PDA

View Full Version : The media hates Jackson, and you're soaking it all in...!



audioghost
04-29-2008, 02:33 PM
It is obvious that the national media does not like Tavaris Jackson. As the Vikings drafted John David Booty, several media pundits had to write about how Booty will "challenge Jackson for a starting job". Anytime anything positive about the Vikings comes on ESPN, it always seems to end with "if only the Vikings had a QB". NOW, I've defended Jackson, but I cannot say he's been great so far. However, we must look at this kid with realistic expectations...I mean, did you really expect this guy to look like Randall Cunningham in only his 1st season as the solidified starting QB? What did you expect? The guy posted an 8-4 record, and he was the only QB on the team who was capable of winning a game (Jackson accounted for all 8 wins last season).

However, unlike most Jackson supporters on this site, I come with a compelling argument. What if the Vikings had Vince Young? Everyone would look onto next season with optimism about our starting QB situation...would they not? Why is this? Is it because Vince Young is a big name college superstar who was hyped up extensively coming out of college and Jackson was a D1-AA player in a pass-friendly system? Was it because Young led his team to the playoffs in only his 2nd season as a starter or is it because he single-handedly won a national championship in front of the entire nation (what a hero)? The fact of the matter is that Young is portrayed as a blossoming young assassin and Jackson is portrayed as a wasted draft pick and a kid with no future.

Examples: Young as "Mr. Budding Superstar"

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080312/COLUMNIST0501/803120426
Apparently, Young is good enough to grace the cover of ESPN the Magazine...why isnt Jackson?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/jim_trotter/03/04/tennessee-titans/index.html
It seems as if the problem isn't Vince Young, its that he has no supporting cast?!

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=nfl&id=3355802
He's not a horrible passer! He's just a product of his environment!?

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=nfl&id=3184299
Young is great...a "magic producer"! HE HAS NO HELP!!!!!!

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=nfl&id=3184011
He's the youngest QB to start a playoff game...boy, is he awesome!?

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=nfl&id=3169502
Its just a "sophomore slump", he's not a bad QB...we're not calling for him to be ousted.

Examples: Jackson as "Sucky D-1AA bust"

http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3167908&searchName=nfl_nfc&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fespn%2fblog%2findex%3fentryID%3d3167908%26searchName%3dnfl_nfc
Why are we relying on Jackson...this P.O.S. can't win a game?!

http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3171056&searchName=nfl_nfc&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fespn%2fblog%2findex%3fentryID%3d3171056%26searchName%3dnfl_nfc
Jackson is horrible?! He'll never be good in the NFL...ever! He shouldn't start next year!

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=nfl&id=3058033
Jackson is uncapable of winning!!!




The Stats tell the story:
2007 T-Jack v V-Young
QBrat 70.8 71.1
Comp% 58.2 62.3
ATT 171 238
YDs 1911 2546
YDs/G 159.2 169.7
TD 9 9
INT 12 17
G 12 16
W-L 8-4 10-6
WIN% .667 .6
1D% 32.3 36.9
RYDs 260 395
RTD 3 3
TDTOT 12 12

Jackson and Young are very similar if you look at the stats. Jackson has a better win % last year in the games he started and he has the same amount of TDs w/ less INTs than Young. Sure, Young threw for about 500 more yards, but he started 4 more games. The difference is about 10 yds per game, but I'll take that if you tell me that it was between 10 yards and a 5 INT difference. Young rushed for a few more yards as well, but again, in 4 more games. They each had 12 total TDs and you could argue that Jackson was almost exactly the same as Young, stat-wise.

So why are you, the "die-hard Vikings fans" so down on Tavaris Jackson? You don't see Titans fans calling for Vince Young's head...maybe its because people in Minnesota are more racist than in Tennessee? I've heard this argument...but its not as likely as the fact that you are all buying into the national media's hate-fest on Jackson. You listen to so-called "experts" like Sean Salisbury and Merrill Hoge (2 hoge-poge backups that could only wish to get on the field) tell you that Jackson sucks, and that the Vikings will not win until he is ousted from his position. However, they portray Young as a developing superstar, although his numbers mirror Jackson's. Why is this? Bias. They are biased for Young because they saw a ton of his games in college and he proved to be a superstar at the college level. I can guarentee that they never saw Jackson play at Alabama State, so he is judged purely on his performance thus far in nationally televised games (I doubt they watch all the Vikings games, local or otherwise). Young, on the other hand, always gets the benefit of the doubt, and the national media, in turn, influences all of you ESPN-worshipping knuckleheads.

Moral of the story: DONT BE SWAYED BY THE OPINION OF THE NATIONAL MEDIA! Brett Favre choked and lost the game single-handedly for the Packers in the NFC Championship game, a meltdown of catastrophic proportions, indeed. However, not once did the national media blame Favre for the Packers loss...if that was Tavaris Jackson, it would have been different. The media chooses who they are going to portray as heroes and who they are going to portray as goats. Jackson is a goat in the eyes of the national media (which isn't fair to him), and he will have to do twice as good as Vince Young to even get "on his level" in the eyes of the national media.

You have a brain...use it to think for yourself! Jackson is a young guy who deserves another chance as a starter. A QBs first year starting in the NFL is not a sufficient yardstick to measure his talent and potential. Jackson has a cannon arm (a better arm than Young, in fact) and is just as elusive as Vince Young on foot, yet he is profiled as a "loser" who is not the future of the franchise. Don't buy into the hype, if you let the national media influence you with no concrete 'facts' you are a sheep to the system. Baaah. Yeah, thats you.

These "analysts" analyze each game at 7:30 ET on Sunday...with 10-12 games going on at 3 hrs each, they'd need 30-36 hours to watch every snap of every game! These guys don't watch entire Vikings games unless they're nationally televised on Sunday or Monday night! We are the people who have seen Jackson play every snap of his career, we should be the judge. They see only the highlights, which are misleading, at best. Its like someone persuading you that your best friend is an a-hole when you hang out with him all the time and they only see him every once in a while, at best. We know the real Jackson, they do not...my point being, form your own opinion...so many people are swayed by the national media. If you want to hear a REAL opinion, listen to KFAN, those are the only people that really know...national media pundits are stupid...and the media is biased...period...don't believe the hype.

Marrdro
04-29-2008, 02:39 PM
You my friend can make a good arguement.
Not sure if I agree with all of this but I do agree with a damn good share of it.

I like to watch the talking heads say that a certain starting QB for the Vikings isn't any good when they can't even pronounce or spell that certain QB's name.


(Key note.
Come on guys.
Let me off that damn promise.
This is way to hard.
NO MORE SR49
;D).

JeffSeimon
04-29-2008, 02:53 PM
I would say Jacksons 8-4 record was due in part to Adrian Petersons success.
Was Vince Young facing 8 in the box most of the time? If he was I would think his numbers would be way better than Tjacks.
I personally think TJ has hope but am glad we have another young qb to challenge him.

mountainviking
04-29-2008, 02:56 PM
Hmm, so, Young has all this experience.
Started for a big school, started more games, etc, yet the same stats as TJack, but with more INTs to the same TDs.
So far, looks to me like Jackson has the upper hand.


Well, we get to play them on their turf in game 4...looks like we'll get to see first hand.
Talk about two similar teams...great running game, good defense, a young QB and questionable WRs.

audioghost
04-29-2008, 02:58 PM
"JeffSeimon" wrote:


I would say Jacksons 8-4 record was due in part to Adrian Petersons success.
Was Vince Young facing 8 in the box most of the time? If he was I would think his numbers would be way better than Tjacks.
I personally think TJ has hope but am glad we have another young qb to challenge him.


Everyone does...apparently...why this is? I don't know...

There is no proof either way...so at this point both are equal, but they're not portrayed that way.

Its unfair to Jackson I think...it seems like he has more to prove since he's from a D-1AA school...thats not fair in my opinion.

seaniemck7
04-29-2008, 02:59 PM
/golfclap AG

A for effort
B- for the debate with some valid statements in that post nonetheless.

Marrdro
04-29-2008, 03:21 PM
"JeffSeimon" wrote:


I would say Jacksons 8-4 record was due in part to Adrian Petersons success.
Was Vince Young facing 8 in the box most of the time? If he was I would think his numbers would be way better than Tjacks.
I personally think TJ has hope but am glad we have another young qb to challenge him.

Teams face 8 and 9 man fronts all the time.

Its really called a Zone Blitz which is designed to take away the running game as well as to force the QB to make a quick decision between throw, run or get sacked.

Truth of the matter is that even without AD most teams would Zone Blitz us (as they did VY) to get the same result.

nailhead77
04-29-2008, 03:50 PM
v. young gets the love because he's proven he can win big games.

stats only matter in baseball. i,m not saying id rather have young but so far he is a winner.
tjacks 8-4 record is misleading, i could have played qb and won the game against the giants ;)

NodakPaul
04-29-2008, 03:51 PM
Nice post.


I actually think that TJack and Young are very similar.
That, however, isn't a compliment to TJack in my book. :(

I like what I see when TJack plays well.
I do not like what I see when he doesn't.
He is wildly inconsistent, which is actually a big difference between him and Young.
Young consistently sucked last year.
I actually think he can better be compared to Grossman, as sad as that is.

I think one of three scenarios will happen this year with TJack.

1) For the majority of the 2008 season, he consistently plays like he did against Denver.
His starting spot in 2009 is unquestioned.
2) For the majority of the 2008 season, he consistently plays like he did in the first Detroit game.
His demotion in 2009 is unquestioned.
3) He improves in 2008, but overall remains inconsistent.

Option #3 is my biggest fear.

NodakPaul
04-29-2008, 03:54 PM
"nailhead77" wrote:


v. young gets the love because he's proven he can win big games.

stats only matter in baseball. i,m not saying id rather have young but so far he is a winner.
tjacks 8-4 record is misleading, i could have played qb and won the game against the giants ;)


Umm, what big games in the NFL has young won?
To the best of my knowledge, he has a 0-1 record in the playoffs, so that means he has won exactly as many as TJack has.

nailhead77
04-29-2008, 03:58 PM
he had to win the games to get in the playoffs.
one of those had to be considered a big game.
winning the national championship is kinda big..... what has tjack done compared to that?

DustinDupont
04-29-2008, 03:59 PM
"nailhead77" wrote:


v. young gets the love because he's proven he can win big games.

stats only matter in baseball. i,m not saying id rather have young but so far he is a winner.
tjacks 8-4 record is misleading, i could have played qb and won the game against the giants ;)



Doubt you could have thrown a 60 yard bomb to Sidney Rice on the the second play of the game like Tjack did

Marrdro
04-29-2008, 04:01 PM
"nailhead77" wrote:


he had to win the games to get in the playoffs.

one of those had to be considered a big game.
winning the national championship is kinda big..... what has tjack done compared to that?

After a quality post like that and all you can come up with is that.
Comeon my friend.
Either tell him it was a excellent post or give us something of value to make us think he is wrong.

(Lots of smiley faces)

nailhead77
04-29-2008, 04:01 PM
lol true
;D
i couldnt throw it 60 yrds
but
then again didnt need to that day.

C Mac D
04-29-2008, 04:04 PM
I thought for sure this thread was about the other Jackson


http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Video/050130/n_jackson_statement_050130.300w.jpg

DustinDupont
04-29-2008, 04:06 PM
"nailhead77" wrote:


lol true
;D
i couldnt throw it 60 yrds
but
then again didnt need to that day.


haha.. well it could a changed the game a bit... thats was the first score of the game

nailhead77
04-29-2008, 04:09 PM
wouldnt have changed much.
i put some weed in eli's brownies before the game.
he thought everyone was wearing purple ;)

NodakPaul
04-29-2008, 04:14 PM
"nailhead77" wrote:


he had to win the games to get in the playoffs.
one of those had to be considered a big game.
winning the national championship is kinda big..... what has tjack done compared to that?


Winning the national championship in college is smaller on every level than being named the starter for any of the 32 NFL teams.

And Tennessee made it into the playoffs on the easiest schedule of all play off teams.
Their last five games (which they went 4-1 in) were Houston, San Diego, KC, NY Jets, and Indianapolis (and Indy was resting half of their team).
San Diego was the only quality team that they played in that stretch, and they lost.

It is very reminiscent to the 7-2 streak that Brad Johnson took us on in 2005.
Of those 9 teams, only Pittsburgh and the Giants were decent, and we lost to Pittsburgh.
We beat the giants only because of a kickoff return for a TD, an INT return for a TD, and a punt return for a TD.

Vince Young has done nothing in his NFL career to warrant any kind of praise.
Neither has TJack.
They are pretty much equal.

nailhead77
04-29-2008, 04:16 PM
bring the meat why dont ya!

i agree....they both suck!

