PDA

View Full Version : Could Childress Win with A QB?



MaxVike
11-17-2007, 07:46 PM
Anyone?
As I've been saying, I'm pissed that our Vikings have come to this sad state of affairs.
Before the season started, I stated many times, that I thought this team could contend for a playoff spot with "mediocre" QB play.
Quite obviously, we haven't had mediocre QB play...it's been aweful - that's a FACT.


Regardless of expectations of stats (mine were minimal for the QB) we would be over .500 (at a minimum) with mediocre QB contribution (2 victories alone if the "QB of the week" could hit a wide open receiver vs KC and Detroit).
Furthermore, the Vikes would be 1-8, yes, 1-8, without AD by my estimation.

Defense has underperformed, sorry, they have.
There are some bright spots, but, I just had to let 30 people go at work...these guys need to buck up, and, I would bet you multiple cases of Liney's that they agree (if they don't, they should be fired, IMMEDIATELY).


OK, so, here's the question...Can Childress lead this team and WIN, with a good QB?

ultravikingfan
11-17-2007, 07:53 PM
No.
It takes more than a QB to help us win.

A good QB does nothing for our Pass Defense.
Plus, our pass blocking needs a lot of work.

Chiller is fucked either way.

BadlandsVikings
11-17-2007, 07:55 PM
Childress is just as screwed as Barry Bonds

RK.
11-17-2007, 08:07 PM
"MaxVike" wrote:


Anyone?
As I've been saying, I'm pissed that our Vikings have come to this sad state of affairs.
Before the season started, I stated many times, that I thought this team could contend for a playoff spot with "mediocre" QB play.
Quite obviously, we haven't had mediocre QB play...it's been aweful - that's a FACT.


Regardless of expectations of stats (mine were minimal for the QB) we would be over .500 (at a minimum) with mediocre QB contribution (2 victories alone if the "QB of the week" could hit a wide open receiver vs KC and Detroit).
Furthermore, the Vikes would be 1-8, yes, 1-8, without AD by my estimation.

Defense has underperformed, sorry, they have.
There are some bright spots, but, I just had to let 30 people go at work...these guys need to buck up, and, I would bet you multiple cases of Liney's that they agree (if they don't, they should be fired, IMMEDIATELY).


OK, so, here's the question...Can Childress lead this team and WIN, with a good QB?

Well it really depends on who we are playing.
Against the Pats or the Colts...no.
Against the Rams or Niners sure.
Against the Lions who knows.
We have more problems than just QB.
Could we have made the playoffs with a good QB
yeah I think we could have gotten a wild card.
However we wouldn't go past the first round I don't think without a consistent pass defense, creative play calling, some WR that can get open, and a defensive line that can pass rush against a good O line.

Schutz
11-17-2007, 08:14 PM
I believe Childress would more than likely be an 8-8 9-7 coach year to year with a great QB and WRs.
Maybe if we shore up the pass D we could get up to 10-11.
Childress could most definitely be a above .500 coach with a QB, but you'd spend every year wondering if we're going to make it and then getting beat in the first round after he runs the
ball up the gut twice and then throws.

vikesfargo
11-17-2007, 08:28 PM
Considering how well the rushing offense is doing, if we had a passing offense in the top 10 or 15, that would be a big deal. We need more than just a good quarterback, though. We also need better pass blocking, and better receivers.

I am still giving Childress a chance, but I am starting to think that our offensive scheme is maybe one of the problems.

That said, I would definitely give Childress until the end of this year to make the offense show signs of life.

PurplePeopleEaters
11-17-2007, 08:29 PM
Yeah, I think we'd be a .500 team with a good QB like Anderson this year. The problem is that Childress has shown complete ineptitude in the QB department and probably wouldn't know a decent QB if it smacked him in the face. People say "Oh, we would be good this year with an OK QB." Perhaps, but Childress and the rest of the front office had chances to bring in capable starters through the draft and in FA and instead chose to go with Tarvaris Jackson.

That said, we could be contending right now in the NFC if we had a QB, a WR, an o-line and a pass rush. Fact is that we don't have any of those and therefore are not contending. We should have ample opportunity to fill those needs this offseason. If Childress is still here and again fails to bring in those key positions, he should be fired on the spot.

Garland Greene
11-17-2007, 08:58 PM
Not with a Qb
not in a tree
not in a house
not with a mouse
not in the rain
not on a train
He can't win here
he can't win there
he can not win anywhere

ultravikingfan
11-17-2007, 09:02 PM
"Garland" wrote:


Not with a Qb
not in a tree
not in a house
not with a mouse
not in the rain
not on a train
He can't win here
he can't win there
he can not win anywhere


LMAO!

Good one GG!

Mr Anderson
11-17-2007, 09:04 PM
"Schutz" wrote:


I believe Childress would more than likely be an 8-8 9-7 coach year to year with a great QB and WRs.
Maybe if we shore up the pass D we could get up to 10-11.
Childress could most definitely be a above .500 coach with a QB, but you'd spend every year wondering if we're going to make it and then getting beat in the first round after he runs the
ball up the gut twice and then throws.


I agree he'd be an 8-8 or 9-7 coach with a great QB and great WRs.


But with a great QB and great WRs around the team we already have in place we should be more like a 13-3 or 14-2 team.

With our defense, our offensive line, and our running backs, we would have no reason but coaching to lose more than 2-3 games with great QB and WR play.

Big C
11-17-2007, 09:06 PM
Like PurplePeopleEaters says, we will only be .500 team with a better QB. Childress has had TJ, Holcomb, Bollinger and Johnson at QB and none of them can get this offense working.

Our biggest need for 2008 is a legitimate offensive coordinator.

The Vikings haven't had a real OC since Linehan left. The 3/4 years we were with him we were a top 5 offense. The 4 years since (without a legitimate OC) we have been bottom 5. An OC is dedicated to implementing a scheme and tweaking it to suit his player personal. That's why Culpepper thrived under linehan and failed under every other OC.

Childress doesn't have the time to massage this offense to fit the players talents. You can have star QBs, RBs and WRs, but if you don't have a talented OC to put it all together, you're going nowhere.

Take Cottrell and Tomlin for example. Tomlin inherited the same talented defense that Cottrell was suffocating and they went from bottom 5 to top 5. That's what a good coordinator does.

If we don't get a new OC next year we should fire Childress. Rookie mistakes are expected and understandable. Stubbornness and pride are inexcusable.

vikesfargo
11-17-2007, 09:07 PM
"PurplePeopleEaters" wrote:


That said, we could be contending right now in the NFC if we had a QB, a WR, an o-line and a pass rush.



That's a lot.

Childress is not the cause of all of our problems, people!! This has been building up for 15 years! Denny Green not developing a QB until late in his term as a coach. Mike Tice not properly developing Daunte. Green and Tice letting the defense go to hell. Tice putting all his chips on the "Randy Ratio."

We've had years of bandaids and at one point we had mostly bandaids. Now we're trying to build a new team on holdover gems like Kevin Williams and new stars like AD. For the most part, we just need upgraded personnel.

Vince Lombardi would not be leading this team to the playoffs. Bill Walsh would not get our quarterback in the Pro Bowl (especially this year). We lack pieces.

Give Childress a chance. He's trying to fix stuff. It's going to take time. We're young at QB and underskilled at key positions and this is a rebuilding stage.

BadlandsVikings
11-17-2007, 09:14 PM
"Garland" wrote:


Not with a Qb
not in a tree
not in a house
not with a mouse
not in the rain
not on a train
He can't win here
he can't win there
he can not win anywhere


http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h63/westvirginiavikings/untitled-5.jpg

happy camper
11-18-2007, 01:41 AM
Could Coach Childress win with a better QB?

Absolutely.

But this staff shipped out Culpepper, relied on Brad Johnson, passed on Drew Brees, hitched their wagon to Tarvaris Jackson, and used Mike McMahon, Brooks Bollinger, Drew Hensen, and Kelly Holcomb.

So to answer your question, yes. But they made their bed and are now lying in it.

huxx
11-18-2007, 03:42 AM
"happy" wrote:


Could Coach Childress win with a better QB?

Absolutely.

But this staff shipped out Culpepper, relied on Brad Johnson, passed on Drew Brees, hitched their wagon to Tarvaris Jackson, and used Mike McMahon, Brooks Bollinger, Drew Hensen, and Kelly Holcomb.

So to answer your question, yes. But they made their bed and are now lying in it.


very true

BBQ Platypus
11-18-2007, 04:08 AM
Sure, he could win with a QB.
The trouble is that he's got his OWN ideas as to what constitutes a good QB.

PurplePowerPunch
11-18-2007, 04:33 AM
"BBQ" wrote:


Sure, he could win with a QB.
The trouble is that he's got his OWN ideas as to what constitutes a good QB.


Very true my friend.

Mr-holland
11-18-2007, 06:41 AM
Why are you guys talking about being 8-8 with great QB and great Wr's?
you can be 11-5 easily with the team we have now and better Qb, and wr's are you crazy??

singersp
11-18-2007, 07:48 AM
"Mr-holland" wrote:


Why are you guys talking about being 8-8 with great QB and great Wr's?
you can be 11-5 easily with the team we have now and better Qb, and wr's are you crazy??


Why would they be happy with 8-8?

Hell I thought the main reason they wanted Tice out is because they didn't like mediocrity.

Now two years later they'd be happy with it? Go figure....

Jeremy
11-18-2007, 10:06 AM
"MaxVike" wrote:


Anyone?
As I've been saying, I'm pissed that our Vikings have come to this sad state of affairs.
Before the season started, I stated many times, that I thought this team could contend for a playoff spot with "mediocre" QB play.
Quite obviously, we haven't had mediocre QB play...it's been aweful - that's a FACT.


Regardless of expectations of stats (mine were minimal for the QB) we would be over .500 (at a minimum) with mediocre QB contribution (2 victories alone if the "QB of the week" could hit a wide open receiver vs KC and Detroit).
Furthermore, the Vikes would be 1-8, yes, 1-8, without AD by my estimation.

Defense has underperformed, sorry, they have.
There are some bright spots, but, I just had to let 30 people go at work...these guys need to buck up, and, I would bet you multiple cases of Liney's that they agree (if they don't, they should be fired, IMMEDIATELY).


OK, so, here's the question...Can Childress lead this team and WIN, with a good QB?
Could Childress recognise a good QB if it jumped out of the ground and bit him in the face? So far he brouhgt in: Kelly Holcomb, Tavaris Jackson, Mike McMahon, Drew Henson, Brooks Bollinger and Tyler Thigpen.
Detmer was another guy that signed for a few days and thankfully never saw the feild.

After looking over the QB's brought in thus far, I don't think Childress will ever have a good QB to win with. If he is around for another offseason, can we expect a late trade in the preseason for someone like Quinn Gray to to bolster our QB depth behind Tavaris Jackson? Will we argessive persue Rex Grossman in the offseason?

I for one have seen enough of the KAO and what it's capable of.

2beersTommy
11-18-2007, 10:15 AM
"BBQ" wrote:


Sure, he could win with a QB.
The trouble is that he's got his OWN ideas as to what constitutes a good QB.


key wurd being COULD, but hes obviouly showing the rest of us he CANT!, maybe we should try without one at all lol

stateVIKE44
11-18-2007, 10:57 AM
There have been complaints about Childress' play calling (run, run, pass, punt) throughout the game. But if I remember right there were a lot of people also complaining at the beginning of the season that the Vikes were passing the ball way to much and that we had "one of the best backfields in the NFL" so why not run the ball more?

Perhaps Childress saw the numerous interceptions being thrown at the beginning of the season, saw that maybe he didn't have the talent he thought he did at quarterback, and now is stuck between a rock and hard place because he doesn't have confidence in his quarterback to make the throws they need to make, so really his only option is to give the ball to the playmakers on the team (AD, Chester). I'm sure he sees that his QB's are not performing at a level that they need to perform on.....I'm sure if TJ doesn't turn around, he will feel like an idiot.....I'm sure his is going to weigh his options in the offseason, but for right now HE IS STUCK! He has to do whatever he can to try and win this team some ball games, and if he is lacking confidence in his QB's at this point, he is going to try to win games by running the ball down the other teams throat.

IMO... ;)

Big C
11-18-2007, 11:30 AM
Thats the frustrating part. Bollinger can make more throws than TJ can. However, when we started Bollinger last week, we played the same run, run, pass, punt offense. I'm not trying to say Bollinger is better than TJ here. My point is that Childress's inability to adjust the offense to the players skills is what's killing us.

Skilled players will come and go but the offense will always stink because the system is so rigid and cannot be tweaked. We need an OC to take the offense out of Chilli's hands (like the defense) and tweak the system to work with players strengths and weaknesses.

Other than for the offense, Chilli is doing a great job as HC.

MaxVike
11-18-2007, 11:32 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"Mr-holland" wrote:


Why are you guys talking about being 8-8 with great QB and great Wr's?
you can be 11-5 easily with the team we have now and better Qb, and wr's are you crazy??


Why would they be happy with 8-8?

Hell I thought the main reason they wanted Tice out is because they didn't like mediocrity.

Now two years later they'd be happy with it? Go figure....


I'm not quite sure who "they" are, but, by no means did I imply 8-8 with "being happy."
My point, clearly stated, is that, with MEDIOCRE QB play, we'd be over .500, in fact, I've been saying that for months.
This post actually accentuates my point.
This team is capable of much more, I'm interested in people's opinions as to whether the coach is.
I don't think he is.

Marrdro
11-18-2007, 11:38 AM
"huxx" wrote:


"happy" wrote:


Could Coach Childress win with a better QB?

Absolutely.

But this staff shipped out Culpepper, relied on Brad Johnson, passed on Drew Brees, hitched their wagon to Tarvaris Jackson, and used Mike McMahon, Brooks Bollinger, Drew Hensen, and Kelly Holcomb.

So to answer your question, yes. But they made their bed and are now lying in it.


very true

Well almost "Very True"

Culpepper didn't help the situation out either.
Refusing to rehab in MN or even come back and at least look the new coach in the eyes.
Resorted to emailing the local press hacks to try to get his agenda done.

Brad's arm went faster than anticipated.
I do blame the organization (not just the Chiller) for not at least trying to keep him as a back up for TJ.

Drew Brees still had lots of questions regarding his arm. Lets remember hindsight is 20/20 here.
Other teams past on Brees, including the Charges over this very issue.

Settled for TJ after missing out on Cutler and Clemens.
Additionally, the FA QB's that have been available haven't been that stellar either.
Only one that could/would have worked out would have been Garcia.

happy camper
11-18-2007, 12:04 PM
I was not necessarily saying all those were bad. They are all part of the progression to the point we are at right now.

singersp
11-19-2007, 06:59 AM
"MaxVike" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Mr-holland" wrote:


Why are you guys talking about being 8-8 with great QB and great Wr's?
you can be 11-5 easily with the team we have now and better Qb, and wr's are you crazy??


Why would they be happy with 8-8?

Hell I thought the main reason they wanted Tice out is because they didn't like mediocrity.

Now two years later they'd be happy with it? Go figure....


I'm not quite sure who "they" are, but, by no means did I imply 8-8 with "being happy."
My point, clearly stated, is that, with MEDIOCRE QB play, we'd be over .500, in fact, I've been saying that for months.
This post actually accentuates my point.
This team is capable of much more, I'm interested in people's opinions as to whether the coach is.
I don't think he is.


"They" are not you. "They" are the ones who wanted Tice out because he was mediocre & yet have claimed they would be happy if Childress finished 8-8 this season after being 6-10 last year.

That's 14-18 & worse than what they wanted to get rid of, yet they are happy?
:-

leftoverture
11-22-2007, 11:10 AM
So far, Childress hasn't shown much in the way of game planning skills.
I liked opening with the trick play last week, a sign that maybe he's been simplifying the playbook due to lack of confidence in the players he has.
But maybe T-Jack and some others are under preforming because the coaching is poor.
As of right now, I think Childress needs to be replaced but if he can turn it around in the final 6 games and show me something, I will change my mind.
I think the Giants game is a real test.


(By the way. . .the defense might just look better if the offense could keep them off the field!)

Marrdro
11-23-2007, 08:40 AM
"leftoverture" wrote:


So far, Childress hasn't shown much in the way of game planning skills.
I liked opening with the trick play last week, a sign that maybe he's been simplifying the playbook due to lack of confidence in the players he has.
But maybe T-Jack and some others are under preforming because the coaching is poor.
As of right now, I think Childress needs to be replaced but if he can turn it around in the final 6 games and show me something, I will change my mind.
I think the Giants game is a real test.


