PDA

View Full Version : Give Tarvaris time, says Bud Grant



vikesfargo
12-31-2007, 01:02 AM
Give Minnesota Vikings QB Tarvaris Jackson time, ex-Vikings coach Bud Grant says (http://www.twincities.com/vikings/ci_7839488?nclick_check=1)

Pioneer Press

Posted: December 31, 2007

Former Vikings coach Bud Grant believes it's too early to determine whether second-year player Tarvaris Jackson, 24, is the Vikings' quarterback of the future.

"(Fans) are trying to evaluate him on the basis of very few games," said Grant, a member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame. "I don't know that that's fair to him, to try to put a tag on him at this point.

Garland Greene
12-31-2007, 01:07 AM
Its not always about giving him time, Its about can we afford to sit and wait for him to develop?

ItalianStallion
12-31-2007, 01:08 AM
I'm all for giving him time, it's not like people want to cut him, but I'd prefer that time be spent on the bench learning rather than costing us games...

tb04512
12-31-2007, 01:16 AM
"ItalianStallion" wrote:


I'm all for giving him time, it's not like people want to cut him, but I'd prefer that time be spent on the bench learning rather than costing us games...

costing us games? hes 8-4 as our starter

Garland Greene
12-31-2007, 01:20 AM
"ItalianStallion" wrote:


I'm all for giving him time, it's not like people want to cut him, but I'd prefer that time be spent on the bench learning rather than costing us games...


Exactly I want him to be betetr he just has not given us any clue that he will. If we were say the Miami Dolphins Or the Falcons then yeah give him a few more seasons or 2 we would not be going anywhere anyways so let him develop alopng with the rest of the team. But that is not us.This is a team that is in reality a couple of solid players away from making some noise in the playoffs. again the who is up in the air. Lets see what happens in the offsesson, but i highly doubt that if we had the chance to get a top notch QB ad proven winner people would still be wanting to start TJ over him.

GreenBaySlackers
12-31-2007, 01:33 AM
"tb04512" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


I'm all for giving him time, it's not like people want to cut him, but I'd prefer that time be spent on the bench learning rather than costing us games...

costing us games? hes 8-4 as our starter


today's game immediately comes to mind...

ItalianStallion
12-31-2007, 01:37 AM
"tb04512" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


I'm all for giving him time, it's not like people want to cut him, but I'd prefer that time be spent on the bench learning rather than costing us games...

costing us games? hes 8-4 as our starter


Maybe I should have reworded it as: costs us games when it counts and occasionally helps us not lose

Hmm I would say he singlehandedly lost us the games against the Lions, Redskins, Dallas and tried his hardest to lose against the woeful Bears.
By having no less than 3 seperate injuries, he forced us to endure the like of bollinger and Holcomb (and yes I do count lack of durability a fault).

He didn't have any games where he was very good or great, and had a lot of mediocre games that you'd typically get out of most veterans.

Will he improve, I think he can, and sure hope he does, but I see no reason that we should gamble again nect year like we did this year.

The fact of the matter remains, if we had gotten a competent veteran in any of our Childress-era offseasons we'd have made the playoffs this year.
Let's just hope we're not saying the same thing next year.

tb04512
12-31-2007, 01:38 AM
"GreenBaySlackers" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


I'm all for giving him time, it's not like people want to cut him, but I'd prefer that time be spent on the bench learning rather than costing us games...

costing us games? hes 8-4 as our starter


today's game immediately comes to mind...


really? i thought it could have been the 2 CT fumbles.. or the Williamson drop that wouldve easily been a TD.. how about mr cook with the penalty for the safety (without it we wouldve won)... or the lack of blocking at the end

looked like to me the only reason we were in it was because of him

tb04512
12-31-2007, 01:40 AM
"ItalianStallion" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


I'm all for giving him time, it's not like people want to cut him, but I'd prefer that time be spent on the bench learning rather than costing us games...

costing us games? hes 8-4 as our starter


Maybe I should have reworded it as: costs us games when it counts and occasionally helps us not lose

Hmm I would say he singlehandedly lost us the games against the Lions, Redskins, Dallas and tried his hardest to lose against the woeful Bears.
By having no less than 3 seperate injuries, he forced us to endure the like of bollinger and Holcomb (and yes I do count lack of durability a fault).

He didn't have any games where he was very good or great, and had a lot of mediocre games that you'd typically get out of most veterans.

Will he improve, I think he can, and sure hope he does, but I see no reason that we should gamble again nect year like we did this year.

The fact of the matter remains, if we had gotten a competent veteran in any of our Childress-era offseasons we'd have made the playoffs this year.
Let's just hope we're not saying the same thing next year.


Tell me what Qb's are out there that are available?

GreenBaySlackers
12-31-2007, 01:41 AM
"tb04512" wrote:


"GreenBaySlackers" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


I'm all for giving him time, it's not like people want to cut him, but I'd prefer that time be spent on the bench learning rather than costing us games...

costing us games? hes 8-4 as our starter


today's game immediately comes to mind...


really? i thought it could have been the 2 CT fumbles.. or the Williamson drop that wouldve easily been a TD.. how about mr cook with the penalty for the safety (without it we wouldve won)... or the lack of blocking at the end

looked like to me the only reason we were in it was because of him


I was referring to the fumble in OT.
Hold the ball.



I'm not a hater by any means.
But when we had a chance to take it for the win, he (literally) dropped the ball.


And that stuff ItalianStallion just said
;D

tb04512
12-31-2007, 01:43 AM
"GreenBaySlackers" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"GreenBaySlackers" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


I'm all for giving him time, it's not like people want to cut him, but I'd prefer that time be spent on the bench learning rather than costing us games...

costing us games? hes 8-4 as our starter


today's game immediately comes to mind...


really? i thought it could have been the 2 CT fumbles.. or the Williamson drop that wouldve easily been a TD.. how about mr cook with the penalty for the safety (without it we wouldve won)... or the lack of blocking at the end

looked like to me the only reason we were in it was because of him


I was referring to the fumble in OT.
Hold the ball.



I'm not a hater by any means.
But when we had a chance to take it for the win, he (literally) dropped the ball.


And that stuff ItalianStallion just said
;D


your going to blame him for the COOKie monster not blocking anyone(watched 2 guys go by him)... notice 2 guys hit him.. pin that on the OLine

Schutz
12-31-2007, 01:46 AM
"tb04512" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


I'm all for giving him time, it's not like people want to cut him, but I'd prefer that time be spent on the bench learning rather than costing us games...

costing us games? hes 8-4 as our starter


Please, that argument is getting old.
T-Jack didn't win those games, our running game and defense did.
many of those games we won DESPITE T-Jack.
I'd like him on the team, just not starting if he still needs time on the bench to learn the game.

GreenBaySlackers
12-31-2007, 01:47 AM
"tb04512" wrote:


"GreenBaySlackers" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"GreenBaySlackers" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:




I'm all for giving him time, it's not like people want to cut him, but I'd prefer that time be spent on the bench learning rather than costing us games...

costing us games? hes 8-4 as our starter


today's game immediately comes to mind...


really? i thought it could have been the 2 CT fumbles.. or the Williamson drop that wouldve easily been a TD.. how about mr cook with the penalty for the safety (without it we wouldve won)... or the lack of blocking at the end

looked like to me the only reason we were in it was because of him


I was referring to the fumble in OT.
Hold the ball.



I'm not a hater by any means.
But when we had a chance to take it for the win, he (literally) dropped the ball.


And that stuff ItalianStallion just said
;D


your going to blame him for the COOKie monster not blocking anyone(watched 2 guys go by him)... notice 2 guys hit him.. pin that on the OLine


I wouldn't blame him for the sack, but I will blame him for the fumble.
Football 101: Prtoect the rock

Garland Greene
12-31-2007, 01:47 AM
"tb04512" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


I'm all for giving him time, it's not like people want to cut him, but I'd prefer that time be spent on the bench learning rather than costing us games...

costing us games? hes 8-4 as our starter


Maybe I should have reworded it as: costs us games when it counts and occasionally helps us not lose

Hmm I would say he singlehandedly lost us the games against the Lions, Redskins, Dallas and tried his hardest to lose against the woeful Bears.
By having no less than 3 seperate injuries, he forced us to endure the like of bollinger and Holcomb (and yes I do count lack of durability a fault).

He didn't have any games where he was very good or great, and had a lot of mediocre games that you'd typically get out of most veterans.

Will he improve, I think he can, and sure hope he does, but I see no reason that we should gamble again nect year like we did this year.

The fact of the matter remains, if we had gotten a competent veteran in any of our Childress-era offseasons we'd have made the playoffs this year.
Let's just hope we're not saying the same thing next year.


Tell me what Qb's are out there that are available?


If I could predict the future I would, and I would win the lottery. Wins and Losses mean nothing in this case. I said it before we were tied when TJ left the San Diego game yes he started and yes we won but can you honestlyu say that AD running for 296 yards had nothing to do with us winning?
He actually contributed to us winning the game? So unless he plays all 22 position on the feild the Win Loss record thing means nothing. It was pointed out that Manning was 1-15 at one point I guess that was a huge reflection on what sort of QB he turned out to be.

tb04512
12-31-2007, 01:50 AM
"GreenBaySlackers" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"GreenBaySlackers" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"GreenBaySlackers" wrote:






I'm all for giving him time, it's not like people want to cut him, but I'd prefer that time be spent on the bench learning rather than costing us games...

costing us games? hes 8-4 as our starter


today's game immediately comes to mind...


really? i thought it could have been the 2 CT fumbles.. or the Williamson drop that wouldve easily been a TD.. how about mr cook with the penalty for the safety (without it we wouldve won)... or the lack of blocking at the end

looked like to me the only reason we were in it was because of him


I was referring to the fumble in OT.
Hold the ball.



I'm not a hater by any means.
But when we had a chance to take it for the win, he (literally) dropped the ball.


And that stuff ItalianStallion just said
;D


your going to blame him for the COOKie monster not blocking anyone(watched 2 guys go by him)... notice 2 guys hit him.. pin that on the OLine


I wouldn't blame him for the sack, but I will blame him for the fumble.
Football 101: Prtoect the rock


Typing 101: Spelling

:P

It's pretty hard not to fumble in that position, but he should learn to try to tuck it.