Mr-holland
04-29-2008, 04:19 PM
"nailhead77" wrote:


v. young gets the love because he's proven he can win big games.

stats only matter in baseball. i,m not saying id rather have young but so far he is a winner.
tjacks 8-4 record is misleading, i could have played qb and won the game against the giants ;)

No you didn't
what about that beautiful pass he threw to Rice like the 2nd play of the game ;)

jmcdon00
04-29-2008, 04:21 PM
"nailhead77" wrote:


he had to win the games to get in the playoffs.

one of those had to be considered a big game.
winning the national championship is kinda big..... what has tjack done compared to that?

I agree. While some of the analysts might give Vince too much NFL credit and view him as better than he really is I can see why their was so much hype. He is a phenominal athlete and a proven winner.

Of course the top ten pick is gonna get more hype than a 2nd rounder. Should ESPN be covering Booty the same way they cover Matt Ryan? Both have the exact same NFL resume.

Basically Vince Young became a national star/celebrity/hero when he put Texas on his back and beat out a team that most though was unbeatable in USC. It was probably one of the top 5 memorable sporting events I have ever watched.
I still believe that Vince is capable of being a pro-bowl caliber QB in the NFL based solely on that one game I watched him play. You may want to completely seperate NFL experience and college but in the real world that is not how it works. Draft position really decides what the expectations for that player are. In Vince's case top 5 pick means he should be a superstar. In tjacks case late 2nd rounder mean he is mediocre until he proves other wise(and he hasn't so far).

It is really to the vikings advantage to have the underrated guy if in fact they are of about equal talent. They get him at a much cheaper price and were able to use their first rounder on someone else(greenway).

It would be nice though to see atleast one national media guy talk about this comparison, I bet a lot of people would be shocked at how close the numbers are. I know I was.

nailhead77
04-29-2008, 04:29 PM
a brilliant post!

gabe_menendez
04-29-2008, 04:35 PM
T Jack is are Quarterback :D. Cant wait for next year.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSZui599VfI

Json
04-29-2008, 04:36 PM
What an absolute excellent post man!
You said everything I have wanted to say about T. Jax and I truly enjoyed reading your points.
Great addition with the article links etc.
Thanks for taking some time out of your life to shine the light on an issue that is always debatable.
I for 1 think you hit it right on the nose and cant' agree more.


Thanks again!

Freakout
04-29-2008, 04:39 PM
I'm not a fan of both.
I just don't understand why certain people use Vince as a comparison for Jackson.
Shouldn't you be aiming at someone that is actually very good now but maybe started off slow?


Why no comparisons to Peyton, Favre, Brady, etc...
or Leinart, Cutler.

In my opinion arguing between Jackson and Young is like saying you would prefer a punch to the face over a kick to the crouch.
I would prefer neither.

skum
04-29-2008, 04:50 PM
"nailhead77" wrote:


he had to win the games to get in the playoffs.
one of those had to be considered a big game.
winning the national championship is kinda big..... what has tjack done compared to that?


Not to take the NC game away from Young, it was proberly one of the best games ever.. And he had a very nice game, but the refs did screw USC big time.. :)

Mr-holland
04-29-2008, 05:01 PM
"Freakout" wrote:


I'm not a fan of both.
I just don't understand why certain people use Vince as a comparison for Jackson.
Shouldn't you be aiming at someone that is actually very good now but maybe started off slow?


Why no comparisons to Peyton, Favre, Brady, etc...
or Leinart, Cutler.

In my opinion arguing between Jackson and Young is like saying you would prefer a punch to the face over a kick to the crouch.
I would prefer neither.

Don't know about you but i'd take a punch in the face anytime!!

Why they are compared is because they are alike. their styles are alike and their numbers are somewhat alike

PackSux!
04-29-2008, 05:03 PM
"JeffSeimon" wrote:


I would say Jacksons 8-4 record was due in part to Adrian Petersons success.
Was Vince Young facing 8 in the box most of the time? If he was I would think his numbers would be way better than Tjacks.
I personally think TJ has hope but am glad we have another young qb to challenge him.


Do you not remember when AP got hurt and the team won 4 games in a row?
I do.

jmcdon00
04-29-2008, 05:05 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"nailhead77" wrote:


he had to win the games to get in the playoffs.

one of those had to be considered a big game.
winning the national championship is kinda big..... what has tjack done compared to that?


Winning the national championship in college is smaller on every level than being named the starter for any of the 32 NFL teams.

And Tennessee made it into the playoffs on the easiest schedule of all play off teams.
Their last five games (which they went 4-1 in) were Houston, San Diego, KC, NY Jets, and Indianapolis (and Indy was resting half of their team).
San Diego was the only quality team that they played in that stretch, and they lost.

It is very reminiscent to the 7-2 streak that Brad Johnson took us on in 2005.
Of those 9 teams, only Pittsburgh and the Giants were decent, and we lost to Pittsburgh.
We beat the giants only because of a kickoff return for a TD, an INT return for a TD, and a punt return for a TD.

Vince Young has done nothing in his NFL career to warrant any kind of praise.
Neither has TJack.
They are pretty much equal.

How is being the sole reason your team won the national college championship smaller than being an NFL starter? Every year their are probably 50+ starting QB's in the NFL. There is only one college champion(sometimes 2 i think). Most sports fans know what Vince Young did in college, how many can name every QB that started in 2007?

Overlord
04-29-2008, 05:47 PM
Just listen to Jaworski.
He's the only one that seems to know what he's talking about when it comes to evaluating QBs for their actual play, and not just recycling the same garbage everyone else is throwing out.

But I happen to think that both of these QBs are improving and can be effective long term.
Jackson we've seen and the upswing in his stats the second half of the season has been widely noted here.
Personally, I think he's fine if he can learn to make faster and better decisions when facing a pass rush.

But I want to make the case for Vince Young too, since everyone here seems to think he's garbage.
The thing everyone is pointing out for him is that he threw 9 TDs and 17 INTs this year, compared with 12 TDs and 13 INTs last year.
That's a bad stat, no doubt.
But some of that is just bad luck and some is his receiving crew.
His top three WRs last year?
Roydell Williams, Justin Gage, and Bo Scaife.
Ouch.
Two very key stats that you should look at in judging a QB are completion percentage and yards/attempt.
In those categories Young improved from 51.5% to 62.3% and from 6.2 Y/A to 6.7 Y/A.
So I don't think he had a slump - he improved in key areas.
The TD and INT numbers will come around for him eventually, and he'll be just fine.

So I agree that these two QBs are similar in terms of NFL production and yet very different in terms of media coverage.
But I disagree with everyone that thinks those similarities mean they are both terrible.
I think both can be good QBs in the future if given the chance.

Garland Greene
04-29-2008, 05:53 PM
Seriously how many more fucking TJack threads do we need? Seriously is there anything more that has to be argued about? Its the same shit no matter how you twist it.
Let the season play out and then we shall see.

ItalianStallion
04-29-2008, 05:57 PM
Maybe because he won the games he needed to, to get into the playoffs in one of the toughest divisions in football, rather than choke them away like TJack did.

ultravikingfan
04-29-2008, 06:06 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"JeffSeimon" wrote:


I would say Jacksons 8-4 record was due in part to Adrian Petersons success.
Was Vince Young facing 8 in the box most of the time? If he was I would think his numbers would be way better than Tjacks.
I personally think TJ has hope but am glad we have another young qb to challenge him.

Teams face 8 and 9 man fronts all the time.

Its really called a Zone Blitz which is designed to take away the running game as well as to force the QB to make a quick decision between throw, run or get sacked.

Truth of the matter is that even without AD most teams would Zone Blitz us (as they did VY) to get the same result.


Marr, please tell me where you came up with that?

i_bleed_purple
04-29-2008, 06:15 PM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"JeffSeimon" wrote:


I would say Jacksons 8-4 record was due in part to Adrian Petersons success.
Was Vince Young facing 8 in the box most of the time? If he was I would think his numbers would be way better than Tjacks.
I personally think TJ has hope but am glad we have another young qb to challenge him.

Teams face 8 and 9 man fronts all the time.

Its really called a Zone Blitz which is designed to take away the running game as well as to force the QB to make a quick decision between throw, run or get sacked.

Truth of the matter is that even without AD most teams would Zone Blitz us (as they did VY) to get the same result.





Marr, please tell me where you came up with that?




He has 3 separate buckets, all with different words written on pieces of paper put in each bucket.
One is for a person, one for a verb and another for a noun.


Example
PERSON BUCKET:

ZYGI, WILF, PAT WILLIAMS, BRYZEZINSKI, SPEILMAN, MOZES, DEFENSES

VERB;
RUNS, CALLS, PLAYS, WORks, WILL BE OUR NEW, Zone Blitz etc.

NOUNT:
DRAFT, CENTER, OUR OFFENSE, Conrtact

so he picks one of each and elaborates on each and sticks with that story, for example a few that have surfaced are:

Mozes will be our new center,
Speilman runs the Draft
and now:
Defenses Zone Blitsz our Offense.

SOme potential ones he's missed:

Pat Williams Runs our Offense
etc.

KrackerJack
04-29-2008, 06:20 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"JeffSeimon" wrote:


I would say Jacksons 8-4 record was due in part to Adrian Petersons success.
Was Vince Young facing 8 in the box most of the time? If he was I would think his numbers would be way better than Tjacks.
I personally think TJ has hope but am glad we have another young qb to challenge him.

Teams face 8 and 9 man fronts all the time.

Its really called a Zone Blitz which is designed to take away the running game as well as to force the QB to make a quick decision between throw, run or get sacked.

Truth of the matter is that even without AD most teams would Zone Blitz us (as they did VY) to get the same result.





Marr, please tell me where you came up with that?




He has 3 separate buckets, all with different words written on pieces of paper put in each bucket.
One is for a person, one for a verb and another for a noun.


Example
PERSON BUCKET:

ZYGI, WILF, PAT WILLIAMS, BRYZEZINSKI, SPEILMAN, MOZES, DEFENSES

VERB;
RUNS, CALLS, PLAYS, WORks, WILL BE OUR NEW, Zone Blitz etc.

NOUNT:
DRAFT, CENTER, OUR OFFENSE, Conrtact

so he picks one of each and elaborates on each and sticks with that story, for example a few that have surfaced are:

Mozes will be our new center,
Speilman runs the Draft
and now:
Defenses Zone Blitsz our Offense.

SOme potential ones he's missed:

Pat Williams Runs our Offense
etc.



LOL!
;D

Overlord
04-29-2008, 06:35 PM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"JeffSeimon" wrote:


I would say Jacksons 8-4 record was due in part to Adrian Petersons success.
Was Vince Young facing 8 in the box most of the time? If he was I would think his numbers would be way better than Tjacks.
I personally think TJ has hope but am glad we have another young qb to challenge him.

Teams face 8 and 9 man fronts all the time.

Its really called a Zone Blitz which is designed to take away the running game as well as to force the QB to make a quick decision between throw, run or get sacked.

Truth of the matter is that even without AD most teams would Zone Blitz us (as they did VY) to get the same result.


Marr, please tell me where you came up with that?


Yeah, Ultravikingfan is right on this one.
A zone blitz is not the same as an 8 or 9 man front.
A zone blitz refers to blitzing someone (a linebacker or defensive back) and then dropping a defensive lineman into coverage.
It could be very commonly be combined with an 8 or 9 man front, especially if you're looking to show a blitzing safety and then take away the hole that player left with a defensive end.
However, the two are not synonymous and an 8 or 9 man front is more common without a zone blitz than with one.

And actually, 8-man fronts are not very common, and 9-man fronts are incredibly uncommon.
The Vikes saw them a bunch at the end of the season, but teams weren't even going all out on this tactic early in the year after AD torched the Bears.


Most coaches want to do the same thing over and over again.
They fear change.
Even though they knew AD was dangerous, they didn't want to be the coach that did something new and looked stupid.
So they would stick with their base defense with 7 in the box the majority of the time.
The 49ers finally went for broke by playing 8-man fronts all day with the corners selling out in run coverage, and they slowed AD down.
After that, the other teams we played were willing to try it more as well.

For the rest of the league though, 8-man fronts are seen usually only occaisionally.
9-man fronts are seen almost not at all - in short-yardage/goal line situations almost exclusively.

nailhead77
04-29-2008, 06:41 PM
"ItalianStallion" wrote:


Maybe because he won the games he needed to, to get into the playoffs in one of the toughest divisions in football, rather than choke them away like TJack did.






i like your style!
my thoughts exactly.

Marrdro
04-29-2008, 06:50 PM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"JeffSeimon" wrote:


I would say Jacksons 8-4 record was due in part to Adrian Petersons success.
Was Vince Young facing 8 in the box most of the time? If he was I would think his numbers would be way better than Tjacks.
I personally think TJ has hope but am glad we have another young qb to challenge him.

