PDA

View Full Version : Hypothetical QB Question



Garland Greene
09-21-2007, 02:01 PM
If Holcomb does Start this weekend(or Bollinger God forbid) and he Lights it up ala derek anderson Week 2 vs. the Bungles, well at least has a very good game. If Tjack is helathy the next week does he get his spot back? What is chilly's policy on loosing your spot to an injury, I don't remeber hearing what his take on it was.

cajunvike
09-21-2007, 02:05 PM
I think that if Holcomb lights it up, Chilly should get the doctors to say that TJack needs more time to heal...then if Holcomb lights up the Pukers (or just gets through the game without making mistakes), Chilly should conclude that TJack isn't ready and make him the backup until either Holcomb starts losing OR until TJack is REALLY ready.

PAvikesfan
09-21-2007, 02:06 PM
He will give the spot back to Tavarcrap so he can lose his starting spot fair and square two weeks after he comes back.
:)
sad but probably true.

COJOMAY
09-21-2007, 02:07 PM
I leave it up to the coach because he won't listen to my opinion anyway!
;)

NodakPaul
09-21-2007, 02:24 PM
"cajunvike" wrote:


I think that if Holcomb lights it up, Chilly should get the doctors to say that TJack needs more time to heal...then if Holcomb lights up the Pukers (or just gets through the game without making mistakes), Chilly should conclude that TJack isn't ready and make him the backup until either Holcomb starts losing OR until TJack is REALLY ready.


This idea has my vote.

Zeus
09-21-2007, 02:28 PM
"Garland" wrote:


If Holcomb does Start this weekend(or Bollinger God forbid) and he Lights it up ala derek anderson Week 2 vs. the Bungles, well at least has a very good game. If Tjack is helathy the next week does he get his spot back? What is chilly's policy on loosing your spot to an injury, I don't remeber hearing what his take on it was.


Hopefully, or he will lose his team, his stance is that injury does not cost starters their jobs.

=Z=

NodakPaul
09-21-2007, 02:31 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"Garland" wrote:


If Holcomb does Start this weekend(or Bollinger God forbid) and he Lights it up ala derek anderson Week 2 vs. the Bungles, well at least has a very good game. If Tjack is helathy the next week does he get his spot back? What is chilly's policy on loosing your spot to an injury, I don't remeber hearing what his take on it was.


Hopefully, or he will lose his team, his stance is that injury does not cost starters their jobs.

=Z=


If Holcomb performs well against KC and GB, TJack wouldn't be losing his job because of injury...
That applies more to when a player is doing well (or at least not bad) and then gets injured.
As much as I like TJack, he was playing badly when he was injured.

Zeus
09-21-2007, 02:38 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"Garland" wrote:


If Holcomb does Start this weekend(or Bollinger God forbid) and he Lights it up ala derek anderson Week 2 vs. the Bungles, well at least has a very good game. If Tjack is helathy the next week does he get his spot back? What is chilly's policy on loosing your spot to an injury, I don't remeber hearing what his take on it was.


Hopefully, or he will lose his team, his stance is that injury does not cost starters their jobs.


If Holcomb performs well against KC and GB, TJack wouldn't be losing his job because of injury...
That applies more to when a player is doing well (or at least not bad) and then gets injured.
As much as I like TJack, he was playing badly when he was injured.


So what?

Is Kelly Holcomb going to be the Vikings starter in 2009?
Because the plan is that Tarvaris will be.
We all knew all along that there were going to be BRUTAL games for TJack this season.
He's 1-1 as the starter.

The reason Holcomb is playing is because Tarvaris is hurt.
If he's not hurt, he's the starter.
Holcomb hasn't earned the starter's job - it was given to him.
Holcomb playing well as the starter (if it happens) is irrelevant.

=Z=

NodakPaul
09-21-2007, 02:53 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"Garland" wrote:


If Holcomb does Start this weekend(or Bollinger God forbid) and he Lights it up ala derek anderson Week 2 vs. the Bungles, well at least has a very good game. If Tjack is helathy the next week does he get his spot back? What is chilly's policy on loosing your spot to an injury, I don't remeber hearing what his take on it was.


Hopefully, or he will lose his team, his stance is that injury does not cost starters their jobs.


If Holcomb performs well against KC and GB, TJack wouldn't be losing his job because of injury...
That applies more to when a player is doing well (or at least not bad) and then gets injured.
As much as I like TJack, he was playing badly when he was injured.


So what?

Is Kelly Holcomb going to be the Vikings starter in 2009?
Because the plan is that Tarvaris will be.
We all knew all along that there were going to be BRUTAL games for TJack this season.
He's 1-1 as the starter.

The reason Holcomb is playing is because Tarvaris is hurt.
If he's not hurt, he's the starter.
Holcomb hasn't earned the starter's job - it was given to him.
Holcomb playing well as the starter (if it happens) is irrelevant.

