or that Bollinger will take us to a winning season. Im just saying right now he's the better quarterback.

cajunvike
07-12-2007, 08:09 PM
IF he can beat out TJack for the starter's role, more power to him...and the Vikings.
But don't count on it...TJack has more talent...and his learning curve has much more room for growth than Bollinger's does!
He will have learned MUCH MORE than Bollinger has in the past year...and they were not too far apart last year.
As for Bollinger being #2 last season, it just made sense...TJack could have never handled things as a ROOKIE if he had been thrown into the fray while the season was still on the line.
But this year, he will go in as the favorite...and I think that he will acquit himself decently...and maybe even surprise us all.

NodakPaul
07-12-2007, 09:47 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Purple" wrote:


If I were a betting man I would bet that Bollinger is starting Week 1.
I don't agree with it and he's not going to lead us to the playoffs but TJax has far less experience.
Early on I anticipate that Brad (the Red Hot) Childress Pepper will go with Bollinger thinking he gives us the best chance to win.

http://purplekool-aid.blogspot.com/


I've been saying that all offseason.
In the first third of the season, I truly believe that Bollinger will give us the best chance to win, and he stands a decent chance of starting.
He will undoubtedly be surpassed and replaced by TJ, but for now TJ is still raw and learning.

And a lot of people are jumping on the "Bollinger sucks" wagon, but if you look back at the games and look at his stats, he was actually doing better than TJ.
Bollinger is not a bad QB.
He isn't starting material, but TJ may not be ready yet.


If he isn't starting material, then why start him?

Everyone knows T-Jack is still raw, but if he's going to be our "starting" QB of the future &
Childress thinks he can handle the pressure both physically & mentally, let the kid gain his experience on the field.


I want Childress to start whomever gives us the best chance to have a winning season.
I am just saying that it is very possible that it is BB for at least a portion of the season.
If TJ is our starter come September 9th, then I am all for it.
But I won't be shocked if he isn't...

NDVikingFan66
07-12-2007, 10:11 PM
I am going to make a statement....Bollinger may not be a bad starting QB, he is just not a "franchise" QB.

Bollinger may start the season, may even start all season, but the face of the organization to this point has been made up to be TJ, so he will get every opportunity.

However, if he is not ready, we will go with Bollinger, and let TJ develop to become our "franchise" QB.

PurpleHornsOfDestruction
07-12-2007, 10:34 PM
"NDVikingFan66" wrote:


I am going to make a statement....Bollinger may not be a bad starting QB, he is just not a "franchise" QB.

Bollinger may start the season, may even start all season, but the face of the organization to this point has been made up to be TJ, so he will get every opportunity.

However, if he is not ready, we will go with Bollinger, and let TJ develop to become our "franchise" QB.



Well yeah thats the obvious statement. For someone(not you) to say not to start Bollinger because he isnt starter material is stupid because niether is Tarvaris Jackson. Childress isn't going to go by that. He'll go by who is better. Who can know who will be open before he's open (I don't think TJack wins that category but what rookie qb does). Who is more accurate. Who can read defenses better and who is just the best quarterback.

Neither of our quarterbacks are starter material which is why bringing Holcomb would be a good idea. Now is this rumor true? I dont think so but maybe. its possible.

Billy Boy
07-12-2007, 10:44 PM
"PurpleHornsOfDestruction" wrote:


I think it's kind of stupid to think theres no way he'll be our starter. I think he will. T-Jack is still "raw" whether you think he's the future or not. Bollinger was the 2nd string until he got injured. So thats in his favor and he did better in week 13 for the little he played (7-9, 70 yrds in the cold Soliders Feild).

When Bollinger replaced Johnson in Week 13, he was 7-for-9 passing for 70 yards in a 23-13 loss to the Bears.

That was better then Tarvaris Jacksons whole game in Green Bay(Who was 10-20, 50 yrds,1 fumble and an interception). Bollinger had no prepration, less time, less attempts but more yards, less interceptions, less fumbles, better passing perceptage and against a better defense.

Link lovers here you go. Jackson in Green Bay.
http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/live/NFL_20061221_MIN@GB

So to say he won't be the starter is in my opinion having Tarvaris Jackson shades on. He's better stat-wise and there's a good chance he would have started those two games against Green Bay and St. Louis if he wasn't injured. Keep in mind he was the 2nd string not TJack until he got injured.
I just say my prediction is that Bollinger will win the
quarterback battle. I'm not saying he'll be better in the long run or that Bollinger will take us to a winning season. Im just saying right now he's the better quarterback.



