PDA

View Full Version : Bollinger starting QB next year?



gagarr
11-09-2007, 11:17 AM
What would Bollinger need to do the rest of this year to be the starting QB next year?

If Bollinger is able to have 65% completion with a 100+ QB rating and show consistency, he's a keeper.

I would hate to see the Vikes to spend $$$ or draft picks to bring in a QB.
It is proven that you can win SB's without a Blue Chip QB, i.e. TB/Johnson, Ravens/Dilfer.
The Vikes running game will help even a average QB look good.

Use the draft or FA to help in WR or DL/DB (need QB pressure).

El Vikingo
11-09-2007, 11:27 AM
Kelly Holcomb:Too old
TJ:Too young
BB:Too irregular player

We need a good QB for the next season,be sure our stuff is going to push to get one.

marstc09
11-09-2007, 11:47 AM
"gagarr" wrote:


What would Bollinger need to do the rest of this year to be the starting QB next year?

If Bollinger is able to have 65% completion with a 100+ QB rating and show consistency, he's a keeper.

I would hate to see the Vikes to spend $$$ or draft picks to bring in a QB.
It is proven that you can win SB's without a Blue Chip QB, i.e. TB/Johnson, Ravens/Dilfer.
The Vikes running game will help even a average QB look good.

Use the draft or FA to help in WR or DL/DB (need QB pressure).




I really do not want to draft another DE. I really like R.Edwards, Brian Robison, Kenechi Udeze has played better, and Erasmus James can be good if he gets healthy. We have good backups in Darrion Scott and Jayme Mitchell. Remember most of these guys are young and still learning. If they play like they did last game for the rest of the season, we will be set at DE.

I really think are CBs are going to be good. They just need some time to develop.

I also like our WRs. I think Rice will develop into a playmaker.

We need a QB to start winning these close games. I say get McNabb in here while TJ learns.

I think we need to use the draft on an OL but he needs to be a stud otherwise use FA.

bleedpurple
11-09-2007, 11:55 AM
Doubt that dude starts.. Matter fact, i don't see how they could go another season without getting a Vet QB in here..
It looks like it may be mcNabb.. which i'm totally cool with as long as he keeps his trap SHUT!!!

NO way Bollinger is the #1 QB next year... Even if he put up Brady like #'s the next 8 games and we win all of them.. (unlikely) i still think they'd bring in somebody else and let them compete..

just my opinion though..

COJOMAY
11-09-2007, 12:00 PM
McNabb will be our #1 QB next year!
Or how about we put MeMo under center with Peterson and Taylor in the backfield and just run the option.

IBleedPurple11
11-09-2007, 12:04 PM
yah i agree....bring in McNabb...A change of team might light a spark under his ass and our WR's are better than his. He will have Adrian to hand off to, and we have a better oline than the IGGLES.

Better than drafting another young QB to watch our season fall apart. Ride Mcnabb for a couple years and have him teach T-Jac.

But, will we trade for him or will the IGGLES release him? that IS the question...

Also.....If Childress is fired then i dont think we will get McNabb.

El Vikingo
11-09-2007, 12:09 PM
"COJOMAY" wrote:


McNabb will be our #1 QB next year!
Or how about we put MeMo under center with Peterson and Taylor in the backfield and just run the option.


During the season that thougth has also came to my mind......

vikingivan
11-09-2007, 12:13 PM
We definately need an upgrade at quarterback.
McNabb, Anderson, Pennington, or a quality veteran.
The important thing is that no matter who we get we continue to play "Smash Mouth"
football.
No surprises, run right at them and make them stop it, then mix in a nice play action and hit Rice on a deep one.

Zeus
11-09-2007, 12:13 PM
"IBleedPurple28" wrote:


Also.....If Childress is fired then i dont think we will get McNabb.


Childress won't be fired.

McNabb isnt't available at this time.

So, if we're living in FANTASY land, I vote they trade for Tom Brady.
I bet they could get him for AD and all of the 2008 draft picks.

=Z=

midgensa
11-09-2007, 12:16 PM
"gagarr" wrote:


What would Bollinger need to do the rest of this year to be the starting QB next year?

If Bollinger is able to have 65% completion with a 100+ QB rating and show consistency, he's a keeper.

I would hate to see the Vikes to spend $$$ or draft picks to bring in a QB.
It is proven that you can win SB's without a Blue Chip QB, i.e. TB/Johnson, Ravens/Dilfer.
The Vikes running game will help even a average QB look good.

Use the draft or FA to help in WR or DL/DB (need QB pressure).



Sure ... you CAN win with an "unproven" QB, but only FOUR out of 41 Super Bowls have been won by a QB who NEVER went to a Pro Bowl (Jim Plunkett x 2, Doug Williams and Ben Roethlisberger - who will go to this year's Pro Bowl). So, 37 Super Bowls have been won by QBs who at some point in their career were in the top 4-6 at the position in the league.
Brooks Bollinger will NEVER be a top 6 QB ... probably not even a top 20 QB. Which means at best we have a 4 in 41 chance to win a Super Bowl (and by next season that will be a 3 in 42 chance). Having a QB who can play is essential to winning it all ... and Bollinger is not the answer.

Purple Floyd
11-09-2007, 12:20 PM
Let's just get past the Packers forst and see how he plays against them before we go worrying about next year.

Personally I am going to enjoy the AP rookie year and hope he kicks ass every week.

McNabb would be a cancer in the locker room. If we bring him in we might just as well bring back Moss.

WisconsinSucks
11-09-2007, 12:21 PM
"midgensa" wrote:


"gagarr" wrote:


What would Bollinger need to do the rest of this year to be the starting QB next year?

If Bollinger is able to have 65% completion with a 100+ QB rating and show consistency, he's a keeper.

I would hate to see the Vikes to spend $$$ or draft picks to bring in a QB.
It is proven that you can win SB's without a Blue Chip QB, i.e. TB/Johnson, Ravens/Dilfer.
The Vikes running game will help even a average QB look good.

Use the draft or FA to help in WR or DL/DB (need QB pressure).






Sure ... you CAN win with an "unproven" QB, but only FOUR out of 41 Super Bowls have been won by a QB who NEVER went to a Pro Bowl (Jim Plunkett x 2, Doug Williams and Ben Roethlisberger - who will go to this year's Pro Bowl). So, 37 Super Bowls have been won by QBs who at some point in their career were in the top 4-6 at the position in the league.
Brooks Bollinger will NEVER be a top 6 QB ... probably not even a top 20 QB. Which means at best we have a 4 in 41 chance to win a Super Bowl (and by next season that will be a 3 in 42 chance). Having a QB who can play is essential to winning it all ... and Bollinger is not the answer.


So you're sayin there's a chance!

IBleedPurple11
11-09-2007, 12:23 PM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


Let's just get past the Packers forst and see how he plays against them before we go worrying about next year.

Personally I am going to enjoy the AP rookie year and hope he kicks ass every week.

McNabb would be a cancer in the locker room. If we bring him in we might just as well bring back Moss.


IM DOWN! McNabb, Moss, Rice, All Day....haha Amazing!

marstc09
11-09-2007, 12:24 PM
"IBleedPurple28" wrote:


yah i agree....bring in McNabb...A change of team might light a spark under his ass and our WR's are better than his. He will have Adrian to hand off to, and we have a better oline than the IGGLES.

Better than drafting another young QB to watch our season fall apart. Ride Mcnabb for a couple years and have him teach T-Jac.

But, will we trade for him or will the IGGLES release him? that IS the question...

Also.....If Childress is fired then i dont think we will get McNabb.


Chilly will find a way to get him! He has a knack for getting Eagle players.

sharper42
11-09-2007, 12:28 PM
"El" wrote:


Kelly Holcomb:Too old
TJ:Too young
BB:Too irregular player
We need a good QB for the next season,be sure our stuff is going to push to get one.
too irregular ??? ??? please define irregular

COJOMAY
11-09-2007, 12:37 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"IBleedPurple28" wrote:


Also.....If Childress is fired then i dont think we will get McNabb.


Childress won't be fired.

McNabb isnt't available at this time.

So, if we're living in FANTASY land, I vote they trade for Tom Brady. I bet they could get him for AD and all of the 2008 draft picks.

=Z=

No one said we were going to get McNabb this week or even this season. I can almost guarantee you he won't be with the Eagles next year -- that's a given. He's still suffering from an injury that takes a year to really heal up right. There's the Childress/Philly connection and Childress was his QB coach. You can almost bet he'll be in Minnesota if Childress is still here and I don't doubt that for a minute.

El Vikingo
11-09-2007, 12:44 PM
"sharper42" wrote:


"El" wrote:


Kelly Holcomb:Too old
TJ:Too young
BB:Too irregular player
We need a good QB for the next season,be sure our stuff is going to push to get one.
too irregular ??? ??? please define irregular


Irregular,well I thougth it had the same meaning in english, He can make a good game and the very next one suck,the next one
an average ,the next one ... and
so to infinite.what´s the rite word "accurate "?

gagarr
11-09-2007, 01:17 PM
So noone really wants to answer my original question on Bollinger.
What would it take for Bollinger to be brought back as the starting QB.
Most seem to think it won't happen regardless, not even to be considered.
Even if he finishes with a 140 QB rating, 20 TD's, and Pro Bowl?
The guy has talent, as he showed at Wisconsin, he just doesn't have the ability to carry a team on his own, that now is AD's roll.

Yes, I know it's better to concentrate on GB.
What I wanted to see is people believing Bollinger has potential.
He's only been around 5 years.
I think if Chilly starts him (and he better), he will be the difference in winning the game.
He will make the 3 down conversions as he did with SD.
If the GB play the run too aggressive, which many analysts believe they will, then he will make the outlets or if given time the long balls.

Prediction: Bollinger will finish the game with a 100+ QB rating.

If TJ starts, he won't break 70, WHY because he isn't comfortable and GB will run blitz all day long like they did against KC.
TJ will get happy feet, try to run or throw INT's.
BB might not win the game, but TJ can very well lose the game for the Vikes.

marstc09
11-09-2007, 01:20 PM
"sharper42" wrote:


"El" wrote:


Kelly Holcomb:Too old
TJ:Too young
BB:Too irregular player
We need a good QB for the next season,be sure our stuff is going to push to get one.
too irregular ??? ??? please define irregular


I think my spanish friend meant consistant.

Garland Greene
11-09-2007, 01:33 PM
There is a solid Veteran QB that will be made available that we do not think will be that would be great for our system.


And the Vikings will pass on him, just like they did this year.

marstc09
11-09-2007, 01:38 PM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


Let's just get past the Packers forst and see how he plays against them before we go worrying about next year.

Personally I am going to enjoy the AP rookie year and hope he kicks ass every week.

McNabb would be a cancer in the locker room. If we bring him in we might just as well bring back Moss.


I new winning team might be what he needs. If we had him I think we could be a force. TJ might be a year or two away.

gagarr
11-09-2007, 02:14 PM
"marstc09" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


Let's just get past the Packers forst and see how he plays against them before we go worrying about next year.