GreenBaySlackers
12-31-2007, 01:52 AM
"tb04512" wrote:


"GreenBaySlackers" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"GreenBaySlackers" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:








I'm all for giving him time, it's not like people want to cut him, but I'd prefer that time be spent on the bench learning rather than costing us games...

costing us games? hes 8-4 as our starter


today's game immediately comes to mind...


really? i thought it could have been the 2 CT fumbles.. or the Williamson drop that wouldve easily been a TD.. how about mr cook with the penalty for the safety (without it we wouldve won)... or the lack of blocking at the end

looked like to me the only reason we were in it was because of him


I was referring to the fumble in OT.
Hold the ball.



I'm not a hater by any means.
But when we had a chance to take it for the win, he (literally) dropped the ball.


And that stuff ItalianStallion just said
;D


your going to blame him for the COOKie monster not blocking anyone(watched 2 guys go by him)... notice 2 guys hit him.. pin that on the OLine


I wouldn't blame him for the sack, but I will blame him for the fumble.
Football 101: Prtoect the rock


Typing 101: Spelling

:P

It's pretty hard not to fumble in that position, but he should learn to try to tuck it.


It's 2am and I'm typing fast, cut me a little slack.
Gonna pick on me for improper use of a colon next?
8)

DaVizzles
12-31-2007, 01:53 AM
Hmm who should I listen to Bud Grant or Garland Greene and Schutz?

That seems pretty easy to me. This guy is a legendary coach and I think he knows whether you should give him time or not.

Everybody has there own opinions but you guys dont see the potential he has? Especially when he is given time. He has a cannon and is accurate when given time. Not to mention he is very athletic and mobile and has the ability to escape the sack. I do agree that he needs to work on his decision making but that takes time.

Garland Greene
12-31-2007, 01:53 AM
"Schutz" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


I'm all for giving him time, it's not like people want to cut him, but I'd prefer that time be spent on the bench learning rather than costing us games...

costing us games? hes 8-4 as our starter


Please, that argument is getting old.
T-Jack didn't win those games, our running game and defense did.
many of those games we won DESPITE T-Jack.
I'd like him on the team, just not starting if he still needs time on the bench to learn the game.



Thank you!

DaVizzles
12-31-2007, 01:56 AM
"GreenBaySlackers" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"GreenBaySlackers" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"GreenBaySlackers" wrote:






I'm all for giving him time, it's not like people want to cut him, but I'd prefer that time be spent on the bench learning rather than costing us games...

costing us games? hes 8-4 as our starter


today's game immediately comes to mind...


really? i thought it could have been the 2 CT fumbles.. or the Williamson drop that wouldve easily been a TD.. how about mr cook with the penalty for the safety (without it we wouldve won)... or the lack of blocking at the end

looked like to me the only reason we were in it was because of him


I was referring to the fumble in OT.
Hold the ball.



I'm not a hater by any means.
But when we had a chance to take it for the win, he (literally) dropped the ball.


And that stuff ItalianStallion just said
;D


your going to blame him for the COOKie monster not blocking anyone(watched 2 guys go by him)... notice 2 guys hit him.. pin that on the OLine


I wouldn't blame him for the sack, but I will blame him for the fumble.
Football 101: Prtoect the rock


That was nearly a forward pass...It could have gone either way IMO. It is not TJ's fault it was Adrian's for not picking up the blitz.

scraaaaazy
12-31-2007, 01:56 AM
Yeah, I guess that's cool, but I'm still sick to my stomach. I feel like I have to Vomit. Just thinking about how horrible this team and coach are, it makes me sick. We need to fire Cluless (Childress lol) and start over. I feel sick to my stomach, like vomit and diarrhea too. Happy New Yar

Garland Greene
12-31-2007, 01:57 AM
"DaVizzles" wrote:


Hmm who should I listen to Bud Grant or Garland Greene and Schutz?

That seems pretty easy to me. This guy is a legendary coach and I think he knows whether you should give him time or not.

Everybody has there own opinions but you guys dont see the potential he has? Especially when he is given time. He has a cannon and is accurate when given time. Not to mention he is very athletic and mobile and has the ability to escape the sack. I do agree that he needs to work on his decision making but that takes time.


Oh God hee we go again?Are you reading what we are saying or are yo so pro-T-jike that you think anyone who says anythijng bad about him is wrong? seriously re-rread what we both wrote. ;)

ItalianStallion
12-31-2007, 01:59 AM
"tb04512" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


I'm all for giving him time, it's not like people want to cut him, but I'd prefer that time be spent on the bench learning rather than costing us games...

costing us games? hes 8-4 as our starter


Maybe I should have reworded it as: costs us games when it counts and occasionally helps us not lose

Hmm I would say he singlehandedly lost us the games against the Lions, Redskins, Dallas and tried his hardest to lose against the woeful Bears.
By having no less than 3 seperate injuries, he forced us to endure the like of bollinger and Holcomb (and yes I do count lack of durability a fault).

He didn't have any games where he was very good or great, and had a lot of mediocre games that you'd typically get out of most veterans.

Will he improve, I think he can, and sure hope he does, but I see no reason that we should gamble again nect year like we did this year.

The fact of the matter remains, if we had gotten a competent veteran in any of our Childress-era offseasons we'd have made the playoffs this year.
Let's just hope we're not saying the same thing next year.


Tell me what Qb's are out there that are available?


I don't have the gift of portent nor am I able to predict who will be available (through FA or trades), but there were several we had an easy shot at during Childresses watch.

ItalianStallion
12-31-2007, 02:02 AM
"DaVizzles" wrote:



That was nearly a forward pass...It could have gone either way IMO. It is not TJ's fault it was Adrian's for not picking up the blitz.


Adrian was running an arrow pattern to the flats, was it even his responsibility to pick it up?
All I know is Cook was standing around like an idiot looking for someone to block.

tb04512
12-31-2007, 02:03 AM
"DaVizzles" wrote:


Hmm who should I listen to Bud Grant or Garland Greene and Schutz?

That seems pretty easy to me. This guy is a legendary coach and I think he knows whether you should give him time or not.

Everybody has there own opinions but you guys dont see the potential he has? Especially when he is given time. He has a cannon and is accurate when given time. Not to mention he is very athletic and mobile and has the ability to escape the sack. I do agree that he needs to work on his decision making but that takes time.


Exactly shall we look at stats of him and sayyy HOF QB Troy Aikman

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/A/AikmTr00.htm

http://www.nfl.com/players/tarvarisjackson/careerstats?id=JAC566507

In the Second years of these 2 qbs,

Jackson has a better completion percentage

Aikman had 2 more td's but 6 more ints.

Aikman has a better Yards per, Jacksons rating is better....

Damn to me you guys would've given up on Aikman long before you would've given up on Jackson, give the kid a chance

DiehardVikesFan
12-31-2007, 02:04 AM
A lot of times backs are supposed to look for the blitz and run a route if no one comes so he may have been supposed to pick up the blitz

digital420
12-31-2007, 02:05 AM
he still is making some bad throws.. but he is also getting the idea hof how to attack certain D stands weakness's.

That toss to Wade in the 4th qtr was a veteren move all the way.

The comeback he led in the end was again, poised and well captained.

The skins game.. he wasn't so bright.. but, we HAVE to accept that until he is a veteren QB.
when is that you say?

I think that the qb is no longer a rookie..after they have completed a contract!

Take littleManning.. he made MANY more rookie mistakes then Tjack did in that
game.
there's several others u could discuss, and many things we can see how they go, but I for one believe that Tjack
Will be a great NFL qb, will he be our franchise qb?
can't call it yet.

DiGiTaL

Garland Greene
12-31-2007, 02:06 AM
The part that still is a mytery to neme is how when we loose its everyone elses fault but TJ and if we win it is only because of him? Can someone explain to me the thought process in this I have yet to hear any of the pro T-jack peopel say that he played horrible for 3 1/2 quarters? All i have heard is that it is Cooks fault or, CT fault or The OL Line fault. Yes they played a hand in us loosing the game but so did did TJ. Quit making excuses give blame where blame is due and give credit where credit is due. Bottom line TJ had the ball TJ fumbled the ball, It is on him and not this woulda, shoulda, coulda, BS Hell if we had the whole season like that we would be the second 16-0 team in the NFL right now.

DaVizzles
12-31-2007, 02:06 AM
"Garland" wrote:


"DaVizzles" wrote:


Hmm who should I listen to Bud Grant or Garland Greene and Schutz?

That seems pretty easy to me. This guy is a legendary coach and I think he knows whether you should give him time or not.

Everybody has there own opinions but you guys dont see the potential he has? Especially when he is given time. He has a cannon and is accurate when given time. Not to mention he is very athletic and mobile and has the ability to escape the sack. I do agree that he needs to work on his decision making but that takes time.


Oh God hee we go again?Are you reading what we are saying or are yo so pro-T-jike that you think anyone who says anythijng bad about him is wrong? seriously re-rread what we both wrote. ;)


What are you guys saying? He can stay on the team but not starting?

He has to get a feel for the speed of the game and learn how to read the defense. You really cant do that on the bench.

He needs expierience.

tb04512
12-31-2007, 02:07 AM
"ItalianStallion" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


I'm all for giving him time, it's not like people want to cut him, but I'd prefer that time be spent on the bench learning rather than costing us games...

costing us games? hes 8-4 as our starter


Maybe I should have reworded it as: costs us games when it counts and occasionally helps us not lose

Hmm I would say he singlehandedly lost us the games against the Lions, Redskins, Dallas and tried his hardest to lose against the woeful Bears.
By having no less than 3 seperate injuries, he forced us to endure the like of bollinger and Holcomb (and yes I do count lack of durability a fault).

He didn't have any games where he was very good or great, and had a lot of mediocre games that you'd typically get out of most veterans.

Will he improve, I think he can, and sure hope he does, but I see no reason that we should gamble again nect year like we did this year.

The fact of the matter remains, if we had gotten a competent veteran in any of our Childress-era offseasons we'd have made the playoffs this year.
Let's just hope we're not saying the same thing next year.


Tell me what Qb's are out there that are available?