(By the way. . .the defense might just look better if the offense could keep them off the field!)

I think it is the other way around my friend.
Think of it this way, would you give a 3rd grader a 12th graders math book and expect him to learn it?
I think not.
You would give him a 3rd grade math book, get him to master that and then move on to the 4th, 5th, etc etc.

We started with a limited playbook that gets opened a bit more every week as the players get more comfortable with the overall scheme and thier experience level in that scheme (Vet and Rook alike) grows.

Every week, if one cares to notice, the plays to get more and more complicated to include the addition of another trick/gadget play into the set someplace.

On defense, we started out with our base 4-3, now we are a team that bounces back and forth between the 4-3 and 3-4.
That is very hard to coach and as hard for the players to execute. But as the players get used to it and can execute it on a regular basis with consistency it will be very hard to defend against a defense that can play both at will.


On offense we see alot more motion (and not just from the TE like we saw early on).
WR's faking reverses/running reverses, backs catching balls out of the back field, QB starting to roll out, OL blocking better (hell I even saw a big pocket last week) along with player sets like 2 WR's split wide with a TE standing/split next to them, 3 TE's w/FB and RB.
All very intricate plays that defenses don't normally see.


Long story short, we are seeing more and more of the playbook as the team matures (young guys) and get comfortable with the scheme (Vets as well).

Back to the question of the thread........How good would this team be if they had a Vet QB of the stature/skill level of a Brady or Lord Favreee?
Anyone with half a brain would agree that we would be right in the thick of things and most of the Chiller haters would be singing a different tune my friend.

Purple Floyd
11-23-2007, 09:04 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"leftoverture" wrote:


So far, Childress hasn't shown much in the way of game planning skills.
I liked opening with the trick play last week, a sign that maybe he's been simplifying the playbook due to lack of confidence in the players he has.
But maybe T-Jack and some others are under preforming because the coaching is poor.
As of right now, I think Childress needs to be replaced but if he can turn it around in the final 6 games and show me something, I will change my mind.
I think the Giants game is a real test.


(By the way. . .the defense might just look better if the offense could keep them off the field!)

I think it is the other way around my friend.
Think of it this way, would you give a 3rd grader a 12th graders math book and expect him to learn it?
I think not.
You would give him a 3rd grade math book, get him to master that and then move on to the 4th, 5th, etc etc.

We started with a limited playbook that gets opened a bit more every week as the players get more comfortable with the overall scheme and thier experience level in that scheme (Vet and Rook alike) grows.

Every week, if one cares to notice, the plays to get more and more complicated to include the addition of another trick/gadget play into the set someplace.

On defense, we started out with our base 4-3, now we are a team that bounces back and forth between the 4-3 and 3-4.
That is very hard to coach and as hard for the players to execute. But as the players get used to it and can execute it on a regular basis with consistency it will be very hard to defend against a defense that can play both at will.


On offense we see alot more motion (and not just from the TE like we saw early on).
WR's faking reverses/running reverses, backs catching balls out of the back field, QB starting to roll out, OL blocking better (hell I even saw a big pocket last week) along with player sets like 2 WR's split wide with a TE standing/split next to them, 3 TE's w/FB and RB.
All very intricate plays that defenses don't normally see.


Long story short, we are seeing more and more of the playbook as the team matures (young guys) and get comfortable with the scheme (Vets as well).

Back to the question of the thread........How good would this team be if they had a Vet QB of the stature/skill level of a Brady or Lord Favreee?
Anyone with half a brain would agree that we would be right in the thick of things and most of the Chiller haters would be singing a different tune my friend.


That is probably where the problem is then. It is pretty clear that with the exception of run blocking, the offense hasn't gotten their masters degree in anything so in your scenario what they are doing is installing new plays and formations before they have shown that they have mastered the formations from the previous week. Maybe they should go back to where they were last year in week 4 and go from there. ;D

Marrdro
11-23-2007, 09:14 AM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"leftoverture" wrote:


So far, Childress hasn't shown much in the way of game planning skills.
I liked opening with the trick play last week, a sign that maybe he's been simplifying the playbook due to lack of confidence in the players he has.
But maybe T-Jack and some others are under preforming because the coaching is poor.
As of right now, I think Childress needs to be replaced but if he can turn it around in the final 6 games and show me something, I will change my mind.
I think the Giants game is a real test.


(By the way. . .the defense might just look better if the offense could keep them off the field!)

I think it is the other way around my friend.
Think of it this way, would you give a 3rd grader a 12th graders math book and expect him to learn it?
I think not.
You would give him a 3rd grade math book, get him to master that and then move on to the 4th, 5th, etc etc.

We started with a limited playbook that gets opened a bit more every week as the players get more comfortable with the overall scheme and thier experience level in that scheme (Vet and Rook alike) grows.

Every week, if one cares to notice, the plays to get more and more complicated to include the addition of another trick/gadget play into the set someplace.

On defense, we started out with our base 4-3, now we are a team that bounces back and forth between the 4-3 and 3-4.
That is very hard to coach and as hard for the players to execute. But as the players get used to it and can execute it on a regular basis with consistency it will be very hard to defend against a defense that can play both at will.


On offense we see alot more motion (and not just from the TE like we saw early on).
WR's faking reverses/running reverses, backs catching balls out of the back field, QB starting to roll out, OL blocking better (hell I even saw a big pocket last week) along with player sets like 2 WR's split wide with a TE standing/split next to them, 3 TE's w/FB and RB.
All very intricate plays that defenses don't normally see.


Long story short, we are seeing more and more of the playbook as the team matures (young guys) and get comfortable with the scheme (Vets as well).

Back to the question of the thread........How good would this team be if they had a Vet QB of the stature/skill level of a Brady or Lord Favreee?
Anyone with half a brain would agree that we would be right in the thick of things and most of the Chiller haters would be singing a different tune my friend.


That is probably where the problem is then. It is pretty clear that with the exception of run blocking, the offense hasn't gotten their masters degree in anything so in your scenario what they are doing is installing new plays and formations before they have shown that they have mastered the formations from the previous week. Maybe they should go back to where they were last year in week 4 and go from there. ;D

Ohhh I don't know about that.
Seems we are now in the upper half of the league in offense.
::)

Some will come with the lame excuse (its only because of AD) but isn't he part of the offense?
When you really look at it, it isn't very far from a 162 yard avg per game to a 200 yard average in passing per game, which would get us up there in the top half as well.

If TJ can just stay fricken healthy, I anticipate us climbing that ladder as well over the next 3 or 4 weeks. (no smiley face).

Our WR's can catch, our OL is pass blocking better, we seem to be opening the playbook a bit more etc etc etc.
Are we gonna be a great passing team by the end of the year......Hell No, but we aren't a passing team anyway are we.
We just need to be in the top half to help out the running game a bit.

Prophet
11-23-2007, 09:15 AM
Like has been suggested before, they should start a new trend with no QB.
CT & AD in the backfield while rotating TJack, Rice, Kluwe, and maybe a few other in to toss the ball or run with it.
Every play would be perceived as a gadget play, but, in reality it would be carefully planned to perfection....I need another hit...

singersp
11-23-2007, 09:22 AM
"Prophet" wrote:


Like has been suggested before, they should start a new trend with no QB.
CT & AD in the backfield while rotating TJack, Rice, Kluwe, and maybe a few other in to toss the ball or run with it.
Every play would be perceived as a gadget play, but, in reality it would be carefully planned to perfection....I need another hit...



http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b21/singersp82759/smilies/bitchslap.gif

leftoverture
11-23-2007, 10:19 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:



I think it is the other way around my friend.
Think of it this way, would you give a 3rd grader a 12th graders math book and expect him to learn it?
I think not.
You would give him a 3rd grade math book, get him to master that and then move on to the 4th, 5th, etc etc.

We started with a limited playbook that gets opened a bit more every week as the players get more comfortable with the overall scheme and thier experience level in that scheme (Vet and Rook alike) grows.

Every week, if one cares to notice, the plays to get more and more complicated to include the addition of another trick/gadget play into the set someplace.

On defense, we started out with our base 4-3, now we are a team that bounces back and forth between the 4-3 and 3-4.
That is very hard to coach and as hard for the players to execute. But as the players get used to it and can execute it on a regular basis with consistency it will be very hard to defend against a defense that can play both at will.


On offense we see alot more motion (and not just from the TE like we saw early on).
WR's faking reverses/running reverses, backs catching balls out of the back field, QB starting to roll out, OL blocking better (hell I even saw a big pocket last week) along with player sets like 2 WR's split wide with a TE standing/split next to them, 3 TE's w/FB and RB.
All very intricate plays that defenses don't normally see.


Long story short, we are seeing more and more of the playbook as the team matures (young guys) and get comfortable with the scheme (Vets as well).

Back to the question of the thread........How good would this team be if they had a Vet QB of the stature/skill level of a Brady or Lord Favreee?
Anyone with half a brain would agree that we would be right in the thick of things and most of the Chiller haters would be singing a different tune my friend.


Actually, I think we are saying the same thing as far as the playbook goes.
But it is only speculation as neither of us are on the coaching staff so we really don't know if that's it or not. . .

Marrdro
11-23-2007, 10:23 AM
"leftoverture" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:



I think it is the other way around my friend.
Think of it this way, would you give a 3rd grader a 12th graders math book and expect him to learn it?
I think not.
You would give him a 3rd grade math book, get him to master that and then move on to the 4th, 5th, etc etc.

We started with a limited playbook that gets opened a bit more every week as the players get more comfortable with the overall scheme and thier experience level in that scheme (Vet and Rook alike) grows.

Every week, if one cares to notice, the plays to get more and more complicated to include the addition of another trick/gadget play into the set someplace.

On defense, we started out with our base 4-3, now we are a team that bounces back and forth between the 4-3 and 3-4.
That is very hard to coach and as hard for the players to execute. But as the players get used to it and can execute it on a regular basis with consistency it will be very hard to defend against a defense that can play both at will.


On offense we see alot more motion (and not just from the TE like we saw early on).
WR's faking reverses/running reverses, backs catching balls out of the back field, QB starting to roll out, OL blocking better (hell I even saw a big pocket last week) along with player sets like 2 WR's split wide with a TE standing/split next to them, 3 TE's w/FB and RB.
All very intricate plays that defenses don't normally see.


Long story short, we are seeing more and more of the playbook as the team matures (young guys) and get comfortable with the scheme (Vets as well).

Back to the question of the thread........How good would this team be if they had a Vet QB of the stature/skill level of a Brady or Lord Favreee?
Anyone with half a brain would agree that we would be right in the thick of things and most of the Chiller haters would be singing a different tune my friend.


Actually, I think we are saying the same thing as far as the playbook goes.
But it is only speculation as neither of us are on the coaching staff so we really don't know if that's it or not. . .

Fun to speculate though isn't it.
;D

SKOL
11-23-2007, 11:04 AM
"Big" wrote:


If we don't get a new OC next year we should fire Childress. Rookie mistakes are expected and understandable. Stubbornness and pride are inexcusable.

Careful, don't push Marrdro's buttons Big C.
;D

Actually, I think Marrdro's right about the playbook opening up a bit as time goes on.
Plus the O-Line seems to have improved in the pass protection department (knock on wood).
I think a good QB can succeed in this system, particularly if the OL keeps up with improvement, and our young receiving corps matures.

Marrdro, if you read this, we like you better with the smiley's.
;D

Purple D
11-23-2007, 11:13 AM
"SKOL" wrote:


"Big" wrote:


If we don't get a new OC next year we should fire Childress. Rookie mistakes are expected and understandable. Stubbornness and pride are inexcusable.

Careful, don't push Marrdro's buttons Big C.

;D

Actually, I think Marrdro's right about the playbook opening up a bit as time goes on.
Plus the O-Line seems to have improved in the pass protection department (knock on wood).
I think a good QB can succeed in this system, particularly if the OL keeps up with improvement, and our young receiving corps matures.

Marrdro, if you read this, we like you better with the smiley's.

;D


We all love Marrdro better with the smileys.
But I find myself always believing in what Marrdro says.
He speaks like he sees and doesn't let anyone change his convictions or his attitude.


I still think That TJ could of used one more year to learn under a veteran QB.
If Garcia was brought in here this offseason to be the starter and mentor to TJ,
I think the future of the Vikings and our record this season would be much better than they are now.
;D

singersp
11-23-2007, 11:29 AM
"SKOL" wrote:



Marrdro, if you read this, we like you better with the smiley's.

;D




"Purple" wrote:



We all love Marrdro better with the smileys.



He should just have a big-ass smiley as his sig & be done with it.
;)

http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/smiley_face.jpg

BadlandsVikings
11-23-2007, 11:35 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"SKOL" wrote:



Marrdro, if you read this, we like you better with the smiley's.

;D




"Purple" wrote:



We all love Marrdro better with the smileys.



He should just have a big-ass smiley as his sig & be done with it.
;)

http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/smiley_face.jpg


Mr. Smiley would be a good title for him
:)

BigMoInAZ
11-23-2007, 11:55 AM
Just opening up the playbook? ???
Just breaking them in slowly???
Give me a break!

No wonder this team SUCKS!

If you believe this concept then I feel for you!
This certainly isn't an attack on anyone, but that post was MORONIC to the nth degree! ::)

C Mac D
11-23-2007, 11:57 AM
"BigMoInAZ" wrote:


Just opening up the playbook? ???
Just breaking them in slowly???
Give me a break!

No wonder this team SUCKS!

If you believe this concept then I feel for you!
This certainly isn't an attack on anyone, but that post was MORONIC to the nth degree! ::)


Just a forewarning... you may be criticized for having rational thoughts.

BigMoInAZ
11-23-2007, 12:03 PM
That's the least of my worries C Mac D!
Especially from a Purple Fan Message Board!

But thanks for the headsup. ;)

C Mac D
11-23-2007, 12:08 PM
"BigMoInAZ" wrote:


That's the least of my worries C Mac D!
Especially from a Purple Fan Message Board!

But thanks for the headsup. ;)


I completely agree with what you said... but someone will wax-ecstatic about how Chilly is not to blame and how he just needs time... while they completely ignore facts and observations.

But, by all means... preach on.

greatness79
11-23-2007, 12:16 PM
"MaxVike" wrote:


Anyone?
As I've been saying, I'm pissed that our Vikings have come to this sad state of affairs.
Before the season started, I stated many times, that I thought this team could contend for a playoff spot with "mediocre" QB play.
Quite obviously, we haven't had mediocre QB play...it's been aweful - that's a FACT.


Regardless of expectations of stats (mine were minimal for the QB) we would be over .500 (at a minimum) with mediocre QB contribution (2 victories alone if the "QB of the week" could hit a wide open receiver vs KC and Detroit).
Furthermore, the Vikes would be 1-8, yes, 1-8, without AD by my estimation.

Defense has underperformed, sorry, they have.
There are some bright spots, but, I just had to let 30 people go at work...these guys need to buck up, and, I would bet you multiple cases of Liney's that they agree (if they don't, they should be fired, IMMEDIATELY).


OK, so, here's the question...Can Childress lead this team and WIN, with a good QB?

The thing that often times gets lost in the discussion is this poorly performing offense is mostly Childress' invention.
Sure, he has Burke, McKinney, Jimmy K and a couple other people held over from Tice, but most everyone else is hand picked by him.
Gives you an idea of what this guy's conception of winning football players (CT and AD notwithstanding) are; especially at QB.

davike
11-23-2007, 01:08 PM
Could Belicheck win without a QB?

jessejames09
11-23-2007, 01:36 PM
"davike" wrote:


Could Belicheck win without a QB?


Would Tom Brady even be a starter without Belicheck?

SKOL
11-23-2007, 02:53 PM
"BigMoInAZ" wrote:


Just opening up the playbook? ???
Just breaking them in slowly???
Give me a break!

No wonder this team SUCKS!

If you believe this concept then I feel for you!
This certainly isn't an attack on anyone, but that post was MORONIC to the nth degree! ::)


http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/smiley_face.jpg

mountainviking
11-23-2007, 04:12 PM
Wow.
Has the discussion really turned into is the "Is the glass half full vs. half empty?"

You know, we're really not that far off...We all want our team to succeed!!
We all want WINS!!
Shouldn't it always be, PURPLE PRIDE vs. the NFL!!??

Sometimes, seems to me, the "Glass is half full," people tend to offer ideas and guesses, educated or not, as to how our team can be better...whether it be play-calling, personnel, coaches whatever, some sort of hope to help fill the glass.