Please don't use the GB game as a unit of analysis for T-Jack.
Especially not as your only example, that's just ridiculous. Do you realize the circumstances of that game? Also of course Bollinger would have continued to start against GB and so on, he got injured.

Yes Bollinger was ahead on the depth chart last year, A little bit has changed since then, for example TJ has gotten his taste of the game which wasn't supposed to have happened.
Chili has said himself that the position is up for grabs. When he makes the final decision I don't think its gonna be because of who performed better in '06.


Jackson has been seeing the most opportunity with the first teams at the camps, but he didn't sound too spectacular.
I assume Chili wants to get him the best chance to learn and be assessed. I agree with you that Bollinger could start and think he is capable enough to lead this team.
Like the coach said though, its anybody's spot to gain or loose and its gonna be that way through training camp.

PurpleHornsOfDestruction
07-13-2007, 01:16 AM
"Billy" wrote:


"PurpleHornsOfDestruction" wrote:


I think it's kind of stupid to think theres no way he'll be our starter. I think he will. T-Jack is still "raw" whether you think he's the future or not. Bollinger was the 2nd string until he got injured. So thats in his favor and he did better in week 13 for the little he played (7-9, 70 yrds in the cold Soliders Feild).

When Bollinger replaced Johnson in Week 13, he was 7-for-9 passing for 70 yards in a 23-13 loss to the Bears.

That was better then Tarvaris Jacksons whole game in Green Bay(Who was 10-20, 50 yrds,1 fumble and an interception). Bollinger had no prepration, less time, less attempts but more yards, less interceptions, less fumbles, better passing perceptage and against a better defense.

Link lovers here you go. Jackson in Green Bay.
http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/live/NFL_20061221_MIN@GB

So to say he won't be the starter is in my opinion having Tarvaris Jackson shades on. He's better stat-wise and there's a good chance he would have started those two games against Green Bay and St. Louis if he wasn't injured. Keep in mind he was the 2nd string not TJack until he got injured.
I just say my prediction is that Bollinger will win the
quarterback battle. I'm not saying he'll be better in the long run or that Bollinger will take us to a winning season. Im just saying right now he's the better quarterback.



Please don't use the GB game as a unit of analysis for T-Jack.
Especially not as your only example, that's just ridiculous. Do you realize the circumstances of that game? Also of course Bollinger would have continued to start against GB and so on, he got injured.


First off why not. What is so unfair about it. I do not know the circumstances of that game. What ever they are they're the same as any other game. Besides it was cold. But it was cold in Chicago. T-Jack was preparing for that start all week any how.

Okay then T-Jack had half as many yards (35 yards) and less completion percentage (75%) against Chicago and a lost fumble. Same defense smae circumstance. Try to get me on that.

Caine
07-13-2007, 02:44 AM
"PurpleHornsOfDestruction" wrote:


"Billy" wrote:


"PurpleHornsOfDestruction" wrote:


I think it's kind of stupid to think theres no way he'll be our starter. I think he will. T-Jack is still "raw" whether you think he's the future or not. Bollinger was the 2nd string until he got injured. So thats in his favor and he did better in week 13 for the little he played (7-9, 70 yrds in the cold Soliders Feild).

When Bollinger replaced Johnson in Week 13, he was 7-for-9 passing for 70 yards in a 23-13 loss to the Bears.

That was better then Tarvaris Jacksons whole game in Green Bay(Who was 10-20, 50 yrds,1 fumble and an interception). Bollinger had no prepration, less time, less attempts but more yards, less interceptions, less fumbles, better passing perceptage and against a better defense.

Link lovers here you go. Jackson in Green Bay.
http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/live/NFL_20061221_MIN@GB

So to say he won't be the starter is in my opinion having Tarvaris Jackson shades on. He's better stat-wise and there's a good chance he would have started those two games against Green Bay and St. Louis if he wasn't injured. Keep in mind he was the 2nd string not TJack until he got injured.
I just say my prediction is that Bollinger will win the
quarterback battle. I'm not saying he'll be better in the long run or that Bollinger will take us to a winning season. Im just saying right now he's the better quarterback.