I don't have the gift of portent nor am I able to predict who will be available (through FA or trades), but there were several we had an easy shot at during Childresses watch.


in childresses first year i will agree... however we are not the only team with QB "problems" there are very few out there that are reliable, didnt like 50 or so different qbs start this season?>

Schutz
12-31-2007, 02:08 AM
"tb04512" wrote:


"DaVizzles" wrote:


Hmm who should I listen to Bud Grant or Garland Greene and Schutz?

That seems pretty easy to me. This guy is a legendary coach and I think he knows whether you should give him time or not.

Everybody has there own opinions but you guys dont see the potential he has? Especially when he is given time. He has a cannon and is accurate when given time. Not to mention he is very athletic and mobile and has the ability to escape the sack. I do agree that he needs to work on his decision making but that takes time.


Exactly shall we look at stats of him and sayyy HOF QB Troy Aikman

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/A/AikmTr00.htm

http://www.nfl.com/players/tarvarisjackson/careerstats?id=JAC566507

In the Second years of these 2 qbs,

Jackson has a better completion percentage

Aikman had 2 more td's but 6 more ints.

Aikman has a better Yards per, Jacksons rating is better....

gol 'darnit to me you guys would've given up on Aikman long before you would've given up on Jackson, give the kid a chance


And the Teams Troy Aikman played for were 1-15 adn 3-13.
Not a whole lot of help there.

ItalianStallion
12-31-2007, 02:08 AM
"DiehardVikesFan" wrote:


A lot of times backs are supposed to look for the blitz and run a route if no one comes so he may have been supposed to pick up the blitz


And a lot of times their not, what's your point?
Don't presume to know the exact paly called or his responsibilty.

Garland Greene
12-31-2007, 02:09 AM
"tb04512" wrote:


"DaVizzles" wrote:


Hmm who should I listen to Bud Grant or Garland Greene and Schutz?

That seems pretty easy to me. This guy is a legendary coach and I think he knows whether you should give him time or not.

Everybody has there own opinions but you guys dont see the potential he has? Especially when he is given time. He has a cannon and is accurate when given time. Not to mention he is very athletic and mobile and has the ability to escape the sack. I do agree that he needs to work on his decision making but that takes time.


Exactly shall we look at stats of him and sayyy HOF QB Troy Aikman

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/A/AikmTr00.htm

http://www.nfl.com/players/tarvarisjackson/careerstats?id=JAC566507

In the Second years of these 2 qbs,

Jackson has a better completion percentage

Aikman had 2 more td's but 6 more ints.

Aikman has a better Yards per, Jacksons rating is better....

Damn to me you guys would've given up on Aikman long before you would've given up on Jackson, give the kid a chance


And for every Aikman there is an Akili Smith,
For every Manning there is a Ryan Leaf
That is an argument that could go on all day.

DiehardVikesFan
12-31-2007, 02:11 AM
"ItalianStallion" wrote:


"DiehardVikesFan" wrote:


A lot of times backs are supposed to look for the blitz and run a route if no one comes so he may have been supposed to pick up the blitz


And a lot of times their not, what's your point?
Don't presume to know the exact paly called or his responsibilty.


I didn't presume anything i stated a fact.
I don't remember the play enough to tell you if Peterson was supposed to pick up the blitz

ItalianStallion
12-31-2007, 02:12 AM
"DaVizzles" wrote:


What are you guys saying? He can stay on the team but not starting?

He has to get a feel for the speed of the game and learn how to read the defense. You really cant do that on the bench.

He needs expierience.


Give him some legit competition in training camp then, not the likes of Thigpen and Bollinger.

I'll take winning with a veteran over losing (but gaining experience) with a young player.
Especially given the make up (many veterans) and potential of this team.

"DiehardVikesFan" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


"DiehardVikesFan" wrote:


A lot of times backs are supposed to look for the blitz and run a route if no one comes so he may have been supposed to pick up the blitz


And a lot of times their not, what's your point?
Don't presume to know the exact paly called or his responsibilty.


I didn't presume anything i stated a fact.
I don't remember the play enough to tell you if Peterson was supposed to pick up the blitz


I was referring to DaVizzles who called him out for not picking up the blitz.
The fact is, we don't know how that play was drawn up.

Garland Greene
12-31-2007, 02:12 AM
"DaVizzles" wrote:


"Garland" wrote:


"DaVizzles" wrote:


Hmm who should I listen to Bud Grant or Garland Greene and Schutz?

That seems pretty easy to me. This guy is a legendary coach and I think he knows whether you should give him time or not.

Everybody has there own opinions but you guys dont see the potential he has? Especially when he is given time. He has a cannon and is accurate when given time. Not to mention he is very athletic and mobile and has the ability to escape the sack. I do agree that he needs to work on his decision making but that takes time.


Oh God hee we go again?Are you reading what we are saying or are yo so pro-T-jike that you think anyone who says anythijng bad about him is wrong? seriously re-rread what we both wrote. ;)


What are you guys saying? He can stay on the team but not starting?

He has to get a feel for the speed of the game and learn how to read the defense. You really cant do that on the bench.

He needs expierience.


So then my question again which still has been unanswered is, can we afford to wait and let him develop?

tb04512
12-31-2007, 02:13 AM
"Garland" wrote:


The part that still is a mytery to neme is how when we loose its everyone elses fault but TJ and if we win it is only because of him? Can someone explain to me the thought process in this I have yet to hear any of the pro T-jack peopel say that he played horrible for 3 1/2 quarters? All i have heard is that it is Cooks fault or, CT fault or The OL Line fault. Yes they played a hand in us loosing the game but so did did TJ. Quit making excuses give blame where blame is due and give credit where credit is due. Bottom line TJ had the ball TJ fumbled the ball, It is on him and not this woulda, shoulda, coulda, BS Hell if we had the whole season like that we would be the second 16-0 team in the NFL right now.


OK blame is DUE to CT who fumbled TWICE.
Williamson dropped a TD pass
Cook got the a SAFETY.

play the blame game if you want but your pure hatred for him blinds you. This game was not on Tjack.
Past games have been on him, but bumps were expected.

tb04512
12-31-2007, 02:14 AM
"Schutz" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"DaVizzles" wrote:


Hmm who should I listen to Bud Grant or Garland Greene and Schutz?

That seems pretty easy to me. This guy is a legendary coach and I think he knows whether you should give him time or not.

Everybody has there own opinions but you guys dont see the potential he has? Especially when he is given time. He has a cannon and is accurate when given time. Not to mention he is very athletic and mobile and has the ability to escape the sack. I do agree that he needs to work on his decision making but that takes time.


Exactly shall we look at stats of him and sayyy HOF QB Troy Aikman

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/A/AikmTr00.htm

http://www.nfl.com/players/tarvarisjackson/careerstats?id=JAC566507

In the Second years of these 2 qbs,

Jackson has a better completion percentage

Aikman had 2 more td's but 6 more ints.

Aikman has a better Yards per, Jacksons rating is better....

gol 'darnit to me you guys would've given up on Aikman long before you would've given up on Jackson, give the kid a chance


And the Teams Troy Aikman played for were 1-15 adn 3-13.
Not a whole lot of help there.


I for one thought Irvin and Walker were good... guess not

DiehardVikesFan
12-31-2007, 02:14 AM
Everyone wants a vet qb but it doesn't look like we will be able to find one

http://www.footballsfuture.com/freeagents.html

Garland Greene
12-31-2007, 02:15 AM
"ItalianStallion" wrote:


"DaVizzles" wrote:


What are you guys saying? He can stay on the team but not starting?

He has to get a feel for the speed of the game and learn how to read the defense. You really cant do that on the bench.

He needs expierience.


Give him some legit competition in training camp then, not the likes of Thigpen and Bollinger.

I'll take winning with a veteran over losing (but gaining experience) with a young player.
Especially given the make up (many veterans) and potential of this team.


Unfortuantly there are to many people that will never admit the same thing

Garland Greene
12-31-2007, 02:19 AM
"tb04512" wrote:


"Garland" wrote:


The part that still is a mytery to neme is how when we loose its everyone elses fault but TJ and if we win it is only because of him? Can someone explain to me the thought process in this I have yet to hear any of the pro T-jack peopel say that he played horrible for 3 1/2 quarters? All i have heard is that it is Cooks fault or, CT fault or The OL Line fault. Yes they played a hand in us loosing the game but so did did TJ. Quit making excuses give blame where blame is due and give credit where credit is due. Bottom line TJ had the ball TJ fumbled the ball, It is on him and not this woulda, shoulda, coulda, BS Hell if we had the whole season like that we would be the second 16-0 team in the NFL right now.


OK blame is DUE to CT who fumbled TWICE.
Williamson dropped a TD pass
Cook got the a SAFETY.

play the blame game if you want but your pure hatred for him blinds you. This game was not on Tjack.
Past games have been on him, but bumps were expected.

Hate? When did I say I hate him? So then you love affair for him blinds you to the fact that he was soley responsible for 8 wins? I guesss since we are asssuming things that must be truwe right?
I was asking why are excusess made for him fumbling te ball? He fumbled. again I will say that there is blame and credit to go around in the wins and the losses not just on one person.

tb04512
12-31-2007, 02:20 AM
"Garland" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


"DaVizzles" wrote:


What are you guys saying? He can stay on the team but not starting?

He has to get a feel for the speed of the game and learn how to read the defense. You really cant do that on the bench.

He needs expierience.


Give him some legit competition in training camp then, not the likes of Thigpen and Bollinger.

I'll take winning with a veteran over losing (but gaining experience) with a young player.
Especially given the make up (many veterans) and potential of this team.


Unfortuantly there are to many people that will never admit the same thing


im all for bringing in a vet, but there is no one out there, there are about 15 teams set with QB, that leaves 17 looking. not very good odds for bringing a guy in

Schutz
12-31-2007, 02:22 AM
"Garland" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"Garland" wrote:


The part that still is a mytery to neme is how when we loose its everyone elses fault but TJ and if we win it is only because of him? Can someone explain to me the thought process in this I have yet to hear any of the pro T-jack peopel say that he played horrible for 3 1/2 quarters? All i have heard is that it is Cooks fault or, CT fault or The OL Line fault. Yes they played a hand in us loosing the game but so did did TJ. Quit making excuses give blame where blame is due and give credit where credit is due. Bottom line TJ had the ball TJ fumbled the ball, It is on him and not this woulda, shoulda, coulda, BS Hell if we had the whole season like that we would be the second 16-0 team in the NFL right now.