Sometimes, some of the "Glass is half empty," people seem to just shout opinions without offering any insight into where they came from...I guess, the current record is proof enough to empty the glass.
I'd like more info as I try to see through the swirling chaos just how many things can be pulling on a situation...Is Brez really just cheap, or does it have more to do with the market we're in?
Has the oline finally learned the zone, or have we just played teams with weaker defenses?
Will Birk's hips ever be the same?
For how long will the organization feel the effects of McCombs' Malnourishing?


Right now, I'm on the fence...guess the Packer game slapped me back into reality somewhat-ouch ;)
Then again, 4-6 sounds a whole lot better than 3-6, don't it?
;D
Maybe I'm a little anti change in general, I wanted Tice to stick too, with more help, specifically, a legit OC (might help here?)...but that was then...Now, I'm hoping for, and seeing improvement.
Better plays called, less stupid challenges, better blocking, less drops etc...But, I am also concerned that some of the same things we had problems with last year have continued to hold us back...passing, pass rush and pass defense.


In our few glimpses of a passing game, our running game has improved noticeably and that improvement on offense in general has led to better games by our defense...ahh, potential.
So, yeah, I think we can win with a QB...the question is who and how do we get him?
The coach, IMHO, at this point is secondary...on one hand, any new guy would be, at least on some level, starting over, again.
On the other, giving the Chiller that third year to bring it all together, may be delaying the inevitable...only time will tell.
Hopefully, either way, the team show progress on the field!!

SKOL!!

Braddock
11-23-2007, 04:44 PM
"greatness79" wrote:


"MaxVike" wrote:


Anyone?
As I've been saying, I'm pissed that our Vikings have come to this sad state of affairs.
Before the season started, I stated many times, that I thought this team could contend for a playoff spot with "mediocre" QB play.
Quite obviously, we haven't had mediocre QB play...it's been aweful - that's a FACT.


Regardless of expectations of stats (mine were minimal for the QB) we would be over .500 (at a minimum) with mediocre QB contribution (2 victories alone if the "QB of the week" could hit a wide open receiver vs KC and Detroit).
Furthermore, the Vikes would be 1-8, yes, 1-8, without AD by my estimation.

Defense has underperformed, sorry, they have.
There are some bright spots, but, I just had to let 30 people go at work...these guys need to buck up, and, I would bet you multiple cases of Liney's that they agree (if they don't, they should be fired, IMMEDIATELY).


OK, so, here's the question...Can Childress lead this team and WIN, with a good QB?

The thing that often times gets lost in the discussion is this poorly performing offense is mostly Childress' invention.
Sure, he has Burke, McKinney, Jimmy K and a couple other people held over from Tice, but most everyone else is hand picked by him.
Gives you an idea of what this guy's conception of winning football players (CT and AD notwithstanding) are; especially at QB.


If you don't take into account the rooks (Griffin (2nd), McCauley(1)) our starting secondary a Ticers, Winfield, Sharper, was Smith? and they aren't doing that great. Henderson is a Chiller pick right? He's great. Williamson was a ticer and while he's improving, still not up to par. The vets (Tank williams, Hutch....) and the 1st and 2nd rounders the Chiller have picked are performing at a high level. You're right those ticers are doing well if you call a slow mckinnie and non starter jimmy k good, but I'd say you're overall wrong. Soooo, I'd check your facts. No offense.

purplepride_1961
11-23-2007, 05:18 PM
Who would that QB throw to... maybe fitz

Purple Floyd
11-23-2007, 05:32 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"leftoverture" wrote:


So far, Childress hasn't shown much in the way of game planning skills.
I liked opening with the trick play last week, a sign that maybe he's been simplifying the playbook due to lack of confidence in the players he has.
But maybe T-Jack and some others are under preforming because the coaching is poor.
As of right now, I think Childress needs to be replaced but if he can turn it around in the final 6 games and show me something, I will change my mind.
I think the Giants game is a real test.


(By the way. . .the defense might just look better if the offense could keep them off the field!)

I think it is the other way around my friend.
Think of it this way, would you give a 3rd grader a 12th graders math book and expect him to learn it?
I think not.
You would give him a 3rd grade math book, get him to master that and then move on to the 4th, 5th, etc etc.

We started with a limited playbook that gets opened a bit more every week as the players get more comfortable with the overall scheme and thier experience level in that scheme (Vet and Rook alike) grows.

Every week, if one cares to notice, the plays to get more and more complicated to include the addition of another trick/gadget play into the set someplace.

On defense, we started out with our base 4-3, now we are a team that bounces back and forth between the 4-3 and 3-4.
That is very hard to coach and as hard for the players to execute. But as the players get used to it and can execute it on a regular basis with consistency it will be very hard to defend against a defense that can play both at will.


On offense we see alot more motion (and not just from the TE like we saw early on).
WR's faking reverses/running reverses, backs catching balls out of the back field, QB starting to roll out, OL blocking better (hell I even saw a big pocket last week) along with player sets like 2 WR's split wide with a TE standing/split next to them, 3 TE's w/FB and RB.
All very intricate plays that defenses don't normally see.


Long story short, we are seeing more and more of the playbook as the team matures (young guys) and get comfortable with the scheme (Vets as well).

Back to the question of the thread........How good would this team be if they had a Vet QB of the stature/skill level of a Brady or Lord Favreee?
Anyone with half a brain would agree that we would be right in the thick of things and most of the Chiller haters would be singing a different tune my friend.


That is probably where the problem is then. It is pretty clear that with the exception of run blocking, the offense hasn't gotten their masters degree in anything so in your scenario what they are doing is installing new plays and formations before they have shown that they have mastered the formations from the previous week. Maybe they should go back to where they were last year in week 4 and go from there. ;D

Ohhh I don't know about that.
Seems we are now in the upper half of the league in offense.
::)

Some will come with the lame excuse (its only because of AD) but isn't he part of the offense?
When you really look at it, it isn't very far from a 162 yard avg per game to a 200 yard average in passing per game, which would get us up there in the top half as well.

If TJ can just stay fricken healthy, I anticipate us climbing that ladder as well over the next 3 or 4 weeks. (no smiley face).

Our WR's can catch, our OL is pass blocking better, we seem to be opening the playbook a bit more etc etc etc.
Are we gonna be a great passing team by the end of the year......Hell No, but we aren't a passing team anyway are we.
We just need to be in the top half to help out the running game a bit.


Well then, I guess there is nothing more to say. We now have an offense predicated on the pass that got into the middle of the pack by running. That pretty much says it all lol.

I guess if being just over 50 % makes you happy you should be satisfied for years to come. ;D We had that before though.


BTW I am now officially TJ's biggest backer in the world of Purple.

With all of this talk about McNugget coming over from Philly I will cheer for anyone who can keep him away so:

GOOOOOO TJ !!!!!!!!!!!!

Frostbite
11-23-2007, 11:58 PM
Well....I will say what I have been thinking since fans started taliking up McNab coming here. I think it's a bad idea and here's why.

Donovan is in his 9th season and has been around the NFL block physically. He could still have some seasons left in him, but In my opinion he's one serious injury away from retirement, and while he could possibly be a mentor for T.Jack I doubt that Donovan would relish the idea of warming the bench either... even if the money was top shelf. This in turn assumes you want T.Jack to still be here (Which I Think He Will Be)...in 08. That brings up the question where do you want to spend your cap dollars for 08?? A veteran QB alone will not change the direction of the offense or the team in my humble opinion. We need some help at other positions...especially on defense. I don't think McNab will come cheap...if he even wants to come to Minnesota to back up T.Jack. I'm quite sure Donovan still feels he can start for most teams around the League.

In addition we really should be careful (Consider Wisely) all of the areas we need help in and who will be avialable to fill those voids from the UFA and RFA as well as possible trades in the off season. Drafting for skill is an option but usually requires some playing time (Experience) as a starter before the new rookie can begin to play up to his potential at any position. Remember...I said USUALLY. There have been some exceptions ie Adrian Peterson/Randy Moss...but these are rare.

Several folks here have posted the FA QB list and quite frankly there wasn't to much on it I could get excited about??
One...possibly two guys at best.

Cheers!

greatness79
11-24-2007, 12:03 AM
"Braddock" wrote:


"greatness79" wrote:


"MaxVike" wrote:


Anyone?
As I've been saying, I'm pissed that our Vikings have come to this sad state of affairs.
Before the season started, I stated many times, that I thought this team could contend for a playoff spot with "mediocre" QB play.
Quite obviously, we haven't had mediocre QB play...it's been aweful - that's a FACT.


Regardless of expectations of stats (mine were minimal for the QB) we would be over .500 (at a minimum) with mediocre QB contribution (2 victories alone if the "QB of the week" could hit a wide open receiver vs KC and Detroit).
Furthermore, the Vikes would be 1-8, yes, 1-8, without AD by my estimation.

Defense has underperformed, sorry, they have.
There are some bright spots, but, I just had to let 30 people go at work...these guys need to buck up, and, I would bet you multiple cases of Liney's that they agree (if they don't, they should be fired, IMMEDIATELY).


OK, so, here's the question...Can Childress lead this team and WIN, with a good QB?

The thing that often times gets lost in the discussion is this poorly performing offense is mostly Childress' invention.
Sure, he has Burke, McKinney, Jimmy K and a couple other people held over from Tice, but most everyone else is hand picked by him.
Gives you an idea of what this guy's conception of winning football players (CT and AD notwithstanding) are; especially at QB.


If you don't take into account the rooks (Griffin (2nd), McCauley(1)) our starting secondary a Ticers, Winfield, Sharper, was Smith? and they aren't doing that great. Henderson is a Chiller pick right? He's great. Williamson was a ticer and while he's improving, still not up to par. The vets (Tank williams, Hutch....) and the 1st and 2nd rounders the Chiller have picked are performing at a high level. You're right those ticers are doing well if you call a slow mckinnie and non starter jimmy k good, but I'd say you're overall wrong. Soooo, I'd check your facts. No offense.
Quite obviously I don't want to get into a back and forthe but here are some facts.
Our QB's suck, right?
Who brought 'em in?
Wr's couldn't bring a towel to the shower for Moss or Carter right?
Take dropsy Williamson out of the equation, Chilly brought 'em in.
Cook, and number 79...Childress!
Visanco (need a tricky play to get open and dropped a trick play TD at KC) Shanco....Childress pick.
Anything further, you figure it out.
Even with AD and CT we still can't score enough to win on offense.
Examples:
GB, Det, KC, Dallas, a couple more.

Frostbite
11-24-2007, 12:06 AM
"greatness79" wrote:


"Braddock" wrote:


"greatness79" wrote:


"MaxVike" wrote:


Anyone?
As I've been saying, I'm pissed that our Vikings have come to this sad state of affairs.
Before the season started, I stated many times, that I thought this team could contend for a playoff spot with "mediocre" QB play.
Quite obviously, we haven't had mediocre QB play...it's been aweful - that's a FACT.


Regardless of expectations of stats (mine were minimal for the QB) we would be over .500 (at a minimum) with mediocre QB contribution (2 victories alone if the "QB of the week" could hit a wide open receiver vs KC and Detroit).
Furthermore, the Vikes would be 1-8, yes, 1-8, without AD by my estimation.

Defense has underperformed, sorry, they have.
There are some bright spots, but, I just had to let 30 people go at work...these guys need to buck up, and, I would bet you multiple cases of Liney's that they agree (if they don't, they should be fired, IMMEDIATELY).


OK, so, here's the question...Can Childress lead this team and WIN, with a good QB?
The thing that often times gets lost in the discussion is this poorly performing offense is mostly Childress' invention.
Sure, he has Burke, McKinney, Jimmy K and a couple other people held over from Tice, but most everyone else is hand picked by him.
Gives you an idea of what this guy's conception of winning football players (CT and AD notwithstanding) are; especially at QB.


If you don't take into account the rooks (Griffin (2nd), McCauley(1)) our starting secondary a Ticers, Winfield, Sharper, was Smith? and they aren't doing that great. Henderson is a Chiller pick right? He's great. Williamson was a ticer and while he's improving, still not up to par. The vets (Tank williams, Hutch....) and the 1st and 2nd rounders the Chiller have picked are performing at a high level. You're right those ticers are doing well if you call a slow mckinnie and non starter jimmy k good, but I'd say you're overall wrong. Soooo, I'd check your facts. No offense.
Quite obviously I don't want to get into a back and forthe but here are some facts.
Our QB's suck, right?
Who brought 'em in?
Wr's couldn't bring a towel to the shower for Moss or Carter right?
Take dropsy Williamson out of the equation, Chilly brought 'em in.
Cook, and number 79...Childress!
Visanco (need a tricky play to get open and dropped a trick play TD at KC) Shanco....Childress pick.
Anything further, you figure it out.
Even with AD and CT we still can't score enough to win on offense.
Examples:
GB, Det, KC, Dallas, a couple more.





So....back on topic.....No...He can't. Because I don't think it's the QB position alone that is the issue currently.


Cheers!

V-Unit
11-24-2007, 01:08 AM
I can't believe the responses in this thread. Even with average performances in pass blocking, pass coverage, and pass rush, offensive ineptitufe, particularly ineptitude in our passing attack, has been our main problem, by far.

With a great QB, we are 8-2 right now, with a good QB, we are 6-4.

Just to stir the pot a little more, he are some QBs that would have us at 8-2 right now:
Peyton Manning
Tom Brady
Brett Favre
Tony Romo
Jon Kitna
Ben Roethlisberger

6-4 QBs:
Carson Palmer
Drew Brees
Jason Campbell
Donovan McNabb
Derek Anderson
Eli Manning
Jeff Garcia
Jay Cutler
Matt Schaub
Philip Rivers
Vince Young
David Garrard
JP Losman
Brooks Bollinger

sharper42
11-24-2007, 01:19 AM
"V" wrote:


I can't believe the responses in this thread. Even with average performances in pass blocking, pass coverage, and pass rush, offensive ineptitufe, particularly ineptitude in our passing attack, has been our main problem, by far.

With a great QB, we are 8-2 right now, with a good QB, we are 6-4.

Just to stir the pot a little more, he are some QBs that would have us at 8-2 right now:
Peyton Manning
Tom Brady
Brett Favre
Tony Romo
Jon Kitna
Ben Roethlisberger

6-4 QBs:
Carson Palmer
Drew Brees
Jason Campbell
Donovan McNabb
Derek Anderson
Eli Manning
Jeff Garcia
Jay Cutler
Matt Schaub
Philip Rivers
Vince Young
David Garrard
JP Losman
Brooks Bollinger

def not 8-2 with Kitna, hes not that good and brooks bollinger WTF???

Frostbite
11-24-2007, 01:23 AM
"V" wrote:


I can't believe the responses in this thread. Even with average performances in pass blocking, pass coverage, and pass rush, offensive ineptitufe, particularly ineptitude in our passing attack, has been our main problem, by far.
With a great QB, we are 8-2 right now, with a good QB, we are 6-4.

Just to stir the pot a little more, he are some QBs that would have us at 8-2 right now:
Peyton Manning
Tom Brady
Brett Favre
Tony Romo
Jon Kitna
Ben Roethlisberger

6-4 QBs:
Carson Palmer
Drew Brees
Jason Campbell
Donovan McNabb
Derek Anderson
Eli Manning
Jeff Garcia
Jay Cutler
Matt Schaub
Philip Rivers
Vince Young
David Garrard
JP Losman
Brooks Bollinger



Hey V...I respect your thoughts here. I do think passing has been as issue, but I would bet you could also make an argument about Pass defense as being just as bad or a "Main" problem area, as you say.

Also...out of the Qbs you listed how many did the Vikings have a real chance to get at any time....if ever? Jeff Garcia is one we might have had a shot to get in the off season. I can't see any others on your list (maybe I'm missing something) that could have landed here??

Also...you list Brooks Bollinger as having us at 6-4 in your post. Should I assume from this you believe he should have started over T.Jack this season?? How else could BB get us to 6-4??

Cheers!

davike
11-24-2007, 01:38 AM
"jessejames09" wrote:


"davike" wrote:


Could Belicheck win without a QB?


Would Tom Brady even be a starter without Belicheck?


Would Brady even be a starter without Bledsoe?

Oh and to answer your question....yep, I think he would have been.

singersp
11-24-2007, 06:52 AM
"V" wrote:


I can't believe the responses in this thread. Even with average performances in pass blocking, pass coverage, and pass rush, offensive ineptitufe, particularly ineptitude in our passing attack, has been our main problem, by far.

With a great QB, we are 8-2 right now, with a good QB, we are 6-4.