Teams face 8 and 9 man fronts all the time.

Its really called a Zone Blitz which is designed to take away the running game as well as to force the QB to make a quick decision between throw, run or get sacked.

Truth of the matter is that even without AD most teams would Zone Blitz us (as they did VY) to get the same result.


Marr, please tell me where you came up with that?

Comeon Ultra. You know that teams have been Zone Blitzing young QB's long before AD came onto the scene.

It is especially effective against a young QB and like you saw with our D against the Chargers, a poor C.
The myriad of blitz schemes confuse the shit out of them and make it hard to make pre-snap line adjustments and are designed to be effective against the run and the pass.

Couple of really good reads on it if anyone cares to take the time.

http://espn.go.com/ncf/columns/davie/1430750.html

Summary
As you can see, there are unlimited combinations of zone blitzes. The idea is to confuse the offense's identification of who the rushers and pass defenders are. It plays havoc with the offense's count system in determining blocking assignments.

The offense counters the zone blitz with ways to identify if it is coming and where it is coming from. They may utilize different formations and change the snap count so that the defense tips of its plan prior to the snap.

The zone blitz has become a big part of college and professional football. The Michigan-Notre Dame game this Saturday will be great opportunity to watch zone blitzes in action. Both teams have extensive zone blitz packages.

http://chi.scout.com/2/636979.html


The genius of LeBeau’s zone blitz lies in the actions of the defensive linemen. In order to fill the open zones left by the blitzing linebacker or safety, the defensive tackle or end will drop back into the recently vacated zone. This creates mass confusion for the offensive line and quarterback, as the players they originally accounted for as rushers are now pass defenders. The offense must recognize this and make the proper adjustments to get the play blocked – all in just under two seconds.



This one really stresses/focuses on fients and the use of DL dropping in the zones.

http://www.davesez.com/archives/000885.php


Even our good friends at Wikipeidia are onto it.
;D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_blitz

ultravikingfan
04-29-2008, 06:57 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"JeffSeimon" wrote:


I would say Jacksons 8-4 record was due in part to Adrian Petersons success.
Was Vince Young facing 8 in the box most of the time? If he was I would think his numbers would be way better than Tjacks.
I personally think TJ has hope but am glad we have another young qb to challenge him.

Teams face 8 and 9 man fronts all the time.

Its really called a Zone Blitz which is designed to take away the running game as well as to force the QB to make a quick decision between throw, run or get sacked.

Truth of the matter is that even without AD most teams would Zone Blitz us (as they did VY) to get the same result.


Marr, please tell me where you came up with that?

Comeon Ultra. You know that teams have been Zone Blitzing young QB's long before AD came onto the scene.

It is especially effective against a young QB and like you saw with our D against the Chargers, a poor C.
The myriad of blitz schemes confuse the shit out of them and make it hard to make pre-snap line adjustments and are designed to be effective against the run and the pass.

Couple of really good reads on it if anyone cares to take the time.

http://espn.go.com/ncf/columns/davie/1430750.html

Summary
As you can see, there are unlimited combinations of zone blitzes. The idea is to confuse the offense's identification of who the rushers and pass defenders are. It plays havoc with the offense's count system in determining blocking assignments.

The offense counters the zone blitz with ways to identify if it is coming and where it is coming from. They may utilize different formations and change the snap count so that the defense tips of its plan prior to the snap.

The zone blitz has become a big part of college and professional football. The Michigan-Notre Dame game this Saturday will be great opportunity to watch zone blitzes in action. Both teams have extensive zone blitz packages.

http://chi.scout.com/2/636979.html


The genius of LeBeau’s zone blitz lies in the actions of the defensive linemen. In order to fill the open zones left by the blitzing linebacker or safety, the defensive tackle or end will drop back into the recently vacated zone. This creates mass confusion for the offensive line and quarterback, as the players they originally accounted for as rushers are now pass defenders. The offense must recognize this and make the proper adjustments to get the play blocked – all in just under two seconds.



This one really stresses/focuses on fients and the use of DL dropping in the zones.

http://www.davesez.com/archives/000885.php


Even our good friends at Wikipeidia are onto it.

;D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_blitz




An 8 or 9 man front is not called a Zone Blitz...its an 8 or 9 man front.

Heck, an 8 man front is just one more guy in the box.
Saying teams face that all the time is like saying the sky is blue.

Nice job or internet searching BTW.
:D

ultravikingfan
04-29-2008, 06:58 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"JeffSeimon" wrote:


I would say Jacksons 8-4 record was due in part to Adrian Petersons success.
Was Vince Young facing 8 in the box most of the time? If he was I would think his numbers would be way better than Tjacks.
I personally think TJ has hope but am glad we have another young qb to challenge him.

Teams face 8 and 9 man fronts all the time.

Its really called a Zone Blitz which is designed to take away the running game as well as to force the QB to make a quick decision between throw, run or get sacked.

Truth of the matter is that even without AD most teams would Zone Blitz us (as they did VY) to get the same result.





Marr, please tell me where you came up with that?




He has 3 separate buckets, all with different words written on pieces of paper put in each bucket.
One is for a person, one for a verb and another for a noun.


Example
PERSON BUCKET:

ZYGI, WILF, PAT WILLIAMS, BRYZEZINSKI, SPEILMAN, MOZES, DEFENSES

VERB;
RUNS, CALLS, PLAYS, WORks, WILL BE OUR NEW, Zone Blitz etc.

NOUNT:
DRAFT, CENTER, OUR OFFENSE, Conrtact

so he picks one of each and elaborates on each and sticks with that story, for example a few that have surfaced are:

Mozes will be our new center,
Speilman runs the Draft
and now:
Defenses Zone Blitsz our Offense.

SOme potential ones he's missed:

Pat Williams Runs our Offense
etc.



LMFAO!
That's fricken hilarious!

JeffSeimon
04-29-2008, 07:05 PM
"PackSux!" wrote:


"JeffSeimon" wrote:


I would say Jacksons 8-4 record was due in part to Adrian Petersons success.
Was Vince Young facing 8 in the box most of the time? If he was I would think his numbers would be way better than Tjacks.
I personally think TJ has hope but am glad we have another young qb to challenge him.


Do you not remember when AP got hurt and the team won 4 games in a row?

I do.


I do remember how we won those games...Solid D and running the football.
Chester was awesome.

jessejames09
04-29-2008, 07:07 PM
"JeffSeimon" wrote:


"PackSux!" wrote:


"JeffSeimon" wrote:


I would say Jacksons 8-4 record was due in part to Adrian Petersons success.
Was Vince Young facing 8 in the box most of the time? If he was I would think his numbers would be way better than Tjacks.
I personally think TJ has hope but am glad we have another young qb to challenge him.


Do you not remember when AP got hurt and the team won 4 games in a row?
I do.


I do remember how we won those games...Solid D and running the football.
Chester was awesome.



And Tarvaris Jackson played surprisingly well. Yeah I do remember that.

JeffSeimon
04-29-2008, 07:11 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"JeffSeimon" wrote:


I would say Jacksons 8-4 record was due in part to Adrian Petersons success.
Was Vince Young facing 8 in the box most of the time? If he was I would think his numbers would be way better than Tjacks.
I personally think TJ has hope but am glad we have another young qb to challenge him.

Teams face 8 and 9 man fronts all the time.

Its really called a Zone Blitz which is designed to take away the running game as well as to force the QB to make a quick decision between throw, run or get sacked.

Truth of the matter is that even without AD most teams would Zone Blitz us (as they did VY) to get the same result.


TJack was getting single coverage to throw to most of the season.Safetys were not rolling into coverage,they were worried only about our rushing attack.
One Dallas Cowboy fan put it best...He said "I hope the Vikes starting qb doesnt get hurt" WHY? "Because whoever is on the bench has got to be better."

JeffSeimon
04-29-2008, 07:16 PM
"jessejames09" wrote:


"JeffSeimon" wrote:


"PackSux!" wrote:


"JeffSeimon" wrote:


I would say Jacksons 8-4 record was due in part to Adrian Petersons success.
Was Vince Young facing 8 in the box most of the time? If he was I would think his numbers would be way better than Tjacks.
I personally think TJ has hope but am glad we have another young qb to challenge him.


Do you not remember when AP got hurt and the team won 4 games in a row?

I do.


I do remember how we won those games...Solid D and running the football.
Chester was awesome.



And Tarvaris Jackson played surprisingly well. Yeah I do remember that.

Anytime he played well it was "suprisingly" last season.
I hope he does improve.He has a nice arm and showed signs of promise.

Caine
04-29-2008, 07:18 PM
"JeffSeimon" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"JeffSeimon" wrote:


I would say Jacksons 8-4 record was due in part to Adrian Petersons success.
Was Vince Young facing 8 in the box most of the time? If he was I would think his numbers would be way better than Tjacks.
I personally think TJ has hope but am glad we have another young qb to challenge him.

Teams face 8 and 9 man fronts all the time.

Its really called a Zone Blitz which is designed to take away the running game as well as to force the QB to make a quick decision between throw, run or get sacked.

Truth of the matter is that even without AD most teams would Zone Blitz us (as they did VY) to get the same result.


TJack was getting single coverage to throw to most of the season.Safetys were not rolling into coverage,they were worried only about our rushing attack.
One Dallas Cowboy fan put it best...He said "I hope the Vikes starting qb doesnt get hurt" WHY? "Because whoever is on the bench has got to be better."



Jackson doesn't get any media love because he hasn't done anything to deserve it.
You want accolades?
WIN GAMES.
What's that?
He was 8-4 as a starter?
Sure, but how many of those wins were due to the running attack and Defense, and how many did Tarvaris take over and win?
Oh...all 8 were because of someone else?

Get my point?

Caine

DustinDupont
04-29-2008, 07:24 PM
"Caine" wrote:


"JeffSeimon" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"JeffSeimon" wrote:


I would say Jacksons 8-4 record was due in part to Adrian Petersons success.
Was Vince Young facing 8 in the box most of the time? If he was I would think his numbers would be way better than Tjacks.
I personally think TJ has hope but am glad we have another young qb to challenge him.

Teams face 8 and 9 man fronts all the time.

Its really called a Zone Blitz which is designed to take away the running game as well as to force the QB to make a quick decision between throw, run or get sacked.

Truth of the matter is that even without AD most teams would Zone Blitz us (as they did VY) to get the same result.


TJack was getting single coverage to throw to most of the season.Safetys were not rolling into coverage,they were worried only about our rushing attack.
One Dallas Cowboy fan put it best...He said "I hope the Vikes starting qb doesnt get hurt" WHY? "Because whoever is on the bench has got to be better."



Jackson doesn't get any media love because he hasn't done anything to deserve it.
You want accolades?
WIN GAMES.
What's that?
He was 8-4 as a starter?
Sure, but how many of those wins were due to the running attack and Defense, and how many did Tarvaris take over and win?
Oh...all 8 were because of someone else?

Get my point?

Caine


Yeah he was 8-4 as the starter.... and it was his first season starting... what where Bollinger and Holcombs record when he wasnt in?? and they where suppose to be the vets...

And his job wasnt to take over and win games, it was to help the team win, just like everyone else's job on the team...

Get my point?

JeffSeimon
04-29-2008, 07:29 PM
2 must win games IMO....Had a good shot to get in the postseason.....Defenses stacked up daring TJack to beat them in cover 3..

He might improve...He must.








Season Outlook
Passing
Rushing
Sacked
Fumbles

G
QBRat Comp Att Pct Yds Y/G Y/A TD Int
Rush Yds Y/G Avg TD
Sack YdsL
Fum FumL







Week 15 '07 (CHI) 1
50.0 18 29 62.1 249 249.0 8.6 0 3
7 25 25.0 3.6 0
2 13
1 1


Week 16 '07 (WAS) 1
63.1 25 41 61.0 220 220.0 5.4 1 2
8 44 44.0 5.5 2
1 8
0 0

DeathtoDenny
04-29-2008, 07:40 PM
Didn't anyone hear Tony Richardson on KFAN? He pointed out the times that Childress was controlling the offense, and when Tarvaris was controlling the offense. The late scores against Washington were when Tarvaris was given full control. The comeback against Denver? Tarvaris was controlling the huddle and calling the plays. Childress' playcalling and control over the offense was stifling TJack. You would have to be a sub-mental to think that Booty, a 5th rounder, has any advantage over TJack who has been in the system for 2+years and who all the experts said WOULD BE A THREE YEAR PROJECT (or that Frerotte or Bollinger do either). Watch some highlights of Jackson and you'll see his moments of genius.

fourdoorchevelle
04-29-2008, 07:43 PM
"Caine" wrote:


"JeffSeimon" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"JeffSeimon" wrote:


I would say Jacksons 8-4 record was due in part to Adrian Petersons success.
Was Vince Young facing 8 in the box most of the time? If he was I would think his numbers would be way better than Tjacks.
I personally think TJ has hope but am glad we have another young qb to challenge him.