OK blame is DUE to CT who fumbled TWICE.
Williamson dropped a TD pass
Cook got the a SAFETY.

play the blame game if you want but your pure hatred for him blinds you. This game was not on Tjack.
Past games have been on him, but bumps were expected.

Hate? When did I say I hate him? So then you love affair for him blinds you to the fact that he was soley responsible for 8 wins? I guesss since we are asssuming things that must be truwe right?
I was asking why are excusess made for him fumbling te ball? He fumbled. again I will say that there is blame and credit to go around in the wins and the losses not just on one person.


Woah, Garland.
You need to cut that "logic" stuff out, I think it's scaring some of the people.
Just be happy T-Jack will be ready in the next 1-8 years.
We can't criticize him because he's going to be the next Troy Aikman and lead us to 3 superbowls.

ItalianStallion
12-31-2007, 02:24 AM
"DiehardVikesFan" wrote:


Everyone wants a vet qb but it doesn't look like we will be able to find one

http://www.footballsfuture.com/freeagents.html


Does that count all those that will be cut or traded before next season, because I'm sure there will be many.

tb04512
12-31-2007, 02:25 AM
"Garland" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"Garland" wrote:


The part that still is a mytery to neme is how when we loose its everyone elses fault but TJ and if we win it is only because of him? Can someone explain to me the thought process in this I have yet to hear any of the pro T-jack peopel say that he played horrible for 3 1/2 quarters? All i have heard is that it is Cooks fault or, CT fault or The OL Line fault. Yes they played a hand in us loosing the game but so did did TJ. Quit making excuses give blame where blame is due and give credit where credit is due. Bottom line TJ had the ball TJ fumbled the ball, It is on him and not this woulda, shoulda, coulda, BS Hell if we had the whole season like that we would be the second 16-0 team in the NFL right now.


OK blame is DUE to CT who fumbled TWICE.
Williamson dropped a TD pass
Cook got the a SAFETY.

play the blame game if you want but your pure hatred for him blinds you. This game was not on Tjack.
Past games have been on him, but bumps were expected.

Hate? When did I say I hate him? So then you love affair for him blinds you to the fact that he was soley responsible for 8 wins? I guesss since we are asssuming things that must be truwe right?
I was asking why are excusess made for him fumbling te ball? He fumbled. again I will say that there is blame and credit to go around in the wins and the losses not just on one person.


did you read what i said, i said past games have been on him. I agree he has messed up, but he is a 2nd year player
playing the hardest position in the game, still learning, still growing.
Funny thing is, without all the Fumbles and the penalty on cook, he would've never been in that situation.
AND because of him we were lucky enough that it even went into overtime

Garland Greene
12-31-2007, 02:26 AM
"tb04512" wrote:


"Garland" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


"DaVizzles" wrote:


What are you guys saying? He can stay on the team but not starting?

He has to get a feel for the speed of the game and learn how to read the defense. You really cant do that on the bench.

He needs expierience.


Give him some legit competition in training camp then, not the likes of Thigpen and Bollinger.

I'll take winning with a veteran over losing (but gaining experience) with a young player.
Especially given the make up (many veterans) and potential of this team.


Unfortuantly there are to many people that will never admit the same thing


im all for bringing in a vet, but there is no one out there, there are about 15 teams set with QB, that leaves 17 looking. not very good odds for bringing a guy in


17? where do you get 17? Again I don't have a crytsal ball, I wish i did so I could play the lottery. But we have not even gotten to the FA period the draft or even the start of next seasons training camp when players get cut. So you are right looking Now like in today there may be nobody bit can you say that 2 months form now? I know I can't. and maybe there will be nobody still but who knows?

tb04512
12-31-2007, 02:30 AM
"Garland" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"Garland" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


"DaVizzles" wrote:


What are you guys saying? He can stay on the team but not starting?

He has to get a feel for the speed of the game and learn how to read the defense. You really cant do that on the bench.

He needs expierience.


Give him some legit competition in training camp then, not the likes of Thigpen and Bollinger.

I'll take winning with a veteran over losing (but gaining experience) with a young player.
Especially given the make up (many veterans) and potential of this team.


Unfortuantly there are to many people that will never admit the same thing


im all for bringing in a vet, but there is no one out there, there are about 15 teams set with QB, that leaves 17 looking. not very good odds for bringing a guy in


17? where do you get 17? Again I don't have a crytsal ball, I wish i did so I could play the lottery. But we have not even gotten to the FA period the draft or even the start of next seasons training camp when players get cut. So you are right looking Now like in today there may be nobody bit can you say that 2 months form now? I know I can't. and maybe there will be nobody still but who knows?


where do i get 17? its 32(teams) - 15(number of teams i believe are set on their qb) are looking at their QB situation and trying to improve it, there is FA and there is the Draft, but how many of those Drafted are going to be instant impacts?
What about the FA's, name ive seen on here that some like is Jim Sorgi, that really doesnt say much for the FA's.

DaVizzles
12-31-2007, 02:31 AM
"Garland" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"Garland" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


"DaVizzles" wrote:


What are you guys saying? He can stay on the team but not starting?

He has to get a feel for the speed of the game and learn how to read the defense. You really cant do that on the bench.

He needs expierience.


Give him some legit competition in training camp then, not the likes of Thigpen and Bollinger.

I'll take winning with a veteran over losing (but gaining experience) with a young player.
Especially given the make up (many veterans) and potential of this team.


Unfortuantly there are to many people that will never admit the same thing


im all for bringing in a vet, but there is no one out there, there are about 15 teams set with QB, that leaves 17 looking. not very good odds for bringing a guy in


17? where do you get 17? Again I don't have a crytsal ball, I wish i did so I could play the lottery. But we have not even gotten to the FA period the draft or even the start of next seasons training camp when players get cut. So you are right looking Now like in today there may be nobody bit can you say that 2 months form now? I know I can't. and maybe there will be nobody still but who knows?


I really dont know who you expect to be out there...

Nobody better then TJ.

Once again, I am in favor of bring in a vet to back him up ala Todd Collins. Just have Childress say they are competing for the starting job when it is really Tarvaris's all the way. :)

Garland Greene
12-31-2007, 02:36 AM
"tb04512" wrote:


"Garland" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"Garland" wrote:


The part that still is a mytery to neme is how when we loose its everyone elses fault but TJ and if we win it is only because of him? Can someone explain to me the thought process in this I have yet to hear any of the pro T-jack peopel say that he played horrible for 3 1/2 quarters? All i have heard is that it is Cooks fault or, CT fault or The OL Line fault. Yes they played a hand in us loosing the game but so did did TJ. Quit making excuses give blame where blame is due and give credit where credit is due. Bottom line TJ had the ball TJ fumbled the ball, It is on him and not this woulda, shoulda, coulda, BS Hell if we had the whole season like that we would be the second 16-0 team in the NFL right now.


OK blame is DUE to CT who fumbled TWICE.
Williamson dropped a TD pass
Cook got the a SAFETY.

play the blame game if you want but your pure hatred for him blinds you. This game was not on Tjack.
Past games have been on him, but bumps were expected.

Hate? When did I say I hate him? So then you love affair for him blinds you to the fact that he was soley responsible for 8 wins? I guesss since we are asssuming things that must be true right?
I was asking why are excusess made for him fumbling te ball? He fumbled. again I will say that there is blame and credit to go around in the wins and the losses not just on one person.


did you read what i said, i said past games have been on him. I agree he has messed up, but he is a 2nd year player
playing the hardest position in the game, still learning, still growing.
Funny thing is, without all the Fumbles and the penalty on cook, he would've never been in that situation.
AND because of him we were lucky enough that it even went into overtime


Oh I forgot He sigle handly almost won the game for us. so then its fair to say Because of him fumbling the ball he allowed us to loose the game? Again the excuses. Its not all his, its not all Cooks, its not all CT its not all anyones.
Again the Woulda, Shoulda, Coulda.

I will ask again, Did TJ play bad for 3 1/2 quarters as well? There is blame to go all the way around today good and bad.

tb04512
12-31-2007, 02:38 AM
"Garland" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"Garland" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"Garland" wrote:


The part that still is a mytery to neme is how when we loose its everyone elses fault but TJ and if we win it is only because of him? Can someone explain to me the thought process in this I have yet to hear any of the pro T-jack peopel say that he played horrible for 3 1/2 quarters? All i have heard is that it is Cooks fault or, CT fault or The OL Line fault. Yes they played a hand in us loosing the game but so did did TJ. Quit making excuses give blame where blame is due and give credit where credit is due. Bottom line TJ had the ball TJ fumbled the ball, It is on him and not this woulda, shoulda, coulda, BS Hell if we had the whole season like that we would be the second 16-0 team in the NFL right now.


OK blame is DUE to CT who fumbled TWICE.
Williamson dropped a TD pass
Cook got the a SAFETY.

play the blame game if you want but your pure hatred for him blinds you. This game was not on Tjack.
Past games have been on him, but bumps were expected.

Hate? When did I say I hate him? So then you love affair for him blinds you to the fact that he was soley responsible for 8 wins? I guesss since we are asssuming things that must be true right?
I was asking why are excusess made for him fumbling te ball? He fumbled. again I will say that there is blame and credit to go around in the wins and the losses not just on one person.


did you read what i said, i said past games have been on him. I agree he has messed up, but he is a 2nd year player
playing the hardest position in the game, still learning, still growing.
Funny thing is, without all the Fumbles and the penalty on cook, he would've never been in that situation.
AND because of him we were lucky enough that it even went into overtime


Oh I forgot He sigle handly almost won the game for us. so then its fair to say Because of him fumbling the ball he allowed us to loose the game? Again the excuses. Its not all his, its not all Cooks, its not all CT its not all anyones.
Again the Woulda, Shoulda, Coulda.