Please don't use the GB game as a unit of analysis for T-Jack.
Especially not as your only example, that's just ridiculous. Do you realize the circumstances of that game? Also of course Bollinger would have continued to start against GB and so on, he got injured.


First off why not. What is so unfair about it. I do not know the circumstances of that game. What ever they are they're the same as any other game. Besides it was cold. But it was cold in Chicago. T-Jack was preparing for that start all week any how.

Okay then T-Jack had half as many yards (35 yards) and less completion percentage (75%) against Chicago and a lost fumble. Same defense smae circumstance. Try to get me on that.


Let's make this simple:
Last seasons stats:

Tarvaris:

Games:
4
Started:
2
Attempts:
81
Completions:
47
Percentage:
58%
Yards:
475
Yards per Attempt:
5.86
Touchdowns:
2
Interceptions:
4
Rating:
62.5

Brooks:

Games:
2
Started:
0
Attempts:
18
Completions:
13
Percentage:
72.2%
Yards:
146
Yards per Attempt:
8.11
Touchdowns:
0
Interceptions:
1
Rating:
72.9

Based upon those numbers, Brooks appears to be the better decision maker - his averages are higher than Tarvaris' (Completion %, YPA, and Rating) rather significantly.
Couple that with the fact that Brooks came into both games COLD, NOT getting the reps with the 1st team, NOT having the majority of the coaches attention lavished on him, and he STILL managed to statistically out perform Jackson.
BTW, Tarvaris also managed to make 4 fumbles (3 of which occured during starts, and only 1 of which was recovered by Jackson) to Bollingers zero.

So, based upon last seasons performance ONLY, Bollinger appears to be the better candidate.

Of course, all of that goes out the window if Tarvaris has improved dramatically.
And that is something that none of us really knows about yet....we won't know until we see him play.
Last season we placed all 3 QB's in an untenable position.
They were all given a crappy receiving corps, weak play calling, and asked to succeed.
Brady, Manning, or Brees would have stunk it up last season too - there's only so much one guy can do all by himself.

So, in addition to potential QB improvements, have we (the Vikings) addressed the glaring needs on Offense?
Not really.
Sure, we drafted a bunch of receivers, but no one knows how well they'll do.
We dropped the only two guys who could catch (Robinson and Taylor).
We added only 1 WR in free agency (There weren't too many available, but we only got 1 of the ones that were).
We DID add a "potential" stud RB.
We didn't significantly improve the right side of the O-Line.
And, most importantly, We still don't have a REAL OC to handle things like....oh, I don't know....play calling (Darrell Bevell simply keeps Childress' seat warm and fetches coffee).

So, is the question of which QB will start REALLY that important when looked at versus the backdrop of all of the other offensive issues?
Probably not.
I am most interested in which receiver will step up and earn his money this season because without that, who cares who's throwing the ball.

Caine

davike
07-13-2007, 02:58 AM
"PurpleHornsOfDestruction" wrote:


"Billy" wrote:


"PurpleHornsOfDestruction" wrote:


I think it's kind of stupid to think theres no way he'll be our starter. I think he will. T-Jack is still "raw" whether you think he's the future or not. Bollinger was the 2nd string until he got injured. So thats in his favor and he did better in week 13 for the little he played (7-9, 70 yrds in the cold Soliders Feild).

When Bollinger replaced Johnson in Week 13, he was 7-for-9 passing for 70 yards in a 23-13 loss to the Bears.

That was better then Tarvaris Jacksons whole game in Green Bay(Who was 10-20, 50 yrds,1 fumble and an interception). Bollinger had no prepration, less time, less attempts but more yards, less interceptions, less fumbles, better passing perceptage and against a better defense.

Link lovers here you go. Jackson in Green Bay.
http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/live/NFL_20061221_MIN@GB

So to say he won't be the starter is in my opinion having Tarvaris Jackson shades on. He's better stat-wise and there's a good chance he would have started those two games against Green Bay and St. Louis if he wasn't injured. Keep in mind he was the 2nd string not TJack until he got injured.
I just say my prediction is that Bollinger will win the
quarterback battle. I'm not saying he'll be better in the long run or that Bollinger will take us to a winning season. Im just saying right now he's the better quarterback.



Please don't use the GB game as a unit of analysis for T-Jack.
Especially not as your only example, that's just ridiculous. Do you realize the circumstances of that game? Also of course Bollinger would have continued to start against GB and so on, he got injured.