Just to stir the pot a little more, he are some QBs that would have us at 8-2 right now:
Peyton Manning
Tom Brady
Brett Favre
Tony Romo
Jon Kitna
Ben Roethlisberger

6-4 QBs:
Carson Palmer
Drew Brees
Jason Campbell
Donovan McNabb
Derek Anderson
Eli Manning
Jeff Garcia
Jay Cutler
Matt Schaub
Philip Rivers
Vince Young
David Garrard
JP Losman
Brooks Bollinger


How did you even surmise that we'd be 6-4 with Bollinger starting? In the 4 games he's played in, we won only 1 of them.

Marrdro
11-24-2007, 07:40 AM
"SKOL" wrote:


"Big" wrote:


If we don't get a new OC next year we should fire Childress. Rookie mistakes are expected and understandable. Stubbornness and pride are inexcusable.

Careful, don't push Marrdro's buttons Big C.

;D

Actually, I think Marrdro's right about the playbook opening up a bit as time goes on.
Plus the O-Line seems to have improved in the pass protection department (knock on wood).
I think a good QB can succeed in this system, particularly if the OL keeps up with improvement, and our young receiving corps matures.

Marrdro, if you read this, we like you better with the smiley's.

;D


;D
;D
;D
Just remember, it isn't very far from the new Marrdro to the old Marrdro my friend.

Nice post.
;D

Marrdro
11-24-2007, 07:42 AM
"Purple" wrote:


"SKOL" wrote:


"Big" wrote:


If we don't get a new OC next year we should fire Childress. Rookie mistakes are expected and understandable. Stubbornness and pride are inexcusable.

Careful, don't push Marrdro's buttons Big C.

;D

Actually, I think Marrdro's right about the playbook opening up a bit as time goes on.
Plus the O-Line seems to have improved in the pass protection department (knock on wood).
I think a good QB can succeed in this system, particularly if the OL keeps up with improvement, and our young receiving corps matures.

Marrdro, if you read this, we like you better with the smiley's.

;D


We all love Marrdro better with the smileys.
But I find myself always believing in what Marrdro says.
He speaks like he sees and doesn't let anyone change his convictions or his attitude.



I still think That TJ could of used one more year to learn under a veteran QB.

If Garcia was brought in here this offseason to be the starter and mentor to TJ,
I think the future of the Vikings and our record this season would be much better than they are now.

;D


Very well said my friend.
A vet QB and we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Sad how some people can't see that.
;D

Marrdro
11-24-2007, 07:52 AM
"BigMoInAZ" wrote:


Just opening up the playbook? ???
Just breaking them in slowly???
Give me a break!

No wonder this team SUCKS!

If you believe this concept then I feel for you!
This certainly isn't an attack on anyone, but that post was MORONIC to the nth degree! ::)
Enlighten me my friend.
Show me the error of my assumptions.
Marvel me with your font of wisdom.

Seriously, do you really believe that the QB play on this team hasn't caused the coaches to hold back on the playbook?
Do you really think the young Jedi is ready to handle the whole playbook.

Hell I don't think he is ready to handle 30% of it.


Not sure what game you are watching my friend, but I don't see TJ playing at that level yet but I am seeing very small improvements on his part and improved play at other positions (i.e. OL line) which has led to the coaching staff opening up the playbook (i.e the examples I have given).

Again, enlighten me with your wisdom.
I've given you a few examples.
Tell me/provide me examples of playcalling or lack thereof that would change my mind.
I for one can be swayed by a good post.
Lets see if you have something more than an insult my friend.

I await your wisdom and knowledge.

Moronic indeed.
;D

Marrdro
11-24-2007, 07:56 AM
"C" wrote:


"BigMoInAZ" wrote:


Just opening up the playbook? ???
Just breaking them in slowly???
Give me a break!

No wonder this team SUCKS!

If you believe this concept then I feel for you!
This certainly isn't an attack on anyone, but that post was MORONIC to the nth degree! ::)


Just a forewarning... you may be criticized for having rational thoughts.

Rational thoughts are always welcome.


Instead of stirring the pot, how about you providing a rationale thought to the discussion.


At least he used more than 2 sentences and a big word like moronic.
;D

Marrdro
11-24-2007, 07:58 AM
"mountainviking" wrote:


Wow.
Has the discussion really turned into is the "Is the glass half full vs. half empty?"

You know, we're really not that far off...We all want our team to succeed!!
We all want WINS!!
Shouldn't it always be, PURPLE PRIDE vs. the NFL!!??

Sometimes, seems to me, the "Glass is half full," people tend to offer ideas and guesses, educated or not, as to how our team can be better...whether it be play-calling, personnel, coaches whatever, some sort of hope to help fill the glass.

Sometimes, some of the "Glass is half empty," people seem to just shout opinions without offering any insight into where they came from...I guess, the current record is proof enough to empty the glass.
I'd like more info as I try to see through the swirling chaos just how many things can be pulling on a situation...Is Brez really just cheap, or does it have more to do with the market we're in?
Has the oline finally learned the zone, or have we just played teams with weaker defenses?
Will Birk's hips ever be the same?
For how long will the organization feel the effects of McCombs' Malnourishing?


Right now, I'm on the fence...guess the Packer game slapped me back into reality somewhat-ouch ;)
Then again, 4-6 sounds a whole lot better than 3-6, don't it?

;D
Maybe I'm a little anti change in general, I wanted Tice to stick too, with more help, specifically, a legit OC (might help here?)...but that was then...Now, I'm hoping for, and seeing improvement.
Better plays called, less stupid challenges, better blocking, less drops etc...But, I am also concerned that some of the same things we had problems with last year have continued to hold us back...passing, pass rush and pass defense.


In our few glimpses of a passing game, our running game has improved noticeably and that improvement on offense in general has led to better games by our defense...ahh, potential.
So, yeah, I think we can win with a QB...the question is who and how do we get him?
The coach, IMHO, at this point is secondary...on one hand, any new guy would be, at least on some level, starting over, again.
On the other, giving the Chiller that third year to bring it all together, may be delaying the inevitable...only time will tell.
Hopefully, either way, the team show progress on the field!!

SKOL!!



See, this is how you craft a response.
Very nice post my friend.
;D

singersp
11-24-2007, 08:01 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"mountainviking" wrote:


Wow.
Has the discussion really turned into is the "Is the glass half full vs. half empty?"

You know, we're really not that far off...We all want our team to succeed!!
We all want WINS!!
Shouldn't it always be, PURPLE PRIDE vs. the NFL!!??

Sometimes, seems to me, the "Glass is half full," people tend to offer ideas and guesses, educated or not, as to how our team can be better...whether it be play-calling, personnel, coaches whatever, some sort of hope to help fill the glass.

Sometimes, some of the "Glass is half empty," people seem to just shout opinions without offering any insight into where they came from...I guess, the current record is proof enough to empty the glass.
I'd like more info as I try to see through the swirling chaos just how many things can be pulling on a situation...Is Brez really just cheap, or does it have more to do with the market we're in?
Has the oline finally learned the zone, or have we just played teams with weaker defenses?
Will Birk's hips ever be the same?
For how long will the organization feel the effects of McCombs' Malnourishing?


Right now, I'm on the fence...guess the Packer game slapped me back into reality somewhat-ouch ;)
Then again, 4-6 sounds a whole lot better than 3-6, don't it?

;D
Maybe I'm a little anti change in general, I wanted Tice to stick too, with more help, specifically, a legit OC (might help here?)...but that was then...Now, I'm hoping for, and seeing improvement.
Better plays called, less stupid challenges, better blocking, less drops etc...But, I am also concerned that some of the same things we had problems with last year have continued to hold us back...passing, pass rush and pass defense.


In our few glimpses of a passing game, our running game has improved noticeably and that improvement on offense in general has led to better games by our defense...ahh, potential.
So, yeah, I think we can win with a QB...the question is who and how do we get him?
The coach, IMHO, at this point is secondary...on one hand, any new guy would be, at least on some level, starting over, again.
On the other, giving the Chiller that third year to bring it all together, may be delaying the inevitable...only time will tell.
Hopefully, either way, the team show progress on the field!!

SKOL!!



See, this is how you craft a response.

Very nice post my friend.

;D


??? We have to craft them now? Damn, I'm in trouble.....I'm not very crafty.

Marrdro
11-24-2007, 08:02 AM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"leftoverture" wrote:


So far, Childress hasn't shown much in the way of game planning skills.
I liked opening with the trick play last week, a sign that maybe he's been simplifying the playbook due to lack of confidence in the players he has.
But maybe T-Jack and some others are under preforming because the coaching is poor.
As of right now, I think Childress needs to be replaced but if he can turn it around in the final 6 games and show me something, I will change my mind.
I think the Giants game is a real test.


(By the way. . .the defense might just look better if the offense could keep them off the field!)

I think it is the other way around my friend.
Think of it this way, would you give a 3rd grader a 12th graders math book and expect him to learn it?
I think not.
You would give him a 3rd grade math book, get him to master that and then move on to the 4th, 5th, etc etc.

We started with a limited playbook that gets opened a bit more every week as the players get more comfortable with the overall scheme and thier experience level in that scheme (Vet and Rook alike) grows.

Every week, if one cares to notice, the plays to get more and more complicated to include the addition of another trick/gadget play into the set someplace.

On defense, we started out with our base 4-3, now we are a team that bounces back and forth between the 4-3 and 3-4.
That is very hard to coach and as hard for the players to execute. But as the players get used to it and can execute it on a regular basis with consistency it will be very hard to defend against a defense that can play both at will.


On offense we see alot more motion (and not just from the TE like we saw early on).
WR's faking reverses/running reverses, backs catching balls out of the back field, QB starting to roll out, OL blocking better (hell I even saw a big pocket last week) along with player sets like 2 WR's split wide with a TE standing/split next to them, 3 TE's w/FB and RB.
All very intricate plays that defenses don't normally see.


Long story short, we are seeing more and more of the playbook as the team matures (young guys) and get comfortable with the scheme (Vets as well).

Back to the question of the thread........How good would this team be if they had a Vet QB of the stature/skill level of a Brady or Lord Favreee?
Anyone with half a brain would agree that we would be right in the thick of things and most of the Chiller haters would be singing a different tune my friend.


That is probably where the problem is then. It is pretty clear that with the exception of run blocking, the offense hasn't gotten their masters degree in anything so in your scenario what they are doing is installing new plays and formations before they have shown that they have mastered the formations from the previous week. Maybe they should go back to where they were last year in week 4 and go from there. ;D

Ohhh I don't know about that.
Seems we are now in the upper half of the league in offense.
::)

Some will come with the lame excuse (its only because of AD) but isn't he part of the offense?

When you really look at it, it isn't very far from a 162 yard avg per game to a 200 yard average in passing per game, which would get us up there in the top half as well.

If TJ can just stay fricken healthy, I anticipate us climbing that ladder as well over the next 3 or 4 weeks. (no smiley face).

Our WR's can catch, our OL is pass blocking better, we seem to be opening the playbook a bit more etc etc etc.
Are we gonna be a great passing team by the end of the year......Hell No, but we aren't a passing team anyway are we.
We just need to be in the top half to help out the running game a bit.


Well then, I guess there is nothing more to say. We now have an offense predicated on the pass that got into the middle of the pack by running. That pretty much says it all lol.

I guess if being just over 50 % makes you happy you should be satisfied for years to come. ;D We had that before though.


BTW I am now officially TJ's biggest backer in the world of Purple.

With all of this talk about McNugget coming over from Philly I will cheer for anyone who can keep him away so:

GOOOOOO TJ !!!!!!!!!!!!

Do
we really have an offense predicated on the pass?
I think not. You don't install the complicated ZB scheme with the intent on passing all the time.

As to the offense.
No it doesn't make me happy at all.
In fact, it answers the question, if we are at this level without a QB, what would we be with a QB?
::)

Again, we would have a lot more of the playbook open, making us less predictable and probably would have won at least 2 or 3 of the games we lost on poor QB play.

Marrdro
11-24-2007, 08:11 AM
"Frostbite" wrote:


Well....I will say what I have been thinking since fans started taliking up McNab coming here. I think it's a bad idea and here's why.

Donovan is in his 9th season and has been around the NFL block physically. He could still have some seasons left in him, but In my opinion he's one serious injury away from retirement, and while he could possibly be a mentor for T.Jack I doubt that Donovan would relish the idea of warming the bench either... even if the money was top shelf. This in turn assumes you want T.Jack to still be here (Which I Think He Will Be)...in 08. That brings up the question where do you want to spend your cap dollars for 08?? A veteran QB alone will not change the direction of the offense or the team in my humble opinion. We need some help at other positions...especially on defense. I don't think McNab will come cheap...if he even wants to come to Minnesota to back up T.Jack. I'm quite sure Donovan still feels he can start for most teams around the League.

In addition we really should be careful (Consider Wisely) all of the areas we need help in and who will be avialable to fill those voids from the UFA and RFA as well as possible trades in the off season. Drafting for skill is an option but usually requires some playing time (Experience) as a starter before the new rookie can begin to play up to his potential at any position. Remember...I said USUALLY. There have been some exceptions ie Adrian Peterson/Randy Moss...but these are rare.

Several folks here have posted the FA QB list and quite frankly there wasn't to much on it I could get excited about??
One...possibly two guys at best.

Cheers!

Very nice post.

I for one (I started the thread) am very concerned over what we are gonna do with regard to QB next year.
It is becoming very clear to almost everybody that TJ isn't gonna be the answer unless the switch comes on in the next few games.

Even if it does, his (my biggest concern surrounding the young Jedi) ability to stay healthy causes one to say, maybe he isn't going to be anything better than a backup in this league.

I currently would like to see us go after Jim Sorgi, Dereck Anderson, and Donavan in that order.
Sorgi is somewhat of an unknown as we have a very limited view of his capabilities but the assumption is Tony Dungy wouldn't have a crappy guy sitting on the bench backing Peyton up.
Anderson will cost dearly in Draft picks to get him and of course, Donovan as you pointed out would really be a risk as well.

Long story short, We are in quiet a pickle if the young Jedi doesn't come around my friend.v ;D

Again, very nice post.

Marrdro
11-24-2007, 08:12 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"mountainviking" wrote:


Wow.
Has the discussion really turned into is the "Is the glass half full vs. half empty?"

You know, we're really not that far off...We all want our team to succeed!!
We all want WINS!!
Shouldn't it always be, PURPLE PRIDE vs. the NFL!!??

Sometimes, seems to me, the "Glass is half full," people tend to offer ideas and guesses, educated or not, as to how our team can be better...whether it be play-calling, personnel, coaches whatever, some sort of hope to help fill the glass.

Sometimes, some of the "Glass is half empty," people seem to just shout opinions without offering any insight into where they came from...I guess, the current record is proof enough to empty the glass.
I'd like more info as I try to see through the swirling chaos just how many things can be pulling on a situation...Is Brez really just cheap, or does it have more to do with the market we're in?
Has the oline finally learned the zone, or have we just played teams with weaker defenses?
Will Birk's hips ever be the same?
For how long will the organization feel the effects of McCombs' Malnourishing?


Right now, I'm on the fence...guess the Packer game slapped me back into reality somewhat-ouch ;)
Then again, 4-6 sounds a whole lot better than 3-6, don't it?

;D
Maybe I'm a little anti change in general, I wanted Tice to stick too, with more help, specifically, a legit OC (might help here?)...but that was then...Now, I'm hoping for, and seeing improvement.
Better plays called, less stupid challenges, better blocking, less drops etc...But, I am also concerned that some of the same things we had problems with last year have continued to hold us back...passing, pass rush and pass defense.


In our few glimpses of a passing game, our running game has improved noticeably and that improvement on offense in general has led to better games by our defense...ahh, potential.
So, yeah, I think we can win with a QB...the question is who and how do we get him?
The coach, IMHO, at this point is secondary...on one hand, any new guy would be, at least on some level, starting over, again.
On the other, giving the Chiller that third year to bring it all together, may be delaying the inevitable...only time will tell.
Hopefully, either way, the team show progress on the field!!

SKOL!!



See, this is how you craft a response.

Very nice post my friend.

;D


??? We have to craft them now? gol 'darnit, I'm in trouble.....I'm not very crafty.

As always, You crack me up my friend.
;D

Marrdro
11-24-2007, 08:14 AM
"V" wrote:


I can't believe the responses in this thread. Even with average performances in pass blocking, pass coverage, and pass rush, offensive ineptitufe, particularly ineptitude in our passing attack, has been our main problem, by far.