I will ask again, Did TJ play bad for 3 1/2 quarters as well? There is blame to go all the way around today good and bad.


nope, he hit receivers on the hands and the passes were dropped(3), cant put that on him

DiehardVikesFan
12-31-2007, 02:40 AM
"Garland" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"Garland" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"Garland" wrote:


The part that still is a mytery to neme is how when we loose its everyone elses fault but TJ and if we win it is only because of him? Can someone explain to me the thought process in this I have yet to hear any of the pro T-jack peopel say that he played horrible for 3 1/2 quarters? All i have heard is that it is Cooks fault or, CT fault or The OL Line fault. Yes they played a hand in us loosing the game but so did did TJ. Quit making excuses give blame where blame is due and give credit where credit is due. Bottom line TJ had the ball TJ fumbled the ball, It is on him and not this woulda, shoulda, coulda, BS Hell if we had the whole season like that we would be the second 16-0 team in the NFL right now.


OK blame is DUE to CT who fumbled TWICE.
Williamson dropped a TD pass
Cook got the a SAFETY.

play the blame game if you want but your pure hatred for him blinds you. This game was not on Tjack.
Past games have been on him, but bumps were expected.

Hate? When did I say I hate him? So then you love affair for him blinds you to the fact that he was soley responsible for 8 wins? I guesss since we are asssuming things that must be true right?
I was asking why are excusess made for him fumbling te ball? He fumbled. again I will say that there is blame and credit to go around in the wins and the losses not just on one person.


did you read what i said, i said past games have been on him. I agree he has messed up, but he is a 2nd year player
playing the hardest position in the game, still learning, still growing.
Funny thing is, without all the Fumbles and the penalty on cook, he would've never been in that situation.
AND because of him we were lucky enough that it even went into overtime


Oh I forgot He sigle handly almost won the game for us. so then its fair to say Because of him fumbling the ball he allowed us to loose the game? Again the excuses. Its not all his, its not all Cooks, its not all CT its not all anyones.
Again the Woulda, Shoulda, Coulda.

I will ask again, Did TJ play bad for 3 1/2 quarters as well? There is blame to go all the way around today good and bad.


no he didn't really

Garland Greene
12-31-2007, 02:42 AM
So you are saying that beacuse the WR's had 3 dropped balls he played great for 3 1/2 quarters? He never threw one bad pass, made 1 poor decision? S again its the TJ can do no wrong and its everyones elses fault right? Which is it I am confused.

tb04512
12-31-2007, 02:45 AM
"Garland" wrote:


So you are saying that beacuse the WR's had 3 dropped balls he played great for 3 1/2 quarters? He never threw one bad pass, made 1 poor decision? S again its the TJ can do no wrong and its everyones elses fault right? Which is it I am confused.


You asked did he play bad, i said no.
Did i say he played great? no.
i said he hit 3 receivers (that i remember) in the hands, one would've resulted in a TD, and 2 would've resulted in First Downs.

DiehardVikesFan
12-31-2007, 02:46 AM
"Garland" wrote:


So you are saying that beacuse the WR's had 3 dropped balls he played great for 3 1/2 quarters? He never threw one bad pass, made 1 poor decision? S again its the TJ can do no wrong and its everyones elses fault right? Which is it I am confused.


one bad throw doesn't mean he played bad.
overall he looked pretty good but at times hung on to the ball too long

Garland Greene
12-31-2007, 02:52 AM
"tb04512" wrote:


"Garland" wrote:


So you are saying that beacuse the WR's had 3 dropped balls he played great for 3 1/2 quarters? He never threw one bad pass, made 1 poor decision? S again its the TJ can do no wrong and its everyones elses fault right? Which is it I am confused.


You asked did he play bad, i said no.
Did i say he played great? no.
i said he hit 3 receivers (that i remember) in the hands, one would've resulted in a TD, and 2 would've resulted in First Downs.


You say that now but that is not what you said in your previous post. Thus why I asked.

PurpleHornsOfDestruction
12-31-2007, 03:48 AM
"tb04512" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


I'm all for giving him time, it's not like people want to cut him, but I'd prefer that time be spent on the bench learning rather than costing us games...

costing us games? hes 8-4 as our starter

Wow Im getting sick of that arguement. Teams win games not quarterback. Tarkenton said that and especially Jackson who has an elite defense and the best run game. Its a lame arguement. And plus your wrong

Actually he's 8-6 as a starter. Get it right if your going to use that argument.

tb04512
12-31-2007, 04:17 AM
"PurpleHornsOfDestruction" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


I'm all for giving him time, it's not like people want to cut him, but I'd prefer that time be spent on the bench learning rather than costing us games...

costing us games? hes 8-4 as our starter

Wow Im getting sick of that arguement. Teams win games not quarterback. Tarkenton said that and especially Jackson who has an elite defense and the best run game. Its a lame arguement. And plus your wrong

Actually he's 8-6 as a starter. Get it right if your going to use that argument.

we are talking about this year.

then teams lose games as well not just the QB, elite D? you mean the same D that is 32nd against the pass? dont get me wrong the D is good but not elite

PurpleHornsOfDestruction
12-31-2007, 05:27 AM
"tb04512" wrote:


"PurpleHornsOfDestruction" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


I'm all for giving him time, it's not like people want to cut him, but I'd prefer that time be spent on the bench learning rather than costing us games...

costing us games? hes 8-4 as our starter

Wow Im getting sick of that arguement. Teams win games not quarterback. Tarkenton said that and especially Jackson who has an elite defense and the best run game. Its a lame arguement. And plus your wrong

Actually he's 8-6 as a starter. Get it right if your going to use that argument.

we are talking about this year.

then teams lose games as well not just the QB, elite D? you mean the same D that is 32nd against the pass? dont get me wrong the D is good but not elite

1. you didn't say that. You said as our starter and he was our starter since the last two games of last year but i guess those games don't exist right
::) He started and played those games. Recognize it. Get over it.

2. Teams lose games too yes. Not just the quarterback. There are games Jackson didn't lose and the team lost. I don't know any. I'm just saying that there are a lot of games he straight out lost for us. This one against Denver. The last one against Washington it was him not the team. In Detroit where he threw 4 interceptions and no TDs. he lost us that game. There are gems where he straight out threw the game for us and our defense and run has kept us in it.

3. Yes If it weren't for our crappy offense our defense would be top 5-10 defense in the league. Our offense never scored on an opportunity made by the defense three and outs or turnovers. they keep that defense on the field too long. The opposition is always given good field position. In Detroit jackson throws 4 interceptions and we still kept the powerful Mike Martz offense to just 3 total scores in regulation. They are the most opportunistic defense in the league. If it weren't for Jackson throwing interceptions that gave them the ball inside the red zone to start Chicago would have been kept to 3 points. Our defense kept us in that game. Our defense has kept us in every game. They scored 3 defensive TDs against the Giants and I think it was 10 total in the year. The defense put us in the hunt. Jackson put us out. This is an elite defense. Dont tell me they aren't they are underrated because of our lack of offense just like new England's defense is overrated because of it's plentifulness of offense.

Purple Floyd
12-31-2007, 10:24 AM
Many QB's don't play well when they are under pressure. Take a look at Farve, Manning, Rothlisburger,Brees etc. They are all way better than Jackson and at this point and the odds of him ever getting to their level are against him, but when they are pressured, they make bad throws that result in interceptions too.

The problem with Viking QB's in the last few years is pressure. The defenses have been getting to the QB's and making them hurry their throws and to make throws they wish they hadn't. That is nothing new to the NFL and if we want to get away from that we need to put together a line that gives our QB the time time to stand back and make the reads and wait for the plays to develop. If we do not do this it doesn't matter who we have for a QB because we will not win the Super Bowl until we do.Period.

NodakPaul
12-31-2007, 10:37 AM
"PurpleHornsOfDestruction" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


I'm all for giving him time, it's not like people want to cut him, but I'd prefer that time be spent on the bench learning rather than costing us games...

costing us games? hes 8-4 as our starter

Wow Im getting sick of that arguement. Teams win games not quarterback. Tarkenton said that and especially Jackson who has an elite defense and the best run game. Its a lame arguement. And plus your wrong

Actually he's 8-6 as a starter. Get it right if your going to use that argument.


Teams do win games.
And Teams lose game.
They all do it together, so you can't blame TJ for costing us any games (sure as hell not the one last night) and you can't credit him for winning them either.

Plus, TJack's record is 8-4 as a starter this year, not 8-6.
If you are going to correct someone, get it right. ;) It was pretty obvious he was talking about this year.

NodakPaul
12-31-2007, 10:39 AM
I love how some people are not only convinced that they know more about coaching than Childress, but now they also know more than Bud Grant...

I am a fan, not a coach.
So when both the current coach of my favorite team and the greatest coach ever of said team tell me to be patient with TJack, I think I'll listen.
The odds are they both know a hell of a lot more about developing QBs than me...

tb04512
12-31-2007, 01:57 PM
"PurpleHornsOfDestruction" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"PurpleHornsOfDestruction" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


I'm all for giving him time, it's not like people want to cut him, but I'd prefer that time be spent on the bench learning rather than costing us games...

costing us games? hes 8-4 as our starter

Wow Im getting sick of that arguement. Teams win games not quarterback. Tarkenton said that and especially Jackson who has an elite defense and the best run game. Its a lame arguement. And plus your wrong

Actually he's 8-6 as a starter. Get it right if your going to use that argument.

we are talking about this year.

then teams lose games as well not just the QB, elite D? you mean the same D that is 32nd against the pass? dont get me wrong the D is good but not elite

1. you didn't say that. You said as our starter and he was our starter since the last two games of last year but i guess those games don't exist right
::) He started and played those games. Recognize it. Get over it.

2. Teams lose games too yes. Not just the quarterback. There are games Jackson didn't lose and the team lost. I don't know any. I'm just saying that there are a lot of games he straight out lost for us. This one against Denver. The last one against Washington it was him not the team. In Detroit where he threw 4 interceptions and no TDs. he lost us that game. There are gems where he straight out threw the game for us and our defense and run has kept us in it.

3. Yes If it weren't for our crappy offense our defense would be top 5-10 defense in the league. Our offense never scored on an opportunity made by the defense three and outs or turnovers. they keep that defense on the field too long. The opposition is always given good field position. In Detroit jackson throws 4 interceptions and we still kept the powerful Mike Martz offense to just 3 total scores in regulation. They are the most opportunistic defense in the league. If it weren't for Jackson throwing interceptions that gave them the ball inside the red zone to start Chicago would have been kept to 3 points. Our defense kept us in that game. Our defense has kept us in every game. They scored 3 defensive TDs against the Giants and I think it was 10 total in the year. The defense put us in the hunt. Jackson put us out. This is an elite defense. Dont tell me they aren't they are underrated because of our lack of offense just like new England's defense is overrated because of it's plentifulness of offense.