First off why not. What is so unfair about it. I do not know the circumstances of that game. What ever they are they're the same as any other game. Besides it was cold. But it was cold in Chicago. T-Jack was preparing for that start all week any how.

Okay then T-Jack had half as many yards (35 yards) and less completion percentage (75%) against Chicago and a lost fumble. Same defense smae circumstance. Try to get me on that.


I don't know how you can even compare....Chicago was up 21 to 6 and it was the beginning of the fourth quarter, Chicago was playing prevent defense....almost anyone could have passed against it. I don't see anything special about his preformance there. GB was totally different and I haven't seen anything in Bollinger that would tell me he would do any better then Jackson did. Second string QBs usually are preparing right along with the starter....plus Bollinger sat on the sideline with a clipboard till the fourth quarter.....plenty of time for him to figure out what they are doing for the most part.


Yeah Jackson looked raw last year, but he has had experience and I really don't think Bollinger would do us much better.

PurpleHornsOfDestruction
07-13-2007, 04:00 AM
"davike" wrote:


"PurpleHornsOfDestruction" wrote:


"Billy" wrote:


"PurpleHornsOfDestruction" wrote:


I think it's kind of stupid to think theres no way he'll be our starter. I think he will. T-Jack is still "raw" whether you think he's the future or not. Bollinger was the 2nd string until he got injured. So thats in his favor and he did better in week 13 for the little he played (7-9, 70 yrds in the cold Soliders Feild).

When Bollinger replaced Johnson in Week 13, he was 7-for-9 passing for 70 yards in a 23-13 loss to the Bears.

That was better then Tarvaris Jacksons whole game in Green Bay(Who was 10-20, 50 yrds,1 fumble and an interception). Bollinger had no prepration, less time, less attempts but more yards, less interceptions, less fumbles, better passing perceptage and against a better defense.

Link lovers here you go. Jackson in Green Bay.
http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/live/NFL_20061221_MIN@GB

So to say he won't be the starter is in my opinion having Tarvaris Jackson shades on. He's better stat-wise and there's a good chance he would have started those two games against Green Bay and St. Louis if he wasn't injured. Keep in mind he was the 2nd string not TJack until he got injured.
I just say my prediction is that Bollinger will win the
quarterback battle. I'm not saying he'll be better in the long run or that Bollinger will take us to a winning season. Im just saying right now he's the better quarterback.



Please don't use the GB game as a unit of analysis for T-Jack.
Especially not as your only example, that's just ridiculous. Do you realize the circumstances of that game? Also of course Bollinger would have continued to start against GB and so on, he got injured.


First off why not. What is so unfair about it. I do not know the circumstances of that game. What ever they are they're the same as any other game. Besides it was cold. But it was cold in Chicago. T-Jack was preparing for that start all week any how.

Okay then T-Jack had half as many yards (35 yards) and less completion percentage (75%) against Chicago and a lost fumble. Same defense smae circumstance. Try to get me on that.


I don't know how you can even compare....Chicago was up 21 to 6 and it was the beginning of the fourth quarter, Chicago was playing prevent defense....almost anyone could have passed against it. I don't see anything special about his preformance there. GB was totally different and I haven't seen anything in Bollinger that would tell me he would do any better then Jackson did. Second string QBs usually are preparing right along with the starter....plus Bollinger sat on the sideline with a clipboard till the fourth quarter.....plenty of time for him to figure out what they are doing for the most part.


Yeah Jackson looked raw last year, but he has had experience and I really don't think Bollinger would do us much better.


You obviously only read my first post and didnt read my second. i put up TJacks number is Chicago who also sat on the bench with the clip board able to study the defense. Bollinger still did better against the same defense. Your response means no sense to my second post. That somewhat idiotic. 75% to 78%. 35 yards to 70 yards. 1 fumble to no fumbles. I told you couldnt skrewl me on that because T-Jack was in the exact same situationa as Bollinger was and did worst against the same defense and probably more conservative since it was later and the prevent defense. You say how can I compare the two. Well in my second one i compared the same situation.
don't even say that like you got me.

Okay then T-Jack had half as many yards (35 yards) and less completion percentage (75%) against Chicago and a lost fumble. Same defense smae circumstance. Try to get me on that.

I like Caines response. Look at that. And look at mine next time.