=Z=


While most of expect TJ to be the starter in 2009, he has not been appointed as such yet.
In fact, I believe that Childress makes it a point to encourage competition during training camp.
And for the record, even if TJack is benched in favor of Holcomb for the remainder of the year, I would be surprised if TJack did not re-earn the spot in camp.

I knew that there would be some brutal games for TJack.
It is part of learning.
And for that reason, I don't think Childress would yank him after only one bad game.
But Childress didn't yank him.
He got injured, and thus gave Holcomb the opportunity to start.
If he goes out and pulls in two decisive victories against KC and GB (and it can be attributed to O, not just D), then I think Childress would be hard pressed to keep him starting instead of TJack.


Yes, we are building a team that will endure, not just flash for a year.
But at the same time Childress has a responsibility to Wilf to win games.
And in a year when ticket sales are down, and there are still six home game with available tickets, I think Wilf would rather see some wins and excitement over the continued experience gaining of TJack.

Just MHO.
I still a TJack fan, but I am a Viking's fan first.
If Holcomb plays well, he will get my vote for the starter job.
It isn't a knock against TJ, just a realization that he could possibly still learn from Holcomb's veteran presence while he is our #2.


Maybe this will be moot.
Maybe Holcomb will play like pooh against KC (although our D will still eek out a win) and TJack will be back in to light up the crowd against GB... ;D

V-Unit
09-21-2007, 03:13 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"Garland" wrote:


If Holcomb does Start this weekend(or Bollinger God forbid) and he Lights it up ala derek anderson Week 2 vs. the Bungles, well at least has a very good game. If Tjack is helathy the next week does he get his spot back? What is chilly's policy on loosing your spot to an injury, I don't remeber hearing what his take on it was.


Hopefully, or he will lose his team, his stance is that injury does not cost starters their jobs.


If Holcomb performs well against KC and GB, TJack wouldn't be losing his job because of injury...
That applies more to when a player is doing well (or at least not bad) and then gets injured.
As much as I like TJack, he was playing badly when he was injured.


So what?

Is Kelly Holcomb going to be the Vikings starter in 2009?
Because the plan is that Tarvaris will be.
We all knew all along that there were going to be BRUTAL games for TJack this season.
He's 1-1 as the starter.

The reason Holcomb is playing is because Tarvaris is hurt.
If he's not hurt, he's the starter.
Holcomb hasn't earned the starter's job - it was given to him.
Holcomb playing well as the starter (if it happens) is irrelevant.

=Z=


While most of expect TJ to be the starter in 2009, he has not been appointed as such yet.
In fact, I believe that Childress makes it a point to encourage competition during training camp.
And for the record, even if TJack is benched in favor of Holcomb for the remainder of the year, I would be surprised if TJack did not re-earn the spot in camp.

I knew that there would be some brutal games for TJack.
It is part of learning.
And for that reason, I don't think Childress would yank him after only one bad game.
But Childress didn't yank him.
He got injured, and thus gave Holcomb the opportunity to start.
If he goes out and pulls in two decisive victories against KC and GB (and it can be attributed to O, not just D), then I think Childress would be hard pressed to keep him starting instead of TJack.


Yes, we are building a team that will endure, not just flash for a year.
But at the same time Childress has a responsibility to Wilf to win games.
And in a year when ticket sales are down, and there are still six home game with available tickets, I think Wilf would rather see some wins and excitement over the continued experience gaining of TJack.

Just MHO.
I still a TJack fan, but I am a Viking's fan first.
If Holcomb plays well, he will get my vote for the starter job.
It isn't a knock against TJ, just a realization that he could possibly still learn from Holcomb's veteran presence while he is our #2.


Maybe this will be moot.
Maybe Holcomb will play like pooh against KC (although our D will still eek out a win) and TJack will be back in to light up the crowd against GB... ;D


If TJ is benched for Holcomb for the rest of the year its a clear indication that Holcomb is the better QB, which might not be saying much. To say that TJ would come back to be the starter in 2009 after playing like crap, getting benched, then not earning his starting job back through practice, is a bit of a reach.

For Childress to clearly pick the worse QB in that situation would be a bit mind boggling. No matter what happens, I would like to go into next season with Holcomb and Jackson both still on the team.

cyviking
09-21-2007, 03:14 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"Garland" wrote:


If Holcomb does Start this weekend(or Bollinger God forbid) and he Lights it up ala derek anderson Week 2 vs. the Bungles, well at least has a very good game. If Tjack is helathy the next week does he get his spot back? What is chilly's policy on loosing your spot to an injury, I don't remeber hearing what his take on it was.


Hopefully, or he will lose his team, his stance is that injury does not cost starters their jobs.


If Holcomb performs well against KC and GB, TJack wouldn't be losing his job because of injury...
That applies more to when a player is doing well (or at least not bad) and then gets injured.
As much as I like TJack, he was playing badly when he was injured.