1) it was pretty obvious we were talking about this year, how you missed that i dont know

2) He lost the Denver game???? did you watch it? did you read any of my previous posts,
The Ct fumbles, williamson drop, cook penalty, they had nothing to do with it right
::).. the only reason we were in the game was because of Jackson

3) They are good, not Elite.. actually Time of possession has been pretty even with the other teams, so its not on the offense... and they would be better if the offense was better? so your saying one of the defensive ends would get his head out of his ass and do good if the offense was better? You cannot be an elite Defense if you are worst against the
pass.

Purple D
12-31-2007, 02:03 PM
"ItalianStallion" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


I'm all for giving him time, it's not like people want to cut him, but I'd prefer that time be spent on the bench learning rather than costing us games...

costing us games? hes 8-4 as our starter


Maybe I should have reworded it as: costs us games when it counts and occasionally helps us not lose

Hmm I would say he singlehandedly lost us the games against the Lions, Redskins, Dallas and tried his hardest to lose against the woeful Bears.
By having no less than 3 seperate injuries, he forced us to endure the like of bollinger and Holcomb (and yes I do count lack of durability a fault).

He didn't have any games where he was very good or great, and had a lot of mediocre games that you'd typically get out of most veterans.

Will he improve, I think he can, and sure hope he does, but I see no reason that we should gamble again nect year like we did this year.

The fact of the matter remains, if we had gotten a competent veteran in any of our Childress-era offseasons we'd have made the playoffs this year.
Let's just hope we're not saying the same thing next year.


I don't think you can ever pin a loss on one person.
Thats my opinion.

Marrdro
12-31-2007, 02:04 PM
"GreenBaySlackers" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"GreenBaySlackers" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


I'm all for giving him time, it's not like people want to cut him, but I'd prefer that time be spent on the bench learning rather than costing us games...

costing us games? hes 8-4 as our starter


today's game immediately comes to mind...


really? i thought it could have been the 2 CT fumbles.. or the Williamson drop that wouldve easily been a TD.. how about mr cook with the penalty for the safety (without it we wouldve won)... or the lack of blocking at the end

looked like to me the only reason we were in it was because of him


I was referring to the fumble in OT.
Hold the ball.



I'm not a hater by any means.
But when we had a chance to take it for the win, he (literally) dropped the ball.


And that stuff ItalianStallion just said
;D

But that is a silly point. Think about it, if CT scores, T-will scores or hell for that matter AD doesn't drop a easy pitch we might have sustained that drive.
All plays in essence cost us points which would have kept us out of a tie and not even in OT.

To try to blame a loss on TJ after he carried us into a that situation is ludicrous.

Marrdro
12-31-2007, 02:07 PM
"ItalianStallion" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


I'm all for giving him time, it's not like people want to cut him, but I'd prefer that time be spent on the bench learning rather than costing us games...

costing us games? hes 8-4 as our starter


Maybe I should have reworded it as: costs us games when it counts and occasionally helps us not lose

Hmm I would say he singlehandedly lost us the games against the Lions, Redskins, Dallas and tried his hardest to lose against the woeful Bears.
By having no less than 3 seperate injuries, he forced us to endure the like of bollinger and Holcomb (and yes I do count lack of durability a fault).

He didn't have any games where he was very good or great, and had a lot of mediocre games that you'd typically get out of most veterans.

Will he improve, I think he can, and sure hope he does, but I see no reason that we should gamble again nect year like we did this year.

The fact of the matter remains, if we had gotten a competent veteran in any of our Childress-era offseasons we'd have made the playoffs this year.
Let's just hope we're not saying the same thing next year.


Tell me what Qb's are out there that are available?


I don't have the gift of portent nor am I able to predict who will be available (through FA or trades), but there were several we had an easy shot at during Childresses watch.

Please name everyone of them that are playing to the level that would be acceptable to you.

Only one I can think of is Garcia and truth be told I am not so sure the Chiller didn't want him but the front office (not the Chiller) is the one responsible for getting guys in here.

You of all people should now I won't let comments like that one slide to long.
;D

Marrdro
12-31-2007, 02:11 PM
"Garland" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"Garland" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


"DaVizzles" wrote:


What are you guys saying? He can stay on the team but not starting?

He has to get a feel for the speed of the game and learn how to read the defense. You really cant do that on the bench.

He needs expierience.


Give him some legit competition in training camp then, not the likes of Thigpen and Bollinger.

I'll take winning with a veteran over losing (but gaining experience) with a young player.
Especially given the make up (many veterans) and potential of this team.


Unfortuantly there are to many people that will never admit the same thing


im all for bringing in a vet, but there is no one out there, there are about 15 teams set with QB, that leaves 17 looking. not very good odds for bringing a guy in


17? where do you get 17? Again I don't have a crytsal ball, I wish i did so I could play the lottery. But we have not even gotten to the FA period the draft or even the start of next seasons training camp when players get cut. So you are right looking Now like in today there may be nobody bit can you say that 2 months form now? I know I can't. and maybe there will be nobody still but who knows?

If you or anyone thinks that if this staff is going to bring a guy in and think that bringing him in that late is gonna help then you are kidding yourselves.

If they bring a guy in he better be here in enough time to work with the WR's, Coaches and RB's in an effort to get comfortable and can execute the offense.
Bringing him in that late would just be, well like KH.

buliwyf
12-31-2007, 02:13 PM
I don't think you can ever pin a loss on one person.
Thats my opinion.
[/quote]

You're right, but it feels good to do sometimes, no?

Purple D
12-31-2007, 02:16 PM
"buliwyf" wrote:



I don't think you can ever pin a loss on one person.
Thats my opinion.


You're right, but it feels good to do sometimes, no?
[/quote]

I don't know if it feels good, but it seems to be the easiest thing to do around here.

ejmat
12-31-2007, 02:19 PM
"tb04512" wrote:


"GreenBaySlackers" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


I'm all for giving him time, it's not like people want to cut him, but I'd prefer that time be spent on the bench learning rather than costing us games...

costing us games? hes 8-4 as our starter


today's game immediately comes to mind...


really? i thought it could have been the 2 CT fumbles.. or the Williamson drop that wouldve easily been a TD.. how about mr cook with the penalty for the safety (without it we wouldve won)... or the lack of blocking at the end

looked like to me the only reason we were in it was because of him


I have to agree TB.
I thought he played well most of the game.
A couple of bad throws but that's about it.
Other than that he threw the ball with authority and took the game over in the 4th quarter.
2 fumbles, a dropped TD pass, a dropped 1st down pass and a penalty in the endzone doesn't help a QBs ratings.
So put that in perspective and you see an entirely diffferent game statistically from TJ.
Add at least 2 more receptions (18/31 instead of 16/31) and about 80 more yards (255 instead of 175) and you have yourself a pretty good game.
His only mistake was the fumble that most others would have probably had in the same situation.

Marrdro
12-31-2007, 02:20 PM
"PurpleHornsOfDestruction" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"PurpleHornsOfDestruction" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


I'm all for giving him time, it's not like people want to cut him, but I'd prefer that time be spent on the bench learning rather than costing us games...

costing us games? hes 8-4 as our starter

Wow Im getting sick of that arguement. Teams win games not quarterback. Tarkenton said that and especially Jackson who has an elite defense and the best run game. Its a lame arguement. And plus your wrong

Actually he's 8-6 as a starter. Get it right if your going to use that argument.

we are talking about this year.

then teams lose games as well not just the QB, elite D? you mean the same D that is 32nd against the pass? dont get me wrong the D is good but not elite

1. you didn't say that. You said as our starter and he was our starter since the last two games of last year but i guess those games don't exist right
::) He started and played those games. Recognize it. Get over it.

2. Teams lose games too yes. Not just the quarterback. There are games Jackson didn't lose and the team lost. I don't know any. I'm just saying that there are a lot of games he straight out lost for us. This one against Denver. The last one against Washington it was him not the team. In Detroit where he threw 4 interceptions and no TDs. he lost us that game. There are gems where he straight out threw the game for us and our defense and run has kept us in it.

3. Yes If it weren't for our crappy offense our defense would be top 5-10 defense in the league. Our offense never scored on an opportunity made by the defense three and outs or turnovers. they keep that defense on the field too long. The opposition is always given good field position. In Detroit jackson throws 4 interceptions and we still kept the powerful Mike Martz offense to just 3 total scores in regulation. They are the most opportunistic defense in the league. If it weren't for Jackson throwing interceptions that gave them the ball inside the red zone to start Chicago would have been kept to 3 points. Our defense kept us in that game. Our defense has kept us in every game. They scored 3 defensive TDs against the Giants and I think it was 10 total in the year. The defense put us in the hunt. Jackson put us out. This is an elite defense. Dont tell me they aren't they are underrated because of our lack of offense just like new England's defense is overrated because of it's plentifulness of offense.

PHOD do you really believe that the fumble at the end of the game is really that significant when you talk about who won or lost this game?

I would start with T-wills drop of a well thrown pass that would have lead to 7 points as a bigger factor.

I would also throw in CT's inability to hang onto a ball that rolled out of the endzone that cost us more points.

I would also throw in another drop by T-will that would have kept a drive going.

I would also throw in a easy pitch to AD that would have kept a drive going.

Comeone my friend. If nothing else happens, one of the first two gets us points would we have been in over time and would the fumble even be part of this discussion?

Garland Greene
12-31-2007, 02:23 PM
another example of why the whole win Loss record for a QB is irrelevent. There was enough blame to go around. So TJ should get credit for the loss? everyone had more than enough of their share to conrtibute.

happy camper
12-31-2007, 02:27 PM
The two drives Jackson led for TDs were a thing of beauty.

The guy has shown flashes. Even in the Bears game, where he played poorly, I thought he handled himself well and ended up doing enough to win. On the TD drive, he did most of the dirty work even though Peterson got the TD and Bollinger got the two point conversion.

If Troy Williamson caught that ball, I think we are talking about a whole new ballgame and Jackson is looking much better going into the offseason.