Teams face 8 and 9 man fronts all the time.

Its really called a Zone Blitz which is designed to take away the running game as well as to force the QB to make a quick decision between throw, run or get sacked.

Truth of the matter is that even without AD most teams would Zone Blitz us (as they did VY) to get the same result.


TJack was getting single coverage to throw to most of the season.Safetys were not rolling into coverage,they were worried only about our rushing attack.
One Dallas Cowboy fan put it best...He said "I hope the Vikes starting qb doesnt get hurt" WHY? "Because whoever is on the bench has got to be better."



Jackson doesn't get any media love because he hasn't done anything to deserve it.
You want accolades?
WIN GAMES.
What's that?
He was 8-4 as a starter?
Sure, but how many of those wins were due to the running attack and Defense, and how many did Tarvaris take over and win?
Oh...all 8 were because of someone else?

Get my point?

Caine


and if he lost those games than it would be used against him. it goes both ways right?

who ever is the better qb and will make more plays should start .

nice post and way to put tjack into prospective, AG .

i think adding booty was a great addition and definatly gives us options, but since i am not in practice to judge the qb's and grade their skills, then ill leave it to the coaching staff to deceide.

tjack makes jump passes and lost to denver in ot , but he did bring us back in that same game .

time will tell

JeffSeimon
04-29-2008, 07:55 PM
"DeathtoDenny" wrote:


Didn't anyone hear Tony Richardson on KFAN? He pointed out the times that Childress was controlling the offense, and when Tarvaris was controlling the offense. The late scores against Washington were when Tarvaris was given full control. The comeback against Denver? Tarvaris was controlling the huddle and calling the plays. Childress' playcalling and control over the offense was stifling TJack. You would have to be a sub-mental to think that Booty, a 5th rounder, has any advantage over TJack who has been in the system for 2+years and who all the experts said WOULD BE A THREE YEAR PROJECT (or that Frerotte or Bollinger do either). Watch some highlights of Jackson and you'll see his moments of genius.


Genius? I did not see that but we each see things different.
I did see signs of a decent starting qb,a young man with a great arm and mobility,and a young man who made alot of mental errors.
I do hope TJ improves and makes less mistakes.He may just be the QB of our future...I am also glad we have someone besides Gus and Brooks to be in camp in case he does not.
I did not know about TJ running the offense in those games.Thanks for the heads up.

NodakPaul
04-29-2008, 07:57 PM
"JeffSeimon" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"JeffSeimon" wrote:


I would say Jacksons 8-4 record was due in part to Adrian Petersons success.
Was Vince Young facing 8 in the box most of the time? If he was I would think his numbers would be way better than Tjacks.
I personally think TJ has hope but am glad we have another young qb to challenge him.

Teams face 8 and 9 man fronts all the time.

Its really called a Zone Blitz which is designed to take away the running game as well as to force the QB to make a quick decision between throw, run or get sacked.

Truth of the matter is that even without AD most teams would Zone Blitz us (as they did VY) to get the same result.


TJack was getting single coverage to throw to most of the season.Safetys were not rolling into coverage,they were worried only about our rushing attack.
One Dallas Cowboy fan put it best...He said "I hope the Vikes starting qb doesnt get hurt" WHY? "Because whoever is on the bench has got to be better."



Since our bench went 0-4 while TJack went 8-4, I tend to think that wasn't the case.

And for the record, safeties were rolling coverage because Wade's talent lies in short possession, not beating a CB deep.
Twill couldn't catch.
And Rice was hurt the last third of the season.
It wasn't all on the QB.
I wouldn't expect Cowboys fans to be smart enough to grasp that, but I expect a little more out of the purple...

Marrdro
04-29-2008, 08:05 PM
"JeffSeimon" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"JeffSeimon" wrote:


I would say Jacksons 8-4 record was due in part to Adrian Petersons success.
Was Vince Young facing 8 in the box most of the time? If he was I would think his numbers would be way better than Tjacks.
I personally think TJ has hope but am glad we have another young qb to challenge him.

Teams face 8 and 9 man fronts all the time.

Its really called a Zone Blitz which is designed to take away the running game as well as to force the QB to make a quick decision between throw, run or get sacked.

Truth of the matter is that even without AD most teams would Zone Blitz us (as they did VY) to get the same result.


TJack was getting single coverage to throw to most of the season.Safetys were not rolling into coverage,they were worried only about our rushing attack.
One Dallas Cowboy fan put it best...He said "I hope the Vikes starting qb doesnt get hurt" WHY? "Because whoever is on the bench has got to be better."


Ya gotta bring something better than that my friend.
;D

Problem wasn't the coverage but more along the lines of how much time he had to throw the ball and how many recievers were sent into routes.

Lets not forget that because of our OL inability to pass block/protect against the Zone Blitz schemes we were seeing and the lack of recievers his options weren't that great...........

WR







LT

LG

C
RG

RT









TE







TJ





TE




















FB



















RB

Not alot of passing options in that formation my friend........ :o

Marrdro
04-29-2008, 08:06 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"JeffSeimon" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"JeffSeimon" wrote:


I would say Jacksons 8-4 record was due in part to Adrian Petersons success.
Was Vince Young facing 8 in the box most of the time? If he was I would think his numbers would be way better than Tjacks.
I personally think TJ has hope but am glad we have another young qb to challenge him.

Teams face 8 and 9 man fronts all the time.

Its really called a Zone Blitz which is designed to take away the running game as well as to force the QB to make a quick decision between throw, run or get sacked.

Truth of the matter is that even without AD most teams would Zone Blitz us (as they did VY) to get the same result.


TJack was getting single coverage to throw to most of the season.Safetys were not rolling into coverage,they were worried only about our rushing attack.
One Dallas Cowboy fan put it best...He said "I hope the Vikes starting qb doesnt get hurt" WHY? "Because whoever is on the bench has got to be better."



Since our bench went 0-4 while TJack went 8-4, I tend to think that wasn't the case.
And for the record, safeties were rolling coverage because Wade's talent lies in short possession, not beating a CB deep.
Twill couldn't catch.
And Rice was hurt the last third of the season.
It wasn't all on the QB.
I wouldn't expect Cowboys fans to be smart enough to grasp that, but I expect a little more out of the purple...

Damit........

I missed that one didn't I.
Excellent catch my friend.

JeffSeimon
04-29-2008, 08:19 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"JeffSeimon" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"JeffSeimon" wrote:


I would say Jacksons 8-4 record was due in part to Adrian Petersons success.
Was Vince Young facing 8 in the box most of the time? If he was I would think his numbers would be way better than Tjacks.
I personally think TJ has hope but am glad we have another young qb to challenge him.

Teams face 8 and 9 man fronts all the time.

Its really called a Zone Blitz which is designed to take away the running game as well as to force the QB to make a quick decision between throw, run or get sacked.

Truth of the matter is that even without AD most teams would Zone Blitz us (as they did VY) to get the same result.


TJack was getting single coverage to throw to most of the season.Safetys were not rolling into coverage,they were worried only about our rushing attack.
One Dallas Cowboy fan put it best...He said "I hope the Vikes starting qb doesnt get hurt" WHY? "Because whoever is on the bench has got to be better."



Since our bench went 0-4 while TJack went 8-4, I tend to think that wasn't the case.

And for the record, safeties were rolling coverage because Wade's talent lies in short possession, not beating a CB deep.
Twill couldn't catch.
And Rice was hurt the last third of the season.
It wasn't all on the QB.
I wouldn't expect Cowboys fans to be smart enough to grasp that, but I expect a little more out of the purple...


At the time we played Dallas Troy was still considered a deep threat.He had shown signs that the eye exercises had helped.
Before we played Dallas,Brooks had played briefly and had a qb rating over 90.
I dont think I was the only one that was calling for Brooks.
Did it turn out that TJ was our best option,yes.

JeffSeimon
04-29-2008, 08:24 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"JeffSeimon" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"JeffSeimon" wrote:


I would say Jacksons 8-4 record was due in part to Adrian Petersons success.
Was Vince Young facing 8 in the box most of the time? If he was I would think his numbers would be way better than Tjacks.
I personally think TJ has hope but am glad we have another young qb to challenge him.

Teams face 8 and 9 man fronts all the time.

Its really called a Zone Blitz which is designed to take away the running game as well as to force the QB to make a quick decision between throw, run or get sacked.

Truth of the matter is that even without AD most teams would Zone Blitz us (as they did VY) to get the same result.


TJack was getting single coverage to throw to most of the season.Safetys were not rolling into coverage,they were worried only about our rushing attack.
One Dallas Cowboy fan put it best...He said "I hope the Vikes starting qb doesnt get hurt" WHY? "Because whoever is on the bench has got to be better."


Ya gotta bring something better than that my friend.

;D

Problem wasn't the coverage but more along the lines of how much time he had to throw the ball and how many recievers were sent into routes.

Lets not forget that because of our OL inability to pass block/protect against the Zone Blitz schemes we were seeing and the lack of recievers his options weren't that great...........

WR







LT


LG


C

RG

RT










TE







TJ





TE





















FB




















RB

Not alot of passing options in that formation my friend........ :o


Very good point. The right side of the O-Line was playing alot better late in the season and the left side were playing decent for the $ spent there.Week 15 and 16 TJ played really poor,even with decent protection.
He did look good in week 17.

singersp
04-29-2008, 08:26 PM
"JeffSeimon" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"JeffSeimon" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"JeffSeimon" wrote:


I would say Jacksons 8-4 record was due in part to Adrian Petersons success.
Was Vince Young facing 8 in the box most of the time? If he was I would think his numbers would be way better than Tjacks.
I personally think TJ has hope but am glad we have another young qb to challenge him.

Teams face 8 and 9 man fronts all the time.

Its really called a Zone Blitz which is designed to take away the running game as well as to force the QB to make a quick decision between throw, run or get sacked.

Truth of the matter is that even without AD most teams would Zone Blitz us (as they did VY) to get the same result.


TJack was getting single coverage to throw to most of the season.Safetys were not rolling into coverage,they were worried only about our rushing attack.
One Dallas Cowboy fan put it best...He said "I hope the Vikes starting qb doesnt get hurt" WHY? "Because whoever is on the bench has got to be better."



Since our bench went 0-4 while TJack went 8-4, I tend to think that wasn't the case.

And for the record, safeties were rolling coverage because Wade's talent lies in short possession, not beating a CB deep.
Twill couldn't catch.
And Rice was hurt the last third of the season.
It wasn't all on the QB.
I wouldn't expect Cowboys fans to be smart enough to grasp that, but I expect a little more out of the purple...


At the time we played Dallas Troy was still considered a deep threat.He had shown signs that the eye exercises had helped.
Before we played Dallas,Brooks had played briefly and had a qb rating over 90.
I dont think I was the only one that was calling for Brooks.
Did it turn out that TJ was our best option,yes.



Then why can't people learn from their mistakes?
:P

Marrdro
04-29-2008, 08:31 PM
"JeffSeimon" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"JeffSeimon" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"JeffSeimon" wrote:


I would say Jacksons 8-4 record was due in part to Adrian Petersons success.
Was Vince Young facing 8 in the box most of the time? If he was I would think his numbers would be way better than Tjacks.
I personally think TJ has hope but am glad we have another young qb to challenge him.

Teams face 8 and 9 man fronts all the time.

Its really called a Zone Blitz which is designed to take away the running game as well as to force the QB to make a quick decision between throw, run or get sacked.

Truth of the matter is that even without AD most teams would Zone Blitz us (as they did VY) to get the same result.


TJack was getting single coverage to throw to most of the season.Safetys were not rolling into coverage,they were worried only about our rushing attack.
One Dallas Cowboy fan put it best...He said "I hope the Vikes starting qb doesnt get hurt" WHY? "Because whoever is on the bench has got to be better."


Ya gotta bring something better than that my friend.

;D

Problem wasn't the coverage but more along the lines of how much time he had to throw the ball and how many recievers were sent into routes.

Lets not forget that because of our OL inability to pass block/protect against the Zone Blitz schemes we were seeing and the lack of recievers his options weren't that great...........

WR







LT


LG


C

RG

RT










TE







TJ





TE





















FB




















RB

Not alot of passing options in that formation my friend........ :o


Very good point. The right side of the O-Line was playing alot better late in the season and the left side were playing decent for the $ spent there.Week 15 and 16 TJ played really poor,even with decent protection.
He did look good in week 17.


I am officially a TJ supporter (Now) but that doesn't mean that I think he is without flaw. He has alot of opportunities to beat poor pass coverage and didn't do it at times.