My only point was T-Jack had 60 minute and didnt produce as much as Bollinger did in 10. Now though i didnt see any special circumstances that would be an excuse for T-Jack so I put that in my post. They were two different games so I put in my second post that he still was the worst quarterback in the same "circumstance" and situation. So that was my point.

Billy Boy
07-14-2007, 02:09 AM
"PurpleHornsOfDestruction" wrote:


"Billy" wrote:


Please don't use the GB game as a unit of analysis for T-Jack.
Especially not as your only example, that's just ridiculous. Do you realize the circumstances of that game? Also of course Bollinger would have continued to start against GB and so on, he got injured.


First off why not. What is so unfair about it. I do not know the circumstances of that game. What ever they are they're the same as any other game. Besides it was cold. But it was cold in Chicago. T-Jack was preparing for that start all week any how.

Okay then T-Jack had half as many yards (35 yards) and less completion percentage (75%) against Chicago and a lost fumble. Same defense smae circumstance. Try to get me on that.


As far as the GB game goes it was a complete mess.
It was 36 degrees and raining.
There was 4 games in between and the Vikes had one of their worst games for penalties.
Don't underestimate GB's D. They have great vet CBs and a amazing LB corp and D line with Kampman who terrorized the crap right side of the line and TJ (Cooks 2nd game, Chili conceded defeat).
That has been TJ's real problem is handling the pressure unlike he has ever seen before.

At the Chicago game of course TJ had less yards.
He had 7 attempts to Bollingers 16 AND a better QB rating.
As far as the fumble you might as well have just made the claim that TJ is just another Daunte too.

Oh, and TJ was rehabilitating a torn miniscus last season.
He admitted this spring that it had botherd him in the games.

Anywho the position is gonna be won in training camp, nothing to do with last year.


Caine

Couple that with the fact that Brooks came into both games COLD, NOT getting the reps with the 1st team, NOT having the majority of the coaches attention lavished on him, and he STILL managed to statistically out perform Jackson.
BTW, Tarvaris also managed to make 4 fumbles (3 of which occured during starts, and only 1 of which was recovered by Jackson) to Bollingers zero.

TJack is coming out of D-II I would hope he is getting the attention to make the improbable transition.
I don't believe T-Jack was getting all these reps with the first team you speak of, that would have been BJ.
TJ wasn't even supposed to have gone near the ball and only went in due to injuries and when the season was lost.
Remember Chili was gonna take it slow and said it was a 3 year plan (looks to have been speed up a little now).

PurpleHornsOfDestruction
07-14-2007, 01:32 PM
"Billy" wrote:


"PurpleHornsOfDestruction" wrote:


"Billy" wrote:


Please don't use the GB game as a unit of analysis for T-Jack.
Especially not as your only example, that's just ridiculous. Do you realize the circumstances of that game? Also of course Bollinger would have continued to start against GB and so on, he got injured.


First off why not. What is so unfair about it. I do not know the circumstances of that game. What ever they are they're the same as any other game. Besides it was cold. But it was cold in Chicago. T-Jack was preparing for that start all week any how.

Okay then T-Jack had half as many yards (35 yards) and less completion percentage (75%) against Chicago and a lost fumble. Same defense smae circumstance. Try to get me on that.


As far as the GB game goes it was a complete mess.
It was 36 degrees and raining.
There was 4 games in between and the Vikes had one of their worst games for penalties.
Don't underestimate GB's D. They have great vet CBs and a amazing LB corp and D line with Kampman who terrorized the crap right side of the line and TJ (Cooks 2nd game, Chili conceded defeat).
That has been TJ's real problem is handling the pressure unlike he has ever seen before.

At the Chicago game of course TJ had less yards.
He had 7 attempts to Bollingers 16 AND a better QB rating.
As far as the fumble you might as well have just made the claim that TJ is just another Daunte too.

Oh, and TJ was rehabilitating a torn miniscus last season.
He admitted this spring that it had botherd him in the games.

Anywho the position is gonna be won in training camp, nothing to do with last year.


Caine

Couple that with the fact that Brooks came into both games COLD, NOT getting the reps with the 1st team, NOT having the majority of the coaches attention lavished on him, and he STILL managed to statistically out perform Jackson.
BTW, Tarvaris also managed to make 4 fumbles (3 of which occured during starts, and only 1 of which was recovered by Jackson) to Bollingers zero.