Personally I am going to enjoy the AP rookie year and hope he kicks jiggly butt every week.

McNabb would be a cancer in the locker room. If we bring him in we might just as well bring back Moss.


I new winning team might be what he needs. If we had him I think we could be a force. TJ might be a year or two away.


NOT McNabb please!
QB needs to be a leader, not a cry baby.
"The fans boo me" :(
"I'm not given a chance cus I'm Black, not because I'm playing like crap"
:(
"My teammates suck" :(
boo hoo boo hoo
I'd rather stay with TJ, and that's saying alot as I'm not a fan.

I want a QB that plays the roll that he's NOT going to be the star.
A QB that is satisfied with handing the ball off 75% of the time,
throwing screens and intermediate passes, and knows he will not have Pro Bowl numbers .
McNabb won't be this guy.

I want someone that is a true leader... if they don't find it team mates may start to look at AD and that might be too much for the guy at this time.
Someone who has confidence, energy, and commitment.

It's not necessary for them to have a cannon for an arm, be very mobile, or can thread the needle with a frozen rope.

Low turnovers and accuracy on short/intermediate passes.
70% completion for 150+yds would be fine.
Move the chains!

V-Unit
11-09-2007, 02:21 PM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


Let's just get past the Packers forst and see how he plays against them before we go worrying about next year.

Personally I am going to enjoy the AP rookie year and hope he kicks ass every week.

McNabb would be a cancer in the locker room. If we bring him in we might just as well bring back Moss.


You have been saying this a lot without much proof. Yes, there has been some controversy with regards to McNabb and the media, but never has a teammate, other than TO, spoke badly of McNabb.

McNabb is nowhere close to a cancer, he is the exact opposite, a leader. He is the face of the Eagles, and every single teammate of his has his back.

Comparing McNabb to Moss? Gimme a break.

Frostbite
11-09-2007, 02:42 PM
"gagarr" wrote:


What would Bollinger need to do the rest of this year to be the starting QB next year?If Bollinger is able to have 65% completion with a 100+ QB rating and show consistency, he's a keeper.

I would hate to see the Vikes to spend $$$ or draft picks to bring in a QB.
It is proven that you can win SB's without a Blue Chip QB, i.e. TB/Johnson, Ravens/Dilfer.
The Vikes running game will help even a average QB look good.

Use the draft or FA to help in WR or DL/DB (need QB pressure).






He would need to keep having better than average games (Like He's been doing) and have people (Coaches Players and Fans alike) start believing in him. He must continue to show pocket savy...accurate throwing....positive yards in 3rd down passing situations and be a TEAM LEADER.

I am not on a Brooks Bollinger Band Wagon here at all. I am meerly pointing out that since he came in in relief he's done a good job. He may be one of those rare players that doesn't impress anybody or really get it in gear until they are given a real chance to shine. So far...he's been making the most of the opportunity.

I am a firm believer in rewarding players that excell beyond expectations with more playing time to do so. Green Bay will be another great opportunity for BB to show skeptics (Like Me) what he's capable of. I say keep him as starter. He gives us the best chance to win Sunday.


Cheers!

COJOMAY
11-09-2007, 02:45 PM
"gagarr" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


Let's just get past the Packers forst and see how he plays against them before we go worrying about next year.

Personally I am going to enjoy the AP rookie year and hope he kicks jiggly butt every week.

McNabb would be a cancer in the locker room. If we bring him in we might just as well bring back Moss.


I new winning team might be what he needs. If we had him I think we could be a force. TJ might be a year or two away.


NOT McNabb please!
QB needs to be a leader, not a cry baby.
"The fans boo me" :(
"I'm not given a chance cus I'm Black, not because I'm playing like crap"
:(
"My teammates suck" :(
boo hoo boo hoo
I'd rather stay with TJ, and that's saying alot as I'm not a fan.

I want a QB that plays the roll that he's NOT going to be the star.
A QB that is satisfied with handing the ball off 75% of the time,
throwing screens and intermediate passes, and knows he will not have Pro Bowl numbers .
McNabb won't be this guy.

I want someone that is a true leader... if they don't find it team mates may start to look at AD and that might be too much for the guy at this time.
Someone who has confidence, energy, and commitment.

It's not necessary for them to have a cannon for an arm, be very mobile, or can thread the needle with a frozen rope.

Low turnovers and accuracy on short/intermediate passes.
70% completion for 150+yds would be fine.
Move the chains!

Winning does a lot to cure all those points you are making.

gagarr
11-09-2007, 02:50 PM
"Frostbite" wrote:


"gagarr" wrote:


What would Bollinger need to do the rest of this year to be the starting QB next year?If Bollinger is able to have 65% completion with a 100+ QB rating and show consistency, he's a keeper.

I would hate to see the Vikes to spend $$$ or draft picks to bring in a QB.
It is proven that you can win SB's without a Blue Chip QB, i.e. TB/Johnson, Ravens/Dilfer.
The Vikes running game will help even a average QB look good.

Use the draft or FA to help in WR or DL/DB (need QB pressure).




Great post Frost!
Just the kind of logic that I was looking for... I agree fully.
But I will never expect more out of BB than to manage a game, not win it, just not to lose it (ie turnovers)




He would need to keep having better than average games (Like He's been doing) and have people (Coaches Players and Fans alike) start believing in him. He must continue to show pocket savy...accurate throwing....positive yards in 3rd down passing situations and be a TEAM LEADER.

I am not on a Brooks Bollinger Band Wagon here at all. I am meerly pointing out that since he came in in relief he's done a good job. He may be one of those rare players that doesn't impress anybody or really get it in gear until they are given a real chance to shine. So far...he's been making the most of the opportunity.

I am a firm believer in rewarding players that excell beyond expectations with more playing time to do so. Green Bay will be another great opportunity for BB to show skeptics (Like Me) what he's capable of. I say keep him as starter. He gives us the best chance to win Sunday.


Cheers!

V-Unit
11-09-2007, 03:59 PM
"gagarr" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


Let's just get past the Packers forst and see how he plays against them before we go worrying about next year.

Personally I am going to enjoy the AP rookie year and hope he kicks jiggly butt every week.

McNabb would be a cancer in the locker room. If we bring him in we might just as well bring back Moss.


I new winning team might be what he needs. If we had him I think we could be a force. TJ might be a year or two away.


NOT McNabb please!
QB needs to be a leader, not a cry baby.
"The fans boo me" :(
"I'm not given a chance cus I'm Black, not because I'm playing like crap"
:(

"My teammates suck" :(

boo hoo boo hoo

I'd rather stay with TJ, and that's saying alot as I'm not a fan.

I want a QB that plays the roll that he's NOT going to be the star.
A QB that is satisfied with handing the ball off 75% of the time,
throwing screens and intermediate passes, and knows he will not have Pro Bowl numbers .
McNabb won't be this guy.

I want someone that is a true leader... if they don't find it team mates may start to look at AD and that might be too much for the guy at this time.
Someone who has confidence, energy, and commitment.

It's not necessary for them to have a cannon for an arm, be very mobile, or can thread the needle with a frozen rope.

Low turnovers and accuracy on short/intermediate passes.
70% completion for 150+yds would be fine.
Move the chains!


1. The fans booed him once, when they wanted Ricky instead. They were obviously wrong, and haven't booed him since.
2. McNabb's main issue has always been healthiness, not mediocre play. When he is healthy, he has been a very legit QB. Has he played the race card? Sure, but when has that ever affected the team?
3. He was talking about TO, who deserves every bit of criticism he has received. How can you forget that TO was the cancer there, not McNabb? It frankly pisses me off.

Why would you take a role player over a star unless you think the offense is already overloaded with stars, which it is obviously not. McNabb has played in the WCO his entire career! His favorite target is his RB! Yet you say he won't be ok with throwing screens and short routes. That is just a lie.

McNabb is a true leader. He leads by his play on the field. He leads by building relationships with his teammates, and not caring about anyone else. McNabb doesn't have confidence, energy, or committment? What are you smoking? The man has played on an offense where he and Westbrook were the only playmakers for almost 8 years now.

Before last sunday, McNabb had 2 picks in 7 games. Now he has 5 in 8 games. The guy simply has what it takes. If you want to argue he is past his prime, I could understand that, but you act as if McNabb is a team cancer, which he is not, and not a good football player, which he definetly is.

Vikes_King
11-09-2007, 04:06 PM
i'd be fine with McNabb, he's proven himself plenty of times.

Fresno Bob
11-09-2007, 04:19 PM
I'm one of those people who agree with frostbite, although we definitely seem to be the minority. I'm not so convinced Bollinger is as "terrible" as he seems to be made out to be. I don't recall him playing enough anywhere and regularly enough anywhere to earn that sort or reputation. I think he's a fairly unproven sort of commodity. All I know is he did a reasonably competent job last week, and, after all, that's all we are really looking for here: an acceptable level of competence.

Sure, it would be nice to have a straight-A type student in there taking snaps. But they are few and very far between right now in the NFL. All we need for success right now is a good solid C student.

I think if the training camp job had seriously been wide open, Bollinger would have been the smarter choice of strater over T-jack. I think T-jack could develop into a fine QB, but Chilly's most glaring mistake has been his one-eyed unwavering stance on him being ready to start NOW. It's painfully obvious to everyone watching that he's not; the stubborn insistence on his readiness now is borderline bizzare...

I say: leave Brooks the starter until he proves that he shouldn't be. He might just surprise us all...after all, how nice would it be to go into the next season with a decent draft pick that perhaps doesn't have to be a QB...just a thought.

NodakPaul
11-09-2007, 04:20 PM
I'm not concerned about next year yet.
I am thinking about this year.
As of today, I hope the Brooks finishes out the season as starter.
Yes, he is very inconsistent, but I think he is the best option that we have in our QB corps.

I have been in favor of keeping TJ as starter prior to this.
My argument was that we needed to know for sure what we have in TJ so we know where we need to go with QB next year.
I think we know now.
His durability concerns me, as does his decision making ability and touch on his passes.
Plus, his long ball simply is not very accurate.

Put Brooks in for the rest of the season in hopes of making a playoff run.
Then bring in a veteran or trade up for a first round QB in the draft for next year.
Just my 2 cents.

Vikes_King
11-09-2007, 04:23 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


I'm not concerned about next year yet.
I am thinking about this year.
As of today, I hope the Brooks finishes out the season as starter.
Yes, he is very inconsistent, but I think he is the best option that we have in our QB corps.

I have been in favor of keeping TJ as starter prior to this.
My argument was that we needed to know for sure what we have in TJ so we know where we need to go with QB next year.
I think we know now.
His durability concerns me, as does his decision making ability and touch on his passes.
Plus, his long ball simply is not very accurate.