I am not sold on Jackson, I want to see someone like Chad Pennington come in. He could make this offense better and Jackson would still play when Pennington inevitably is injured.

Marrdro
12-31-2007, 02:56 PM
Give the kid some props as well.


He seemed to handle all the other off field crap pretty good.
At least he doesn't appear to dwell on issues that most thought would scar him for life rendering him useless as a starter.

ejmat
12-31-2007, 02:57 PM
Let me point something out.
This is strictly a comparison of numbers.
I'm not trying to say TJ is better or worse than ony one I type here.
In their first full year as a starter, compare the following:

Player











QB Rating

TJ...................................70.8
Troy Aikman.....................55.7, then 66.6 his second year
Peyton Manning................71.2
John Elway........................54.9
Dan Marino.......................96.0
Drew Brees.......................94.8 but went down to 76.9 and 67.5 the next respective years

These aer just a few to compare.
Of course there are more that has done better and there are more that has done worse.
What if Dallas just said Aikman sucks, bench him after his first year?
What about Elway?

tb04512
12-31-2007, 02:59 PM
"ejmat" wrote:


Let me point something out.
This is strictly a comparison of numbers.
I'm not trying to say TJ is better or worse than ony one I type here.
In their first full year as a starter, compare the following:

Player











QB Rating

TJ...................................70.8
Troy Aikman.....................55.7, then 66.6 his second year
Peyton Manning................71.2
John Elway........................54.9
Dan Marino.......................96.0
Drew Brees.......................94.8 but went down to 76.9 and 67.5 the next respective years

These aer just a few to compare.
Of course there are more that has done better and there are more that has done worse.
What if Dallas just said Aikman sucks, bench him after his first year?
What about Elway?


i stated aikman a couple pages ago, but no one cared
:(

Garland Greene
12-31-2007, 03:00 PM
"ejmat" wrote:


Let me point something out.
This is strictly a comparison of numbers.
I'm not trying to say TJ is better or worse than ony one I type here.
In their first full year as a starter, compare the following:

Player












QB Rating

TJ...................................70.8
Troy Aikman.....................55.7, then 66.6 his second year
Peyton Manning................71.2
John Elway........................54.9
Dan Marino.......................96.0
Drew Brees.......................94.8 but went down to 76.9 and 67.5 the next respective years

These aer just a few to compare.
Of course there are more that has done better and there are more that has done worse.
What if Dallas just said Aikman sucks, bench him after his first year?
What about Elway?

there is no way that they wouldl of benched Aikman after his first year. They had all of our draft picks and knew they building a dynasty from it. :D

ejmat
12-31-2007, 03:03 PM
"tb04512" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


Let me point something out.
This is strictly a comparison of numbers.
I'm not trying to say TJ is better or worse than ony one I type here.
In their first full year as a starter, compare the following:

Player












QB Rating

TJ...................................70.8
Troy Aikman.....................55.7, then 66.6 his second year
Peyton Manning................71.2
John Elway........................54.9
Dan Marino.......................96.0
Drew Brees.......................94.8 but went down to 76.9 and 67.5 the next respective years

These aer just a few to compare.
Of course there are more that has done better and there are more that has done worse.
What if Dallas just said Aikman sucks, bench him after his first year?
What about Elway?


i stated aikman a couple pages ago, but no one cared
:(


I hear ya TB.
It's not like it was the first time I've stated him either.
People tend to want instant gratification.
Face it, we all do.
But sometimes patience is a virtue.
All the analysts are saying the same thing about TJ.
Give him time.
This year was a season to build on.
Although I do believe this team could have contended if they had better QB play this year.
From what I've now seen I think the kid has a chance to make it in the NFL.
Not a lot of QBs have the talent to bring a team back like he did the past 2 games.
Especially after not that great of a showing in the previous quarters.
Taht does say a lot about a character.

jargomcfargo
12-31-2007, 03:23 PM
"ejmat" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


Let me point something out.
This is strictly a comparison of numbers.
I'm not trying to say TJ is better or worse than ony one I type here.
In their first full year as a starter, compare the following:

Player












QB Rating

TJ...................................70.8
Troy Aikman.....................55.7, then 66.6 his second year
Peyton Manning................71.2
John Elway........................54.9
Dan Marino.......................96.0
Drew Brees.......................94.8 but went down to 76.9 and 67.5 the next respective years

These aer just a few to compare.
Of course there are more that has done better and there are more that has done worse.
What if Dallas just said Aikman sucks, bench him after his first year?
What about Elway?


i stated aikman a couple pages ago, but no one cared
:(


I hear ya TB.
It's not like it was the first time I've stated him either.
People tend to want instant gratification.
Face it, we all do.
But sometimes patience is a virtue.
All the analysts are saying the same thing about TJ.
Give him time.
This year was a season to build on.
Although I do believe this team could have contended if they had better QB play this year.
From what I've now seen I think the kid has a chance to make it in the NFL.
Not a lot of QBs have the talent to bring a team back like he did the past 2 games.
Especially after not that great of a showing in the previous quarters.
Taht does say a lot about a character.


These stats get posted frequently in supprt of TJ. I've always felt it would be far more predictive to see how many first year starters with a qb rating of 60 to 80, went on to be successful in the NFL as opposed to those who weren't.

Furthermore, Although I think TJ will eventually succeed, QB rating seems to be somewhat dependent upon the team surrounding the QB. Therefore not purely a reliable QB evaluation.

A good free agent WR could go a long way toward improving that QB rating for TJ next year.

Purple D
12-31-2007, 03:54 PM
"jargomcfargo" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


Let me point something out.
This is strictly a comparison of numbers.
I'm not trying to say TJ is better or worse than ony one I type here.
In their first full year as a starter, compare the following:

Player












QB Rating

TJ...................................70.8
Troy Aikman.....................55.7, then 66.6 his second year
Peyton Manning................71.2
John Elway........................54.9
Dan Marino.......................96.0
Drew Brees.......................94.8 but went down to 76.9 and 67.5 the next respective years

These aer just a few to compare.
Of course there are more that has done better and there are more that has done worse.
What if Dallas just said Aikman sucks, bench him after his first year?
What about Elway?


i stated aikman a couple pages ago, but no one cared
:(


I hear ya TB.
It's not like it was the first time I've stated him either.
People tend to want instant gratification.
Face it, we all do.
But sometimes patience is a virtue.
All the analysts are saying the same thing about TJ.
Give him time.
This year was a season to build on.
Although I do believe this team could have contended if they had better QB play this year.
From what I've now seen I think the kid has a chance to make it in the NFL.
Not a lot of QBs have the talent to bring a team back like he did the past 2 games.
Especially after not that great of a showing in the previous quarters.
Taht does say a lot about a character.


These stats get posted frequently in supprt of TJ. I've always felt it would be far more predictive to see how many first year starters with a qb rating of 60 to 80, went on to be successful in the NFL as opposed to those who weren't.

Furthermore, Although I think TJ will eventually succeed, QB rating seems to be somewhat dependent upon the team surrounding the QB. Therefore not purely a reliable QB evaluation.

A good free agent WR could go a long way toward improving that QB rating for TJ next year.


Nothing but growing pains.
It looks like alot of good QBs have had there fair share of bad starts.
The only problem is is the fans don't want to wait for a QB to grow.
They want wins and they want them now.
You can show numbers to support or destroy any argument.
It all depends on what everyone wants to believe or agree with.
I hope that TJ is ready next year and if not I hope that The Vikes have brought in someone who is ready to lead this team to the playoffs and hopefully more.

Webby
12-31-2007, 03:57 PM
I am coming around to TJack might do well....he progresses much further than this year than I would have thought.
He made rookie mistakes, but duh.
Give him a few less butterfingers at WR and see what happens, and maybe a OC worth his salt.

Mikecarter81
12-31-2007, 04:05 PM
Their is no more stronger an endorsement of Viking football then Bud Grant.
If he says give him time I can't disagree.


mike

Purple Floyd
12-31-2007, 04:08 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:




I'm all for giving him time, it's not like people want to cut him, but I'd prefer that time be spent on the bench learning rather than costing us games...

costing us games? hes 8-4 as our starter


Maybe I should have reworded it as: costs us games when it counts and occasionally helps us not lose

Hmm I would say he singlehandedly lost us the games against the Lions, Redskins, Dallas and tried his hardest to lose against the woeful Bears.
By having no less than 3 seperate injuries, he forced us to endure the like of bollinger and Holcomb (and yes I do count lack of durability a fault).

He didn't have any games where he was very good or great, and had a lot of mediocre games that you'd typically get out of most veterans.

Will he improve, I think he can, and sure hope he does, but I see no reason that we should gamble again nect year like we did this year.

The fact of the matter remains, if we had gotten a competent veteran in any of our Childress-era offseasons we'd have made the playoffs this year.
Let's just hope we're not saying the same thing next year.


Tell me what Qb's are out there that are available?


I don't have the gift of portent nor am I able to predict who will be available (through FA or trades), but there were several we had an easy shot at during Childresses watch.

Please name everyone of them that are playing to the level that would be acceptable to you.

Only one I can think of is Garcia and truth be told I am not so sure the Chiller didn't want him but the front office (not the Chiller) is the one responsible for getting guys in here.

You of all people should now I won't let comments like that one slide to long.
;D


Ooh ooh, Mr Kotter, can I chime in? ;D

Brees, Schaub or Anderson besides Garcia.

Of course none of that matters without a top notch line blocking for them

vikesfargo
12-31-2007, 04:18 PM
For those who say that we need to get rid of TJack, do you think Bud Grant doesn't know what he's talking about?

tb04512
12-31-2007, 04:23 PM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:






I'm all for giving him time, it's not like people want to cut him, but I'd prefer that time be spent on the bench learning rather than costing us games...

costing us games? hes 8-4 as our starter


Maybe I should have reworded it as: costs us games when it counts and occasionally helps us not lose

Hmm I would say he singlehandedly lost us the games against the Lions, Redskins, Dallas and tried his hardest to lose against the woeful Bears.
By having no less than 3 seperate injuries, he forced us to endure the like of bollinger and Holcomb (and yes I do count lack of durability a fault).

He didn't have any games where he was very good or great, and had a lot of mediocre games that you'd typically get out of most veterans.

Will he improve, I think he can, and sure hope he does, but I see no reason that we should gamble again nect year like we did this year.