So what?

Is Kelly Holcomb going to be the Vikings starter in 2009?
Because the plan is that Tarvaris will be.
We all knew all along that there were going to be BRUTAL games for TJack this season.
He's 1-1 as the starter.

The reason Holcomb is playing is because Tarvaris is hurt.
If he's not hurt, he's the starter.
Holcomb hasn't earned the starter's job - it was given to him.
Holcomb playing well as the starter (if it happens) is irrelevant.

=Z=



mostly true, if KH will be the starter this week its due to injury of TJ as you stated but its also due to the fact that BB sucks in all way possible and KH has merited the start over him.
How sad is it that BB was "competing" to for the starting QB job this summer...

jargomcfargo
09-21-2007, 05:09 PM
Scenario 1

Holcumb plays well,and he will, Tarvaris gets time to heal up completely.Sits until a game where Holcumb struggles. Tarvaris comes off the bench.

Scenario 2

Holcumb plays well, but gets yanked when Tarvaris is ready to go.

Scenario 3

Holcumb stinks. Tarvaris returns as soon as possible.

Scenario 4

Holcumb stinks. Bollinger comes in. Wilf goes ballistic. PP.O server has meltdown.

I like scenario 1 best.

nephilimstorm
09-21-2007, 05:20 PM
I like scenario 1 myself too

Marrdro
09-21-2007, 06:19 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"Garland" wrote:


If Holcomb does Start this weekend(or Bollinger God forbid) and he Lights it up ala derek anderson Week 2 vs. the Bungles, well at least has a very good game. If Tjack is helathy the next week does he get his spot back? What is chilly's policy on loosing your spot to an injury, I don't remeber hearing what his take on it was.


Hopefully, or he will lose his team, his stance is that injury does not cost starters their jobs.


If Holcomb performs well against KC and GB, TJack wouldn't be losing his job because of injury...
That applies more to when a player is doing well (or at least not bad) and then gets injured.
As much as I like TJack, he was playing badly when he was injured.


So what?

Is Kelly Holcomb going to be the Vikings starter in 2009?
Because the plan is that Tarvaris will be.
We all knew all along that there were going to be BRUTAL games for TJack this season.
He's 1-1 as the starter.

The reason Holcomb is playing is because Tarvaris is hurt.
If he's not hurt, he's the starter.
Holcomb hasn't earned the starter's job - it was given to him.
Holcomb playing well as the starter (if it happens) is irrelevant.

=Z=

Forget it my friend.
I've been preaching that tune all week (longer really) but no one wants to listen.
They only care about the here and now.

Instant gratification my friend.
Instant gratification.
:'(

Marrdro
09-21-2007, 06:27 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"Garland" wrote:


If Holcomb does Start this weekend(or Bollinger God forbid) and he Lights it up ala derek anderson Week 2 vs. the Bungles, well at least has a very good game. If Tjack is helathy the next week does he get his spot back? What is chilly's policy on loosing your spot to an injury, I don't remeber hearing what his take on it was.


Hopefully, or he will lose his team, his stance is that injury does not cost starters their jobs.


If Holcomb performs well against KC and GB, TJack wouldn't be losing his job because of injury...
That applies more to when a player is doing well (or at least not bad) and then gets injured.
As much as I like TJack, he was playing badly when he was injured.


So what?

Is Kelly Holcomb going to be the Vikings starter in 2009?
Because the plan is that Tarvaris will be.
We all knew all along that there were going to be BRUTAL games for TJack this season.
He's 1-1 as the starter.

The reason Holcomb is playing is because Tarvaris is hurt.
If he's not hurt, he's the starter.
Holcomb hasn't earned the starter's job - it was given to him.
Holcomb playing well as the starter (if it happens) is irrelevant.

=Z=


While most of expect TJ to be the starter in 2009, he has not been appointed as such yet.
In fact, I believe that Childress makes it a point to encourage competition during training camp.
And for the record, even if TJack is benched in favor of Holcomb for the remainder of the year, I would be surprised if TJack did not re-earn the spot in camp.

I knew that there would be some brutal games for TJack.
It is part of learning.
And for that reason, I don't think Childress would yank him after only one bad game.
But Childress didn't yank him.
He got injured, and thus gave Holcomb the opportunity to start.
If he goes out and pulls in two decisive victories against KC and GB (and it can be attributed to O, not just D), then I think Childress would be hard pressed to keep him starting instead of TJack.


Yes, we are building a team that will endure, not just flash for a year.
But at the same time Childress has a responsibility to Wilf to win games.
And in a year when ticket sales are down, and there are still six home game with available tickets, I think Wilf would rather see some wins and excitement over the continued experience gaining of TJack.

Just MHO.
I still a TJack fan, but I am a Viking's fan first.
If Holcomb plays well, he will get my vote for the starter job.
It isn't a knock against TJ, just a realization that he could possibly still learn from Holcomb's veteran presence while he is our #2.