Put Brooks in for the rest of the season in hopes of making a playoff run.
Then bring in a veteran or trade up for a first round QB in the draft for next year.
Just my 2 cents.


thats possible.. dont we have 2 or 3 third round picks to use?

renovikesfan
11-09-2007, 04:34 PM
I'm pretty certain that if Childress is still coaching the Vikings next year, we'll be seeing McNabb in purple...and after him, the depth at QB should look like this:

2) Bollinger
3) Jackson
4) Draft Pick

vikesoto
11-09-2007, 04:48 PM
I hope that the Vikings address the QB position this offseson. As much as I wanna see T.J. succeed, as of right now, he's just not the QB the Vikes need him to be. Granted he is not to blame for dropped passes, or poor pass protection, but that being said, he still needs to improve. Bollinger isn't going to take this team anywhere so I hope that he's NOT the starter next year. Then again, who knows..

V-Unit
11-09-2007, 05:22 PM
"Fresno" wrote:


I'm one of those people who agree with frostbite, although we definitely seem to be the minority. I'm not so convinced Bollinger is as "terrible" as he seems to be made out to be. I don't recall him playing enough anywhere and regularly enough anywhere to earn that sort or reputation. I think he's a fairly unproven sort of commodity. All I know is he did a reasonably competent job last week, and, after all, that's all we are really looking for here: an acceptable level of competence.

Sure, it would be nice to have a straight-A type student in there taking snaps. But they are few and very far between right now in the NFL. All we need for success right now is a good solid C student.

I think if the training camp job had seriously been wide open, Bollinger would have been the smarter choice of strater over T-jack. I think T-jack could develop into a fine QB, but Chilly's most glaring mistake has been his one-eyed unwavering stance on him being ready to start NOW. It's painfully obvious to everyone watching that he's not; the stubborn insistence on his readiness now is borderline bizzare...

I say: leave Brooks the starter until he proves that he shouldn't be. He might just surprise us all...after all, how nice would it be to go into the next season with a decent draft pick that perhaps doesn't have to be a QB...just a thought.


Brooks has been exactly that for his entire NFL career.

I agree with you for the most part. Your theory on the preseason is pretty interesting. It was TJ's job to lose. We are now in midseason, and TJ has struggled, but is it still his job to lose? Hopefully we'll find out against Oakland. TJ's injuries have delayed Childress from making a very tough decision.

DustinDupont
11-09-2007, 05:39 PM
how many people wanted bollinger cut in the preseason?

we traded for holcomb cuz bollinger couldnt cut it is a backup.. that is saying something... i do not want bollinger is are starter

bigbadragz
11-09-2007, 06:00 PM
you know people say i'm knee jerk.
are we seriously gonna have this conversation after two relief performances where he's thrown a total of 20 passes?

V-Unit
11-09-2007, 06:48 PM
"renovikesfan" wrote:



I'm pretty certain that if Childress is still coaching the Vikings next year, we'll be seeing McNabb in purple...and after him, the depth at QB should look like this:

2) Bollinger
3) Jackson
4) Draft Pick


That is exactly what I want. If Jackson in his 3rd year under the system can't beat out a rookie in training camp, does he really still belong on the team? We should probably carry 4 QBs next year no matter who they are. I just hope the draft pick is an early one.

"bigbadragz" wrote:


you know people say i'm knee jerk.
are we seriously gonna have this conversation after two relief performances where he's thrown a total of 20 passes?



One of many ways that you can tell we are desperate for a QB. The fact is that B2 is all we've got.

Frostbite
11-09-2007, 07:25 PM
"DustinDupont" wrote:


how many people wanted bollinger cut in the preseason?

we traded for holcomb cuz bollinger couldnt cut it is a backup.. that is saying something... i do not want bollinger is are starter


that is not exactly true dustindupont: We got Holcomb because we needed a another QB on the Roster. My understanding is that BB did not get much work in T. Camp with the Starting Offense if any.

Then By your reasoning... NO player can ever be rewarded with playing time or moving up the ladder unless he does WHAT??? I'm confused because Brooks has done better now working with the Starting Offense (For a Change) than he did in T.Camp according to you and yet you don't think he deserves a chance to show what he can do as a starter because???

And by the way....so much for our trade for Holcomb....He has stunk up the field as the number 2. If nothing else BB deserves to move into the second backup role behind T.Jack.

Don't worry though.....T.Jack will most likely be back in there soon enough....get his bell rung or have some other injury to knock him out again and then BB will be called upon once again by many (Skeptical) fans to save the day....and he still won't get any recognition from fans like you because he doesn't have a NAME/BACKGROUND/ of the usual TOP NFL QB in this League. God forbid anybody judge the guy on his work...performance....execution...attitude....wins....etc.


Cheers!

V-Unit
11-09-2007, 08:27 PM
"Frostbite" wrote:


"DustinDupont" wrote:


how many people wanted bollinger cut in the preseason?

we traded for holcomb cuz bollinger couldnt cut it is a backup.. that is saying something... i do not want bollinger is are starter


that is not exactly true dustindupont: We got Holcomb because we needed a another QB on the Roster. My understanding is that BB did not get much work in T. Camp with the Starting Offense if any.

Then By your reasoning... NO player can ever be rewarded with playing time or moving up the ladder unless he does WHAT??? I'm confused because Brooks has done better now working with the Starting Offense (For a Change) than he did in T.Camp according to you and yet you don't think he deserves a chance to show what he can do as a starter because???

And by the way....so much for our trade for Holcomb....He has stunk up the field as the number 2. If nothing else BB deserves to move into the second backup role behind T.Jack.

Don't worry though.....T.Jack will most likely be back in there soon enough....get his bell rung or have some other injury to knock him out again and then BB will be called upon once again by many (Skeptical) fans to save the day....and he still won't get any recognition from fans like you because he doesn't have a NAME/BACKGROUND/ of the usual TOP NFL QB in this League. God forbid anybody judge the guy on his work...performance....execution...attitude....wins....etc.


Cheers!


Actually, he was spot on. Childress signed Holcomb and cut Thigpen because Bollinger wasn't cutting it. I was definetly one who wanted Bollinger gone in favor of Thigpen, and I wasn't alone.

However, that is not basis to say he does deserve to start. A lot has changed since then, and Bollinger definetly deserves his shot.

tb04512
11-09-2007, 10:06 PM
"Frostbite" wrote:


"DustinDupont" wrote:


how many people wanted bollinger cut in the preseason?

we traded for holcomb cuz bollinger couldnt cut it is a backup.. that is saying something... i do not want bollinger is are starter


that is not exactly true dustindupont: We got Holcomb because we needed a another QB on the Roster. My understanding is that BB did not get much work in T. Camp with the Starting Offense if any.

Then By your reasoning... NO player can ever be rewarded with playing time or moving up the ladder unless he does WHAT??? I'm confused because Brooks has done better now working with the Starting Offense (For a Change) than he did in T.Camp according to you and yet you don't think he deserves a chance to show what he can do as a starter because???

And by the way....so much for our trade for Holcomb....He has stunk up the field as the number 2. If nothing else BB deserves to move into the second backup role behind T.Jack.

Don't worry though.....T.Jack will most likely be back in there soon enough....get his bell rung or have some other injury to knock him out again and then BB will be called upon once again by many (Skeptical) fans to save the day....and he still won't get any recognition from fans like you because he doesn't have a NAME/BACKGROUND/ of the usual TOP NFL QB in this League. God forbid anybody judge the guy on his work...performance....execution...attitude....wins....etc.


Cheers!








First off we got holcomb because Brooks as a backup didnt cut it, we had 4 qbs in the offseason Tjack BB Thigpen and Henson, then traded for holcomb in the beginning of the season...

Secondly Brooks and Tjack shared reps with the First team during the preseason

Third Holcomb came in and was on the team 2 weeks and beat out BB that isnt saying something?

Fourth BB to come in and save the day????????? your kidding right? nvm i guess your right adrian running for 3 tds
and 250 yards in the second half didnt win the game at all
::) ::)

Fifth and finally work ? execution? wins? http://www.nfl.com/players/brooksbollinger/profile?id=BOL549216

NodakPaul
11-09-2007, 10:52 PM
"tb04512" wrote:



First off we got holcomb because Brooks as a backup didnt cut it, we had 4 qbs in the offseason Tjack BB Thigpen and Henson, then traded for holcomb in the beginning of the season...

Secondly Brooks and Tjack shared reps with the First team during the preseason

Third Holcomb came in and was on the team 2 weeks and beat out BB that isnt saying something?

Fourth BB to come in and save the day????????? your kidding right? nvm i guess your right adrian running for 3 tds
and 250 yards in the second half didnt win the game at all
::) ::)

Fifth and finally work ? execution? wins? http://www.nfl.com/players/brooksbollinger/profile?id=BOL549216


Obviously AD played the biggest part in the win against the Chargers, but you can't discount the QB play entirely.
When TJ was in, AD had 43 yards on 14 carries.
After BB came in, AD had 253 on 16 carries.
Granted, it is impossible to say if Bollinger's play had any impact on AD's performance or not.
The long runs that AD and CT started breaking off in the second half may have had more to do with wearing down the defense.
But I actually think that the Charger's D had to try and adjust when Bollinger came in and couldn't.


BB actually put up some solid numbers for only one half of football.
7 for 10 and 95 yards and a TD is good, especially when you consider the fact that one of his "incompletions" was spiking the ball at the end of the 2nd.
That means he had 77.8% passing accuracy.
That is a 133.33 passer rating BTW (would have been 147.69 without the spike).

Something else you can look at with Bollinger's play is the ability to convert on third downs and keep the drive alive.
Here are all of our third downs from the game, separated by drive.
3-8-MIN 21
(12:13) (Shotgun) 7-T.Jackson pass short right to 29-C.Taylor to MIN 28 for 7 yards (23-Q.Jammer).
Drive ended in Punt

3-9-MIN 22
(1:05) (Shotgun) 7-T.Jackson pass short right to 18-S.Rice to MIN 35 for 13 yards (23-Q.Jammer).
3-8-MIN 37
(14:16) (Shotgun) 7-T.Jackson pass incomplete to 84-A.Allison.
Drive ended in Punt

3-11-MIN 3
(10:27) 29-C.Taylor up the middle to MIN 4 for 1 yard (57-M.Wilhelm).
Drive ended in Punt

3-10-MIN 29
(7:14) (Shotgun) 7-T.Jackson pass incomplete deep right to 84-A.Allison. Penalty on MIN-40-J.Kleinsasser, Offensive Holding, declined.
Drive ended in Punt

3-6-MIN 20
(4:16) (Shotgun) 7-T.Jackson pass incomplete short middle to 18-S.Rice.
Drive ended in Punt

3-5-MIN 25
(1:20) 28-A.Peterson left guard to MIN 31 for 6 yards (42-C.Hart, 92-M.Harris). SD-74-J.Cesaire was injured during the play. His return is Probable.
(TJ injured - Bollinger takes over)
3-1-SD 45
(:07) 9-B.Bollinger spiked the ball to stop the clock.
Drive ended in missed FG returned for a SD touchdown.