The fact of the matter remains, if we had gotten a competent veteran in any of our Childress-era offseasons we'd have made the playoffs this year.
Let's just hope we're not saying the same thing next year.


Tell me what Qb's are out there that are available?


I don't have the gift of portent nor am I able to predict who will be available (through FA or trades), but there were several we had an easy shot at during Childresses watch.

Please name everyone of them that are playing to the level that would be acceptable to you.

Only one I can think of is Garcia and truth be told I am not so sure the Chiller didn't want him but the front office (not the Chiller) is the one responsible for getting guys in here.

You of all people should now I won't let comments like that one slide to long.
;D


Ooh ooh, Mr Kotter, can I chime in? ;D

Brees, Schaub or Anderson besides Garcia.

Of course none of that matters without a top notch line blocking for them



would you have switched with the texans pick and not have gotten AD for schaub

Brees- yeah good point

but both of those were last year, we are talking this year who will be FA

With Anderson, he has a STUD WR and a STUD TE.. and he still had his ups and down, good young qb, but id be afraid to see what he would look like with our receivers and our pass blocking

http://www.nfl.com/players/derekanderson/gamelogs?id=AND180512

i dont know if he is worth a 1st and a 3rd

Mikecarter81
12-31-2007, 04:27 PM
All this talk about Derek Anderson with a golden arm and all his brownie goodness, reminds me of some one, hummm....who is it, ummm oh yeah!
Scott Mitchell circa 1992!
I remember being in the sweep stakes for him too!
Luckily we lost and were forced to trade a sixth round pick for Warren Moon and develop
Brad Johnson

Mike

Purple Floyd
12-31-2007, 04:36 PM
"tb04512" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:






[quote author=ItalianStallion link=topic=41106.msg699778#msg699778 date=1199081331]
I'm all for giving him time, it's not like people want to cut him, but I'd prefer that time be spent on the bench learning rather than costing us games...

costing us games? hes 8-4 as our starter


Maybe I should have reworded it as: costs us games when it counts and occasionally helps us not lose

Hmm I would say he singlehandedly lost us the games against the Lions, Redskins, Dallas and tried his hardest to lose against the woeful Bears.
By having no less than 3 seperate injuries, he forced us to endure the like of bollinger and Holcomb (and yes I do count lack of durability a fault).

He didn't have any games where he was very good or great, and had a lot of mediocre games that you'd typically get out of most veterans.

Will he improve, I think he can, and sure hope he does, but I see no reason that we should gamble again nect year like we did this year.

The fact of the matter remains, if we had gotten a competent veteran in any of our Childress-era offseasons we'd have made the playoffs this year.
Let's just hope we're not saying the same thing next year.


Tell me what Qb's are out there that are available?


I don't have the gift of portent nor am I able to predict who will be available (through FA or trades), but there were several we had an easy shot at during Childresses watch.

Please name everyone of them that are playing to the level that would be acceptable to you.

Only one I can think of is Garcia and truth be told I am not so sure the Chiller didn't want him but the front office (not the Chiller) is the one responsible for getting guys in here.

You of all people should now I won't let comments like that one slide to long.
;D


Ooh ooh, Mr Kotter, can I chime in? ;D

Brees, Schaub or Anderson besides Garcia.

Of course none of that matters without a top notch line blocking for them




would you have switched with the texans pick and not have gotten AD for schaub

Can't say but I might have sent next years#1 in hopes he would have improved our record enough to make it a late pick ;)


Brees- yeah good point Thanks


but both of those were last year, we are talking this year who will be FA

He just said during Childress's watch. To me that goes back to last year

With Anderson, he has a STUD WR and a STUD TE.. and he still had his ups and down, good young qb, but id be afraid to see what he would look like with our receivers and our pass blocking

http://www.nfl.com/players/derekanderson/gamelogs?id=AND180512

i dont know if he is worth a 1st and a 3rd


We had the opportunity to get stud WR's but didn't do it. That is a MGMT issue and if it is not resolved this thread will be a moot point.

On Anderson, he was drafted by the Ravens and waived by them in sept of 2005 and was picked up by the browns. If our front office had their shit together we could have had him for squat
;) He could have backed up Johnson and learned under him then taken the reigns this year and ran.

We could have used the picks we used to get TJ to draft Colston and then picked up Welker and Chambers and hello Playoffs 2007 ;)

I love rewriting history ;D

spunk_goblin
12-31-2007, 04:40 PM
The things is people...it's not his fault. He's been put into a position he probably shouldn't be in and you can't blame him for that. I have every belief that he is trying the best he can, and for that I respect him. He's doing the best he can.

tb04512
12-31-2007, 04:45 PM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:










I'm all for giving him time, it's not like people want to cut him, but I'd prefer that time be spent on the bench learning rather than costing us games...

costing us games? hes 8-4 as our starter


Maybe I should have reworded it as: costs us games when it counts and occasionally helps us not lose

Hmm I would say he singlehandedly lost us the games against the Lions, Redskins, Dallas and tried his hardest to lose against the woeful Bears.
By having no less than 3 seperate injuries, he forced us to endure the like of bollinger and Holcomb (and yes I do count lack of durability a fault).

He didn't have any games where he was very good or great, and had a lot of mediocre games that you'd typically get out of most veterans.

Will he improve, I think he can, and sure hope he does, but I see no reason that we should gamble again nect year like we did this year.

The fact of the matter remains, if we had gotten a competent veteran in any of our Childress-era offseasons we'd have made the playoffs this year.
Let's just hope we're not saying the same thing next year.


Tell me what Qb's are out there that are available?


I don't have the gift of portent nor am I able to predict who will be available (through FA or trades), but there were several we had an easy shot at during Childresses watch.

Please name everyone of them that are playing to the level that would be acceptable to you.

Only one I can think of is Garcia and truth be told I am not so sure the Chiller didn't want him but the front office (not the Chiller) is the one responsible for getting guys in here.

You of all people should now I won't let comments like that one slide to long.
;D


Ooh ooh, Mr Kotter, can I chime in? ;D

Brees, Schaub or Anderson besides Garcia.

Of course none of that matters without a top notch line blocking for them




would you have switched with the texans pick and not have gotten AD for schaub

Can't say but I might have sent next years#1 in hopes he would have improved our record enough to make it a late pick ;)


Brees- yeah good point Thanks


but both of those were last year, we are talking this year who will be FA

He just said during Childress's watch. To me that goes back to last year

With Anderson, he has a STUD WR and a STUD TE.. and he still had his ups and down, good young qb, but id be afraid to see what he would look like with our receivers and our pass blocking

http://www.nfl.com/players/derekanderson/gamelogs?id=AND180512

i dont know if he is worth a 1st and a 3rd


We had the opportunity to get stud WR's but didn't do it. That is a MGMT issue and if it is not resolved this thread will be a moot point.

On Anderson, he was drafted by the Ravens and waived by them in sept of 2005 and was picked up by the browns. If our front office had their shit together we could have had him for squat
;) He could have backed up Johnson and learned under him then taken the reigns this year and ran.

We could have used the picks we used to get TJ to draft Colston and then picked up Welker and Chambers and hello Playoffs 2007 ;)

I love rewriting history ;D


LOL.. honestly a qb that didnt make the ravens is like a WR who doesnt make the vikes, they dont really intrigue people

ultravikingfan
12-31-2007, 10:53 PM
"Mikecarter81" wrote:


All this talk about Derek Anderson with a golden arm and all his brownie goodness, reminds me of some one, hummm....who is it, ummm oh yeah!
Scott Mitchell circa 1992!
I remember being in the sweep stakes for him too!
Luckily we lost and were forced to trade a sixth round pick for Warren Moon and develop
Brad Johnson

Mike


Amen brother!

Marrdro
01-01-2008, 09:13 AM
"Webby" wrote:


I am coming around to TJack might do well....he progresses much further than this year than I would have thought.

He made rookie mistakes, but duh.

Give him a few less butterfingers at WR and see what happens, and maybe a OC worth his salt.

Is that twice I read that from you today?
;D

If Webby is on the guy than I feel alot better about my earlier statement of jumping back on the TJ support wagon (I don't quiet here the band playing yet).

Marrdro
01-01-2008, 09:16 AM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


"tb04512" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:






I'm all for giving him time, it's not like people want to cut him, but I'd prefer that time be spent on the bench learning rather than costing us games...

costing us games? hes 8-4 as our starter


Maybe I should have reworded it as: costs us games when it counts and occasionally helps us not lose

Hmm I would say he singlehandedly lost us the games against the Lions, Redskins, Dallas and tried his hardest to lose against the woeful Bears.
By having no less than 3 seperate injuries, he forced us to endure the like of bollinger and Holcomb (and yes I do count lack of durability a fault).

He didn't have any games where he was very good or great, and had a lot of mediocre games that you'd typically get out of most veterans.

Will he improve, I think he can, and sure hope he does, but I see no reason that we should gamble again nect year like we did this year.

The fact of the matter remains, if we had gotten a competent veteran in any of our Childress-era offseasons we'd have made the playoffs this year.
Let's just hope we're not saying the same thing next year.


Tell me what Qb's are out there that are available?


I don't have the gift of portent nor am I able to predict who will be available (through FA or trades), but there were several we had an easy shot at during Childresses watch.

Please name everyone of them that are playing to the level that would be acceptable to you.

Only one I can think of is Garcia and truth be told I am not so sure the Chiller didn't want him but the front office (not the Chiller) is the one responsible for getting guys in here.

You of all people should now I won't let comments like that one slide to long.

;D


Ooh ooh, Mr Kotter, can I chime in? ;D

Brees, Schaub or Anderson besides Garcia.

Of course none of that matters without a top notch line blocking for them


I should have highlighted the FA thing.


Brees wasn't available as we still were in the throws of the Culpepper fiasco.
Schaub.
Comeon, really, he did such a great job in Texas.
Anderson.
Who knew who Anderson was.
I am sure dickhead Foley didn't.
Maybe Spielmen will find another guy like that.
Garcia.
I already pointed him out, but don't think he wanted to come here.
Hard to say cause he was snatched up by TB pretty damn quick last year.

As to this year, none of those guys are gonna be FA and all will cost picks to get from another team.

I know, gol 'darnit huh.

;D