Maybe this will be moot.
Maybe Holcomb will play like pooh against KC (although our D will still eek out a win) and TJack will be back in to light up the crowd against GB... ;D

He also has a responsibility to Wilf for the betterment of this team for both the near and the far.
Wouldn't we be right back in the same boat (scuse the pun) next year with TJ under center, still raw and inexperienced?

Wouldn't ticket sales still slip?

At some point the kid (or another kid) will have to play, struggle doing it, for the team to have a long term solution at QB or are we saying that we want to always have a rent a QB running this team?

Marrdro
09-21-2007, 06:31 PM
"jargomcfargo" wrote:


Scenario 1

Holcumb plays well,and he will, Tarvaris gets time to heal up completely.Sits until a game where Holcumb struggles. Tarvaris comes off the bench.

Scenario 2

Holcumb plays well, but gets yanked when Tarvaris is ready to go.

Scenario 3

Holcumb stinks. Tarvaris returns as soon as possible.

Scenario 4

Holcumb stinks. Bollinger comes in. Wilf goes ballistic. PP.O server has meltdown.

I like scenario 1 best.

I like this one best.

They fix the fricken OL so that they can block someone.


Our QB's have time to stand in the pocket while our WR's and TE's (who by the way would then be able to run a route vice blocking all the time) work the seams and get open.


Our QB's start making completions, our Offense starts to click and all the scheme haters crawl back into thier holes.
;D

singersp
09-21-2007, 06:40 PM
Now don't get your hopes up to high to possibly see them crushed.

Let's wait until we win a game with him first.

No expectations, no dissapointments.

Ask any Bills fan, there is a reason Holcomb's nickname in Buffalo was Captain Checkdown.

RK.
09-21-2007, 07:04 PM
More likely is this scenario

Holcumb plays ok and manages to squeak out a victory but nothing to write home about.
TJ is at about 85%-90% come the GB game.
Which ever one Childress decides to play half of the fans will not be happy about it.
And if gawd forbid we lose to GB we will have endless threads about it till the end of the season calling for the coaches head on a platter.
;D

My hope is that Holcumb has a great day against KC and he and TJ compete for a few weeks for the starting job.
Given our QB roster I think the coach needs to have to option of pulling a QB if things are not going well.
Until TJ is really able to step up and lead the team this might be our best option.
I realize that you can't do it for very long but for a few games I think it might make sense depending on how Holcumb does.


In the end TJ is our long term QB.
Its just a matter of when will he be ready.

PurpleTide
09-21-2007, 07:18 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


Scenario 1

Holcumb plays well,and he will, Tarvaris gets time to heal up completely.Sits until a game where Holcumb struggles. Tarvaris comes off the bench.

Scenario 2

Holcumb plays well, but gets yanked when Tarvaris is ready to go.

Scenario 3





















Holcumb stinks. Tarvaris returns as soon as possible.

Scenario 4

Holcumb stinks. Bollinger comes in. Wilf goes ballistic. PP.O server has meltdown.

I like scenario 1 best.

I like this one best.

They fix the fricken OL so that they can block someone.


Our QB's have time to stand in the pocket while our WR's and TE's (who by the way would then be able to run a route vice blocking all the time) work the seams and get open.


Our QB's start making completions, our Offense starts to click and all the scheme haters crawl back into thier holes.

;D

Set em Straight Marrdro

Ranger
09-21-2007, 07:20 PM
Kelly is a really good backup to have, imo, but...he's a backup for a reason.
He's not only captain checkdown, but he's pretty fragile as well.
Even if he has a four hundred yarder in KC, he wont be able to last too many games before getting broken.

TJ is our guy.
That's what the coaching decided, that's who it needs to be.
Keep him in as much as you can, and just expect that this season will be one of maturation.
AP getting some reps, young receivers learning the game...it's not a bad season, even with a repeat of last year's record.

My only concern is that TJ wouldn't have been MY guy.
He's too...meh...for me.
Doesn't have a large college resume in his back pocket and seems to be a serious gamble at potential.


Shaub is lookin' mighty nice right about now.

singersp
09-21-2007, 07:20 PM
Holcomb Could Put Childress In a Tight Spot With a Good Game (http://www.purplepride.org/forums/index.php?topic=37913.170)

Ranger
09-21-2007, 07:35 PM
Didn't read the article, but I can guess what it's talking about.

I still think you have to stick with TJ.
There's no future in Kelly at all, and juggling quarterbacks never works out right.
Stick with the kid and let him grow.
Hell, they gave up on Brees in two years, but he seemed to do pretty well once he got into the groove.
TJ has only had a very few games to learn, so...we'll suffer along with him on the chance that he'll mature into something special.