3-4-MIN 23
(14:19) (Shotgun) 9-B.Bollinger pass short left to 89-R.Ferguson to MIN 28 for 5 yards (31-A.Cromartie).
3-2-MIN 36
(12:55) 28-A.Peterson left tackle for 64 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
Drive ended in a touchdown

3-7-SD 17
(11:16) (Shotgun) 9-B.Bollinger pass short right to 81-V.Shiancoe to SD 9 for 8 yards (29-D.Florence, 24-C.Gordon).
Drive ended when CT fumbled the ball on the SD 3 yard line

3-12-SD 47
(10:48) (Shotgun) 9-B.Bollinger pass to 29-C.Taylor to SD 31 for 16 yards (31-A.Cromartie).
Drive ended when AD fumbled the ball on the Sd 15 yard line

3-1-SD 31
(:17) 9-B.Bollinger kneels to SD 32 for -1 yards.
Drive ended when the clock ran out.

TJ was 2 for 7 on third down conversions, and one of those third down conversions was on a run by AD.
Bollinger was successful on every third down.
Yes, spiking the ball and running the clock out are successful because the objective of the play was realized.
After BB took over as QB, the Vikings never punted the ball again.

Now don't get me wrong... I don't think Brooks is the next Manning.
But I do think that he had a positive effect on the game.
To completely discount his contribution is overlooking some pretty interesting facts of the game.

Just my 2 cents...

tb04512
11-09-2007, 10:57 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:



First off we got holcomb because Brooks as a backup didnt cut it, we had 4 qbs in the offseason Tjack BB Thigpen and Henson, then traded for holcomb in the beginning of the season...

Secondly Brooks and Tjack shared reps with the First team during the preseason

Third Holcomb came in and was on the team 2 weeks and beat out BB that isnt saying something?

Fourth BB to come in and save the day????????? your kidding right? nvm i guess your right adrian running for 3 tds
and 250 yards in the second half didnt win the game at all
::) ::)

Fifth and finally work ? execution? wins? http://www.nfl.com/players/brooksbollinger/profile?id=BOL549216


Obviously AD played the biggest part in the win against the Chargers, but you can't discount the QB play entirely.
When TJ was in, AD had 43 yards on 14 carries.
After BB came in, AD had 253 on 16 carries.
Granted, it is impossible to say if Bollinger's play had any impact on AD's performance or not.
The long runs that AD and CT started breaking off in the second half may have had more to do with wearing down the defense.
But I actually think that the Charger's D had to try and adjust when Bollinger came in and couldn't.


BB actually put up some solid numbers for only one half of football.
7 for 10 and 95 yards and a TD is good, especially when you consider the fact that one of his "incompletions" was spiking the ball at the end of the 2nd.
That means he had 77.8% passing accuracy.
That is a 133.33 passer rating BTW (would have been 147.69 without the spike).

Something else you can look at with Bollinger's play is the ability to convert on third downs and keep the drive alive.
Here are all of our third downs from the game, separated by drive.
3-8-MIN 21
(12:13) (Shotgun) 7-T.Jackson pass short right to 29-C.Taylor to MIN 28 for 7 yards (23-Q.Jammer).
Drive ended in Punt

3-9-MIN 22
(1:05) (Shotgun) 7-T.Jackson pass short right to 18-S.Rice to MIN 35 for 13 yards (23-Q.Jammer).
3-8-MIN 37
(14:16) (Shotgun) 7-T.Jackson pass incomplete to 84-A.Allison.
Drive ended in Punt

3-11-MIN 3
(10:27) 29-C.Taylor up the middle to MIN 4 for 1 yard (57-M.Wilhelm).
Drive ended in Punt

3-10-MIN 29
(7:14) (Shotgun) 7-T.Jackson pass incomplete deep right to 84-A.Allison. Penalty on MIN-40-J.Kleinsasser, Offensive Holding, declined.
Drive ended in Punt

3-6-MIN 20
(4:16) (Shotgun) 7-T.Jackson pass incomplete short middle to 18-S.Rice.
Drive ended in Punt

3-5-MIN 25
(1:20) 28-A.Peterson left guard to MIN 31 for 6 yards (42-C.Hart, 92-M.Harris). SD-74-J.Cesaire was injured during the play. His return is Probable.
(TJ injured - Bollinger takes over)
3-1-SD 45
(:07) 9-B.Bollinger spiked the ball to stop the clock.
Drive ended in missed FG returned for a SD touchdown.

3-4-MIN 23
(14:19) (Shotgun) 9-B.Bollinger pass short left to 89-R.Ferguson to MIN 28 for 5 yards (31-A.Cromartie).
3-2-MIN 36
(12:55) 28-A.Peterson left tackle for 64 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
Drive ended in a touchdown

3-7-SD 17
(11:16) (Shotgun) 9-B.Bollinger pass short right to 81-V.Shiancoe to SD 9 for 8 yards (29-D.Florence, 24-C.Gordon).
Drive ended when CT fumbled the ball on the SD 3 yard line

3-12-SD 47
(10:48) (Shotgun) 9-B.Bollinger pass to 29-C.Taylor to SD 31 for 16 yards (31-A.Cromartie).
Drive ended when AD fumbled the ball on the Sd 15 yard line

3-1-SD 31
(:17) 9-B.Bollinger kneels to SD 32 for -1 yards.
Drive ended when the clock ran out.

TJ was 2 for 7 on third down conversions, and one of those third down conversions was on a run by AD.
Bollinger was successful on every third down.
Yes, spiking the ball and running the clock out are successful because the objective of the play was realized.
After BB took over as QB, the Vikings never punted the ball again.

Now don't get me wrong... I don't think Brooks is the next Manning.
But I do think that he had a positive effect on the game.
To completely discount his contribution is overlooking some pretty interesting facts of the game.

Just my 2 cents...


bollinger did good i agree he in no way saved the day, problem is he does that one step drop and throw to the first read, that first read isnt open hes screw, i think the d had a hard time adjusting after all the injuries more than anything

NodakPaul
11-09-2007, 11:03 PM
"tb04512" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:



First off we got holcomb because Brooks as a backup didnt cut it, we had 4 qbs in the offseason Tjack BB Thigpen and Henson, then traded for holcomb in the beginning of the season...

Secondly Brooks and Tjack shared reps with the First team during the preseason

Third Holcomb came in and was on the team 2 weeks and beat out BB that isnt saying something?

Fourth BB to come in and save the day????????? your kidding right? nvm i guess your right adrian running for 3 tds
and 250 yards in the second half didnt win the game at all
::) ::)

Fifth and finally work ? execution? wins? http://www.nfl.com/players/brooksbollinger/profile?id=BOL549216


Obviously AD played the biggest part in the win against the Chargers, but you can't discount the QB play entirely.
When TJ was in, AD had 43 yards on 14 carries.
After BB came in, AD had 253 on 16 carries.
Granted, it is impossible to say if Bollinger's play had any impact on AD's performance or not.
The long runs that AD and CT started breaking off in the second half may have had more to do with wearing down the defense.
But I actually think that the Charger's D had to try and adjust when Bollinger came in and couldn't.


BB actually put up some solid numbers for only one half of football.
7 for 10 and 95 yards and a TD is good, especially when you consider the fact that one of his "incompletions" was spiking the ball at the end of the 2nd.
That means he had 77.8% passing accuracy.
That is a 133.33 passer rating BTW (would have been 147.69 without the spike).

Something else you can look at with Bollinger's play is the ability to convert on third downs and keep the drive alive.
Here are all of our third downs from the game, separated by drive.
3-8-MIN 21
(12:13) (Shotgun) 7-T.Jackson pass short right to 29-C.Taylor to MIN 28 for 7 yards (23-Q.Jammer).
Drive ended in Punt

3-9-MIN 22
(1:05) (Shotgun) 7-T.Jackson pass short right to 18-S.Rice to MIN 35 for 13 yards (23-Q.Jammer).
3-8-MIN 37
(14:16) (Shotgun) 7-T.Jackson pass incomplete to 84-A.Allison.
Drive ended in Punt

3-11-MIN 3
(10:27) 29-C.Taylor up the middle to MIN 4 for 1 yard (57-M.Wilhelm).
Drive ended in Punt

3-10-MIN 29
(7:14) (Shotgun) 7-T.Jackson pass incomplete deep right to 84-A.Allison. Penalty on MIN-40-J.Kleinsasser, Offensive Holding, declined.
Drive ended in Punt

3-6-MIN 20
(4:16) (Shotgun) 7-T.Jackson pass incomplete short middle to 18-S.Rice.
Drive ended in Punt

3-5-MIN 25
(1:20) 28-A.Peterson left guard to MIN 31 for 6 yards (42-C.Hart, 92-M.Harris). SD-74-J.Cesaire was injured during the play. His return is Probable.
(TJ injured - Bollinger takes over)
3-1-SD 45
(:07) 9-B.Bollinger spiked the ball to stop the clock.
Drive ended in missed FG returned for a SD touchdown.

3-4-MIN 23
(14:19) (Shotgun) 9-B.Bollinger pass short left to 89-R.Ferguson to MIN 28 for 5 yards (31-A.Cromartie).
3-2-MIN 36
(12:55) 28-A.Peterson left tackle for 64 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
Drive ended in a touchdown

3-7-SD 17
(11:16) (Shotgun) 9-B.Bollinger pass short right to 81-V.Shiancoe to SD 9 for 8 yards (29-D.Florence, 24-C.Gordon).
Drive ended when CT fumbled the ball on the SD 3 yard line

3-12-SD 47
(10:48) (Shotgun) 9-B.Bollinger pass to 29-C.Taylor to SD 31 for 16 yards (31-A.Cromartie).
Drive ended when AD fumbled the ball on the Sd 15 yard line

3-1-SD 31
(:17) 9-B.Bollinger kneels to SD 32 for -1 yards.
Drive ended when the clock ran out.

TJ was 2 for 7 on third down conversions, and one of those third down conversions was on a run by AD.
Bollinger was successful on every third down.
Yes, spiking the ball and running the clock out are successful because the objective of the play was realized.
After BB took over as QB, the Vikings never punted the ball again.

Now don't get me wrong... I don't think Brooks is the next Manning.
But I do think that he had a positive effect on the game.
To completely discount his contribution is overlooking some pretty interesting facts of the game.

Just my 2 cents...


bollinger did good i agree he in no way saved the day, problem is he does that one step drop and throw to the first read, that first read isnt open hes screw, i think the d had a hard time adjusting after all the injuries more than anything


In the first action we saw of Bollinger this year, I would agree.
He was throwing to the first read or not at all (remember the back-to-back-to-back sacks last year against NE? <groan>).
But the Charger's game was different.
Several of his passes were to the check down instead of the first read, and the bomb to Rice was a three step drop, with one step back up in the pocket (although I do think Rice was the primary reciever on that play).


I think Bollinger's biggest problem is making reads under pressure.
Our OL was giving him a decent amount of time, and did much better.
The injuries on SD's defense played a part to be sure, but even when TJ was in the pocket was standing up pretty well.

CCthebest
11-09-2007, 11:05 PM
The sad fact is, BB is our best QB. But that doesnt mean a thing to childress. Hes going to put TJ back in the second he can. Even if we beat packers this sunday. I think childress is looking to next year and if TJ can cut it. Hes hitched his horse to TJ come hell or high water.