TJack is coming out of D-II I would hope he is getting the attention to make the improbable transition.
I don't believe T-Jack was getting all these reps with the first team you speak of, that would have been BJ.
TJ wasn't even supposed to have gone near the ball and only went in due to injuries and when the season was lost.
Remember Chili was gonna take it slow and said it was a 3 year plan (looks to have been speed up a little now).

What ever. They didnt have that great of a defense. It was rated too high but you can take praise on me not giving a crap. What I said was Chicagos was better. Not Green Bay's sucks.

At the Chicago game of course TJ had less yards.
He had 7 attempts to Bollingers 16 AND a better QB rating.
As far as the fumble you might as well have just made the claim that TJ is just another Daunte too.
First off get your stats right. It even says it in the freakin article. Bollinger had 9 attempts and 7 completions and 70 yards.
From the article

When Bollinger replaced Johnson in Week 13, he was 7-for-9 passing for 70 yards in a 23-13 loss to the Bears.
Jackson had 101.0 Bollinger had 99.1 passing rating. Whoopty freakin do. Congradulations. Second of all I already claimed that at best he could become Daunte. But Im not going into that. Fumbling is something i dont like my quarterback doing. Do you agree? Or do you like a quarterback who turns the ball over? You didnt even counter me there. lame.
Photo. hehe
http://www.nfl.com/photos/football_2006_week_13/MIN@CHI


Oh, and TJ was rehabilitating a torn miniscus last season.
He admitted this spring that it had botherd him in the games.
"Exuses are like butts. Everyones got one and they all stink" First off where did you hear that? I didnt see that anywhere and not on here where i thought it would have been put on this spring. Plus I don't trust your sources. You thought bollinger had 16 attepts when he had 9. So i dont know where your coming from. SHow me and i'll withdraw this statement.
Right and Terrell Owens is going to have the least amount of drops now because he hurt his thumb last year.


TJack is coming out of D-II I would hope he is getting the attention to make the improbable transition.
Division I-AA. What are your sources???


I don't believe T-Jack was getting all these reps with the first team you speak of, that would have been BJ.
hmmmm. Well lets seee. Yes of course. He announces he's going to start Jackson in Green Bay and St. Louis so he decides to not give him reps with the first team but instead give them to the benched
Brad Johnson. Perfect sense. Brad Childress may be stupid in some ways but I doubt he's that stupid. He wasn't unpreped for the Green Bay game. Im 93.7% sure of that.


TJ wasn't even supposed to have gone near the ball and only went in due to injuries and when the season was lost.

Don't feed me that bull. You should know that if we won in Green Bay and in St. Louis where T-Jack came in then we would have got the wild card slot instead of New York. Because we had won the tiebreaker with new York and all that needed to happen was us win our last two game, for New York to lose to the heavily favored New Orleans. Hmmm. Your right that was impossible. Oh wait it happened.And Atlanta to lose one of there last 2 games against Carolina and Philly. That happened. So two things that were a lot more probable then not happened and all we had to do was not give up on the season.

The fact is if we won those last two games and went 8-8 we would be in the Wildcard. I saw that when we were 6-8. Why couldn't Childress?

jessejames09
07-14-2007, 01:51 PM
And remember arm strength=bad in the WCO right purple horns?

'Moron....'


Is what you called me for mixing up 'rocket arm' and 'laser arm.'

Ask Brett Favre if arm strength helps on short passes.
(sorry but it's been witnessed many times)

PurpleHornsOfDestruction
07-14-2007, 02:49 PM
"jessejames09" wrote:


And remember arm strength=bad in the WCO right purple horns?

'silly guy....'


Is what you called me for mixing up 'rocket arm' and 'laser arm.'

Ask Brett Favre if arm strength helps on short passes.
(sorry but it's been witnessed many times)

Comment he's refering to



wait he has a rocket arm. His rocket arm will definitely come in handy when WE'RE IN THE WEST COAST OFFENSE.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA dumbest quote there.
To run an Out pattern in the NFL you need a rocket arm to be able to beat the CB while they're in such close coverage. Same goes for a slant. If you loft the ball Pennington style a NFL CB will pick off those short passes all day.