NodakPaul
09-21-2007, 10:35 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


He also has a responsibility to Wilf for the betterment of this team for both the near and the far.
Wouldn't we be right back in the same boat (scuse the pun) next year with TJ under center, still raw and inexperienced?

Wouldn't ticket sales still slip?

At some point the kid (or another kid) will have to play, struggle doing it, for the team to have a long term solution at QB or are we saying that we want to always have a rent a QB running this team?



Maybe.
Maybe not.
Last year, TJack spent nearly the entire season on the practice squad learning.
He may have gotten the terms and plays down, but didn't get any veteran mentoring.
The plan was always to let him learn for a couple of years.
Then he was thrust into the starting role by BJ sucking and BB getting hurt.

If Holcomb shows he can lead the team to wins, then I think it would be beneficial for TJack to sit as the #2 (instead of the #3) and absorb some of the veteran's knowledge.
Next season he would be more prepared to lead the team.
And if we post a winning record, then ticket sales would pick up again.

Again, I am not anti-TJ.
In fact, I think he will be a great QB.
But if we currently stand a better chance to win with Holcomb under center, then so be it.
For now...

jargomcfargo
09-22-2007, 01:12 PM
"PurpleTide" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


Scenario 1

Holcumb plays well,and he will, Tarvaris gets time to heal up completely.Sits until a game where Holcumb struggles. Tarvaris comes off the bench.

Scenario 2

Holcumb plays well, but gets yanked when Tarvaris is ready to go.

Scenario 3





















Holcumb stinks. Tarvaris returns as soon as possible.

Scenario 4

Holcumb stinks. Bollinger comes in. Wilf goes ballistic. PP.O server has meltdown.

I like scenario 1 best.

I like this one best.

They fix the fricken OL so that they can block someone.


Our QB's have time to stand in the pocket while our WR's and TE's (who by the way would then be able to run a route vice blocking all the time) work the seams and get open.


Our QB's start making completions, our Offense starts to click and all the scheme haters crawl back into thier holes.

;D

Set em Straight Marrdro



I never said there was anything wrong with the scheme.
The problem is as follows.
TJ has to complete some of those downfield passes despite the pressure, or the line is going to get challenged with blitzes and overloads. Even if the line plays well they can't stop the pressure until TJ can start making the defense pay for their gambles by burning them with completions.
So yes the line stinks at times,.But TJ needs to help them. He needs to do what Tom Brady did to us last year. Make the read and the throw before the pressure can get there.
The scheme is fine. TJ is not Tom Brady.......yet!

Angel_Martin
09-22-2007, 06:10 PM
The thing that I can't figure out is why do so many people seem to think Jackson is this great QB or that he has this great future here??? He has done NOTHING to warrant any of this other than the Vikings used a 2nd round draft pick on him. People only usually reserve this high of expectations for a high first round pick. Even when they drafted him, people said he wasn't ready, he was a project and he might eventually be a good NFL QB. That's fine......but throwing him to the wolves before he is ready is a recipe for disaster both for him and the rest of the team.

So far, he doesn't look like he is even close to being ready to being a decent NFL QB, much less "The Franchise." I think people WANT him to be successful and they HOPE he is successful, but that isn't a good enough reason to be our starting QB. I am all in favor of giving Holcomb a shot and he should be our starting QB for as long as he can get the job done.

Nightgaunt
09-22-2007, 08:21 PM
"Angel_Martin" wrote:


The thing that I can't figure out is why do so many people seem to think Jackson is this great QB or that he has this great future here??? He has done NOTHING to warrant any of this other than the Vikings used a 2nd round draft pick on him. People only usually reserve this high of expectations for a high first round pick. Even when they drafted him, people said he wasn't ready, he was a project and he might eventually be a good NFL QB. That's fine......but throwing him to the wolves before he is ready is a recipe for disaster both for him and the rest of the team.

So far, he doesn't look like he is even close to being ready to being a decent NFL QB, much less "The Franchise." I think people WANT him to be successful and they HOPE he is successful, but that isn't a good enough reason to be our starting QB. I am all in favor of giving Holcomb a shot and he should be our starting QB for as long as he can get the job done.


There in denial, nuff said.

midgensa
09-22-2007, 08:54 PM
I have no problem with Jolcomb as our QB if he plays well, allowing Tarvaris not only to heal, but get his head together and learn a little. There should, however, be an understanding that this is still T-Jack's future position. It would not be right to throw T-Jack to the wolves right now (although without Garnett, maybe they could use him too). I think that Tarvaris could still learn a little and grow while Holcomb leads us to better chances to win now. T-Jack should still be the future of this position in Vikingland if not the now.

Zeus
09-22-2007, 10:13 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


He also has a responsibility to Wilf for the betterment of this team for both the near and the far.

Wouldn't we be right back in the same boat (scuse the pun) next year with TJ under center, still raw and inexperienced?

Wouldn't ticket sales still slip?