The good news is TJ will get hurt again. Maybe BB will have won the backup spot by then. If after this season even childress doesnt think TJ can win games, we have McNabb. Fine by me but hes always hurt. But i have no doubt he will be throwing TD passes to Wade and Rice next year.

NodakPaul
11-09-2007, 11:14 PM
"CCthebest" wrote:


The sad fact is, BB is our best QB. But that doesnt mean a thing to childress. Hes going to put TJ back in the second he can. Even if we beat packers this sunday. I think childress is looking to next year and if TJ can cut it. Hes hitched his horse to TJ come hell or high water.

The good news is TJ will get hurt again. Maybe BB will have won the backup spot by then. If after this season even childress doesnt think TJ can win games, we have McNabb. Fine by me but hes always hurt. But i have no doubt he will be throwing TD passes to Wade and Rice next year.


I am not sure what would/will happen if Brooks has a good game against the pack.
Yes, Childress has hitched his wagon to TJ... but even he knows that a winning record in the second half of the season could save his job.
I am starting to think that he already knows whether or not TJ can cut it at this point.

Who knows though.
He could be so confident in his original decision that he puts TJ back in.
Bollinger is inconstant as a starter, and he did play like crapola earlier in the year.
So anything is possible.

thevikingfan
11-09-2007, 11:19 PM
Mcnabb is on his way out of philly.....throw a second rouder reid way and get a top 10 qb here ;)
Can u imagine what we can do if we get a mcnabb here?He has had good seasons with subpar wr's b4 and he can make thing happen with his feet,plus he throws a nice deep ball and it doesnt get easier than handing it off to AD

bigbadragz
11-10-2007, 12:11 AM
i'm sorry but i thought i was fickle.
are you guys seriously gonna tell me that the majority of viking fans now believe our 3rd string qb is now our best qb.
i dont get to see these guys everyday so who knows what bollinger does in practice, but we see backups come in when a player gets injured and perform well all the time, and then they get a start and are fucking terrible.


obviously i'm hoping for the best if bollinger starts cuz we need the win, but come on guys its brooks bollinger.
i hope he proves me wrong and becomes the next derek anderson but now a defense has a whole week of preparation on him, so being the pessimist i am, expect to see alot of the same viking offense we've seen over the last 2 years, just a different qb.


better hope peterson has a big day and the pass defense played like it did last week.
it doesn't matter whos qbing, they are all ask to the same thing, hand off and dont turn the ball over.
everyone except for brad johnson has done that, but we still lose the tight games.
i'm telling you guys, you are making too big a deal of the qb situation, last year we thought we didn't go down field cuz johnsons arm sucked.
well we still don't go downfield but once or twice a game.
this is the system, so until they open it up a bit, you are gonna see alot of the same results.
i think johnson can still play some, particularly in an offense like ours, but he couldn't.
and to tell you the truth i dont think anymore that it was mostly his fault.

SKOL
11-10-2007, 01:15 AM
We've seen very little improvement in T-Jack.
He's still a deer in the headlights, can't read a defense and is not very accurate with his throws, short or deep.
At least Bollinger is comfortable, and I don't think it's just my imagination that the team responds extremely well, and actually exudes confidence, with him in the game - they seem to have a spring in their step.
We have nothing to lose by inserting Bollinger - we're not going anywhere with T-Jack or Holcomb.
And yes, IF he can continue moving the offense like he has recently, we've found our QB of the future.

Jereamiah
11-10-2007, 01:37 AM
Here is what I see. Jackson throws lasers to nowhere, misreads defenses and seems to have a hard time wearing his hat foreward. What is this? 6th grade on the 'Vikes sideline? Holcomb looks like one of those guys in scary stories who sees something terrifying and has thier hair turn white. He has one good game (vs.) packers, then stinks it up. Bollinger stinks it up during preseason and then comes in twice as a backup and adds UNDENIABLE spark to the team. Who should start? Then Childress brings in (suprise) an old philly friend (Detmer.)

NOW, those were some of my older brothers (MINN Native) observations and questions shared with me during a phone conversation today. I won't share what he had to say about Childress. Needless to say, some of my bros opinions are not shared by me, but I think thet are valuable opinions. I am not sure what I am trying to say, But I like Bollinger and I'm glad he's starting. I read a post where someone actually said that they were glad we had Mcnabb next year. What? I thought he was an Eagle? Now if you were guessing that given childresses penchent for gobbling up former Eagles, this scenerio will play out with Mcnabb, well then I say you may have a point. Maybe we should ask Donavan what he thinks about your signing him to next years squad. Anyway, SCREW MCNABB!!! I am concentrating on OUR CURRENT QB. That looks like it will be Bollinger this week against GB. GOOD LUCK BB!@ GO VIKES!!!!!!!!!

DustinDupont
11-10-2007, 01:52 AM
"Frostbite" wrote:


"DustinDupont" wrote:


how many people wanted bollinger cut in the preseason?

we traded for holcomb cuz bollinger couldnt cut it is a backup.. that is saying something... i do not want bollinger is are starter


that is not exactly true dustindupont: We got Holcomb because we needed a another QB on the Roster. My understanding is that BB did not get much work in T. Camp with the Starting Offense if any.

Then By your reasoning... NO player can ever be rewarded with playing time or moving up the ladder unless he does WHAT??? I'm confused because Brooks has done better now working with the Starting Offense (For a Change) than he did in T.Camp according to you and yet you don't think he deserves a chance to show what he can do as a starter because???

And by the way....so much for our trade for Holcomb....He has stunk up the field as the number 2. If nothing else BB deserves to move into the second backup role behind T.Jack.

Don't worry though.....T.Jack will most likely be back in there soon enough....get his bell rung or have some other injury to knock him out again and then BB will be called upon once again by many (Skeptical) fans to save the day....and he still won't get any recognition from fans like you because he doesn't have a NAME/BACKGROUND/ of the usual TOP NFL QB in this League. God forbid anybody judge the guy on his work...performance....execution...attitude....wins....etc.


Cheers!






No that is not exacty true FostBite.... we got holcomb because bollinger was struggling hard core and during during preseason most vikings fans would rather have had Bollinger cut then thingpen... and we didnt need a qb for a roster spot we had thigpen and hensen... and to my understanding tjack ans BB shared reps in camp until tjack won the job...

and so much for holcomb as are number 2... he won the backup job before he even landed in Minnesota, that has to say something about BB... doesnt it?????

and what is this thread about??? the starting QB for next year and i said i didnt want BB to be the starter....

and it also has nothing to do with his name/background of the usual top QB...




Cheers!

Jereamiah
11-10-2007, 02:02 AM
"DustinDupont" wrote:


"Frostbite" wrote:


"DustinDupont" wrote:


how many people wanted bollinger cut in the preseason?

we traded for holcomb cuz bollinger couldnt cut it is a backup.. that is saying something... i do not want bollinger is are starter


that is not exactly true dustindupont: We got Holcomb because we needed a another QB on the Roster. My understanding is that BB did not get much work in T. Camp with the Starting Offense if any.

Then By your reasoning... NO player can ever be rewarded with playing time or moving up the ladder unless he does WHAT??? I'm confused because Brooks has done better now working with the Starting Offense (For a Change) than he did in T.Camp according to you and yet you don't think he deserves a chance to show what he can do as a starter because???

And by the way....so much for our trade for Holcomb....He has stunk up the field as the number 2. If nothing else BB deserves to move into the second backup role behind T.Jack.

Don't worry though.....T.Jack will most likely be back in there soon enough....get his bell rung or have some other injury to knock him out again and then BB will be called upon once again by many (Skeptical) fans to save the day....and he still won't get any recognition from fans like you because he doesn't have a NAME/BACKGROUND/ of the usual TOP NFL QB in this League. God forbid anybody judge the guy on his work...performance....execution...attitude....wins....etc.


Cheers!






No that is not exacty true FostBite.... we got holcomb because bollinger was struggling hard core and most vikings fans would rather have had Bollinger cut then thingpen... and we didnt need a qb for a roster spot we had thigpen and hensen... and to my understanding tjack ans BB shared reps in camp until tjack won the job...

and so much for holcomb as are number 2... he won the backup job before he even landed in Minnesota, that has to say something about BB... doesnt it?????

and what is this thread about??? the starting QB for next year and i said i didnt want BB to be the starter....

and it also has nothing to do with his name/background of the usual top QB...




Cheers!



YA, What is this thread about? ??? Bollinger is going against Green G@#Y and that's that. He is gonna do well. NO QUESTION. (In my mind anyway.) Oh, Thank God "We have McNabb."
Whatever, I can't get over that post. Once again, I thought Bollinger was going against the sheep- whackers. Maybe if Bollinger does poorly, we can all start to call for McNabb to get the start ;D Thats it, If the 'Vikes lose the game, I will post the OFFICIAL START McNABB THREAD!

UTVikfan
11-10-2007, 02:50 AM
We are on sad, sad, days when BBollinger has a bandwagon. Did any of the bandwagon folks watch the preseason games at all? I am positve the answer is no.

Tj did fine before he got knocked cold. I can't imagine having a running back go for 250 in the second half could have put a "spring in their step". Had to be Bolligers 300 yards passing? Oh, he didn't put up 300 yards.....hmmm.

Back when, I thought the start Ferotte over Culpepper thread was one of the silliest I have ever seen. That has been topped now.

Bollinger just isnt' that answer, sad but true. We would be far better off getting BJohnson back than Bollinger.

DustinDupont
11-10-2007, 03:33 AM
"UTVikfan" wrote:


Bollinger just isnt' that answer, sad but true. We would be far better off getting BJohnson back than Bollinger.


Amen

SKOL
11-10-2007, 04:52 PM
"UTVikfan" wrote:


We are on sad, sad, days when BBollinger has a bandwagon. Did any of the bandwagon folks watch the preseason games at all? I am positve the answer is no.

Tj did fine before he got knocked cold. I can't imagine having a running back go for 250 in the second half could have put a "spring in their step". Had to be Bolligers 300 yards passing? Oh, he didn't put up 300 yards.....hmmm.

Back when, I thought the start Ferotte over Culpepper thread was one of the silliest I have ever seen. That has been topped now.

Bollinger just isnt' that answer, sad but true. We would be far better off getting BJohnson back than Bollinger.


I believe you were referring to my post.
Granted most of our second half production came via the run game, but my personal opinion is that things changed for the run when we suddenly had a respectable pass game.
Bollinger comes in in relief of Tarvaris and throws a TD to Rice, starts having other success in the pass game, and (low and behold) the defense can no longer stack the box for the run.

Please note my words from the previous comment:

"SKOL" wrote:

IF he can continue moving the offense like he has recently, we've found our QB of the future.

It is a reasonable comment, particularly with the BIG IF
;D.
I'm giving Bollinger the benefit of the doubt until he proves me otherwise.

PurplePowerPunch
11-10-2007, 05:38 PM
No dude, we're bringing in Mac-5 next year. Brooks will never be a starter in the NFL, LET ALONG A FRANCISE QB! Plus, I still think is too late to give up on T-Jack so soon. Mac-5 comes in next year, and T-Jack sits and learn.