Wow. Just.. just wow. Thats the most moronic, foolish quote I've ever read.
I dont know how to say this. No. Just no. First off but not important I think your confusing rocket arm with laser arm. Mr. Anderson said it well but I'll put my input in. But superiorly more important. You do not need a rocket arm in a west coast offense such as running slants and out patterns. You need timing and accuracy fair more importantly then a strong arm. Pennington did good with that but as a vikings fan you should know that more then anyone else that ur wrong. Because Joe Montana kicked our butts in the playoffs with the west coast offense and kicked our butts with the slant and the only thing Joe Montana didnt have was a rocket arm. And Joe Montana ran the West Coast Offense better then any team in the NFL, ever. So yeah. Not much more to say other then a laser arm can help but thats not what you need.

So even though this comment doesn't deserve it I'll leave my trademark burn down
"Put that in your juice box and suck it!"

First off completing random and on a different thread and nothing to do with what I said. Look above I said you only need the arm strength to reach a guy who will normally be not more then 20 yards downs. I never said it was bad. I said you dont need a rocket arm. It can help but Joe Montana and Pennington seem to do great without it. Montana had anything except. So Im glad you finally responded but in a stupid way. I never called you a "silly guy" I dont use silly. I called you comment moronic. And i said mixing that up was not nearly as important as the rest of my comment. I swear your taking my words and twsting them and taking 10 years off my life span. You know what else has been witnessed many times against us. Look above. Joe Montanna's accuracy and timing over arm strength against us in the play-offs. Wow I said rocket arm isnt needed. And i stand by that. Arm strength can help to decrease chance of a pick but come on.

davike
07-14-2007, 03:42 PM
You obviously only read my first post and didnt read my second. i put up TJacks number is Chicago who also sat on the bench with the clip board able to study the defense. Bollinger still did better against the same defense. Your response means no sense to my second post. That somewhat idiotic. 75% to 78%. 35 yards to 70 yards. 1 fumble to no fumbles. I told you couldnt skrewl me on that because T-Jack was in the exact same situationa as Bollinger was and did worst against the same defense and probably more conservative since it was later and the prevent defense. You say how can I compare the two. Well in my second one i compared the same situation.
don't even say that like you got me.
Quote
Okay then T-Jack had half as many yards (35 yards) and less completion percentage (75%) against Chicago and a lost fumble. Same defense smae circumstance. Try to get me on that.

I like Caines response. Look at that. And look at mine next time.

My only point was T-Jack had 60 minute and didnt produce as much as Bollinger did in 10. Now though i didnt see any special circumstances that would be an excuse for T-Jack so I put that in my post. They were two different games so I put in my second post that he still was the worst quarterback in the same "circumstance" and situation. So that was my point.

The Chicago game:
How did Bollinger do better against that defense? Is there much of a difference between 3-4 and 7-9, if Jackson had time to complete just one more pass he could have had completion rate of 80 percent in that game, would that have made him any better then Bollingers 78 percent? Yes, Jackson had half the yards as Bollinger, Bollinger was in almost 7 times longer then Jackson. Bollinger came in with 2:57 to go in the 3rd quarter, Jackson came in with 2:20 to go in the fourth quarter. If we were dealing with 20 or more attempts a 3 percent difference might be a variable, but when we are dealing with 10 or under then it doesn't mean a whole lot. The only thing Bollinger has on Jackson in the Chicago game is the fumble.

I am not even going to compare the GB game with the Chicago game, that would be ridiculous. Completely different,

I realize that Jacksons play in the GB game was ugly at best, but I don't know if Bollinger would have done better.
Look at the Jets game....Jackson was in about the same length of time as Bollinger was in the Chicago game but he put up 177 yards, I am not comparing but if your going to compare the Chicago game to the GB game then why not compare the others as well?

The biggest problem I had with your posts is that you didn't really have any good comparisons. I realize that Bollingers stuff might look better on paper but what we are hoping for is that Jackson has one more year of experience, he isn't a rookie anymore. He has twice as much experience as he did last year, I am hoping he will be twice as good. But when you look at all the situations I really don't think that Bollinger is that much better then Jackson at this point.

COJOMAY
07-14-2007, 03:55 PM
Frankly, I don't care who starts but one of them better perform well or it will be out the door. I don't care how gifted they are the Vikings will be looking for an accomplished QB in next year's FA if they fail.

davike
07-14-2007, 03:58 PM
"COJOMAY" wrote:


Frankly, I don't care who starts but one of them better perform well or it will be out the door. I don't care how gifted they are the Vikings will be looking for an accomplished QB in next year's FA if they fail.