With a great QB, we are 8-2 right now, with a good QB, we are 6-4.

Just to stir the pot a little more, he are some QBs that would have us at 8-2 right now:
Peyton Manning
Tom Brady
Brett Favre
Tony Romo
Jon Kitna
Ben Roethlisberger

6-4 QBs:
Carson Palmer
Drew Brees
Jason Campbell
Donovan McNabb
Derek Anderson
Eli Manning
Jeff Garcia
Jay Cutler
Matt Schaub
Philip Rivers
Vince Young
David Garrard
JP Losman
Brooks Bollinger

Very nice lists my friend.
Man to have gotten Cutler or Clemens in the draft.
;D

Vikes_King
11-24-2007, 08:26 AM
I dont know that even Romo would have us at 8-2 :P yes we would have a much improved passing game, but the Cowboys are 9-1 with Owens, Witten, Crayton, Barber, Jones, etc.

Yes i'd rather have Peterson/Taylor over Barber/Jones, but Owens, Crayton, & Witten is a much better combo than Rice, Williamson, Shiancoe.
And they're 9-1 with Glenn being sidelined..

It's possible that a great QB could have us at 8-2, but its all just speculation i suppose.
It would be exciting to see what Rice who has terrific hands and Williamson who has terrific speed could do with a good QB.
And it'd sure as hell help Shiancoe & Wade step it up

Purple Floyd
11-24-2007, 10:01 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:




So far, Childress hasn't shown much in the way of game planning skills.
I liked opening with the trick play last week, a sign that maybe he's been simplifying the playbook due to lack of confidence in the players he has.
But maybe T-Jack and some others are under preforming because the coaching is poor.
As of right now, I think Childress needs to be replaced but if he can turn it around in the final 6 games and show me something, I will change my mind.
I think the Giants game is a real test.


(By the way. . .the defense might just look better if the offense could keep them off the field!)

I think it is the other way around my friend.
Think of it this way, would you give a 3rd grader a 12th graders math book and expect him to learn it?
I think not.
You would give him a 3rd grade math book, get him to master that and then move on to the 4th, 5th, etc etc.

We started with a limited playbook that gets opened a bit more every week as the players get more comfortable with the overall scheme and thier experience level in that scheme (Vet and Rook alike) grows.

Every week, if one cares to notice, the plays to get more and more complicated to include the addition of another trick/gadget play into the set someplace.

On defense, we started out with our base 4-3, now we are a team that bounces back and forth between the 4-3 and 3-4.
That is very hard to coach and as hard for the players to execute. But as the players get used to it and can execute it on a regular basis with consistency it will be very hard to defend against a defense that can play both at will.


On offense we see alot more motion (and not just from the TE like we saw early on).
WR's faking reverses/running reverses, backs catching balls out of the back field, QB starting to roll out, OL blocking better (hell I even saw a big pocket last week) along with player sets like 2 WR's split wide with a TE standing/split next to them, 3 TE's w/FB and RB.
All very intricate plays that defenses don't normally see.


Long story short, we are seeing more and more of the playbook as the team matures (young guys) and get comfortable with the scheme (Vets as well).

Back to the question of the thread........How good would this team be if they had a Vet QB of the stature/skill level of a Brady or Lord Favreee?
Anyone with half a brain would agree that we would be right in the thick of things and most of the Chiller haters would be singing a different tune my friend.


That is probably where the problem is then. It is pretty clear that with the exception of run blocking, the offense hasn't gotten their masters degree in anything so in your scenario what they are doing is installing new plays and formations before they have shown that they have mastered the formations from the previous week. Maybe they should go back to where they were last year in week 4 and go from there. ;D

Ohhh I don't know about that.
Seems we are now in the upper half of the league in offense.
::)

Some will come with the lame excuse (its only because of AD) but isn't he part of the offense?
When you really look at it, it isn't very far from a 162 yard avg per game to a 200 yard average in passing per game, which would get us up there in the top half as well.

If TJ can just stay fricken healthy, I anticipate us climbing that ladder as well over the next 3 or 4 weeks. (no smiley face).

Our WR's can catch, our OL is pass blocking better, we seem to be opening the playbook a bit more etc etc etc.
Are we gonna be a great passing team by the end of the year......Hell No, but we aren't a passing team anyway are we.
We just need to be in the top half to help out the running game a bit.


Well then, I guess there is nothing more to say. We now have an offense predicated on the pass that got into the middle of the pack by running. That pretty much says it all lol.

I guess if being just over 50 % makes you happy you should be satisfied for years to come. ;D We had that before though.


BTW I am now officially TJ's biggest backer in the world of Purple.

With all of this talk about McNugget coming over from Philly I will cheer for anyone who can keep him away so:

GOOOOOO TJ !!!!!!!!!!!!

Do
we really have an offense predicated on the pass?
I think not. You don't install the complicated ZB scheme with the intent on passing all the time.

As to the offense.
No it doesn't make me happy at all.
In fact, it answers the question, if we are at this level without a QB, what would we be with a QB?
::)

Again, we would have a lot more of the playbook open, making us less predictable and probably would have won at least 2 or 3 of the games we lost on poor QB play.


No we wouldn't because the line still would not be giving them the time to make the throws. Not only that but the pounding our QB's have taken makes it pretty likely that whoever we got would be missing games due to injury.


Do
we really have an offense predicated on the pass?
I think not. You don't install the complicated ZB scheme with the intent on passing all the time.



So the west coast kick as offense that Childress installed last year is a running offense and not a passing offense?
I guess I missed that one. Sorry. ;D
I thought I remembered you teaching us that this was an offense designed for passing to set up the run.

mountainviking
11-24-2007, 11:09 AM
Well, the line seems to be improving...almost looks like they're getting it.
Obviously the team is happy with the Herrera switch at RG!
Early this season...yeah, even Peyton would have had issues behind our line.
Now I'm not so sure...with the way we're running the ball, we don't need a superstar QB, just a vet who will make good decisions...hell, there is a chance, that the light will come on for TJack, the game will slow down somewhat, and he'll start winning games for us.


Seems obvious to me, the games we have even 1 passing TD in are the ones we rush for over 200 yards in, our defense plays better (less time on field) and we WIN!
Just a little bit of passing opens up our stellar ground game, and helps the offense stay on the field...so, yeah, a better QB would help.

Last year we ran all the time and everyone complained about it...too predictable.
Is that our basic offense, or just what the situation dictated to the playcallers (ie. experience in the system/how available the playbook actually is?)
Either way, I like it, it is old school football...eat the clock, grind it out, football.
Just a little passing, and this team can win in the playoffs.
Hasn't Childress even stated that his offense relies more heavily on the ground game than his former team's WCO?

V-Unit
11-24-2007, 11:46 AM
"Frostbite" wrote:


"V" wrote:


I can't believe the responses in this thread. Even with average performances in pass blocking, pass coverage, and pass rush, offensive ineptitufe, particularly ineptitude in our passing attack, has been our main problem, by far.
With a great QB, we are 8-2 right now, with a good QB, we are 6-4.

Just to stir the pot a little more, he are some QBs that would have us at 8-2 right now:
Peyton Manning
Tom Brady
Brett Favre
Tony Romo
Jon Kitna
Ben Roethlisberger

6-4 QBs:
Carson Palmer
Drew Brees
Jason Campbell
Donovan McNabb
Derek Anderson
Eli Manning
Jeff Garcia
Jay Cutler
Matt Schaub
Philip Rivers
Vince Young
David Garrard
JP Losman
Brooks Bollinger



Hey V...I respect your thoughts here. I do think passing has been as issue, but I would bet you could also make an argument about Pass defense as being just as bad or a "Main" problem area, as you say.

Also...out of the Qbs you listed how many did the Vikings have a real chance to get at any time....if ever? Jeff Garcia is one we might have had a shot to get in the off season. I can't see any others on your list (maybe I'm missing something) that could have landed here??

Also...you list Brooks Bollinger as having us at 6-4 in your post. Should I assume from this you believe he should have started over T.Jack this season?? How else could BB get us to 6-4??

Cheers!


Well, first of all, let me say that it is important that you look at all the close games we lost. At least two of them can be attributed to completely inept QB play. Completely inept. Some of them we were one good pass from winning it. That is my reasoning for Brooks Bollinger, who has been our best QB. It is my gut feeling that if we had handed the job to Bollinger like we did TJ, we would see much better play at the QB position. On the other hand, if Childress had done that, I would have been screaming my head off. Hindsight is 20/20.

Also, I'm saying these are guys we should have gone after. The question was would we be good we a good QB. I simply listed the QBs who I define as good. That simple.

I knew throwing Bollinger would make some eyes pop. Realistically though, he has played the best, albeit in backup duty. It's not enough to go on but, I think games like the KC one is a win, and I certainly don't see him losing any games that TJ "won"

Someone said Romo wouldn't have us at 8-2...He would easily have us at 8-2! Although we don't have the same weapons at receiver, we all agree that we just need an average one, not a great one, to turn the corner. Romo is a big reason the Cowboys are winning, and he is definetly better than average. Remember, the Cowboys had the exact same personnell, plus Terry Glenn, but Drew Bledsoe couldn't get the job done.

As far as teh Vikikngs go, I'm willing to give Childress another shot if he goes and gets a GOOD QB. The "give TJ one more year" talk this offseason is going to get old...quick.

davike
11-24-2007, 12:20 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"BigMoInAZ" wrote:


Just opening up the playbook? ???
Just breaking them in slowly???
Give me a break!

No wonder this team SUCKS!

If you believe this concept then I feel for you!
This certainly isn't an attack on anyone, but that post was MORONIC to the nth degree! ::)
Enlighten me my friend.
Show me the error of my assumptions.
Marvel me with your font of wisdom.

Seriously, do you really believe that the QB play on this team hasn't caused the coaches to hold back on the playbook?
Do you really think the young Jedi is ready to handle the whole playbook.

Hell I don't think he is ready to handle 30% of it.


Not sure what game you are watching my friend, but I don't see TJ playing at that level yet but I am seeing very small improvements on his part and improved play at other positions (i.e. OL line) which has led to the coaching staff opening up the playbook (i.e the examples I have given).

Again, enlighten me with your wisdom.
I've given you a few examples.
Tell me/provide me examples of playcalling or lack thereof that would change my mind.
I for one can be swayed by a good post.
Lets see if you have something more than an insult my friend.

I await your wisdom and knowledge.

Moronic indeed.

;D


http://www.clint.ca/argue/argue.jpg

mountainviking
11-24-2007, 12:37 PM
LOL!!!!!
;D




I wannna win!
;)

El Vikingo
11-24-2007, 01:36 PM
I found
this http://bradchildress.com/, ,I thougth I would find some interest bio,statistics and so.....But hell no,It s from a Childress hater in addition the web is for sale
;D
Even the chiller doesn´t deserve a web like this
:'(

C Mac D
11-24-2007, 01:39 PM
"El" wrote:


I found
this http://bradchildress.com/, ,I thougth I would find some interest bio,statistics and so.....But hell no,It s from a Childress hater in addition the web is for sale
;D
Even the chiller doesn´t deserve a web like this
:'(


Sounds familiar.

I am... from this moment forward... retiring from PPO until Brad Childress is fired.

Mr-holland
11-24-2007, 01:50 PM
"C" wrote:


"El" wrote:


I found
this http://bradchildress.com/, ,I thougth I would find some interest bio,statistics and so.....But hell no,It s from a Childress hater in addition the web is for sale
;D
Even the chiller doesn´t deserve a web like this
:'(


Sounds familiar.

I am... from this moment forward... retiring from PPO until Brad Childress is fired.

Great!

davike
11-24-2007, 02:15 PM
"C" wrote:


"El" wrote:


I found
this http://bradchildress.com/, ,I thougth I would find some interest bio,statistics and so.....But hell no,It s from a Childress hater in addition the web is for sale

;D
Even the chiller doesn´t deserve a web like this
:'(


Sounds familiar.

I am... from this moment forward... retiring from PPO until Brad Childress is fired.


You may be away for a while

NodakPaul
11-24-2007, 02:21 PM
"C" wrote:


"El" wrote:


I found
this http://bradchildress.com/, ,I thougth I would find some interest bio,statistics and so.....But hell no,It s from a Childress hater in addition the web is for sale
;D
Even the chiller doesn´t deserve a web like this
:'(


Sounds familiar.

I am... from this moment forward... retiring from PPO until Brad Childress is fired.


1. Whoo hoo!
2. I don't think you'll stay away
3. I don't think Zygi Wild gives a rat's ass about whether or not you are active on PP.O, so that would be pretty damn pointless anyway.

El Vikingo
11-24-2007, 02:44 PM
Hey C !! Why don´t you buy the domain? ,send a mail to brettski50@msn.com (http://brettski50@msn.com)

C Mac D
11-24-2007, 03:07 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"El" wrote:


I found
this http://bradchildress.com/, ,I thougth I would find some interest bio,statistics and so.....But hell no,It s from a Childress hater in addition the web is for sale
;D
Even the chiller doesn´t deserve a web like this
:'(


Sounds familiar.

I am... from this moment forward... retiring from PPO until Brad Childress is fired.


1. Whoo hoo!
2. I don't think you'll stay away
3. I don't think Zygi Wild gives a rat's ass about whether or not you are active on PP.O, so that would be pretty damn pointless anyway.


1. Classless
2. You're right
3. Wow... what a shocker. You think I'm doing it so Zygi notices? I'm just doing it because I'm sick of the same old discussions about why we suck and how we're "only a QB away" from being a good team... it gets old and people are tired of hearing me preach the truth about Childress... they'd rather blame others or watch Childress completely destroy our team.

C Mac D
11-24-2007, 03:11 PM
"El" wrote:


Hey C !! Why don´t you buy the domain? ,send a mail to brettski50@msn.com (http://brettski50@msn.com)



I'm currently in negotiations.

Mr-holland
11-24-2007, 05:06 PM
you just ruined your credibility ( if you've done not earlier ) AND, why would you make a statement like that?

C Mac D
11-25-2007, 12:54 AM
"C" wrote:


"El" wrote:


Hey C !! Why don´t you buy the domain? ,send a mail to brettski50@msn.com (http://brettski50@msn.com)



I'm currently in negotiations.


He wants $500 for that URL

mountainviking
11-26-2007, 12:46 PM
$500 is ridiculous...suppose he's hoping Brad will pay him to take the sight down ;)
Isn't that extortion?

What do you know, we won this week with the young QB we have...and AP can't take all the credit.

SKOL!!
GREAT GAME VIKINGS!!!
I too hate the NYG.

C Mac D
11-26-2007, 12:54 PM
"mountainviking" wrote:


$500 is ridiculous...suppose he's hoping Brad will pay him to take the sight down ;)
Isn't that extortion?

What do you know, we won this week with the young QB we have...and AP can't take all the credit.

SKOL!!
GREAT GAME VIKINGS!!!
I too hate the NYG.


Yes, I believe it is.

I was impressed with the Team as a whole and with T-Jack's decision making.

SKOL TO A GREAT WIN OVER A TEAM I HATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

bleedpurple
11-26-2007, 01:40 PM
"V" wrote:


"Frostbite" wrote:


"V" wrote:


I can't believe the responses in this thread. Even with average performances in pass blocking, pass coverage, and pass rush, offensive ineptitufe, particularly ineptitude in our passing attack, has been our main problem, by far.
With a great QB, we are 8-2 right now, with a good QB, we are 6-4.

Just to stir the pot a little more, he are some QBs that would have us at 8-2 right now:
Peyton Manning
Tom Brady
Brett Favre
Tony Romo
Jon Kitna
Ben Roethlisberger

6-4 QBs:
Carson Palmer
Drew Brees
Jason Campbell
Donovan McNabb
Derek Anderson
Eli Manning
Jeff Garcia
Jay Cutler
Matt Schaub
Philip Rivers
Vince Young
David Garrard
JP Losman
Brooks Bollinger



Hey V...I respect your thoughts here. I do think passing has been as issue, but I would bet you could also make an argument about Pass defense as being just as bad or a "Main" problem area, as you say.

Also...out of the Qbs you listed how many did the Vikings have a real chance to get at any time....if ever? Jeff Garcia is one we might have had a shot to get in the off season. I can't see any others on your list (maybe I'm missing something) that could have landed here??

Also...you list Brooks Bollinger as having us at 6-4 in your post. Should I assume from this you believe he should have started over T.Jack this season?? How else could BB get us to 6-4??

Cheers!