Trust me, he will continue to mature this year as he did last year.
My guess is that, like last year, he will play better than most of us expect and if he does that, then we will not have any worries at QB next year or for the forseeable future.

Additionally, in a year or so, young Booty should be up to par and then we really will be set.
Then all we need to do is revisit about every other year with a young guy to continue to make sure we have at least 3 in the sytem at different phases of maturity to ensure we aren't held over the barrel by any one of thier agents.
;D

Schutz
04-29-2008, 08:48 PM
Arguing whether someone is better than Vince Young is like arguing why a beer is better than Keystone, it just doesn't matter.

JeffSeimon
04-29-2008, 08:51 PM
"Schutz" wrote:


Arguing whether someone is better than Vince Young is like arguing why a beer is better than Keystone, it just doesn't matter.


I believe you are correct sir!
I am through.

Go TJ! :-X

Ltrey33
04-29-2008, 09:11 PM
Actually, I haven't heard the media say word one about Tarvaris, other than the fact that he hasn't proven that he's a franchise quarterback, which I think is pretty accurate. My opinions have come from one place: me.

StillPurple
04-29-2008, 11:43 PM
From now on, I am willing to give Tarvaris a chance.

I also am willing to give Frerotte and Booty a chance.

Why is it that if I say that, I am being negative, or am a "pessimist". I personally think it is optimistic to say that I think we have three QBs who can now compete for the starting job.

Booty is now a Vike, so I back him, just like others on this site back T-Jacks. I still support Tarvaris, but not to the extent that I am willing to say that if either QB is better in camp, that they should not get a chance to compete for the job.

Isn't that what America is about ?: competition, and letting the best, hardest-working person get the job ?

i_bleed_purple
04-29-2008, 11:47 PM
I REALLY REALLY want Booty to sit for at least 2 years.
I dont want him to be fed to the dogs his rookie year the way TJ was.
QB's need a learning period, its extremely rare that a qb will go in his rookie year and start winning games left right and center (ignore Ben Roethlisberger here)
THis season, he should not even think he may think about possibly considering the option of starting unless both TJ and Gus go down due to injury.
Nothing against Booty, but i want him to learn for a year or two, then start, (see Tony Romo)

DustinDupont
04-30-2008, 01:00 AM
"JeffSeimon" wrote:


2 must win games IMO....Had a good shot to get in the postseason.....Defenses stacked up daring TJack to beat them in cover 3..

He might improve...He must.








Season Outlook
Passing
Rushing
Sacked
Fumbles

G
QBRat Comp Att Pct Yds Y/G Y/A TD Int
Rush Yds Y/G Avg TD
Sack YdsL
Fum FumL







Week 15 '07 (CHI) 1
50.0 18 29 62.1 249 249.0 8.6 0 3
7 25 25.0 3.6 0
2 13
1 1


Week 16 '07 (WAS) 1
63.1 25 41 61.0 220 220.0 5.4 1 2
8 44 44.0 5.5 2
1 8
0 0








We won the Chicago game...

Schutz
04-30-2008, 02:28 AM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


I REALLY REALLY want Booty to sit for at least 2 years.
I dont want him to be fed to the dogs his rookie year the way TJ was.
QB's need a learning period, its extremely rare that a qb will go in his rookie year and start winning games left right and center (ignore Ben Roethlisberger here)
THis season, he should not even think he may think about possibly considering the option of starting unless both TJ and Gus go down due to injury.
Nothing against Booty, but i want him to learn for a year or two, then start, (see Tony Romo)


I disagree, I mean I wouldn't object to sitting two years but sitting on the sideline won't make you instantly ready to be an NFL level QB.
It just comes down to having it or not, alot of the big QBs were starting by the end of year one or the beginning of year two.
The only reason I see sitting a guy for more than one year to learn is if there is already an established vet in front of him, I.E. Rogers in Green Bay with Favre.

singersp
04-30-2008, 05:13 AM
"Schutz" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


I REALLY REALLY want Booty to sit for at least 2 years.
I dont want him to be fed to the dogs his rookie year the way TJ was.
QB's need a learning period, its extremely rare that a qb will go in his rookie year and start winning games left right and center (ignore Ben Roethlisberger here)
THis season, he should not even think he may think about possibly considering the option of starting unless both TJ and Gus go down due to injury.
Nothing against Booty, but i want him to learn for a year or two, then start, (see Tony Romo)


I disagree, I mean I wouldn't object to sitting two years but sitting on the sideline won't make you instantly ready to be an NFL level QB.
It just comes down to having it or not, alot of the big QBs were starting by the end of year one or the beginning of year two.
The only reason I see sitting a guy for more than one year to learn is if there is already an established vet in front of him, I.E. Rogers in Green Bay with Favre.


I've always believed that. Exactly how much more knowledge can you soak up sitting on the bench a 2nd year, that you can't learn in the first? After the first year, you should be ready enough to learn the rest through experience by playing on the field. It's a learning process & you also need to learn by doing & by learning from your mistakes.

That is why, IMO, it's necessary to have a good vet as backup to draw knowledge from, to ask questions of & to be mentored by. In our case, Frerotte can help mentor both T-Jack & Booty.

I like that as opposed to GB's situation. Rodgers has yet to start a season for GB & has very little experience on the field. He has no experienced vet QB to turn to when questions arise from things that happen on the field.

Likewise Brohm & their other QB have no experienced vet QB to turn to, to help mentor them along. They only have Rodgers, who is unproven in the starting role & still learning himself.

StillPurple
04-30-2008, 08:02 AM
What about Tony Romo, who sat for years on the bench in Dallas, until, "genius" Parcells finally decided to start him, in like year 4 of his career. Romo could have been this good for like the past 4 seasons, not 2. Instead, Dallas just gave the job to the starter from "last year", year in and year out (Testaverde, Bledsoe, etc.), all the time, having a better QB riding the pine.
::)

I just don't buy it that sitting on the bench and being close to the field makes you ready. You get ready by taking real snaps in the NFL. The modern NFL is about winning now, for better and for worse, and the players, coaches, owners, and fans (most of them) know it.

If Eli Manning had sat his first two years in the NFL, we now would be talking about "do you think he is ready to start an entire season in the NFL ?".

ItalianStallion
04-30-2008, 08:14 AM
"DustinDupont" wrote:


"JeffSeimon" wrote:


2 must win games IMO....Had a good shot to get in the postseason.....Defenses stacked up daring TJack to beat them in cover 3..

He might improve...He must.








Season Outlook
Passing
Rushing
Sacked
Fumbles

G

QBRat Comp Att Pct Yds Y/G Y/A TD Int

Rush Yds Y/G Avg TD

Sack YdsL

Fum FumL









Week 15 '07 (CHI) 1

50.0 18 29 62.1 249 249.0 8.6 0 3

7 25 25.0 3.6 0

2 13

1 1




Week 16 '07 (WAS) 1

63.1 25 41 61.0 220 220.0 5.4 1 2

8 44 44.0 5.5 2

1 8

0 0









We won the Chicago game...


In spite of Tarvaris' play, against a team starting their 3rd QB, just barely.

StillPurple
04-30-2008, 08:20 AM
Well, if you are referring to the Washington game, I thought Joe Gibbs totally outcoached Childress in that game. Gibbs took Chilly to school !! [remember when Chilly was yelling in "we are allowed to substitute !", and John Madden was explaining why that is not the case ?! God, that was embarrassing...].

... so all the blame does not go to Tarvaris. But you are right in that defenses after the 49er game stacked the box and absolutely dared us to throw, and we couldn't, and that has to go on the QB.

A related topic is our lack of an underneath passing game. In those final 4 games of last season, our lack of a TE or WR who can go underneath was incredibly evident, and I had hoped we might address that in the draft. I can't say I am unhappy with the draft, but I do think that our underneath game HAS to improve for us to be a playoff team, because it is just too easy to take away AP's lanes, and then take away Tarvaris's (long) passes. This is a very pressing issue that has to be addressed. In addition, Childress's inability to deal with the stacked box scenario perplexes me and baffles me. Only in the 3rd quarter of the Redskins game did the Vikings offense finally get AP in space by throwing a screen. But it was too late. That perplexes me.

And Childress is supposed to be an offense-minded coach...

marshallvike
04-30-2008, 08:30 AM
tommy kramer, wade wilson, brad johnson. all vikings. all spent time on the viking bench and turned into good nfl quarterbacks. tommy may have been good out of the box, but imo wade and brad benefitted tremendously from learning on the pine.

NodakPaul
04-30-2008, 09:00 AM
"StillPurple" wrote:


What about Tony Romo, who sat for years on the bench in Dallas, until, "genius" Parcells finally decided to start him, in like year 4 of his career. Romo could have been this good for like the past 4 seasons, not 2. Instead, Dallas just gave the job to the starter from "last year", year in and year out (Testaverde, Bledsoe, etc.), all the time, having a better QB riding the pine.
::)

I just don't buy it that sitting on the bench and being close to the field makes you ready. You get ready by taking real snaps in the NFL. The modern NFL is about winning now, for better and for worse, and the players, coaches, owners, and fans (most of them) know it.

If Eli Manning had sat his first two years in the NFL, we now would be talking about "do you think he is ready to start an entire season in the NFL ?".


You really believe that don't you?

You do more than just sitting on the bench when you are in the back up or third QB role.
You take snaps in practice, you watch tape to start learning defenses, you work on mechanics.
Yes, there are some things that you will learn better by doing, but you need to have a base to build off from.
Throwing someone in too early often forces them to develop bad habits to make up for their lack of experience.
TJack's jump pass is a perfect example.

You are right that the NFL is about winning now.
Throwing a rookie QB into the fire before he is ready is not the formula for winning now.
It is the formula for losing while your QB learns the stuff he should have known before taking snaps.
It is funny that you used Eli as you example.
Despite being the consensus overall #1 in the draft, he only started 7 games in his rookie year... and lost 6 of them.
He averaged a 55.4 QB rating, and actually posted a 0.0 rating in the loss against Baltimore.
The following year he did better, but was still wildly inconsistent.
In fact his QB rating swung from 39.5 one week to 130.0 the next to 27.9 two weeks later.
Finally, in his third year, he settled down and started to play to his potential.

Now compare that to a QB who did get to sit on the bench and learn.
Let's use Romo because you like to use him as an example.

Romo did not take a snap for the first 3 years of his career.
When he did come in, he went 7-5, putting up a very consistent 65.3 rating.


What do you know.
It looks like learning before jumping in may have helped...

Every coach, coordinator, and player in the NFL knows that there is some learning to do when transitioning into the NFL.
Especially in the skill positions.
Most fans know it too.
If that wasn't the case, we would see rookies beating out veterans for starting positions on a constant basis.
Yes, it can happen, but it doesn't happen very often.
And there is a reason for that.

Zeus
04-30-2008, 09:14 AM
"ItalianStallion" wrote:


In spite of Tarvaris' play, against a team starting their 3rd QB, just barely.


That's quite an interesting view of this:

MIN 31

CHI 17

Plays: 8

Possession: 4:27


Chicago Bears at 04:10

8-R.Longwell kicks 38 yards from MIN 30 to CHI 32. 29-A.Peterson to CHI 46 for 14 yards (59-H.Farwell).

1-10-CHI 46
(4:05) (Shotgun) 14-B.Griese pass deep right intended for 87-M.Muhammad INTERCEPTED by 24-D.Smith at MIN 26. 24-D.Smith ran ob at MIN 26 for no gain.


Minnesota Vikings at 03:58

1-10-MIN 26
(3:58) 29-C.Taylor left guard to MIN 29 for 3 yards (90-A.Garay).

2-7-MIN 29
(3:14) 29-C.Taylor right tackle to MIN 28 for -1 yards (90-A.Garay).

Timeout #1 by CHI at 03:08.

3-8-MIN 28
(3:08) 28-A.Peterson left end pushed ob at MIN 30 for 2 yards (38-D.Manning).

4-6-MIN 30
(3:01) 5-C.Kluwe punts 23 yards to CHI 47, Center-46-C.Loeffler, out of bounds.


Chicago Bears at 02:56

1-10-CHI 47
(2:56) (Shotgun) 14-B.Griese pass short right to 80-B.Berrian ran ob at MIN 33 for 20 yards.

1-10-MIN 33
(2:49) (Shotgun) 14-B.Griese pass incomplete short right to 80-B.Berrian.

2-10-MIN 33
(2:45) (Shotgun) 14-B.Griese pass short middle to 87-M.Muhammad for 33 yards, TOUCHDOWN.

9-R.Gould extra point is GOOD, Center-65-P.Mannelly, Holder-4-B.Maynard.