Sounds good to me....I just can't help hoping that it is Jackson that turns out to be the better one. But if Bollinger out performs him this year then that is who I want starting for us.

Billy Boy
07-15-2007, 03:35 AM
"PurpleHornsOfDestruction" wrote:



What ever. They didnt have that great of a defense. It was rated too high but you can take praise on me not giving a crap. What I said was Chicagos was better. Not Green Bay's sucks.


I am not using "rankings" but instead stats, you are welcome to continue using your Pete Prisco rankings if you like though.
My point is not to underestimate GB defense and that your analysis was crap.



First off get your stats right. It even says it in the freakin article. Bollinger had 9 attempts and 7 completions and 70 yards.

Excuse me 9 for 70 and T Jack to 4 for 35.
If you talk about yards you need to keep it relative to the attempts. T-Jack was more successful as far as QB rating in these few worthless downs, so don't use it. You could say BJ had more yards too. My point is your yards argument is completely biased and crap.



Jackson had 101.0 Bollinger had 99.1 passing rating. Whoopty freakin do. Congradulations. Second of all I already claimed that at best he could become Daunte. But Im not going into that. Fumbling is something i dont like my quarterback doing. Do you agree? Or do you like a quarterback who turns the ball over? You didnt even counter me there. lame.


You said try to get you on it and I called you on your ridiculous yards stat and gave you one of my own.

The fumbles are not gonna be the problem at hand here as TJ doesn't have a fumble problem.
I am concerned about the development of him and his ability to get the ball to the receivers, his pocket presence, among other things far ahead of fumbles.


Oh, and TJ was rehabilitating a torn miniscus last season.
He admitted this spring that it had botherd him in the games.

"Exuses are like butts. Everyones got one and they all stink" First off where did you hear that? I didnt see that anywhere and not on here where i thought it would have been put on this spring. Plus I don't trust your sources. You thought bollinger had 16 attepts when he had 9. So i dont know where your coming from. SHow me and i'll withdraw this statement.
Right and Terrell Owens is going to have the least amount of drops now because he hurt his thumb last year.



This isn't about excuses this is about reality.
The reality is your argument is based on something you pulled out of your ass. Here...


"I'm going to be 100 percent," Jackson said. "I hurt my knee last year, and I never got back to 100 percent, as far as running and stuff. I think I'll be a lot better."
Shiancoe like Tarvaris. (http://www.purplepride.org/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=88888914&topic=32904.msg557424#msg557424)




I don't believe T-Jack was getting all these reps with the first team you speak of, that would have been BJ.
hmmmm. Well lets seee. Yes of course. He announces he's going to start Jackson in Green Bay and St. Louis so he decides to not give him reps with the first team but instead give them to the benched
Brad Johnson. Perfect sense. Brad Childress may be stupid in some ways but I doubt he's that stupid. He wasn't unpreped for the Green Bay game. Im 93.7% sure of that.


Were not talking about your 1 game analysis here anymore.
Cain said Bollinger had an unfair disadvantage of reps with the first team.
The depth chart was as follows 1. BJ 2. BB 3. TJ.
TJ was not getting and advantage with the first team while respective QBs were ahead of him.
Chili was preparing BJ to be his starter, and then BB due to injury and finally TJ.
TJ was NOT supposed to have started. So Chili would give his QB at the top of the depth chart the best opportunity naturally. Do you understand it yet?




TJ wasn't even supposed to have gone near the ball and only went in due to injuries and when the season was lost.

Don't feed me that bull. You should know that if we won in Green Bay and in St. Louis where T-Jack came in then we would have got the wild card slot instead of New York. Because we had won the tiebreaker with new York and all that needed to happen was us win our last two game, for New York to lose to the heavily favored New Orleans. Hmmm. Your right that was impossible. Oh wait it happened.And Atlanta to lose one of there last 2 games against Carolina and Philly. That happened. So two things that were a lot more probable then not happened and all we had to do was not give up on the season.

I don't remember all the ifs ands or buts.
The key point is the injury, don't over analyze everything.
Your such a fan of T-Jack, you must have really thought they had a change to make as Superbowl run. Don't kid anybody, the season was done-ski.

Anyways I think you got away from my initial point that your comparison of the two was erroneous.