Well, first of all, let me say that it is important that you look at all the close games we lost. At least two of them can be attributed to completely inept QB play. Completely inept. Some of them we were one good pass from winning it. That is my reasoning for Brooks Bollinger, who has been our best QB. It is my gut feeling that if we had handed the job to Bollinger like we did TJ, we would see much better play at the QB position. On the other hand, if Childress had done that, I would have been screaming my head off. Hindsight is 20/20.

Also, I'm saying these are guys we should have gone after. The question was would we be good we a good QB. I simply listed the QBs who I define as good. That simple.

I knew throwing Bollinger would make some eyes pop. Realistically though, he has played the best, albeit in backup duty. It's not enough to go on but, I think games like the KC one is a win, and I certainly don't see him losing any games that TJ "won"

Someone said Romo wouldn't have us at 8-2...He would easily have us at 8-2! Although we don't have the same weapons at receiver, we all agree that we just need an average one, not a great one, to turn the corner. Romo is a big reason the Cowboys are winning, and he is definetly better than average. Remember, the Cowboys had the exact same personnell, plus Terry Glenn, but Drew Bledsoe couldn't get the job done.

As far as teh Vikikngs go, I'm willing to give Childress another shot if he goes and gets a GOOD QB. The "give TJ one more year" talk this offseason is going to get old...quick.


I don't doubt that we'd be better if we had one of those QB's.. but in saying that.. all those QB's other than cutler have been in the league more than 2 years...

And do you honestly think that JP Losman, who might loose his job to a rookie, or BB or Vince young would have us at a better record... TJ is 5-2 in his starts with a better QB rating than VY... So i seriously doubt some of that..

We could have gotten CUtler, but would have given up the farm to get him... and didn't BB, since he's played so well, lead us to like 0 points against the packers???
yeah he sure would have us at 6-4.... he looked completely in over his head in that game...

He may be worse than Kelly Holcomb...

QB's take time... but TJ's getting better and looks as if he's seeing the whole field a little better... so let him have his time...
NOt all QB's are a sure thing or franchis QB.. and we don't need one to win... just somebody thats competent...

and i'll give you campbell would have us at 6-5 maybe... it's all speculation and we have what we have... and until he has a few more games/years, i'm not sure TJ won't be the future.. you could bring in a veteran but at this point' i'd rather him play out the season and see what happens...

Just look at Philip Rivers, has way more weapons than we do, but isn't playing all that great either...
it takes time..

we are soo impatient.. as fans... although, i'm impatient with Chilly... i'd rather give a young raw QB more time than an imcompetant coach to this point more time.. but i'm cool, with seeing the rest of these 5 games played out then make arguments/predictions..

i just want to see improvement, and the last 2 weeks we've had it.. especially in the passing game... so, it's persuaded me.. atleast until next week, to put the calls for chilly's head on ice... atleast until next week...lol

BigMoInAZ
11-27-2007, 07:37 PM
"davike" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"BigMoInAZ" wrote:


Just opening up the playbook? ???
Just breaking them in slowly???
Give me a break!

No wonder this team SUCKS!

If you believe this concept then I feel for you!
This certainly isn't an attack on anyone, but that post was MORONIC to the nth degree! ::)
Enlighten me my friend.
Show me the error of my assumptions.
Marvel me with your font of wisdom.

Seriously, do you really believe that the QB play on this team hasn't caused the coaches to hold back on the playbook?
Do you really think the young Jedi is ready to handle the whole playbook.

Hell I don't think he is ready to handle 30% of it.


Not sure what game you are watching my friend, but I don't see TJ playing at that level yet but I am seeing very small improvements on his part and improved play at other positions (i.e. OL line) which has led to the coaching staff opening up the playbook (i.e the examples I have given).

Again, enlighten me with your wisdom.
I've given you a few examples.
Tell me/provide me examples of play calling or lack thereof that would change my mind.
I for one can be swayed by a good post.
Lets see if you have something more than an insult my friend.

I await your wisdom and knowledge.

Moronic indeed.

;D


http://www.clint.ca/argue/argue.jpg

No, what you've given is an OPINION!
I'm sure you've heard the phrase my friend, "Everyone has one, MOST OF THEM STINK!"
Of course it's usually more expletive!
Here is your OPINION in case you need to be reminded it went something like this:

I think it is the other way around my friend.
Think of it this way, would you give a 3rd grader a 12th graders math book and expect him to learn it?
I think not.
You would give him a 3rd grade math book, get him to master that and then move on to the 4th, 5th, etc etc.Is this your scholastic analogy of a professional football player?
ROTFLMAO!!!
ARMCHAIR QB'S ARE A DIME A DOZEN MY FRIEND

We started with a limited playbook (Your OPINION, not FACT! CAPICE?) that gets opened a bit more every week as the players get more comfortable with the overall scheme and their experience level in that scheme (Vet and Rook alike) grows.

Every week, if one cares to notice, the plays to get more and more complicated to include the addition of another trick/gadget play into the set someplace.

On defense, we started out with our base 4-3, now we are a team that bounces back and forth between the 4-3 and 3-4.
That is very hard to coach and as hard for the players to execute. But as the players get used to it and can execute it on a regular basis with consistency it will be very hard to defend against a defense that can play both at will.


On offense we see alot more motion (and not just from the TE like we saw early on).
WR's faking reverses/running reverses, backs catching balls out of the back field, QB starting to roll out, OL blocking better (hell I even saw a big pocket last week) along with player sets like 2 WR's split wide with a TE standing/split next to them, 3 TE's w/FB and RB.
All very intricate plays that defenses don't normally see.


Long story short, we are seeing more and more of the playbook as the team matures (young guys) and get comfortable with the scheme (Vets as well).

Back to the question of the thread........ How good would this team be if they had a Vet QB of the stature/skill level of a Brady or Lord Favreee?
Anyone with half a brain would agree that we would be right in the thick of things and most of the Chiller haters would be singing a different tune my friend.I guess its hard for you to pry yourself away from the opinion that pro ball players are mental midgets who need to be coddled like school children, who need more than 27 games to actually see more and more of the playbook that Brad Childress calls his KICKASSOFFENSE (KAO)!
This my friend is using the half brain approach to explaining your OPINION on this matter!

No insult intended but maybe you need to come down off your high horse there sport!

JUST MY HUMBLE HALF BRAINED OPINION! ::)

davike
12-03-2007, 09:56 PM
"BigMoInAZ" wrote:


"davike" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"BigMoInAZ" wrote:


Just opening up the playbook? ???
Just breaking them in slowly???
Give me a break!

No wonder this team SUCKS!

If you believe this concept then I feel for you!
This certainly isn't an attack on anyone, but that post was MORONIC to the nth degree! ::)
Enlighten me my friend.
Show me the error of my assumptions.
Marvel me with your font of wisdom.

Seriously, do you really believe that the QB play on this team hasn't caused the coaches to hold back on the playbook?
Do you really think the young Jedi is ready to handle the whole playbook.

Hell I don't think he is ready to handle 30% of it.


Not sure what game you are watching my friend, but I don't see TJ playing at that level yet but I am seeing very small improvements on his part and improved play at other positions (i.e. OL line) which has led to the coaching staff opening up the playbook (i.e the examples I have given).

Again, enlighten me with your wisdom.
I've given you a few examples.
Tell me/provide me examples of play calling or lack thereof that would change my mind.
I for one can be swayed by a good post.
Lets see if you have something more than an insult my friend.

I await your wisdom and knowledge.

Moronic indeed.

;D


http://www.clint.ca/argue/argue.jpg

No, what you've given is an OPINION!
I'm sure you've heard the phrase my friend, "Everyone has one, MOST OF THEM STINK!"
Of course it's usually more expletive!
Here is your OPINION in case you need to be reminded it went something like this:

I think it is the other way around my friend.
Think of it this way, would you give a 3rd grader a 12th graders math book and expect him to learn it?
I think not.
You would give him a 3rd grade math book, get him to master that and then move on to the 4th, 5th, etc etc.Is this your scholastic analogy of a professional football player?
ROTFLMAO!!!
ARMCHAIR QB'S ARE A DIME A DOZEN MY FRIEND

We started with a limited playbook (Your OPINION, not FACT! CAPICE?) that gets opened a bit more every week as the players get more comfortable with the overall scheme and their experience level in that scheme (Vet and Rook alike) grows.

Every week, if one cares to notice, the plays to get more and more complicated to include the addition of another trick/gadget play into the set someplace.

On defense, we started out with our base 4-3, now we are a team that bounces back and forth between the 4-3 and 3-4.
That is very hard to coach and as hard for the players to execute. But as the players get used to it and can execute it on a regular basis with consistency it will be very hard to defend against a defense that can play both at will.


On offense we see alot more motion (and not just from the TE like we saw early on).
WR's faking reverses/running reverses, backs catching balls out of the back field, QB starting to roll out, OL blocking better (hell I even saw a big pocket last week) along with player sets like 2 WR's split wide with a TE standing/split next to them, 3 TE's w/FB and RB.
All very intricate plays that defenses don't normally see.


Long story short, we are seeing more and more of the playbook as the team matures (young guys) and get comfortable with the scheme (Vets as well).

Back to the question of the thread........ How good would this team be if they had a Vet QB of the stature/skill level of a Brady or Lord Favreee?
Anyone with half a brain would agree that we would be right in the thick of things and most of the Chiller haters would be singing a different tune my friend.I guess its hard for you to pry yourself away from the opinion that pro ball players are mental midgets who need to be coddled like school children, who need more than 27 games to actually see more and more of the playbook that Brad Childress calls his KICKASSOFFENSE (KAO)!
This my friend is using the half brain approach to explaining your OPINION on this matter!

No insult intended but maybe you need to come down off your high horse there sport!

JUST MY HUMBLE HALF BRAINED OPINION! ::)


Huh
??? Are you talking to me or Marrdro? Either way, I disagreed with you. Any team needs to grow together. And I don't think you understand what the NFL playbook is like. I don't think you know how indepth professional football is exactly.

Schutz
12-03-2007, 10:10 PM
"davike" wrote:


"BigMoInAZ" wrote:


"davike" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"BigMoInAZ" wrote:


Just opening up the playbook? ???
Just breaking them in slowly???
Give me a break!

No wonder this team SUCKS!

If you believe this concept then I feel for you!
This certainly isn't an attack on anyone, but that post was MORONIC to the nth degree! ::)
Enlighten me my friend.
Show me the error of my assumptions.
Marvel me with your font of wisdom.

Seriously, do you really believe that the QB play on this team hasn't caused the coaches to hold back on the playbook?
Do you really think the young Jedi is ready to handle the whole playbook.

Hell I don't think he is ready to handle 30% of it.


Not sure what game you are watching my friend, but I don't see TJ playing at that level yet but I am seeing very small improvements on his part and improved play at other positions (i.e. OL line) which has led to the coaching staff opening up the playbook (i.e the examples I have given).

Again, enlighten me with your wisdom.
I've given you a few examples.
Tell me/provide me examples of play calling or lack thereof that would change my mind.
I for one can be swayed by a good post.
Lets see if you have something more than an insult my friend.

I await your wisdom and knowledge.

Moronic indeed.

;D


http://www.clint.ca/argue/argue.jpg

No, what you've given is an OPINION!
I'm sure you've heard the phrase my friend, "Everyone has one, MOST OF THEM STINK!"
Of course it's usually more expletive!
Here is your OPINION in case you need to be reminded it went something like this:

I think it is the other way around my friend.
Think of it this way, would you give a 3rd grader a 12th graders math book and expect him to learn it?
I think not.
You would give him a 3rd grade math book, get him to master that and then move on to the 4th, 5th, etc etc.Is this your scholastic analogy of a professional football player?
ROTFLMAO!!!
ARMCHAIR QB'S ARE A DIME A DOZEN MY FRIEND

We started with a limited playbook (Your OPINION, not FACT! CAPICE?) that gets opened a bit more every week as the players get more comfortable with the overall scheme and their experience level in that scheme (Vet and Rook alike) grows.

Every week, if one cares to notice, the plays to get more and more complicated to include the addition of another trick/gadget play into the set someplace.

On defense, we started out with our base 4-3, now we are a team that bounces back and forth between the 4-3 and 3-4.
That is very hard to coach and as hard for the players to execute. But as the players get used to it and can execute it on a regular basis with consistency it will be very hard to defend against a defense that can play both at will.


On offense we see alot more motion (and not just from the TE like we saw early on).
WR's faking reverses/running reverses, backs catching balls out of the back field, QB starting to roll out, OL blocking better (hell I even saw a big pocket last week) along with player sets like 2 WR's split wide with a TE standing/split next to them, 3 TE's w/FB and RB.
All very intricate plays that defenses don't normally see.


Long story short, we are seeing more and more of the playbook as the team matures (young guys) and get comfortable with the scheme (Vets as well).

Back to the question of the thread........ How good would this team be if they had a Vet QB of the stature/skill level of a Brady or Lord Favreee?
Anyone with half a brain would agree that we would be right in the thick of things and most of the Chiller haters would be singing a different tune my friend.I guess its hard for you to pry yourself away from the opinion that pro ball players are mental midgets who need to be coddled like school children, who need more than 27 games to actually see more and more of the playbook that Brad Childress calls his KICKASSOFFENSE (KAO)!
This my friend is using the half brain approach to explaining your OPINION on this matter!

No insult intended but maybe you need to come down off your high horse there sport!

JUST MY HUMBLE HALF BRAINED OPINION! ::)


Huh
??? Are you talking to me or Marrdro? Either way, I disagreed with you. Any team needs to grow together. And I don't think you understand what the NFL playbook is like. I don't think you know how indepth professional football is exactly.


Thankfully you do though, I'm sure Childress will call you up any day now to come in an consult?
Someone once told me Armchair Coaches are a dime a dozen.

davike
12-03-2007, 10:17 PM
"Schutz" wrote:


"davike" wrote:


"BigMoInAZ" wrote:


"davike" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:




Just opening up the playbook? ???
Just breaking them in slowly???
Give me a break!

No wonder this team SUCKS!

If you believe this concept then I feel for you!
This certainly isn't an attack on anyone, but that post was MORONIC to the nth degree! ::)
Enlighten me my friend.
Show me the error of my assumptions.
Marvel me with your font of wisdom.

Seriously, do you really believe that the QB play on this team hasn't caused the coaches to hold back on the playbook?
Do you really think the young Jedi is ready to handle the whole playbook.

Hell I don't think he is ready to handle 30% of it.


Not sure what game you are watching my friend, but I don't see TJ playing at that level yet but I am seeing very small improvements on his part and improved play at other positions (i.e. OL line) which has led to the coaching staff opening up the playbook (i.e the examples I have given).

Again, enlighten me with your wisdom.
I've given you a few examples.
Tell me/provide me examples of play calling or lack thereof that would change my mind.
I for one can be swayed by a good post.
Lets see if you have something more than an insult my friend.

I await your wisdom and knowledge.

Moronic indeed.

;D


http://www.clint.ca/argue/argue.jpg

No, what you've given is an OPINION!
I'm sure you've heard the phrase my friend, "Everyone has one, MOST OF THEM STINK!"
Of course it's usually more expletive!
Here is your OPINION in case you need to be reminded it went something like this:

I think it is the other way around my friend.
Think of it this way, would you give a 3rd grader a 12th graders math book and expect him to learn it?
I think not.
You would give him a 3rd grade math book, get him to master that and then move on to the 4th, 5th, etc etc.Is this your scholastic analogy of a professional football player?
ROTFLMAO!!!
ARMCHAIR QB'S ARE A DIME A DOZEN MY FRIEND

We started with a limited playbook (Your OPINION, not FACT! CAPICE?) that gets opened a bit more every week as the players get more comfortable with the overall scheme and their experience level in that scheme (Vet and Rook alike) grows.

Every week, if one cares to notice, the plays to get more and more complicated to include the addition of another trick/gadget play into the set someplace.

On defense, we started out with our base 4-3, now we are a team that bounces back and forth between the 4-3 and 3-4.
That is very hard to coach and as hard for the players to execute. But as the players get used to it and can execute it on a regular basis with consistency it will be very hard to defend against a defense that can play both at will.


On offense we see alot more motion (and not just from the TE like we saw early on).
WR's faking reverses/running reverses, backs catching balls out of the back field, QB starting to roll out, OL blocking better (hell I even saw a big pocket last week) along with player sets like 2 WR's split wide with a TE standing/split next to them, 3 TE's w/FB and RB.
All very intricate plays that defenses don't normally see.


Long story short, we are seeing more and more of the playbook as the team matures (young guys) and get comfortable with the scheme (Vets as well).