MIN 31

CHI 24

Plays: 3

Possession: 0:20


Minnesota Vikings at 02:36

9-R.Gould kicks onside 9 yards from CHI 30 to CHI 39. 42-D.Sharper (didn't try to advance) to CHI 39 for no gain (29-A.Peterson).

1-10-CHI 39
(2:34) 29-C.Taylor right tackle to CHI 41 for -2 yards (92-H.Hillenmeyer).

Timeout #2 by CHI at 02:30.

2-12-CHI 41
(2:30) 28-A.Peterson left end to CHI 41 for no gain (54-B.Urlacher).

Timeout #3 by CHI at 02:23.

3-12-CHI 41
(2:23) (Shotgun) 28-A.Peterson right guard to CHI 46 for -5 yards (95-A.Adams).

Two-Minute Warning

4-17-CHI 46
(2:00) 5-C.Kluwe punts 27 yards to CHI 19, Center-46-C.Loeffler, out of bounds.

Chicago Bears at 01:53

1-10-CHI 19
(1:53) (Shotgun) 14-B.Griese pass incomplete short middle to 29-A.Peterson.

2-10-CHI 19
(1:49) (Shotgun) 14-B.Griese pass deep right to 23-D.Hester for 81 yards, TOUCHDOWN.

9-R.Gould extra point is GOOD, Center-65-P.Mannelly, Holder-4-B.Maynard.


MIN 31

CHI 31

Plays: 2

Possession: 0:15


Minnesota Vikings at 01:38

9-R.Gould kicks 61 yards from CHI 30 to MIN 9. 28-A.Peterson to CHI 38 for 53 yards (24-R.Manning). MIN-50-V.Ciurciu was injured during the play.

1-10-CHI 38
(1:30) 29-C.Taylor right guard to CHI 33 for 5 yards (92-H.Hillenmeyer).

2-5-CHI 33
(:55) 7-T.Jackson pass incomplete short middle to 19-B.Wade (33-C.Tillman).

3-5-CHI 33
(:50) 28-A.Peterson left tackle to CHI 37 for -4 yards (55-L.Briggs).

Timeout #1 by MIN at 00:04.

4-9-CHI 37
(:04) 8-R.Longwell 55 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-46-C.Loeffler, Holder-5-C.Kluwe.

MIN 7

CHI 7

Plays: 4

Possession: 1:38


Now - you tell me EXACTLY where Tarvaris is responsible for blowing the 31-17 lead.

With 4 minutes left, Tarvaris Jackson had the Vikings ahead by TWO FUCKING TOUCHDOWNS.

How is he possibly to blame for Dwight Smith letting Devin Hester run right by him?

=Z=

audioghost
04-30-2008, 10:26 AM
"Schutz" wrote:


Arguing whether someone is better than Vince Young is like arguing why a beer is better than Keystone, it just doesn't matter.


The argument is more complex than just comparing Jackson with Vince Young to see who's better. The point of the argument is that these two players were eerily similar in terms of production last season, yet the media tends to portray Young as a 'budding superstar' and Jackson as a '2nd round reach that will never be any good'. The reason this is unfair to Jackson, is that most dumb fans (especially fans of other teams) now view Jackson as horrible and Young as great, although they are actually pretty much the same QB thusfar throughout their pro careers.

It has to do with the media twisting your perception two players that they want to appear as different, although they are actually almost identical...and you, in turn, buying into their bs. Vince Young is all hype...Jackson is a product of discrimination in the media (mostly based on his college status, which has no effect on what he can do as a pro...obviously, because if it did than Vince Young would actually perform better because he's from whats perceived as a "better" school).

StillPurple
04-30-2008, 11:50 AM
Most people think that Vince Young fell off last year, after starting strong (BTW, another rookie QB who started...)

I see Young as different than T-Jacks. Young is much more a running QB, and T-Jacks is really mostly a pocket passer, who sometimes runs (there is a difference).

Getting back to the reasons one might not throw a rookie QB into the "fire" [letting him start in the NFL] as it were, I can name the following good reasons to sit a rookie QB:

a. He is unfamiliar with the system
b. The offensive line is horrible and he is going to get killed, and his confidence will be ruined
c. there is a starting QB ahead of him on the depth chart who is clearly better

IMO, none of those apply here to us and Booty. Booty, or Frerotte know the west coast offense, they have a relatively decent line to protect them. They can hand off to the best running back tandem in the NFL to take pressure off, and the alternative (Tarvaris) is not Peyton Manning, so it doesn't matter anyway.

I personally would rather have a QB in there, when the defense stacks the box (which I expect EVERY defense to do to us in 2008), who is accurate, and who has good mechanics and doesn't panic.

NodakPaul
04-30-2008, 12:22 PM
Hey StillPurple, did you catch Childress's comments on KFAN?

"Coach" wrote:

[T]he fans favorite player is always going to be the backup QB...But you have to give him a chance.
Bill Parcels told me that if he'd had to play Tony Romo in his 3rd year it would have been a mess."

NodakPaul
04-30-2008, 12:26 PM
"StillPurple" wrote:


Getting back to the reasons one might not throw a rookie QB into the "fire" [letting him start in the NFL] as it were, I can name the following good reasons to sit a rookie QB:

a. He is unfamiliar with the system
b. The offensive line is horrible and he is going to get killed, and his confidence will be ruined
c. there is a starting QB ahead of him on the depth chart who is clearly better


You failed to mention:

d. The QB needs to learn to read the complex defenses of the NFL (much more complex than anything on any college level)
e. The QB needs to get used to the speed of the game at the NFL level (much faster than anything on any college level)
f. The QB needs to learn and practice the new playbook, which even if it is the same system he learned in college, is many, many times larger and more complex than anything he saw in college.

V-Unit
04-30-2008, 12:35 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


In spite of Tarvaris' play, against a team starting their 3rd QB, just barely.


That's quite an interesting view of this:

MIN 31

CHI 17

Plays: 8

Possession: 4:27


Chicago Bears at 04:10

8-R.Longwell kicks 38 yards from MIN 30 to CHI 32. 29-A.Peterson to CHI 46 for 14 yards (59-H.Farwell).

1-10-CHI 46
(4:05) (Shotgun) 14-B.Griese pass deep right intended for 87-M.Muhammad INTERCEPTED by 24-D.Smith at MIN 26. 24-D.Smith ran ob at MIN 26 for no gain.


Minnesota Vikings at 03:58

1-10-MIN 26
(3:58) 29-C.Taylor left guard to MIN 29 for 3 yards (90-A.Garay).

2-7-MIN 29
(3:14) 29-C.Taylor right tackle to MIN 28 for -1 yards (90-A.Garay).

Timeout #1 by CHI at 03:08.

3-8-MIN 28
(3:08) 28-A.Peterson left end pushed ob at MIN 30 for 2 yards (38-D.Manning).

4-6-MIN 30
(3:01) 5-C.Kluwe punts 23 yards to CHI 47, Center-46-C.Loeffler, out of bounds.


Chicago Bears at 02:56

1-10-CHI 47
(2:56) (Shotgun) 14-B.Griese pass short right to 80-B.Berrian ran ob at MIN 33 for 20 yards.

1-10-MIN 33
(2:49) (Shotgun) 14-B.Griese pass incomplete short right to 80-B.Berrian.

2-10-MIN 33
(2:45) (Shotgun) 14-B.Griese pass short middle to 87-M.Muhammad for 33 yards, TOUCHDOWN.

9-R.Gould extra point is GOOD, Center-65-P.Mannelly, Holder-4-B.Maynard.


MIN 31

CHI 24

Plays: 3

Possession: 0:20


Minnesota Vikings at 02:36

9-R.Gould kicks onside 9 yards from CHI 30 to CHI 39. 42-D.Sharper (didn't try to advance) to CHI 39 for no gain (29-A.Peterson).

1-10-CHI 39
(2:34) 29-C.Taylor right tackle to CHI 41 for -2 yards (92-H.Hillenmeyer).

Timeout #2 by CHI at 02:30.

2-12-CHI 41
(2:30) 28-A.Peterson left end to CHI 41 for no gain (54-B.Urlacher).

Timeout #3 by CHI at 02:23.

3-12-CHI 41
(2:23) (Shotgun) 28-A.Peterson right guard to CHI 46 for -5 yards (95-A.Adams).

Two-Minute Warning

4-17-CHI 46
(2:00) 5-C.Kluwe punts 27 yards to CHI 19, Center-46-C.Loeffler, out of bounds.

Chicago Bears at 01:53

1-10-CHI 19
(1:53) (Shotgun) 14-B.Griese pass incomplete short middle to 29-A.Peterson.

2-10-CHI 19
(1:49) (Shotgun) 14-B.Griese pass deep right to 23-D.Hester for 81 yards, TOUCHDOWN.

9-R.Gould extra point is GOOD, Center-65-P.Mannelly, Holder-4-B.Maynard.


MIN 31

CHI 31

Plays: 2

Possession: 0:15


Minnesota Vikings at 01:38

9-R.Gould kicks 61 yards from CHI 30 to MIN 9. 28-A.Peterson to CHI 38 for 53 yards (24-R.Manning). MIN-50-V.Ciurciu was injured during the play.

1-10-CHI 38
(1:30) 29-C.Taylor right guard to CHI 33 for 5 yards (92-H.Hillenmeyer).

2-5-CHI 33
(:55) 7-T.Jackson pass incomplete short middle to 19-B.Wade (33-C.Tillman).

3-5-CHI 33
(:50) 28-A.Peterson left tackle to CHI 37 for -4 yards (55-L.Briggs).

Timeout #1 by MIN at 00:04.

4-9-CHI 37
(:04) 8-R.Longwell 55 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-46-C.Loeffler, Holder-5-C.Kluwe.

MIN 7

CHI 7

Plays: 4

Possession: 1:38


Now - you tell me EXACTLY where Tarvaris is responsible for blowing the 31-17 lead.

With 4 minutes left, Tarvaris Jackson had the Vikings ahead by TWO FUCKING TOUCHDOWNS.

How is he possibly to blame for Dwight Smith letting Devin Hester run right by him?

=Z=


I believe he was talking about the other Chicago game in week 15, in which TJ threw 3 interceptions and fumbled the ball away once.

DustinDupont
04-30-2008, 12:48 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"StillPurple" wrote:


Getting back to the reasons one might not throw a rookie QB into the "fire" [letting him start in the NFL] as it were, I can name the following good reasons to sit a rookie QB:

a. He is unfamiliar with the system
b. The offensive line is horrible and he is going to get killed, and his confidence will be ruined
c. there is a starting QB ahead of him on the depth chart who is clearly better


You failed to mention:

d. The QB needs to learn to read the complex defenses of the NFL (much more complex than anything on any college level)
e. The QB needs to get used to the speed of the game at the NFL level (much faster than anything on any college level)
f. The QB needs to learn and practice the new playbook, which even if it is the same system he learned in college, is many, many times larger and more complex than anything he saw in college.


Good Post.. NodakPaul... StillPurple just wants anyone other than Tjack to start

NodakPaul
04-30-2008, 12:50 PM
"DustinDupont" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"StillPurple" wrote:


Getting back to the reasons one might not throw a rookie QB into the "fire" [letting him start in the NFL] as it were, I can name the following good reasons to sit a rookie QB:

a. He is unfamiliar with the system
b. The offensive line is horrible and he is going to get killed, and his confidence will be ruined
c. there is a starting QB ahead of him on the depth chart who is clearly better


You failed to mention:

d. The QB needs to learn to read the complex defenses of the NFL (much more complex than anything on any college level)
e. The QB needs to get used to the speed of the game at the NFL level (much faster than anything on any college level)
f. The QB needs to learn and practice the new playbook, which even if it is the same system he learned in college, is many, many times larger and more complex than anything he saw in college.


Good Post.. NodakPaul... StillPurple just wants anyone other than Tjack to start


I understand his frustration.
I am not sold on TJack either.
But I know better than to hope or expect that Booty can do a better job this year.

Zeus
04-30-2008, 01:01 PM
"V" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


In spite of Tarvaris' play, against a team starting their 3rd QB, just barely.


That's quite an interesting view of this:

With 4 minutes left, Tarvaris Jackson had the Vikings ahead by TWO FUCKING TOUCHDOWNS.

How is he possibly to blame for Dwight Smith letting Devin Hester run right by him?


I believe he was talking about the other Chicago game in week 15, in which TJ threw 3 interceptions and fumbled the ball away once.


http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter?game_id=29418&displayPage=tab_gamecenter&season=2007&week=REG15

Just looked over the GameBook and Play-By-Play for that one.
Sure was a stinker - but looks to me like Tarvaris stuck in there and rallied his team to a victory, even after being roughed up and taken out of the game for a bit.