At some point the kid (or another kid) will have to play, struggle doing it, for the team to have a long term solution at QB or are we saying that we want to always have a rent a QB running this team?



Maybe.
Maybe not.
Last year, TJack spent nearly the entire season on the practice squad learning.
He may have gotten the terms and plays down, but didn't get any veteran mentoring.
The plan was always to let him learn for a couple of years.
Then he was thrust into the starting role by BJ sucking and BB getting hurt.

If Holcomb shows he can lead the team to wins, then I think it would be beneficial for TJack to sit as the #2 (instead of the #3) and absorb some of the veteran's knowledge.
Next season he would be more prepared to lead the team.
And if we post a winning record, then ticket sales would pick up again.


Taking his job away because of injury, rather than performance, could possibly go a long way to undermining TJack's confidence for the long-term.
If he struggles and his pulled, that's hugely different from losing the job because you got pulled the wrong direction evading a sack.

=Z=

Marrdro
09-23-2007, 08:45 AM
"Angel_Martin" wrote:


The thing that I can't figure out is why do so many people seem to think Jackson is this great QB or that he has this great future here??? He has done NOTHING to warrant any of this other than the Vikings used a 2nd round draft pick on him. People only usually reserve this high of expectations for a high first round pick. Even when they drafted him, people said he wasn't ready, he was a project and he might eventually be a good NFL QB. That's fine......but throwing him to the wolves before he is ready is a recipe for disaster both for him and the rest of the team.

So far, he doesn't look like he is even close to being ready to being a decent NFL QB, much less "The Franchise." I think people WANT him to be successful and they HOPE he is successful, but that isn't a good enough reason to be our starting QB. I am all in favor of giving Holcomb a shot and he should be our starting QB for as long as he can get the job done.


Hmmmmmmm.
Seems to me that the only people who use the term "Great" and "TJ" in the same sentence are the TJ haters.

As far as he hasn't shown "NOTHING" to prove that he doesn't have potential I think is a bit short sighted on your part.
With the exception of 4 plays last week (4 Int) he has done nothing to prove one way or the other yet.
In fact he has shown us exactly what all of us TJ supporters know and that is the fact that he is raw, inexperienced and still needs time to get to the point were he can manage a game and not loose a game for us.

With that said, I still think he has the potential to be a very good QB that will be a good fit for this scheme if he is given the time and opportunity to get the reps/experience to get there.

With that in mind I would like to point out that there are two thought processes behind how he should get that experience.
Some believe he should sit on the bench and learn via old school methods of watching.
The other thought is to have him learn under fire.


I am one of those that believe in learning by doing.
Am I right?
Who knows.

On a side note, I have high expectations for all of our players regardless of how they wound up on the roster.

Marrdro
09-23-2007, 08:48 AM
"Nightgaunt" wrote:


"Angel_Martin" wrote:


The thing that I can't figure out is why do so many people seem to think Jackson is this great QB or that he has this great future here??? He has done NOTHING to warrant any of this other than the Vikings used a 2nd round draft pick on him. People only usually reserve this high of expectations for a high first round pick. Even when they drafted him, people said he wasn't ready, he was a project and he might eventually be a good NFL QB. That's fine......but throwing him to the wolves before he is ready is a recipe for disaster both for him and the rest of the team.

So far, he doesn't look like he is even close to being ready to being a decent NFL QB, much less "The Franchise." I think people WANT him to be successful and they HOPE he is successful, but that isn't a good enough reason to be our starting QB. I am all in favor of giving Holcomb a shot and he should be our starting QB for as long as he can get the job done.


There in denial, nuff said.

In denial huh.
I would love to address that comment but I might get the green dot.

Suffice it to say that a quick search on your posts shows a very interesting treand
with respect to your though processes and who is really in denial my friend.

;D

NodakPaul
09-23-2007, 08:55 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"Angel_Martin" wrote:


The thing that I can't figure out is why do so many people seem to think Jackson is this great QB or that he has this great future here??? He has done NOTHING to warrant any of this other than the Vikings used a 2nd round draft pick on him. People only usually reserve this high of expectations for a high first round pick. Even when they drafted him, people said he wasn't ready, he was a project and he might eventually be a good NFL QB. That's fine......but throwing him to the wolves before he is ready is a recipe for disaster both for him and the rest of the team.

So far, he doesn't look like he is even close to being ready to being a decent NFL QB, much less "The Franchise." I think people WANT him to be successful and they HOPE he is successful, but that isn't a good enough reason to be our starting QB. I am all in favor of giving Holcomb a shot and he should be our starting QB for as long as he can get the job done.


Hmmmmmmm.
Seems to me that the only people who use the term "Great" and "TJ" in the same sentence are the TJ haters.

As far as he hasn't shown "NOTHING" to prove that he doesn't have potential I think is a bit short sighted on your part.
With the exception of 4 plays last week (4 Int) he has done nothing to prove one way or the other yet.
In fact he has shown us exactly what all of us TJ supporters know and that is the fact that he is raw, inexperienced and still needs time to get to the point were he can manage a game and not loose a game for us.