Back to the question of the thread........ How good would this team be if they had a Vet QB of the stature/skill level of a Brady or Lord Favreee?
Anyone with half a brain would agree that we would be right in the thick of things and most of the Chiller haters would be singing a different tune my friend.I guess its hard for you to pry yourself away from the opinion that pro ball players are mental midgets who need to be coddled like school children, who need more than 27 games to actually see more and more of the playbook that Brad Childress calls his KICKASSOFFENSE (KAO)!
This my friend is using the half brain approach to explaining your OPINION on this matter!

No insult intended but maybe you need to come down off your high horse there sport!

JUST MY HUMBLE HALF BRAINED OPINION! ::)


Huh
??? Are you talking to me or Marrdro? Either way, I disagreed with you. Any team needs to grow together. And I don't think you understand what the NFL playbook is like. I don't think you know how indepth professional football is exactly.


Thankfully you do though, I'm sure Childress will call you up any day now to come in an consult?
Someone once told me Armchair Coaches are a dime a dozen.


Ahh thats right, you are one of the Childress haters. I never said that I know everything about football. If you look at some of my other posts you will find that I never claim to nor will I ever. I do know that it is a touch more complicated then some people think. There is a bit more to learn then just the play book as well. And since this is such a young team, we had more to learn then most of the other teams.


What is this really about? Did I offend you in some way before?

Schutz
12-03-2007, 10:21 PM
"davike" wrote:


"Schutz" wrote:


"davike" wrote:


"BigMoInAZ" wrote:


"davike" wrote:






Just opening up the playbook? ???
Just breaking them in slowly???
Give me a break!

No wonder this team SUCKS!

If you believe this concept then I feel for you!
This certainly isn't an attack on anyone, but that post was MORONIC to the nth degree! ::)
Enlighten me my friend.
Show me the error of my assumptions.
Marvel me with your font of wisdom.

Seriously, do you really believe that the QB play on this team hasn't caused the coaches to hold back on the playbook?
Do you really think the young Jedi is ready to handle the whole playbook.

Hell I don't think he is ready to handle 30% of it.


Not sure what game you are watching my friend, but I don't see TJ playing at that level yet but I am seeing very small improvements on his part and improved play at other positions (i.e. OL line) which has led to the coaching staff opening up the playbook (i.e the examples I have given).

Again, enlighten me with your wisdom.
I've given you a few examples.
Tell me/provide me examples of play calling or lack thereof that would change my mind.
I for one can be swayed by a good post.
Lets see if you have something more than an insult my friend.

I await your wisdom and knowledge.

Moronic indeed.

;D


http://www.clint.ca/argue/argue.jpg

No, what you've given is an OPINION!
I'm sure you've heard the phrase my friend, "Everyone has one, MOST OF THEM STINK!"
Of course it's usually more expletive!
Here is your OPINION in case you need to be reminded it went something like this:

I think it is the other way around my friend.
Think of it this way, would you give a 3rd grader a 12th graders math book and expect him to learn it?
I think not.
You would give him a 3rd grade math book, get him to master that and then move on to the 4th, 5th, etc etc.Is this your scholastic analogy of a professional football player?
ROTFLMAO!!!
ARMCHAIR QB'S ARE A DIME A DOZEN MY FRIEND

We started with a limited playbook (Your OPINION, not FACT! CAPICE?) that gets opened a bit more every week as the players get more comfortable with the overall scheme and their experience level in that scheme (Vet and Rook alike) grows.

Every week, if one cares to notice, the plays to get more and more complicated to include the addition of another trick/gadget play into the set someplace.

On defense, we started out with our base 4-3, now we are a team that bounces back and forth between the 4-3 and 3-4.
That is very hard to coach and as hard for the players to execute. But as the players get used to it and can execute it on a regular basis with consistency it will be very hard to defend against a defense that can play both at will.


On offense we see alot more motion (and not just from the TE like we saw early on).
WR's faking reverses/running reverses, backs catching balls out of the back field, QB starting to roll out, OL blocking better (hell I even saw a big pocket last week) along with player sets like 2 WR's split wide with a TE standing/split next to them, 3 TE's w/FB and RB.
All very intricate plays that defenses don't normally see.


Long story short, we are seeing more and more of the playbook as the team matures (young guys) and get comfortable with the scheme (Vets as well).

Back to the question of the thread........ How good would this team be if they had a Vet QB of the stature/skill level of a Brady or Lord Favreee?
Anyone with half a brain would agree that we would be right in the thick of things and most of the Chiller haters would be singing a different tune my friend.I guess its hard for you to pry yourself away from the opinion that pro ball players are mental midgets who need to be coddled like school children, who need more than 27 games to actually see more and more of the playbook that Brad Childress calls his KICKASSOFFENSE (KAO)!
This my friend is using the half brain approach to explaining your OPINION on this matter!

No insult intended but maybe you need to come down off your high horse there sport!

JUST MY HUMBLE HALF BRAINED OPINION! ::)


Huh
??? Are you talking to me or Marrdro? Either way, I disagreed with you. Any team needs to grow together. And I don't think you understand what the NFL playbook is like. I don't think you know how indepth professional football is exactly.


Thankfully you do though, I'm sure Childress will call you up any day now to come in an consult?
Someone once told me Armchair Coaches are a dime a dozen.


Ahh thats right, you are one of the Childress haters. I never said that I know everything about football. If you look at some of my other posts you will find that I never claim to nor will I ever. I do know that it is a touch more complicated then some people think. There is a bit more to learn then just the play book as well. And since this is such a young team, we had more to learn then most of the other teams.


What is this really about? Did I offend you in some way before?


Perfect.
You break out the bull arguments about other people not understanding the game, but get offended by it.
I just need to point out people who are always scoffing at other people's opinions.
And I'll admit I havn't liked Childress because of some of his dumb conservitive playcalling early in the season, but I've given him props for the last couple weeks.


I'll just tell you, don't break out that phoney crap about people not understanding what football is about if you are not a so called "expert" yourself.
You say you've never admited to knowing everything about football, even more reason to not going around telling people why there opinion is dumb because they don't understand the game.

V-Unit
12-03-2007, 10:24 PM
You know, I never said TJ wouldn't be that good QB! Heh. He's shown lots of improvement thus far. That is enough to satisfy me.

davike
12-03-2007, 10:36 PM
"Schutz" wrote:


"davike" wrote:


"Schutz" wrote:


"davike" wrote:


"BigMoInAZ" wrote:








Just opening up the playbook? ???
Just breaking them in slowly???
Give me a break!

No wonder this team SUCKS!

If you believe this concept then I feel for you!
This certainly isn't an attack on anyone, but that post was MORONIC to the nth degree! ::)
Enlighten me my friend.
Show me the error of my assumptions.
Marvel me with your font of wisdom.

Seriously, do you really believe that the QB play on this team hasn't caused the coaches to hold back on the playbook?
Do you really think the young Jedi is ready to handle the whole playbook.

Hell I don't think he is ready to handle 30% of it.


Not sure what game you are watching my friend, but I don't see TJ playing at that level yet but I am seeing very small improvements on his part and improved play at other positions (i.e. OL line) which has led to the coaching staff opening up the playbook (i.e the examples I have given).

Again, enlighten me with your wisdom.
I've given you a few examples.
Tell me/provide me examples of play calling or lack thereof that would change my mind.
I for one can be swayed by a good post.
Lets see if you have something more than an insult my friend.

I await your wisdom and knowledge.

Moronic indeed.

;D


http://www.clint.ca/argue/argue.jpg

No, what you've given is an OPINION!
I'm sure you've heard the phrase my friend, "Everyone has one, MOST OF THEM STINK!"
Of course it's usually more expletive!
Here is your OPINION in case you need to be reminded it went something like this:

I think it is the other way around my friend.
Think of it this way, would you give a 3rd grader a 12th graders math book and expect him to learn it?
I think not.
You would give him a 3rd grade math book, get him to master that and then move on to the 4th, 5th, etc etc.Is this your scholastic analogy of a professional football player?
ROTFLMAO!!!
ARMCHAIR QB'S ARE A DIME A DOZEN MY FRIEND

We started with a limited playbook (Your OPINION, not FACT! CAPICE?) that gets opened a bit more every week as the players get more comfortable with the overall scheme and their experience level in that scheme (Vet and Rook alike) grows.

Every week, if one cares to notice, the plays to get more and more complicated to include the addition of another trick/gadget play into the set someplace.

On defense, we started out with our base 4-3, now we are a team that bounces back and forth between the 4-3 and 3-4.
That is very hard to coach and as hard for the players to execute. But as the players get used to it and can execute it on a regular basis with consistency it will be very hard to defend against a defense that can play both at will.


On offense we see alot more motion (and not just from the TE like we saw early on).
WR's faking reverses/running reverses, backs catching balls out of the back field, QB starting to roll out, OL blocking better (hell I even saw a big pocket last week) along with player sets like 2 WR's split wide with a TE standing/split next to them, 3 TE's w/FB and RB.
All very intricate plays that defenses don't normally see.


Long story short, we are seeing more and more of the playbook as the team matures (young guys) and get comfortable with the scheme (Vets as well).

Back to the question of the thread........ How good would this team be if they had a Vet QB of the stature/skill level of a Brady or Lord Favreee?
Anyone with half a brain would agree that we would be right in the thick of things and most of the Chiller haters would be singing a different tune my friend.I guess its hard for you to pry yourself away from the opinion that pro ball players are mental midgets who need to be coddled like school children, who need more than 27 games to actually see more and more of the playbook that Brad Childress calls his KICKASSOFFENSE (KAO)!
This my friend is using the half brain approach to explaining your OPINION on this matter!

No insult intended but maybe you need to come down off your high horse there sport!

JUST MY HUMBLE HALF BRAINED OPINION! ::)


Huh
??? Are you talking to me or Marrdro? Either way, I disagreed with you. Any team needs to grow together. And I don't think you understand what the NFL playbook is like. I don't think you know how indepth professional football is exactly.


Thankfully you do though, I'm sure Childress will call you up any day now to come in an consult?
Someone once told me Armchair Coaches are a dime a dozen.


Ahh thats right, you are one of the Childress haters. I never said that I know everything about football. If you look at some of my other posts you will find that I never claim to nor will I ever. I do know that it is a touch more complicated then some people think. There is a bit more to learn then just the play book as well. And since this is such a young team, we had more to learn then most of the other teams.


What is this really about? Did I offend you in some way before?


Perfect.
You break out the bull arguments about other people not understanding the game, but get offended by it.
I just need to point out people who are always scoffing at other people's opinions.
And I'll admit I havn't liked Childress because of some of his dumb conservitive playcalling early in the season, but I've given him props for the last couple weeks.


I'll just tell you, don't break out that phoney crap about people not understanding what football is about if you are not a so called "expert" yourself.
You say you've never admited to knowing everything about football, even more reason to not going around telling people why there opinion is dumb because they don't understand the game.



You break out the bull arguments about other people not understanding the game, but get offended by it.

I get offended by what?

I do know a bit about football, and I actually read some stuff lately about how in depth the game and the play book is, on just how much has to be put into it. There was also something posted on the play book lately. And basing from what I read, and from what BigMoInAZ said, I thought that he probably didn't understand that.


I could have argued different points to BigMoInAZ. But I chose not to because I didn't want to waste my time.

Don't get me started on Childress's play calling. He is running almost the same plays now, its just that the team is growing together and now they are able to execute the plays at a high level. Conservative? There was a few times where he was conservative and thats about it. He couldn't open up the play book completely till his players learned the basics.

Schutz
12-03-2007, 10:42 PM
Well I don't know what third and long draw calls, and when the first down marker is 15 yards away and you throw a one yard swing pass everytime is called, but I call it conservitive.


But I don't have a problem with you or anything, just don't bring out the "you aren't a nfl coach" comments anymore.

davike
12-03-2007, 10:53 PM
"Schutz" wrote:


Well I don't know what third and long draw calls, and when the first down marker is 15 yards away and you throw a one yard swing pass everytime is called, but I call it conservitive.


But I don't have a problem with you or anything, just don't bring out the "you aren't a nfl coach" comments anymore.


He called a draw play on third and long maybe 5 times through 12 games.

I never said anything about not being a NFL coach, I simply stated that I didn't think he understood some of the aspects of the game. I will stand by that. You are fast losing your case. Just admitt that I wasn't wrong.

Schutz
12-03-2007, 11:57 PM
"davike" wrote:


"Schutz" wrote:


Well I don't know what third and long draw calls, and when the first down marker is 15 yards away and you throw a one yard swing pass everytime is called, but I call it conservitive.


But I don't have a problem with you or anything, just don't bring out the "you aren't a nfl coach" comments anymore.


He called a draw play on third and long maybe 5 times through 12 games.

I never said anything about not being a NFL coach, I simply stated that I didn't think he understood some of the aspects of the game. I will stand by that. You are fast losing your case. Just admitt that I wasn't wrong.



How am I losing my case?
Because you came up with a random number off the top of your head?
Good lord man, you just don't give up.
Fine, I'm pretty sure we ran on 3rd and long 243 times.
You're losing this case fast, just admit I wasn't wrong.

davike
12-04-2007, 01:16 AM
"Schutz" wrote:


"davike" wrote:


"Schutz" wrote:


Well I don't know what third and long draw calls, and when the first down marker is 15 yards away and you throw a one yard swing pass everytime is called, but I call it conservitive.


But I don't have a problem with you or anything, just don't bring out the "you aren't a nfl coach" comments anymore.


He called a draw play on third and long maybe 5 times through 12 games.

I never said anything about not being a NFL coach, I simply stated that I didn't think he understood some of the aspects of the game. I will stand by that. You are fast losing your case. Just admitt that I wasn't wrong.



How am I losing my case?
Because you came up with a random number off the top of your head?
Good lord man, you just don't give up.
Fine, I'm pretty sure we ran on 3rd and long 243 times.
You're losing this case fast, just admit I wasn't wrong.


I was reffering to the fact that you were dissing me about telling BigMoInAZ that I didn't think that he understood some of the complexity of football. I wasn't talking about the side thing about Childress.

About the running plays on 3rd and long. I considered 3rd and 5 a passing down. So anything 3rd and 5 and over are counted. I included the runs which we got the first down. Here are the official numbers:

Total: 22

While we were ahead by a ton: 8
While we were ahead by a bit and trying to run the clock out: 1

These next runs were while we were either tied or behind.
3rd and 10+ yards : 10
The shortest of these were I believe 3rd and 14. At that point our pass attack was awful. Many of these came in games where we had only a few completions over 10 yards to anyone and most of the passes were to our backs.
3rd and 5-10 yards: 3. Two of these runs were exactly 5 yards. I believe both were by AD while he was having a huge day.

Those are pretty normal numbers....ecspecially for a team whose strength is the run. Our pass offense has been virtually non existant except for the past few weeks. I wish I had counted all the times we passed on 3rd downs that were 5 yards and over....there was a ton. But you didn't/don't like Childress, so of course your going to just remember those times when he didn't throw on 3rd down. And of course we should take in consideration that Bevell was calling plays during some of those runs.

So what else do you have for me?

Schutz
12-04-2007, 01:26 AM
"davike" wrote:


"Schutz" wrote:


"davike" wrote:


"Schutz" wrote:


Well I don't know what third and long draw calls, and when the first down marker is 15 yards away and you throw a one yard swing pass everytime is called, but I call it conservitive.


But I don't have a problem with you or anything, just don't bring out the "you aren't a nfl coach" comments anymore.


He called a draw play on third and long maybe 5 times through 12 games.

I never said anything about not being a NFL coach, I simply stated that I didn't think he understood some of the aspects of the game. I will stand by that. You are fast losing your case. Just admitt that I wasn't wrong.



How am I losing my case?
Because you came up with a random number off the top of your head?
Good lord man, you just don't give up.
Fine, I'm pretty sure we ran on 3rd and long 243 times.
You're losing this case fast, just admit I wasn't wrong.


I was reffering to the fact that you were dissing me about telling BigMoInAZ that I didn't think that he understood some of the complexity of football. I wasn't talking about the side thing about Childress.

About the running plays on 3rd and long. I considered 3rd and 5 a passing down. So anything 3rd and 5 and over are counted. I included the runs which we got the first down. Here are the official numbers:

Total: 22

While we were ahead by a ton: 8
While we were ahead by a bit and trying to run the clock out: 1

These next runs were while we were either tied or behind.
3rd and 10+ yards : 10
The shortest of these were I believe 3rd and 14. At that point our pass attack was awful. Many of these came in games where we had only a few completions over 10 yards to anyone and most of the passes were to our backs.
3rd and 5-10 yards: 3. Two of these runs were exactly 5 yards. I believe both were by AD while he was having a huge day.