DustinDupont
11-10-2007, 05:44 PM
"PurplePowerPunch" wrote:


No dude, we're bringing in Mac-5 next year. Brooks will never be a starter in the NFL, LET ALONG A FRANCISE QB! Plus, I still think is too late to give up on T-Jack so soon. Mac-5 comes in next year, and T-Jack sits and learn.


that is exacty i want the vikes to do, bring in Mac and have him teach tjack

Mr-holland
11-10-2007, 05:47 PM
I agree with most people, Bollinger isn't a starter for a whole season...
and by next season i think we've brought in a good vet who get's the starting role

PurpleGator
11-10-2007, 06:02 PM
"gagarr" wrote:


What would Bollinger need to do the rest of this year to be the starting QB next year?

If Bollinger is able to have 65% completion with a 100+ QB rating and show consistency, he's a keeper.

I would hate to see the Vikes to spend $$$ or draft picks to bring in a QB.
It is proven that you can win SB's without a Blue Chip QB, i.e. TB/Johnson, Ravens/Dilfer.
The Vikes running game will help even a average QB look good.

Use the draft or FA to help in WR or DL/DB (need QB pressure).




Your talking about the entire year?


I am just worried about how he will do tomorrow.

Frostbite
11-10-2007, 07:07 PM
Man....I just want to say I really respect ALL of your guys and gals opinions here. There have been good points raised on both sides of the issue. I want to make my own position clear about Brooks Bollinger.

First: I am not on ANY Brooks Bollinger "Band Wagon" nor do I really think any of our fans truly are. He's ranked by the coaches (Who see the players a lot more than we do) and there must be obvious reasons he's number 3....at least in there minds.

My only point is this: When called upon to do his job he has come off the bench and PERFORMED better than most expected. So why not ride that success and allow the guy to keep playing until he screws up?? The incentive to show everyone (Coaches, Players, Fans etc) what you can do when given the opportunity can be a great motivator in some of us. I think this is the case for BB.

At this point of the season....and with our current choices, a T.Jack that isn't 100 percent or Holcomb, I say leave BB in and see how he does. I think the QB position is his to lose or play in according to his PERFRORMANCE.

Minus the one fumble...off the bench cold, I would ask any fans to rate his job performance in the games he has been involved with honestly. Has done better or worse than you expected?

Has BB done better than Holcomb?

The main point I was making was that I believe ANY player should be judged by and be given more opportunities to PLAY by there PERFORMANCE in games as well as there PERFORMANCE in practices.


Cheers!

Freya
11-10-2007, 07:26 PM
"PurpleGator" wrote:


"gagarr" wrote:


What would Bollinger need to do the rest of this year to be the starting QB next year?

If Bollinger is able to have 65% completion with a 100+ QB rating and show consistency, he's a keeper.

I would hate to see the Vikes to spend $$$ or draft picks to bring in a QB.
It is proven that you can win SB's without a Blue Chip QB, i.e. TB/Johnson, Ravens/Dilfer.
The Vikes running game will help even a average QB look good.

Use the draft or FA to help in WR or DL/DB (need QB pressure).




Your talking about the entire year?


I am just worried about how he will do tomorrow.



Right on!

singersp
11-10-2007, 07:27 PM
"Frostbite" wrote:



First: I am not on ANY Brooks Bollinger "Band Wagon" nor do I really think any of our fans truly are. He's ranked by the coaches (Who see the players a lot more than we do) and there must be obvious reasons he's number 3....at least in there minds.



Don't make me go thread dredging!
;)

bigbadragz
11-10-2007, 07:30 PM
"Frostbite" wrote:


Man....I just want to say I really respect ALL of your guys and gals opinions here. There have been good points raised on both sides of the issue. I want to make my own position clear about Brooks Bollinger.

First: I am not on ANY Brooks Bollinger "Band Wagon" nor do I really think any of our fans truly are. He's ranked by the coaches (Who see the players a lot more than we do) and there must be obvious reasons he's number 3....at least in there minds.

My only point is this: When called upon to do his job he has come off the bench and PERFORMED better than most expected. So why not ride that success and allow the guy to keep playing until he screws up?? The incentive to show everyone (Coaches, Players, Fans etc) what you can do when given the opportunity can be a great motivator in some of us. I think this is the case for BB.

At this point of the season....and with our current choices, a T.Jack that isn't 100 percent or Holcomb, I say leave BB in and see how he does. I think the QB position is his to lose or play in according to his PERFRORMANCE.

Minus the one fumble...off the bench cold, I would ask any fans to rate his job performance in the games he has been involved with honestly. Has done better or worse than you expected?

Has BB done better than Holcomb?

The main point I was making was that I believe ANY player should be judged by and be given more opportunities to PLAY by there PERFORMANCE in games as well as there PERFORMANCE in practices.


Cheers!



my feeling is as ive said in other posts, is that the expectation is a little high.
i mean maybe it's not even high, but taht everyone is just desperate.
fitzpatrick came off the bench and played well for the rams 2 years back, and when he got starts he stunk it up and is back at number 3, it happens all the time.
with a week of preparation for bollinger it might get ugly if he turns the ball over like he had in the preseason.
the one thing you can say about holcomb and tavaris, minus the detroit game, they didn't turn the ball over.
that's the only thing that scares me, cuz we are not good enough on offense to be giving up the ball in good field position.

PurpleGator
11-10-2007, 09:35 PM
Go Brooks!

Lets see what he does tomorrow.
The Packers have prepared for him all week so his passing game might be tougher for him.

Marrdro
11-11-2007, 06:25 AM
"gagarr" wrote:


So noone really wants to answer my original question on Bollinger.
What would it take for Bollinger to be brought back as the starting QB.
Most seem to think it won't happen regardless, not even to be considered.
Even if he finishes with a 140 QB rating, 20 TD's, and Pro Bowl?
The guy has talent, as he showed at Wisconsin, he just doesn't have the ability to carry a team on his own, that now is AD's roll.

Yes, I know it's better to concentrate on GB.
What I wanted to see is people believing Bollinger has potential.
He's only been around 5 years.
I think if Chilly starts him (and he better), he will be the difference in winning the game.
He will make the 3 down conversions as he did with SD.
If the GB play the run too aggressive, which many analysts believe they will, then he will make the outlets or if given time the long balls.

Prediction: Bollinger will finish the game with a 100+ QB rating.

If TJ starts, he won't break 70, WHY because he isn't comfortable and GB will run blitz all day long like they did against KC.
TJ will get happy feet, try to run or throw INT's.
BB might not win the game, but TJ can very well lose the game for the Vikes.

Sad to say, however, sometimes on here my friend posters get a bad feeling about a guy and no matter how well he does after that, they will refuse to support him.

I think most just don't like him cause of one play or two.
My dislike (if you could call it that) is mostly centered around the fact that he looks small when he is behind the line.
Kindof
silly when you think about it as he has a 112.3 QB rating and hasn't really made very many bonehead plays when called upon.
Might be interesting to watch him play a full game.
::)

To answer your question, it is pretty simple for me:

Don't turn the ball over on a stupid throw, display leadership on the field and move the team when asked.

Marrdro
11-11-2007, 06:31 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


I'm not concerned about next year yet.
I am thinking about this year.
As of today, I hope the Brooks finishes out the season as starter.
Yes, he is very inconsistent, but I think he is the best option that we have in our QB corps.

I have been in favor of keeping TJ as starter prior to this.
My argument was that we needed to know for sure what we have in TJ so we know where we need to go with QB next year.
I think we know now.
His durability concerns me, as does his decision making ability and touch on his passes.
Plus, his long ball simply is not very accurate.

Put Brooks in for the rest of the season in hopes of making a playoff run.
Then bring in a veteran or trade up for a first round QB in the draft for next year.
Just my 2 cents.

Great posts by V, Frostbite and Fresno followed up by a gem like this.
Very nice my friend.

;D

Back to the question at hand......
If Brooks comes in for the rest of the season and we make a very good playoff run, what then.
Is he then the odds on favorite to start next year or should they still go after a upgrade?

I for one can't answer that question yet cause I just haven't seen enough of Brooks to tell you what I think of him.

Again, great stuff guys.

Marrdro
11-11-2007, 06:39 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:



First off we got holcomb because Brooks as a backup didnt cut it, we had 4 qbs in the offseason Tjack BB Thigpen and Henson, then traded for holcomb in the beginning of the season...

Secondly Brooks and Tjack shared reps with the First team during the preseason

Third Holcomb came in and was on the team 2 weeks and beat out BB that isnt saying something?

Fourth BB to come in and save the day????????? your kidding right? nvm i guess your right adrian running for 3 tds
and 250 yards in the second half didnt win the game at all
::) ::)

Fifth and finally work ? execution? wins? http://www.nfl.com/players/brooksbollinger/profile?id=BOL549216


Obviously AD played the biggest part in the win against the Chargers, but you can't discount the QB play entirely.
When TJ was in, AD had 43 yards on 14 carries.
After BB came in, AD had 253 on 16 carries.
Granted, it is impossible to say if Bollinger's play had any impact on AD's performance or not.
The long runs that AD and CT started breaking off in the second half may have had more to do with wearing down the defense.
But I actually think that the Charger's D had to try and adjust when Bollinger came in and couldn't.


BB actually put up some solid numbers for only one half of football.
7 for 10 and 95 yards and a TD is good, especially when you consider the fact that one of his "incompletions" was spiking the ball at the end of the 2nd.
That means he had 77.8% passing accuracy.
That is a 133.33 passer rating BTW (would have been 147.69 without the spike).

Something else you can look at with Bollinger's play is the ability to convert on third downs and keep the drive alive.
Here are all of our third downs from the game, separated by drive.
3-8-MIN 21
(12:13) (Shotgun) 7-T.Jackson pass short right to 29-C.Taylor to MIN 28 for 7 yards (23-Q.Jammer).
Drive ended in Punt

3-9-MIN 22
(1:05) (Shotgun) 7-T.Jackson pass short right to 18-S.Rice to MIN 35 for 13 yards (23-Q.Jammer).
3-8-MIN 37
(14:16) (Shotgun) 7-T.Jackson pass incomplete to 84-A.Allison.
Drive ended in Punt

3-11-MIN 3
(10:27) 29-C.Taylor up the middle to MIN 4 for 1 yard (57-M.Wilhelm).
Drive ended in Punt

3-10-MIN 29
(7:14) (Shotgun) 7-T.Jackson pass incomplete deep right to 84-A.Allison. Penalty on MIN-40-J.Kleinsasser, Offensive Holding, declined.
Drive ended in Punt

3-6-MIN 20
(4:16) (Shotgun) 7-T.Jackson pass incomplete short middle to 18-S.Rice.
Drive ended in Punt

3-5-MIN 25
(1:20) 28-A.Peterson left guard to MIN 31 for 6 yards (42-C.Hart, 92-M.Harris). SD-74-J.Cesaire was injured during the play. His return is Probable.
(TJ injured - Bollinger takes over)
3-1-SD 45
(:07) 9-B.Bollinger spiked the ball to stop the clock.
Drive ended in missed FG returned for a SD touchdown.