With that said, I still think he has the potential to be a very good QB that will be a good fit for this scheme if he is given the time and opportunity to get the reps/experience to get there.

With that in mind I would like to point out that there are two thought processes behind how he should get that experience.
Some believe he should sit on the bench and learn via old school methods of watching.
The other thought is to have him learn under fire.


I am one of those that believe in learning by doing.
Am I right?
Who knows.

On a side note, I have high expectations for all of our players regardless of how they wound up on the roster.


Good point Marrdro.

Marrdro
09-23-2007, 09:01 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"Angel_Martin" wrote:


The thing that I can't figure out is why do so many people seem to think Jackson is this great QB or that he has this great future here??? He has done NOTHING to warrant any of this other than the Vikings used a 2nd round draft pick on him. People only usually reserve this high of expectations for a high first round pick. Even when they drafted him, people said he wasn't ready, he was a project and he might eventually be a good NFL QB. That's fine......but throwing him to the wolves before he is ready is a recipe for disaster both for him and the rest of the team.

So far, he doesn't look like he is even close to being ready to being a decent NFL QB, much less "The Franchise." I think people WANT him to be successful and they HOPE he is successful, but that isn't a good enough reason to be our starting QB. I am all in favor of giving Holcomb a shot and he should be our starting QB for as long as he can get the job done.


Hmmmmmmm.

Seems to me that the only people who use the term "Great" and "TJ" in the same sentence are the TJ haters.

As far as he hasn't shown "NOTHING" to prove that he doesn't have potential I think is a bit short sighted on your part.
With the exception of 4 plays last week (4 Int) he has done nothing to prove one way or the other yet.
In fact he has shown us exactly what all of us TJ supporters know and that is the fact that he is raw, inexperienced and still needs time to get to the point were he can manage a game and not loose a game for us.

With that said, I still think he has the potential to be a very good QB that will be a good fit for this scheme if he is given the time and opportunity to get the reps/experience to get there.

With that in mind I would like to point out that there are two thought processes behind how he should get that experience.
Some believe he should sit on the bench and learn via old school methods of watching.
The other thought is to have him learn under fire.


I am one of those that believe in learning by doing.
Am I right?
Who knows.

On a side note, I have high expectations for all of our players regardless of how they wound up on the roster.


Good point Marrdro.


I am faltering though.

;D


Don't get me wrong, I don't think playing is hurting him however, I wonder about his mental aspect.

Caine has made several great posts over the last few months about how starting him might be a mistake. I am pretty close to siding with him on this.

NodakPaul
09-23-2007, 09:04 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"Angel_Martin" wrote:


The thing that I can't figure out is why do so many people seem to think Jackson is this great QB or that he has this great future here??? He has done NOTHING to warrant any of this other than the Vikings used a 2nd round draft pick on him. People only usually reserve this high of expectations for a high first round pick. Even when they drafted him, people said he wasn't ready, he was a project and he might eventually be a good NFL QB. That's fine......but throwing him to the wolves before he is ready is a recipe for disaster both for him and the rest of the team.

So far, he doesn't look like he is even close to being ready to being a decent NFL QB, much less "The Franchise." I think people WANT him to be successful and they HOPE he is successful, but that isn't a good enough reason to be our starting QB. I am all in favor of giving Holcomb a shot and he should be our starting QB for as long as he can get the job done.


Hmmmmmmm.
Seems to me that the only people who use the term "Great" and "TJ" in the same sentence are the TJ haters.

As far as he hasn't shown "NOTHING" to prove that he doesn't have potential I think is a bit short sighted on your part.
With the exception of 4 plays last week (4 Int) he has done nothing to prove one way or the other yet.
In fact he has shown us exactly what all of us TJ supporters know and that is the fact that he is raw, inexperienced and still needs time to get to the point were he can manage a game and not loose a game for us.

With that said, I still think he has the potential to be a very good QB that will be a good fit for this scheme if he is given the time and opportunity to get the reps/experience to get there.

With that in mind I would like to point out that there are two thought processes behind how he should get that experience.
Some believe he should sit on the bench and learn via old school methods of watching.
The other thought is to have him learn under fire.


I am one of those that believe in learning by doing.
Am I right?
Who knows.

On a side note, I have high expectations for all of our players regardless of how they wound up on the roster.


Good point Marrdro.


I am faltering though.

;D


Don't get me wrong, I don't think playing is hurting him however, I wonder about his mental aspect.

Caine has made several great posts over the last few months about how starting him might be a mistake. I am pretty close to siding with him on this.