Those are pretty normal numbers....ecspecially for a team whose strength is the run. Our pass offense has been virtually non existant except for the past few weeks. I wish I had counted all the times we passed on 3rd downs that were 5 yards and over....there was a ton. But you didn't/don't like Childress, so of course your going to just remember those times when he didn't throw on 3rd down. And of course we should take in consideration that Bevell was calling plays during some of those runs.

So what else do you have for me?



So it went from 5 to 22, and I would also like the source.
Also I talked about the excessive short passes on third and long, can you get some stats on that?
Also coaching has shown the wiliness for trick plays, and more aggressive play calling.
Like I said Childress has looked good as of late.
I watched the same games as you, and I felt the Childress did better when he revved the motor a littler bit instead of trying not to scratch the paint.

I mostly think your bad attitude about ending with things like "So what else do you have for me?" is what my problem is, that's why I'm getting irritated with you.
Just try arguing something without coming off as high and mighty I know more than you on the Couch Coaches.

davike
12-04-2007, 01:43 AM
"Schutz" wrote:


"davike" wrote:


"Schutz" wrote:


"davike" wrote:


"Schutz" wrote:


Well I don't know what third and long draw calls, and when the first down marker is 15 yards away and you throw a one yard swing pass everytime is called, but I call it conservitive.


But I don't have a problem with you or anything, just don't bring out the "you aren't a nfl coach" comments anymore.


He called a draw play on third and long maybe 5 times through 12 games.

I never said anything about not being a NFL coach, I simply stated that I didn't think he understood some of the aspects of the game. I will stand by that. You are fast losing your case. Just admitt that I wasn't wrong.



How am I losing my case?
Because you came up with a random number off the top of your head?
Good lord man, you just don't give up.
Fine, I'm pretty sure we ran on 3rd and long 243 times.
You're losing this case fast, just admit I wasn't wrong.


I was reffering to the fact that you were dissing me about telling BigMoInAZ that I didn't think that he understood some of the complexity of football. I wasn't talking about the side thing about Childress.

About the running plays on 3rd and long. I considered 3rd and 5 a passing down. So anything 3rd and 5 and over are counted. I included the runs which we got the first down. Here are the official numbers:

Total: 22

While we were ahead by a ton: 8
While we were ahead by a bit and trying to run the clock out: 1

These next runs were while we were either tied or behind.
3rd and 10+ yards : 10
The shortest of these were I believe 3rd and 14. At that point our pass attack was awful. Many of these came in games where we had only a few completions over 10 yards to anyone and most of the passes were to our backs.
3rd and 5-10 yards: 3. Two of these runs were exactly 5 yards. I believe both were by AD while he was having a huge day.

Those are pretty normal numbers....ecspecially for a team whose strength is the run. Our pass offense has been virtually non existant except for the past few weeks. I wish I had counted all the times we passed on 3rd downs that were 5 yards and over....there was a ton. But you didn't/don't like Childress, so of course your going to just remember those times when he didn't throw on 3rd down. And of course we should take in consideration that Bevell was calling plays during some of those runs.

So what else do you have for me?



So it went from 5 to 22, and I would also like the source.
Also I talked about the excessive short passes on third and long, can you get some stats on that?
Also coaching has shown the wiliness for trick plays, and more aggressive play calling.
Like I said Childress has looked good as of late.
I watched the same games as you, and I felt the Childress did better when he revved the motor a littler bit instead of trying not to scratch the paint.

I mostly think your bad attitude about ending with things like "So what else do you have for me?" is what my problem is, that's why I'm getting irritated with you.
Just try arguing something without coming off as high and mighty I know more than you on the Couch Coaches.




Honestly after looking at the plays before it and the game situations, I still think I would have changed only about 5 of them to passes. My source is NFL gameday, I went to play-by-play and went through all the third downs in each of the 12 games. That is why it took me a while to post it.

Short passes? Look at the games, most of the time they had deeper routes on those third downs its just they were either checked down or overlooked. It doesn't mean they called a short pass. Thats the QB.

I agree that Childress went more for the trick plays and stuff. But I still hold to the fact that Childress was held back in his play calling by Jackson untill he developed and gained confidence. Look at the past couple weeks. We completed more passes to our WRs then I remember in a long time. Was that because Childress just started putting WRs on the field? I don't think so, I think it was because Jackson lacked confidence and rythem and our WRs needed work. Our right side of the line has really been looking good as well. Pass protection has looked good. Our whole offense is understanding the WCO offense better and is looking like they are all on the same page now. Jackson is gaining confidence in his WRs. So Childress can start calling some more complicated plays now. We are seeing more fakes of different sorts, different blocking schemes. Our team is growing and learning.

I apoligize if its my attitude that is bothering you. I probably shouldn't have thrown in that statement, but I was a bit agitated and I have other shit going on. I officially apoligize for that. I didn't mean to come across that way. No offense but I was also interested in your reply because I though I proved your "running on third and long" arguement wrong with the stats. And when you think you proved someone wrong sometimes you get a bit heady about it.....it happens to everyone. But like I said before, I shouldn't have said that, I apoligize for that.

Schutz
12-04-2007, 01:55 AM
"davike" wrote:


"Schutz" wrote:


"davike" wrote:


"Schutz" wrote:


"davike" wrote:




Well I don't know what third and long draw calls, and when the first down marker is 15 yards away and you throw a one yard swing pass everytime is called, but I call it conservitive.


But I don't have a problem with you or anything, just don't bring out the "you aren't a nfl coach" comments anymore.


He called a draw play on third and long maybe 5 times through 12 games.

I never said anything about not being a NFL coach, I simply stated that I didn't think he understood some of the aspects of the game. I will stand by that. You are fast losing your case. Just admitt that I wasn't wrong.



How am I losing my case?
Because you came up with a random number off the top of your head?
Good lord man, you just don't give up.
Fine, I'm pretty sure we ran on 3rd and long 243 times.
You're losing this case fast, just admit I wasn't wrong.


I was reffering to the fact that you were dissing me about telling BigMoInAZ that I didn't think that he understood some of the complexity of football. I wasn't talking about the side thing about Childress.

About the running plays on 3rd and long. I considered 3rd and 5 a passing down. So anything 3rd and 5 and over are counted. I included the runs which we got the first down. Here are the official numbers:

Total: 22

While we were ahead by a ton: 8
While we were ahead by a bit and trying to run the clock out: 1

These next runs were while we were either tied or behind.
3rd and 10+ yards : 10
The shortest of these were I believe 3rd and 14. At that point our pass attack was awful. Many of these came in games where we had only a few completions over 10 yards to anyone and most of the passes were to our backs.
3rd and 5-10 yards: 3. Two of these runs were exactly 5 yards. I believe both were by AD while he was having a huge day.

Those are pretty normal numbers....ecspecially for a team whose strength is the run. Our pass offense has been virtually non existant except for the past few weeks. I wish I had counted all the times we passed on 3rd downs that were 5 yards and over....there was a ton. But you didn't/don't like Childress, so of course your going to just remember those times when he didn't throw on 3rd down. And of course we should take in consideration that Bevell was calling plays during some of those runs.

So what else do you have for me?



So it went from 5 to 22, and I would also like the source.
Also I talked about the excessive short passes on third and long, can you get some stats on that?
Also coaching has shown the wiliness for trick plays, and more aggressive play calling.
Like I said Childress has looked good as of late.
I watched the same games as you, and I felt the Childress did better when he revved the motor a littler bit instead of trying not to scratch the paint.

I mostly think your bad attitude about ending with things like "So what else do you have for me?" is what my problem is, that's why I'm getting irritated with you.
Just try arguing something without coming off as high and mighty I know more than you on the Couch Coaches.




Honestly after looking at the plays before it and the game situations, I still think I would have changed only about 5 of them to passes. My source is NFL gameday, I went to play-by-play and went through all the third downs in each of the 12 games. That is why it took me a while to post it.

Short passes? Look at the games, most of the time they had deeper routes on those third downs its just they were either checked down or overlooked. It doesn't mean they called a short pass. Thats the QB.

I agree that Childress went more for the trick plays and stuff. But I still hold to the fact that Childress was held back in his play calling by Jackson untill he developed and gained confidence. Look at the past couple weeks. We completed more passes to our WRs then I remember in a long time. Was that because Childress just started putting WRs on the field? I don't think so, I think it was because Jackson lacked confidence and rythem and our WRs needed work. Our right side of the line has really been looking good as well. Pass protection has looked good. Our whole offense is understanding the WCO offense better and is looking like they are all on the same page now. Jackson is gaining confidence in his WRs. So Childress can start calling some more complicated plays now. We are seeing more fakes of different sorts, different blocking schemes. Our team is growing and learning.

I apoligize if its my attitude that is bothering you. I probably shouldn't have thrown in that statement, but I was a bit agitated and I have other pooh going on. I officially apoligize for that. I didn't mean to come across that way. No offense but I was also interested in your reply because I though I proved your "running on third and long" arguement wrong with the stats. And when you think you proved someone wrong sometimes you get a bit heady about it.....it happens to everyone. But like I said before, I shouldn't have said that, I apoligize for that.


Fair enough, no harm no foul.
As long as you didn't mean anything I'm sorry if I got a little testy.
We're all Monday morning QBs here, and that's all that matters.
As far as waiting for Jackson to develop I guess I can see that, he did have a couple of games in his short career where he wasn't too confident throwing long.
I believe the phrase "excellence of execution" comes to mind.
I just spent too many Sundays where I'd just see Chester come in and I'd just be like......oh no.........and sure enough a draw up the gut.
I just figured if we were going to run on 3rd and long we might as well put in AP to open up some passing lanes, or try to bounce AP or Taylor to the outside.
Also when we threw to the flats we should have just tossed it off to AP a little more, even if it meant a couple less carries.
We're also THIRD WORST in Third down conversions which had a lot to do with I felt was conservative play calling.
But I we don't live in Childress's head, and maybe he didn't feel T-Jack could make those throws down field.

As far as T-Jack I think his big thing for being able to go down field right now is his pocket presence, it almost looks like a different QB in the pocket right now.
I just felt if T-Jack was his starter he might as well give him a chance to throw a 10-15 yard pass to the sideline where he could throw it away or throw a pass only the WR could catch.


But maybe we can just agree that it's great that the Vikings are starting to gel a little bit.
And we can definitely agree Childress's/coaching staff's play calling has been looking pretty good lately.

davike
12-04-2007, 02:05 AM
"Schutz" wrote:


"davike" wrote:


"Schutz" wrote:


"davike" wrote:


"Schutz" wrote:






Well I don't know what third and long draw calls, and when the first down marker is 15 yards away and you throw a one yard swing pass everytime is called, but I call it conservitive.


But I don't have a problem with you or anything, just don't bring out the "you aren't a nfl coach" comments anymore.


He called a draw play on third and long maybe 5 times through 12 games.

I never said anything about not being a NFL coach, I simply stated that I didn't think he understood some of the aspects of the game. I will stand by that. You are fast losing your case. Just admitt that I wasn't wrong.



How am I losing my case?
Because you came up with a random number off the top of your head?
Good lord man, you just don't give up.
Fine, I'm pretty sure we ran on 3rd and long 243 times.
You're losing this case fast, just admit I wasn't wrong.


I was reffering to the fact that you were dissing me about telling BigMoInAZ that I didn't think that he understood some of the complexity of football. I wasn't talking about the side thing about Childress.

About the running plays on 3rd and long. I considered 3rd and 5 a passing down. So anything 3rd and 5 and over are counted. I included the runs which we got the first down. Here are the official numbers:

Total: 22

While we were ahead by a ton: 8
While we were ahead by a bit and trying to run the clock out: 1

These next runs were while we were either tied or behind.
3rd and 10+ yards : 10
The shortest of these were I believe 3rd and 14. At that point our pass attack was awful. Many of these came in games where we had only a few completions over 10 yards to anyone and most of the passes were to our backs.
3rd and 5-10 yards: 3. Two of these runs were exactly 5 yards. I believe both were by AD while he was having a huge day.

Those are pretty normal numbers....ecspecially for a team whose strength is the run. Our pass offense has been virtually non existant except for the past few weeks. I wish I had counted all the times we passed on 3rd downs that were 5 yards and over....there was a ton. But you didn't/don't like Childress, so of course your going to just remember those times when he didn't throw on 3rd down. And of course we should take in consideration that Bevell was calling plays during some of those runs.

So what else do you have for me?



So it went from 5 to 22, and I would also like the source.
Also I talked about the excessive short passes on third and long, can you get some stats on that?
Also coaching has shown the wiliness for trick plays, and more aggressive play calling.
Like I said Childress has looked good as of late.
I watched the same games as you, and I felt the Childress did better when he revved the motor a littler bit instead of trying not to scratch the paint.

I mostly think your bad attitude about ending with things like "So what else do you have for me?" is what my problem is, that's why I'm getting irritated with you.
Just try arguing something without coming off as high and mighty I know more than you on the Couch Coaches.




Honestly after looking at the plays before it and the game situations, I still think I would have changed only about 5 of them to passes. My source is NFL gameday, I went to play-by-play and went through all the third downs in each of the 12 games. That is why it took me a while to post it.

Short passes? Look at the games, most of the time they had deeper routes on those third downs its just they were either checked down or overlooked. It doesn't mean they called a short pass. Thats the QB.

I agree that Childress went more for the trick plays and stuff. But I still hold to the fact that Childress was held back in his play calling by Jackson untill he developed and gained confidence. Look at the past couple weeks. We completed more passes to our WRs then I remember in a long time. Was that because Childress just started putting WRs on the field? I don't think so, I think it was because Jackson lacked confidence and rythem and our WRs needed work. Our right side of the line has really been looking good as well. Pass protection has looked good. Our whole offense is understanding the WCO offense better and is looking like they are all on the same page now. Jackson is gaining confidence in his WRs. So Childress can start calling some more complicated plays now. We are seeing more fakes of different sorts, different blocking schemes. Our team is growing and learning.

I apoligize if its my attitude that is bothering you. I probably shouldn't have thrown in that statement, but I was a bit agitated and I have other pooh going on. I officially apoligize for that. I didn't mean to come across that way. No offense but I was also interested in your reply because I though I proved your "running on third and long" arguement wrong with the stats. And when you think you proved someone wrong sometimes you get a bit heady about it.....it happens to everyone. But like I said before, I shouldn't have said that, I apoligize for that.


Fair enough, no harm no foul.
As long as you didn't mean anything I'm sorry if I got a little testy.
We're all Monday morning QBs here, and that's all that matters.
As far as waiting for Jackson to develop I guess I can see that, he did have a couple of games in his short career where he wasn't too confident throwing long.
I believe the phrase "excellence of execution" comes to mind.
I just spent too many Sundays where I'd just see Chester come in and I'd just be like......oh no.........and sure enough a draw up the gut.
I just figured if we were going to run on 3rd and long we might as well put in AP to open up some passing lanes, or try to bounce AP or Taylor to the outside.
Also when we threw to the flats we should have just tossed it off to AP a little more, even if it meant a couple less carries.
We're also THIRD WORST in Third down conversions which had a lot to do with I felt was conservative play calling.
But I we don't live in Childress's head, and maybe he didn't feel T-Jack could make those throws down field.

As far as T-Jack I think his big thing for being able to go down field right now is his pocket presence, it almost looks like a different QB in the pocket right now.
I just felt if T-Jack was his starter he might as well give him a chance to throw a 10-15 yard pass to the sideline where he could throw it away or throw a pass only the WR could catch.


But maybe we can just agree that it's great that the Vikings are starting to gel a little bit.
And we can definitely agree Childress's/coaching staff's play calling has been looking pretty good lately.


I think I can agree with that
;) This team has come a long way. I am just hoping it sticks and doesn't vanish again, if it does our young team will be able to be contenders for a long time.

V-Unit
12-04-2007, 02:58 PM
I for one, think the playcalling is pretty conservative, and love it.

Merf_Vikes_Superbowl
12-22-2007, 12:56 PM
Yes A good QB could bring us home

Marrdro
12-22-2007, 01:00 PM
Hmmmmmmmm, how should I respond this time.

Good Marrdro or Bad Marrdro?
::)

Suffice it to say I believe this staff (not just the Chiller) has worked miracles with this whole team, to include the young Jedi.

Lets hope the front office Pukes (and that includes Bryzcheapski) help out a bit with a couple of key FA next year.
;D