3-4-MIN 23
(14:19) (Shotgun) 9-B.Bollinger pass short left to 89-R.Ferguson to MIN 28 for 5 yards (31-A.Cromartie).
3-2-MIN 36
(12:55) 28-A.Peterson left tackle for 64 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
Drive ended in a touchdown

3-7-SD 17
(11:16) (Shotgun) 9-B.Bollinger pass short right to 81-V.Shiancoe to SD 9 for 8 yards (29-D.Florence, 24-C.Gordon).
Drive ended when CT fumbled the ball on the SD 3 yard line

3-12-SD 47
(10:48) (Shotgun) 9-B.Bollinger pass to 29-C.Taylor to SD 31 for 16 yards (31-A.Cromartie).
Drive ended when AD fumbled the ball on the Sd 15 yard line

3-1-SD 31
(:17) 9-B.Bollinger kneels to SD 32 for -1 yards.
Drive ended when the clock ran out.

TJ was 2 for 7 on third down conversions, and one of those third down conversions was on a run by AD.
Bollinger was successful on every third down.
Yes, spiking the ball and running the clock out are successful because the objective of the play was realized.
After BB took over as QB, the Vikings never punted the ball again.

Now don't get me wrong... I don't think Brooks is the next Manning.
But I do think that he had a positive effect on the game.
To completely discount his contribution is overlooking some pretty interesting facts of the game.

Just my 2 cents...

2 Cents???????
:o

Thats a whole fricken dollar my friend.
Very nice.
Very nice indeed. ;D

Marrdro
11-11-2007, 06:49 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"CCthebest" wrote:


The sad fact is, BB is our best QB. But that doesnt mean a thing to childress. Hes going to put TJ back in the second he can. Even if we beat packers this sunday. I think childress is looking to next year and if TJ can cut it. Hes hitched his horse to TJ come hell or high water.

The good news is TJ will get hurt again. Maybe BB will have won the backup spot by then. If after this season even childress doesnt think TJ can win games, we have McNabb. Fine by me but hes always hurt. But i have no doubt he will be throwing TD passes to Wade and Rice next year.


I am not sure what would/will happen if Brooks has a good game against the pack.
Yes, Childress has hitched his wagon to TJ... but even he knows that a winning record in the second half of the season could save his job.
I am starting to think that he already knows whether or not TJ can cut it at this point.

Who knows though.
He could be so confident in his original decision that he puts TJ back in.
Bollinger is inconstant as a starter, and he did play like crapola earlier in the year.
So anything is possible.

Look, I am not trying to say all of the TJ thing isn't in some sort of way the Coaching staffs fault, but at some point we all have to realize that it is really, in some way, the front office driving the TJ thing as well.

At some point everyone got in the big room and made the decision to see if they could develop him ahead of the schedule that was originally purposed as well as to look at other options for a near and long term solution if he didn't progress as planned under the accelerated plan.

Why would they do that?
Who knows.
Could have been alot of things behind the decision like.....

a. Maybe because there weren't any viable options out there in the FA market this year that they liked?

b. Maybe there were options but it didn't fit into thier long term spending plans.
c. Maybe TJ just looked good enough leading up to OTA's and pre-season during his off season work.

Heck I don't know, but the indicators are there that not everyone was happy with his progress......

a.
He was not thier first option, nor thier second during that draft.
b.
Thigpen drafted the following year.
c.
They looked long and hard at other options during the offseason leading up to the draft as well as right up to the begining of the season. (ie. Henson, Holcomb etc).

Anyway, to keep harping/saying that Childress is solely responsible for this and to say that he has "Hitched his horse to this wagon" is to ignore everything that transpired up to the pick of TJ as well as all the other QB stuff that followed.

Sorry, that is just one of those things that gets me a bit ranty.

;D

singersp
11-11-2007, 06:52 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:




3-7-SD 17
(11:16) (Shotgun) 9-B.Bollinger pass short right to 81-V.Shiancoe to SD 9 for 8 yards (29-D.Florence, 24-C.Gordon).
Drive ended when CT fumbled the ball on the SD 3 yard line

3-12-SD 47
(10:48) (Shotgun) 9-B.Bollinger pass to 29-C.Taylor to SD 31 for 16 yards (31-A.Cromartie).
Drive ended when AD fumbled the ball on the Sd 15 yard line



I don't mean to sound like an idiot, but when a runner gains 16 yards & then fumbles the ball, do those yards count in his stats?

Marrdro
11-11-2007, 06:58 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:




3-7-SD 17
(11:16) (Shotgun) 9-B.Bollinger pass short right to 81-V.Shiancoe to SD 9 for 8 yards (29-D.Florence, 24-C.Gordon).
Drive ended when CT fumbled the ball on the SD 3 yard line

3-12-SD 47
(10:48) (Shotgun) 9-B.Bollinger pass to 29-C.Taylor to SD 31 for 16 yards (31-A.Cromartie).
Drive ended when AD fumbled the ball on the Sd 15 yard line



I don't mean to sound like an idiot, but when a runner gains 16 yards & then fumbles the ball, do those yards count in his stats?

I'm not sure.
I think they do.


If he fumbles and the ball is recovered without it being advanced, were do they spot it? Its something that happens after he advanced it to that point of the fumble.

singersp
11-11-2007, 07:00 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:




3-7-SD 17
(11:16) (Shotgun) 9-B.Bollinger pass short right to 81-V.Shiancoe to SD 9 for 8 yards (29-D.Florence, 24-C.Gordon).
Drive ended when CT fumbled the ball on the SD 3 yard line

3-12-SD 47
(10:48) (Shotgun) 9-B.Bollinger pass to 29-C.Taylor to SD 31 for 16 yards (31-A.Cromartie).
Drive ended when AD fumbled the ball on the Sd 15 yard line



I don't mean to sound like an idiot, but when a runner gains 16 yards & then fumbles the ball, do those yards count in his stats?

I'm not sure.
I think they do.


If he fumbles and the ball is recovered without it being advanced, were do they spot it? Its something that happens after he advanced it to that point of the fumble.


Thanx, now I don't feel like an idiot. I expected to bet laughed at & sent to the PP.O Bench.

BigMoInAZ
11-11-2007, 08:02 PM
Well??

I hope this thread proves one thing.
Brad Childress is a QB Killer!

Brooks Bollinger is a boy trying to play among MEN!
I hope the new Vikings Head Coach releases all the QBs next season and starts from scratch.
OK, maybe not TJack, but like I said earlier.
Chili is a QB Killer and he has ruined TJack's potential, but he might be salvageable.

Especially if Cowher becomes our new HC!

http://assets.espn.go.com/media/apphoto/f8cb34dc-d966-40d1-9021-6413652ad8e6.jpg

Purplemania
11-11-2007, 08:08 PM
Man, no offense but what potential do you guys see in Tarvaris Jackson? Is his potential that great that this organization has to suffer to this extreme? In other words, is it even worth the gamble if he does eventually become a decent QB one day? I think Tarvaris' fate was sealed the moment he was outplayed by Matt Jones as a QB in college.

Purple Floyd
11-11-2007, 08:34 PM
"V" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


Let's just get past the Packers forst and see how he plays against them before we go worrying about next year.

Personally I am going to enjoy the AP rookie year and hope he kicks ass every week.

McNabb would be a cancer in the locker room. If we bring him in we might just as well bring back Moss.


You have been saying this a lot without much proof. Yes, there has been some controversy with regards to McNabb and the media, but never has a teammate, other than TO, spoke badly of McNabb.

McNabb is nowhere close to a cancer, he is the exact opposite, a leader. He is the face of the Eagles, and every single teammate of his has his back.

Comparing McNabb to Moss? Gimme a break.


It's not just me, many of his team mates were reported to have said it too when the TO thing went down.At the time there were players who felt that they should have kept TO instead of McNabb.

I am not sure what kind of proof you want, sometimes you just rely on your gut. For example, last year I said I thought they should fire Childress because the team never improved and in fact,after starting 4-2, they went downhill and finished 6-10. I probably didn't have proof, but I had a gut feeling. I also had a gut feeling that, after the offseason where they did basically nothing to improve the offensive line and the QB positions, that we would be pretty much the same team offensively as last year. No proof, just a gut feeling. During the draft I had AP as the #1 pick in the draft. No proof, just a gut feeling.

I also have no written proof that you may want to see for why I don't want McNabb, but I have just as much that can show why he wouldn't work as you do for why he would.

BigMoInAZ
11-11-2007, 08:38 PM
"Purplemania" wrote:


Man, no offense but what potential do you guys see in Tarvaris Jackson? Is his potential that great that this organization has to suffer to this extreme? In other words, is it even worth the gamble if he does eventually become a decent QB one day? I think Tarvaris' fate was sealed the moment he was outplayed by Matt Jones as a QB in college.He's still young enough to possibly salvage.
As for your last sentence,
::)

ConnecticutViking
11-11-2007, 08:48 PM
Look at the unrestricted free agent list...

The Vikes could make a trade for a QB...
trade Chester Taylor for Anderson in Cleveland
Patrick Crayton at WR
Asante Sammuels at DB
Terrell Suggs or Jared Allen at DE

Although I don't believe that the Vikes suffer from lack of talent.
I do believe the coach sucks

NodakPaul
11-11-2007, 08:56 PM
"ConnecticutViking" wrote:


Look at the unrestricted free agent list...

The Vikes could make a trade for a QB...
trade Chester Taylor for Anderson in Cleveland
Patrick Crayton at WR
Asante Sammuels at DB
Terrell Suggs or Jared Allen at DE

Although I don't believe that the Vikes suffer from lack of talent.
I do believe the coach sucks


I highly doubt that Cleveland will shop Anderson.
They will keep him while he is performing, and Quinn will become the next Schaub.
The hit on their cap simply isn't that bad considering Quinn is in his rookie contract and he was a low first rounder.
If Anderson pans out, they can trade Quinn for a ridiculous price.
If not, they have a solid QB to step up and take his place.

Purplemania
11-11-2007, 09:35 PM
"BigMoInAZ" wrote:


"Purplemania" wrote:


Man, no offense but what potential do you guys see in Tarvaris Jackson? Is his potential that great that this organization has to suffer to this extreme? In other words, is it even worth the gamble if he does eventually become a decent QB one day? I think Tarvaris' fate was sealed the moment he was outplayed by Matt Jones as a QB in college.He's still young enough to possibly salvage.
As for your last sentence,
::)


Yeah I know it's already been said and used many times before but it's that powerful...And as I've brought up, what is there to salvaged anyways?

umaguma1979
11-11-2007, 09:45 PM
Bollinger will be out of the league by next year.
I just cant understand how someone so undertalented can be in the league while guys like Aaron Brooks are not on an NFL roster.

NodakPaul
11-11-2007, 09:49 PM
"umaguma1979" wrote:



Bollinger will be out of the league by next year.
I just cant understand how someone so undertalented can be in the league while guys like Aaron Brooks are not on an NFL roster.



Guy like Aaron Brooks?
Seriously?
Wow.