=Z=

mountainviking
04-30-2008, 01:01 PM
Seriously, barring injuries to the other two QBs, I don't see Booty starting any games this year.
We want to run a complicated offense that has been hindered (dulled down) by inexperience.
Booty is not going to come in and know all the plays in just a few months.


I'll agree, he is accurate in the short game, and played against some top competition.
But, lets not forget the reasons he fell to the fifth round just cuz we're stoked to have another young QB for depth now and future potential.
From http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/scoutingreports/qb/johndavidbooty.html


Arm strength is just average...durability concerns...needs to improve decision making...struggles under pressure...inconsistent...won't hurt you with his feet...does not throw a great deep ball...surounded by talent...only 2 years experience...May Not Be Starter Material

The bold reminds me of TJack, the guy with almost three years of studying this playbook.
The italics are what TJack has and Booty don't at this point.

C Mac D
04-30-2008, 01:12 PM
"mountainviking" wrote:


Seriously, barring injuries to the other two QBs, I don't see Booty starting any games this year.
We want to run a complicated offense that has been hindered (dulled down) by inexperience.
Booty is not going to come in and know all the plays in just a few months.


I'll agree, he is accurate in the short game, and played against some top competition.
But, lets not forget the reasons he fell to the fifth round just cuz we're stoked to have another young QB for depth now and future potential.
From http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/scoutingreports/qb/johndavidbooty.html


Arm strength is just average...durability concerns...needs to improve decision making...struggles under pressure...inconsistent...won't hurt you with his feet...does not throw a great deep ball...surounded by talent...only 2 years experience...May Not Be Starter Material

The bold reminds me of TJack, the guy with almost three years of studying this playbook.
The italics are what TJack has and Booty don't at this point.


Luckily that's just your viewpoint, because I disagree with it. I think T-Jack showed a lot of poise and confidence towards the end of the season, along with some pretty good (dropped) passes.

Zeus
04-30-2008, 01:17 PM
"C" wrote:


"mountainviking" wrote:


Seriously, barring injuries to the other two QBs, I don't see Booty starting any games this year.
We want to run a complicated offense that has been hindered (dulled down) by inexperience.
Booty is not going to come in and know all the plays in just a few months.


I'll agree, he is accurate in the short game, and played against some top competition.
But, lets not forget the reasons he fell to the fifth round just cuz we're stoked to have another young QB for depth now and future potential.
From http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/scoutingreports/qb/johndavidbooty.html


Arm strength is just average...durability concerns...needs to improve decision making...struggles under pressure...inconsistent...won't hurt you with his feet...does not throw a great deep ball...surounded by talent...only 2 years experience...May Not Be Starter Material

The bold reminds me of TJack, the guy with almost three years of studying this playbook.
The italics are what TJack has and Booty don't at this point.


Luckily that's just your viewpoint, because I disagree with it. I think T-Jack showed a lot of poise and confidence towards the end of the season, along with some pretty good (dropped) passes.


If only he wasn't being held back by that anchor, Brad Childress!

=Z=

C Mac D
04-30-2008, 01:33 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"mountainviking" wrote:


Seriously, barring injuries to the other two QBs, I don't see Booty starting any games this year.
We want to run a complicated offense that has been hindered (dulled down) by inexperience.
Booty is not going to come in and know all the plays in just a few months.


I'll agree, he is accurate in the short game, and played against some top competition.
But, lets not forget the reasons he fell to the fifth round just cuz we're stoked to have another young QB for depth now and future potential.
From http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/scoutingreports/qb/johndavidbooty.html


Arm strength is just average...durability concerns...needs to improve decision making...struggles under pressure...inconsistent...won't hurt you with his feet...does not throw a great deep ball...surounded by talent...only 2 years experience...May Not Be Starter Material

The bold reminds me of TJack, the guy with almost three years of studying this playbook.
The italics are what TJack has and Booty don't at this point.


Luckily that's just your viewpoint, because I disagree with it. I think T-Jack showed a lot of poise and confidence towards the end of the season, along with some pretty good (dropped) passes.


If only he wasn't being held back by that anchor, Brad Childress!

=Z=


The only thing Childress is holding down involves a minor in the back of a creepy van with "Free Candy" written on the side.

mountainviking
04-30-2008, 01:44 PM
"C" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"mountainviking" wrote:


Seriously, barring injuries to the other two QBs, I don't see Booty starting any games this year.
We want to run a complicated offense that has been hindered (dulled down) by inexperience.
Booty is not going to come in and know all the plays in just a few months.


I'll agree, he is accurate in the short game, and played against some top competition.
But, lets not forget the reasons he fell to the fifth round just cuz we're stoked to have another young QB for depth now and future potential.
From http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/scoutingreports/qb/johndavidbooty.html


Arm strength is just average...durability concerns...needs to improve decision making...struggles under pressure...inconsistent...won't hurt you with his feet...does not throw a great deep ball...surounded by talent...only 2 years experience...May Not Be Starter Material

The bold reminds me of TJack, the guy with almost three years of studying this playbook.
The italics are what TJack has and Booty don't at this point.


Luckily that's just your viewpoint, because I disagree with it. I think T-Jack showed a lot of poise and confidence towards the end of the season, along with some pretty good (dropped) passes.


If only he wasn't being held back by that anchor, Brad Childress!

=Z=


The only thing Childress is holding down involves a minor in the back of a creepy van with "Free Candy" written on the side.

:o
Now thats not very nice!


Seems I missed my point somewhat.
What I'm saying is, Fat Chance Booty out performs TJack and earns the starting gig.
Some folks around here seem to want to hand him reins and he hasn't even been handed the playbook yet.

I'm actually a TJack supporter, and I agree with you, at times, "T-Jack showed a lot of poise and confidence towards the end of the season" but, at others, mostly earlier in the season, he showed us that bold stuff up there.
Hopefully, his comfort level with the system, and the team in general, with each other and the system, will be much higher this year.
And, that will go a long way toward erasing the struggles and inconsistency.

NodakPaul
04-30-2008, 01:45 PM
"mountainviking" wrote:


Seriously, barring injuries to the other two QBs, I don't see Booty starting any games this year.
We want to run a complicated offense that has been hindered (dulled down) by inexperience.
Booty is not going to come in and know all the plays in just a few months.


I'll agree, he is accurate in the short game, and played against some top competition.
But, lets not forget the reasons he fell to the fifth round just cuz we're stoked to have another young QB for depth now and future potential.
From http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/scoutingreports/qb/johndavidbooty.html


Arm strength is just average...durability concerns...needs to improve decision making...struggles under pressure...inconsistent...won't hurt you with his feet...does not throw a great deep ball...surounded by talent...only 2 years experience...May Not Be Starter Material

The bold reminds me of TJack, the guy with almost three years of studying this playbook.
The italics are what TJack has and Booty don't at this point.


I disagree with TJack throwing a nice deep ball.
He can throw it deep, to be sure.
But he was not consistently accurate when he goes deep.

C Mac D
04-30-2008, 01:53 PM
"mountainviking" wrote:


I'm actually a TJack supporter, and I agree with you, at times, "T-Jack showed a lot of poise and confidence towards the end of the season" but, at others, mostly earlier in the season, he showed us that bold stuff up there.
Hopefully, his comfort level with the system, and the team in general, with each other and the system, will be much higher this year.
And, that will go a long way toward erasing the struggles and inconsistency.


Yup, agree with everything you said... I even got a laugh out of, "I'm a T-Jack Supporter"... maybe that's why he had so much difficulty moving around the pocket?

kevoncox
04-30-2008, 01:54 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"mountainviking" wrote:


Seriously, barring injuries to the other two QBs, I don't see Booty starting any games this year.
We want to run a complicated offense that has been hindered (dulled down) by inexperience.
Booty is not going to come in and know all the plays in just a few months.


I'll agree, he is accurate in the short game, and played against some top competition.
But, lets not forget the reasons he fell to the fifth round just cuz we're stoked to have another young QB for depth now and future potential.
From http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/scoutingreports/qb/johndavidbooty.html


Arm strength is just average...durability concerns...needs to improve decision making...struggles under pressure...inconsistent...won't hurt you with his feet...does not throw a great deep ball...surounded by talent...only 2 years experience...May Not Be Starter Material

The bold reminds me of TJack, the guy with almost three years of studying this playbook.
The italics are what TJack has and Booty don't at this point.


I disagree with TJack throwing a nice deep ball.
He can throw it deep, to be sure.
But he was not consistently accurate when he goes deep.


Agreed. Over throws, under throws, and Ints, oh my!

C Mac D
04-30-2008, 02:04 PM
"kevoncox" wrote:


Agreed. Over throws, under throws, and Ints, oh my!


The fact that you disagree with me only asserts my confidence that I am right.

mountainviking
04-30-2008, 02:09 PM
Hell of an arm though.
I think accuracy will improve with practice, practice, practice
;D

The worst part was how many of the ones that were on target were dropped.
D'oh!
Thats why I like when Chilly says, "You've got to look at the body of work."
It is a team effort after all.

NodakPaul
04-30-2008, 02:18 PM
"mountainviking" wrote:


Hell of an arm though.
I think accuracy will improve with practice, practice, practice
;D

The worst part was how many of the ones that were on target were dropped.
D'oh!
Thats why I like when Chilly says, "You've got to look at the body of work."
It is a team effort after all.


Well, it began to get better toward the end of the season.
But on the same note we began trowing it deep less (thanks TWill...).

We shall see this year now when we have Berrian and Rice on the outsides. :D

Caine
04-30-2008, 04:40 PM
"DustinDupont" wrote:


"Caine" wrote:


"JeffSeimon" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"JeffSeimon" wrote:


I would say Jacksons 8-4 record was due in part to Adrian Petersons success.
Was Vince Young facing 8 in the box most of the time? If he was I would think his numbers would be way better than Tjacks.
I personally think TJ has hope but am glad we have another young qb to challenge him.

Teams face 8 and 9 man fronts all the time.

Its really called a Zone Blitz which is designed to take away the running game as well as to force the QB to make a quick decision between throw, run or get sacked.

Truth of the matter is that even without AD most teams would Zone Blitz us (as they did VY) to get the same result.


TJack was getting single coverage to throw to most of the season.Safetys were not rolling into coverage,they were worried only about our rushing attack.
One Dallas Cowboy fan put it best...He said "I hope the Vikes starting qb doesnt get hurt" WHY? "Because whoever is on the bench has got to be better."



Jackson doesn't get any media love because he hasn't done anything to deserve it.
You want accolades?
WIN GAMES.
What's that?
He was 8-4 as a starter?
Sure, but how many of those wins were due to the running attack and Defense, and how many did Tarvaris take over and win?
Oh...all 8 were because of someone else?

Get my point?

Caine


Yeah he was 8-4 as the starter.... and it was his first season starting... what where Bollinger and Holcombs record when he wasnt in?? and they where suppose to be the vets...

And his job wasnt to take over and win games, it was to help the team win, just like everyone else's job on the team...

Get my point?




Oh, I got yours...misguided as it may be.
It appears, however, that you completely missed mine.

If a player is going to get accolades, he has to seperate himself from the pack.
He has to be better.
What has Tarvaris done that would indicate he has seperated himslef or that he is better?

Nothing.

In fact, if you take off the purple tinted glasses and really LOOK at what he did last season you'll soon come to realize that in many cases he did more to hurt us than to help us.
Even excluding the obvious inference to the Detroit debacle.

He had flashes here and there, but he completely lacked consistancy.
And trying to justify his continuation as the starter by pointing to Holcomb and Bollinger falls completely flat.
The REAL question should be "Why didn't we bring in better talent at QB"?

So don't confuse potential with ability.
Jackson has all the potential in the world, but until he puts the pieces together and actually starts performing, no one - especially the media - is going to start singing his praises.
You'll know when that happens because the Jackson fans here will stop having to make excuses for his play....hasn't happened yet.

Caine

ItalianStallion
04-30-2008, 06:04 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"V" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


In spite of Tarvaris' play, against a team starting their 3rd QB, just barely.


That's quite an interesting view of this:

With 4 minutes left, Tarvaris Jackson had the Vikings ahead by TWO fricken TOUCHDOWNS.

How is he possibly to blame for Dwight Smith letting Devin Hester run right by him?


I believe he was talking about the other Chicago game in week 15, in which TJ threw 3 interceptions and fumbled the ball away once.


http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter?game_id=29418&displayPage=tab_gamecenter&season=2007&week=REG15

Just looked over the GameBook and Play-By-Play for that one.
Sure was a stinker - but looks to me like Tarvaris stuck in there and rallied his team to a victory, even after being roughed up and taken out of the game for a bit.