I hear you.
I am still a huge TJ fan, but I am wondering if more development time is needed.
If Holcomb performs well, I may prefer to see him learn some more.

singersp
09-23-2007, 10:15 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"Angel_Martin" wrote:


The thing that I can't figure out is why do so many people seem to think Jackson is this great QB or that he has this great future here??? He has done NOTHING to warrant any of this other than the Vikings used a 2nd round draft pick on him. People only usually reserve this high of expectations for a high first round pick. Even when they drafted him, people said he wasn't ready, he was a project and he might eventually be a good NFL QB. That's fine......but throwing him to the wolves before he is ready is a recipe for disaster both for him and the rest of the team.

So far, he doesn't look like he is even close to being ready to being a decent NFL QB, much less "The Franchise." I think people WANT him to be successful and they HOPE he is successful, but that isn't a good enough reason to be our starting QB. I am all in favor of giving Holcomb a shot and he should be our starting QB for as long as he can get the job done.


Hmmmmmmm.

Seems to me that the only people who use the term "Great" and "TJ" in the same sentence are the TJ haters.

As far as he hasn't shown "NOTHING" to prove that he doesn't have potential I think is a bit short sighted on your part.
With the exception of 4 plays last week (4 Int) he has done nothing to prove one way or the other yet.
In fact he has shown us exactly what all of us TJ supporters know and that is the fact that he is raw, inexperienced and still needs time to get to the point were he can manage a game and not loose a game for us.

With that said, I still think he has the potential to be a very good QB that will be a good fit for this scheme if he is given the time and opportunity to get the reps/experience to get there.

With that in mind I would like to point out that there are two thought processes behind how he should get that experience.
Some believe he should sit on the bench and learn via old school methods of watching.
The other thought is to have him learn under fire.


I am one of those that believe in learning by doing.
Am I right?
Who knows.

On a side note, I have high expectations for all of our players regardless of how they wound up on the roster.


Good point Marrdro.


I am faltering though.

;D



Don't get me wrong, I don't think playing is hurting him however, I wonder about his mental aspect.

Caine has made several great posts over the last few months about how starting him might be a mistake. I am pretty close to siding with him on this.


If he gets pressured & sacked to often, it could really damage him physcologically/mentally. I recall a great QB in college that it happened to in the pros & it ruined his career in the first year. I don't recall the QB, but it was televised on the NFL channel. It was from quite a few year back.

I for one agree with Childress. I think T-Jack is ready to play in this league, but also agree with Caine that perhaps we shouldn't start him.

T-Jack is ready. It's our OL that is not.

Marrdro
09-23-2007, 10:25 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"Angel_Martin" wrote:


The thing that I can't figure out is why do so many people seem to think Jackson is this great QB or that he has this great future here??? He has done NOTHING to warrant any of this other than the Vikings used a 2nd round draft pick on him. People only usually reserve this high of expectations for a high first round pick. Even when they drafted him, people said he wasn't ready, he was a project and he might eventually be a good NFL QB. That's fine......but throwing him to the wolves before he is ready is a recipe for disaster both for him and the rest of the team.

So far, he doesn't look like he is even close to being ready to being a decent NFL QB, much less "The Franchise." I think people WANT him to be successful and they HOPE he is successful, but that isn't a good enough reason to be our starting QB. I am all in favor of giving Holcomb a shot and he should be our starting QB for as long as he can get the job done.


Hmmmmmmm.

Seems to me that the only people who use the term "Great" and "TJ" in the same sentence are the TJ haters.

As far as he hasn't shown "NOTHING" to prove that he doesn't have potential I think is a bit short sighted on your part.
With the exception of 4 plays last week (4 Int) he has done nothing to prove one way or the other yet.
In fact he has shown us exactly what all of us TJ supporters know and that is the fact that he is raw, inexperienced and still needs time to get to the point were he can manage a game and not loose a game for us.

With that said, I still think he has the potential to be a very good QB that will be a good fit for this scheme if he is given the time and opportunity to get the reps/experience to get there.

With that in mind I would like to point out that there are two thought processes behind how he should get that experience.
Some believe he should sit on the bench and learn via old school methods of watching.
The other thought is to have him learn under fire.


I am one of those that believe in learning by doing.
Am I right?
Who knows.

On a side note, I have high expectations for all of our players regardless of how they wound up on the roster.


Good point Marrdro.


I am faltering though.

;D



Don't get me wrong, I don't think playing is hurting him however, I wonder about his mental aspect.

Caine has made several great posts over the last few months about how starting him might be a mistake. I am pretty close to siding with him on this.


If he gets pressured & sacked to often, it could really damage him physcologically/mentally. I recall a great QB in college that it happened to in the pros & it ruined his career in the first year. I don't recall the QB, but it was televised on the NFL channel. It was from quite a few year back.

I for one agree with Childress. I think T-Jack is ready to play in this league, but also agree with Caine that perhaps we shouldn't start him.

T-Jack is ready. It's our OL that is not.

If the OL doesn't improve this weekend I am gonna start a "Fire the OL Coach" thread
;D