Bollinger will not be out of the league.
He is a good back up.
Unfortunately he is too inconsistent to be a starter, but he will have a good career as a #2.

I would rather watch TJ struggle for the rest of the season than put Aaron Brooks under center.
At least with TJ there is a slim hope...

Purplemania
11-11-2007, 09:55 PM
Yeah the Aaron Brooks comment was just dumb.

umaguma1979
11-11-2007, 09:57 PM
Aaron Brooks is at least a legitimate Qb - hell even Jeff George off the couch is better than Brooks

tb04512
11-11-2007, 10:11 PM
"umaguma1979" wrote:



Aaron Brooks is at least a legitimate Qb - hell even Jeff George off the couch is better than Brooks


and yet people wanted him to start
::) ::)

DustinDupont
11-11-2007, 10:16 PM
"tb04512" wrote:


"umaguma1979" wrote:



Aaron Brooks is at least a legitimate Qb - hell even Jeff George off the couch is better than Brooks


and yet people wanted him to start
::) ::)


no crap

NodakPaul
11-11-2007, 10:16 PM
"tb04512" wrote:


"umaguma1979" wrote:



Aaron Brooks is at least a legitimate Qb - hell even Jeff George off the couch is better than Brooks


and yet people wanted him to start
::) ::)


I would still rather have Bollinger start over TJ or Holcomb.
Just because he is a career back up doesn't change the fact that he is the best QB on our team.

As for Aaron Brooks, calling him a legitimate QB is insulting every real legitimate QB out there.
If Aaron Brooks were on the Vikings, I would still rather have Bollinger start.

C Mac D
11-11-2007, 10:21 PM
LMAO... this is pathetic. If Bollinger is our starting QB next year, there are complete morons making decisions in the Vikings' front office.

I love how nobody wants us to draft Dennis Dixon... but you are talking about brining in Aaron Brooks and Jeff George?

What a joke.

tb04512
11-11-2007, 10:24 PM
"C" wrote:


LMAO... this is pathetic. If Bollinger is our starting QB next year, there are complete morons making decisions in the Vikings' front office.

I love how nobody wants us to draft Dennis Dixon... but you are talking about brining in Aaron Brooks and Jeff George?

What a joke.


dennis dixon would be sweet but id want to bring in a good vet too tho

C Mac D
11-11-2007, 10:29 PM
"tb04512" wrote:


"C" wrote:


LMAO... this is pathetic. If Bollinger is our starting QB next year, there are complete morons making decisions in the Vikings' front office.

I love how nobody wants us to draft Dennis Dixon... but you are talking about brining in Aaron Brooks and Jeff George?

What a joke.


dennis dixon would be sweet but id want to bring in a good vet too tho


I agree... but I hope people forget about Aaron Brooks or Jeff George... I mean come on guys, are you serious?

singersp
11-11-2007, 10:30 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"umaguma1979" wrote:



Aaron Brooks is at least a legitimate Qb - hell even Jeff George off the couch is better than Brooks


and yet people wanted him to start
::) ::)


I would still rather have Bollinger start over TJ or Holcomb.
Just because he is a career back up doesn't change the fact that he is the best QB on our team.

As for Aaron Brooks, calling him a legitimate QB is insulting every real legitimate QB out there.
If Aaron Brooks were on the Vikings, I would still rather have Bollinger start.


Saying Aaron Brooks is a legitimate QB is like saying Tim Couch is a viable solution.

C Mac D
11-11-2007, 10:31 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"umaguma1979" wrote:



Aaron Brooks is at least a legitimate Qb - hell even Jeff George off the couch is better than Brooks


and yet people wanted him to start
::) ::)


I would still rather have Bollinger start over TJ or Holcomb.
Just because he is a career back up doesn't change the fact that he is the best QB on our team.

As for Aaron Brooks, calling him a legitimate QB is insulting every real legitimate QB out there.
If Aaron Brooks were on the Vikings, I would still rather have Bollinger start.


Saying Aaron Brooks is a legitimate QB is like saying Tim Couch is a viable solution.


AGREED!!!

tb04512
11-11-2007, 10:31 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"umaguma1979" wrote:



Aaron Brooks is at least a legitimate Qb - hell even Jeff George off the couch is better than Brooks


and yet people wanted him to start
::) ::)


I would still rather have Bollinger start over TJ or Holcomb.
Just because he is a career back up doesn't change the fact that he is the best QB on our team.

As for Aaron Brooks, calling him a legitimate QB is insulting every real legitimate QB out there.
If Aaron Brooks were on the Vikings, I would still rather have Bollinger start.


Saying Aaron Brooks is a legitimate QB is like saying Tim Couch is a viable solution.


ny couch could throw a ball farther than tim... just set it near the bottom then flick out the recliner part
:P

i_bleed_purple
11-11-2007, 10:34 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"umaguma1979" wrote:



Aaron Brooks is at least a legitimate Qb - hell even Jeff George off the couch is better than Brooks


and yet people wanted him to start
::) ::)


I would still rather have Bollinger start over TJ or Holcomb.
Just because he is a career back up doesn't change the fact that he is the best QB on our team.

As for Aaron Brooks, calling him a legitimate QB is insulting every real legitimate QB out there.
If Aaron Brooks were on the Vikings, I would still rather have Bollinger start.


Saying Aaron Brooks is a legitimate QB is like saying Tim Couch is a viable solution.


i hear Ryan Leaf is looking for work

or mabye Spergon Wynn?

singersp
11-11-2007, 10:37 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"umaguma1979" wrote:



Aaron Brooks is at least a legitimate Qb - hell even Jeff George off the couch is better than Brooks


and yet people wanted him to start
::) ::)


I would still rather have Bollinger start over TJ or Holcomb.
Just because he is a career back up doesn't change the fact that he is the best QB on our team.

As for Aaron Brooks, calling him a legitimate QB is insulting every real legitimate QB out there.
If Aaron Brooks were on the Vikings, I would still rather have Bollinger start.


Saying Aaron Brooks is a legitimate QB is like saying Tim Couch is a viable solution.


i hear Ryan Leaf is looking for work

or mabye Spergon Wynn?


spurgeon wynn gets killed

ew0MTJFSq9Q

marstc09
11-11-2007, 10:41 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:





Aaron Brooks is at least a legitimate Qb - hell even Jeff George off the couch is better than Brooks


and yet people wanted him to start
::) ::)


I would still rather have Bollinger start over TJ or Holcomb.
Just because he is a career back up doesn't change the fact that he is the best QB on our team.

As for Aaron Brooks, calling him a legitimate QB is insulting every real legitimate QB out there.
If Aaron Brooks were on the Vikings, I would still rather have Bollinger start.


Saying Aaron Brooks is a legitimate QB is like saying Tim Couch is a viable solution.


i hear Ryan Leaf is looking for work

or mabye Spergon Wynn?


spurgeon wynn gets killed

ew0MTJFSq9Q


Ouch!

C Mac D
11-11-2007, 10:43 PM
"singersp" wrote:


ew0MTJFSq9Q


That's a nasty hit.

Is that the CFL?

i_bleed_purple
11-11-2007, 10:44 PM
yea that is.
i don't konw what team Wynn was on but it was the Saskatchewan Roughriders he was playing against

BadlandsVikings
11-11-2007, 11:23 PM
"C" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


ew0MTJFSq9Q


That's a nasty hit.

Is that the CFL?


I hope they checked his helmet to see if his head was still in there.

DustinDupont
11-11-2007, 11:26 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"umaguma1979" wrote:



Aaron Brooks is at least a legitimate Qb - hell even Jeff George off the couch is better than Brooks


and yet people wanted him to start
::) ::)


I would still rather have Bollinger start over TJ or Holcomb.
Just because he is a career back up doesn't change the fact that he is the best QB on our team.

As for Aaron Brooks, calling him a legitimate QB is insulting every real legitimate QB out there.
If Aaron Brooks were on the Vikings, I would still rather have Bollinger start.


I dont c y anybody would want BB to start again... he sucked the whole game... he got his yards at the end when it didnt even matter... when teams prepare for him he has no chance.... he was back to te way brooks plays... Tjack should start every game from here on out... at least he might be able to improve

singersp
11-11-2007, 11:27 PM
"C" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


ew0MTJFSq9Q


That's a nasty hit.

Is that the CFL?


Yes it is

UTVikfan
11-12-2007, 12:04 AM
Is there still a Brooks Bollinger bandwagon? Sad there was one in the first place. He is a good #3 or even #2...thats all.

ap07
11-12-2007, 12:10 AM
Eric Crouch anyone?
We will be drafting a qb in the draft.
Top 5 pick here we come!

DaVizzles
11-12-2007, 12:10 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


ew0MTJFSq9Q


That's a nasty hit.

Is that the CFL?


Yes it is



Was Spurgeon Wynn horrible?....I have never seen him play.

Purplemania
11-12-2007, 12:30 AM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


yea that is.
i don't konw what team Wynn was on but it was the Saskatchewan Roughriders he was playing against


RoughRiders? That's Kenton Keith's team!

Ltrey33
11-12-2007, 12:43 AM
"DaVizzles" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


ew0MTJFSq9Q


That's a nasty hit.

Is that the CFL?


Yes it is



Was Spurgeon Wynn horrible?....I have never seen him play.


You have no idea. Brooks/Tarvaris/Holcomb on their WORST day don't even begin to approach the ineptitude that was Spurgeon Wynn.

I will never forget the game on MNF against the Ravens...it was the WORST throw I have ever seen. He had a 1st or 2nd and goal to go....had Moss in SINGLE coverage on the outside, and they threw a fade. The pass was probably a good 5 yards short and low, and it got picked off by the DB. Gosh that was awful.

Frostbite
11-12-2007, 12:52 AM
"midgensa" wrote:


"gagarr" wrote:


What would Bollinger need to do the rest of this year to be the starting QB next year?

If Bollinger is able to have 65% completion with a 100+ QB rating and show consistency, he's a keeper.

I would hate to see the Vikes to spend $$$ or draft picks to bring in a QB.
It is proven that you can win SB's without a Blue Chip QB, i.e. TB/Johnson, Ravens/Dilfer.
The Vikes running game will help even a average QB look good.

Use the draft or FA to help in WR or DL/DB (need QB pressure).



Sure ... you CAN win with an "unproven" QB, but only FOUR out of 41 Super Bowls have been won by a QB who NEVER went to a Pro Bowl (Jim Plunkett x 2, Doug Williams and Ben Roethlisberger - who will go to this year's Pro Bowl). So, 37 Super Bowls have been won by QBs who at some point in their career were in the top 4-6 at the position in the league.
Brooks Bollinger will NEVER be a top 6 QB ... probably not even a top 20 QB. Which means at best we have a 4 in 41 chance to win a Super Bowl (and by next season that will be a 3 in 42 chance). Having a QB who can play is essential to winning it all ... and Bollinger is not the answer.




The QB is an essential part of a Winning Team but overall it's the entire team effort on both sides of the ball that wins the Big Games. I don't care who you have a QB if the O-line stinks...and you don't have the people to throw to.... you could have a Top NFL QB in there and still not win many games.



Cheers!