=Z=


Tarvaris had nothing to do with the team rallying to win that game, AP and the defense did.
Tarvaris put us in a hole and looked lost all game.
He threw while jumping, off his back foot and while being hit.
Against Washington it was more of the same.
I really hope that Tarvaris improves, and I think he will, but until he decides to play well in big games and show any kind of consistency he will not be respected in this league, and rightfully so.

singersp
04-30-2008, 06:12 PM
MN Vikings Tarvaris Jackson

AtucpbjWMJY&feature=related

DaunteHOF
04-30-2008, 06:59 PM
very good argument, Im cosigning with you!!!

6-KINGS
04-30-2008, 07:05 PM
I don't like TJ because his calf musles are too small.
He also has pointy elbows.
I mean what is up with that?

lol

ItalianStallion
04-30-2008, 08:16 PM
"singersp" wrote:


MN Vikings Tarvaris Jackson

AtucpbjWMJY&feature=related


If highlight videos told the real picure then Troy Wililamson would be a superstar.

DustinDupont
04-30-2008, 08:40 PM
"Caine" wrote:


"DustinDupont" wrote:


"Caine" wrote:


"JeffSeimon" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:




I would say Jacksons 8-4 record was due in part to Adrian Petersons success.
Was Vince Young facing 8 in the box most of the time? If he was I would think his numbers would be way better than Tjacks.
I personally think TJ has hope but am glad we have another young qb to challenge him.

Teams face 8 and 9 man fronts all the time.

Its really called a Zone Blitz which is designed to take away the running game as well as to force the QB to make a quick decision between throw, run or get sacked.

Truth of the matter is that even without AD most teams would Zone Blitz us (as they did VY) to get the same result.


TJack was getting single coverage to throw to most of the season.Safetys were not rolling into coverage,they were worried only about our rushing attack.
One Dallas Cowboy fan put it best...He said "I hope the Vikes starting qb doesnt get hurt" WHY? "Because whoever is on the bench has got to be better."



Jackson doesn't get any media love because he hasn't done anything to deserve it.
You want accolades?
WIN GAMES.
What's that?
He was 8-4 as a starter?
Sure, but how many of those wins were due to the running attack and Defense, and how many did Tarvaris take over and win?
Oh...all 8 were because of someone else?

Get my point?

Caine


Yeah he was 8-4 as the starter.... and it was his first season starting... what where Bollinger and Holcombs record when he wasnt in?? and they where suppose to be the vets...

And his job wasnt to take over and win games, it was to help the team win, just like everyone else's job on the team...

Get my point?




Oh, I got yours...misguided as it may be.
It appears, however, that you completely missed mine.

If a player is going to get accolades, he has to seperate himself from the pack.
He has to be better.
What has Tarvaris done that would indicate he has seperated himslef or that he is better?

Nothing.

In fact, if you take off the purple tinted glasses and really LOOK at what he did last season you'll soon come to realize that in many cases he did more to hurt us than to help us.
Even excluding the obvious inference to the Detroit debacle.

He had flashes here and there, but he completely lacked consistancy.
And trying to justify his continuation as the starter by pointing to Holcomb and Bollinger falls completely flat.
The REAL question should be "Why didn't we bring in better talent at QB"?

So don't confuse potential with ability.
Jackson has all the potential in the world, but until he puts the pieces together and actually starts performing, no one - especially the media - is going to start singing his praises.
You'll know when that happens because the Jackson fans here will stop having to make excuses for his play....hasn't happened yet.

Caine





Ok.... yeah i agree Tjack was inconsistent... but the fact is its a team game... you gotta look at it from a team standpoint not just Tjack.... was the line consistent?? NO! were the wide outs consistent?? NO!!

How ever saying he hurt us more than he helped us, i think is BS... when he played we won double the times we lost
and thats a fact... and how many games was he even given a chance to take over the game?? Not many.. but late in the Redskins game he looked good when we spread the field, in the Denver game he looked good when we needed some points... But he wasnt given the chance to take over many games.. and i can see y with his first year starting.. but now with whats going to be his second year starting i think the coaches will open it up a little more and that can only help Tjack in the offense

gagarr
04-30-2008, 08:53 PM
"singersp" wrote:


MN Vikings Tarvaris Jackson

AtucpbjWMJY&feature=related


Can only hope that TJ's highlight film this year isn't a few minutes, but a major motion picture.

My favorite title would be "TJ Does Dallas" in the NFC Championship.

Marrdro
04-30-2008, 10:14 PM
"Caine" wrote:


"DustinDupont" wrote:


"Caine" wrote:


"JeffSeimon" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:




I would say Jacksons 8-4 record was due in part to Adrian Petersons success.
Was Vince Young facing 8 in the box most of the time? If he was I would think his numbers would be way better than Tjacks.
I personally think TJ has hope but am glad we have another young qb to challenge him.

Teams face 8 and 9 man fronts all the time.

Its really called a Zone Blitz which is designed to take away the running game as well as to force the QB to make a quick decision between throw, run or get sacked.

Truth of the matter is that even without AD most teams would Zone Blitz us (as they did VY) to get the same result.


TJack was getting single coverage to throw to most of the season.Safetys were not rolling into coverage,they were worried only about our rushing attack.
One Dallas Cowboy fan put it best...He said "I hope the Vikes starting qb doesnt get hurt" WHY? "Because whoever is on the bench has got to be better."



Jackson doesn't get any media love because he hasn't done anything to deserve it.
You want accolades?
WIN GAMES.
What's that?
He was 8-4 as a starter?
Sure, but how many of those wins were due to the running attack and Defense, and how many did Tarvaris take over and win?
Oh...all 8 were because of someone else?

Get my point?

Caine


Yeah he was 8-4 as the starter.... and it was his first season starting... what where Bollinger and Holcombs record when he wasnt in?? and they where suppose to be the vets...

And his job wasnt to take over and win games, it was to help the team win, just like everyone else's job on the team...

Get my point?




Oh, I got yours...misguided as it may be.
It appears, however, that you completely missed mine.

If a player is going to get accolades, he has to seperate himself from the pack.
He has to be better.
What has Tarvaris done that would indicate he has seperated himslef or that he is better?

Nothing.

In fact, if you take off the purple tinted glasses and really LOOK at what he did last season you'll soon come to realize that in many cases he did more to hurt us than to help us.
Even excluding the obvious inference to the Detroit debacle.

He had flashes here and there, but he completely lacked consistancy.
And trying to justify his continuation as the starter by pointing to Holcomb and Bollinger falls completely flat.
The REAL question should be "Why didn't we bring in better talent at QB"?

So don't confuse potential with ability.
Jackson has all the potential in the world, but until he puts the pieces together and actually starts performing, no one - especially the media - is going to start singing his praises.
You'll know when that happens because the Jackson fans here will stop having to make excuses for his play....hasn't happened yet.

Caine

I hear ya Caine, but isn't that to be expected of a kid who didn't have the luxury of holding the clipboard/learning on the bench?

As I've said before, high and lows.
I just hope we see a heck of alot more highs this year.

The Dropper
04-30-2008, 10:43 PM
"singersp" wrote:


MN Vikings Tarvaris Jackson

AtucpbjWMJY&feature=related


This is a little off topic perhaps, but in watching that video I was reminded of how much I like Tarvaris's demeanor. When he throws a strike, he doesn't showboat or galavant around like he's king shit of Favre Mountain. The only one I saw a little bit of celebrating in was the Williamson TD. My interpretation of this is that Tarvaris goes in with the mindset that he has a job to do, and all he wants to do is get it done then move on to the next task. I like it.

VikingsTw
04-30-2008, 11:02 PM
"DustinDupont" wrote:


"Caine" wrote:


"DustinDupont" wrote:


"Caine" wrote:


"JeffSeimon" wrote:






I would say Jacksons 8-4 record was due in part to Adrian Petersons success.
Was Vince Young facing 8 in the box most of the time? If he was I would think his numbers would be way better than Tjacks.
I personally think TJ has hope but am glad we have another young qb to challenge him.

Teams face 8 and 9 man fronts all the time.

Its really called a Zone Blitz which is designed to take away the running game as well as to force the QB to make a quick decision between throw, run or get sacked.

Truth of the matter is that even without AD most teams would Zone Blitz us (as they did VY) to get the same result.


TJack was getting single coverage to throw to most of the season.Safetys were not rolling into coverage,they were worried only about our rushing attack.
One Dallas Cowboy fan put it best...He said "I hope the Vikes starting qb doesnt get hurt" WHY? "Because whoever is on the bench has got to be better."



Jackson doesn't get any media love because he hasn't done anything to deserve it.
You want accolades?
WIN GAMES.
What's that?
He was 8-4 as a starter?
Sure, but how many of those wins were due to the running attack and Defense, and how many did Tarvaris take over and win?
Oh...all 8 were because of someone else?

Get my point?

Caine


Yeah he was 8-4 as the starter.... and it was his first season starting... what where Bollinger and Holcombs record when he wasnt in?? and they where suppose to be the vets...

And his job wasnt to take over and win games, it was to help the team win, just like everyone else's job on the team...

Get my point?




Oh, I got yours...misguided as it may be.
It appears, however, that you completely missed mine.

If a player is going to get accolades, he has to seperate himself from the pack.
He has to be better.
What has Tarvaris done that would indicate he has seperated himslef or that he is better?

Nothing.

In fact, if you take off the purple tinted glasses and really LOOK at what he did last season you'll soon come to realize that in many cases he did more to hurt us than to help us.
Even excluding the obvious inference to the Detroit debacle.

He had flashes here and there, but he completely lacked consistancy.
And trying to justify his continuation as the starter by pointing to Holcomb and Bollinger falls completely flat.
The REAL question should be "Why didn't we bring in better talent at QB"?

So don't confuse potential with ability.
Jackson has all the potential in the world, but until he puts the pieces together and actually starts performing, no one - especially the media - is going to start singing his praises.
You'll know when that happens because the Jackson fans here will stop having to make excuses for his play....hasn't happened yet.

Caine





Ok.... yeah i agree Tjack was inconsistent... but the fact is its a team game... you gotta look at it from a team standpoint not just Tjack.... was the line consistent?? NO! were the wide outs consistent?? NO!!

How ever saying he hurt us more than he helped us, i think is BS... when he played we won double the times we lost
and thats a fact... and how many games was he even given a chance to take over the game?? Not many.. but late in the Redskins game he looked good when we spread the field, in the Denver game he looked good when we needed some points... But he wasnt given the chance to take over many games.. and i can see y with his first year starting.. but now with whats going to be his second year starting i think the coaches will open it up a little more and that can only help Tjack in the offense


Really good post DD, there is a whole puzzle peice here. Inconsistent offensive units + a young QB who is inconsistent but expected IMO especailly considering the other units were inconsistent = a lack of production. IMO the QB is always the target of the most scrutiny and always will. There is plenty of blaim to go around the table and this is what most people fail to realize, especailly commentators like Rich Eisen and whoever else who fails to mention other offensive issues that can't be corrected by Tarvaris.

Caine
05-01-2008, 12:29 AM
"DustinDupont" wrote:


"Caine" wrote:


"DustinDupont" wrote:


"Caine" wrote:



Jackson doesn't get any media love because he hasn't done anything to deserve it.
You want accolades?
WIN GAMES.
What's that?
He was 8-4 as a starter?
Sure, but how many of those wins were due to the running attack and Defense, and how many did Tarvaris take over and win?
Oh...all 8 were because of someone else?

Get my point?

Caine


Yeah he was 8-4 as the starter.... and it was his first season starting... what where Bollinger and Holcombs record when he wasnt in?? and they where suppose to be the vets...

And his job wasnt to take over and win games, it was to help the team win, just like everyone else's job on the team...

Get my point?




Oh, I got yours...misguided as it may be.
It appears, however, that you completely missed mine.

If a player is going to get accolades, he has to seperate himself from the pack.
He has to be better.
What has Tarvaris done that would indicate he has seperated himslef or that he is better?

Nothing.

In fact, if you take off the purple tinted glasses and really LOOK at what he did last season you'll soon come to realize that in many cases he did more to hurt us than to help us.
Even excluding the obvious inference to the Detroit debacle.

He had flashes here and there, but he completely lacked consistancy.
And trying to justify his continuation as the starter by pointing to Holcomb and Bollinger falls completely flat.
The REAL question should be "Why didn't we bring in better talent at QB"?

So don't confuse potential with ability.
Jackson has all the potential in the world, but until he puts the pieces together and actually starts performing, no one - especially the media - is going to start singing his praises.
You'll know when that happens because the Jackson fans here will stop having to make excuses for his play....hasn't happened yet.

Caine





Ok.... yeah i agree Tjack was inconsistent... but the fact is its a team game... you gotta look at it from a team standpoint not just Tjack.... was the line consistent?? NO! were the wide outs consistent?? NO!!

How ever saying he hurt us more than he helped us, i think is BS... when he played we won double the times we lost
and thats a fact... and how many games was he even given a chance to take over the game?? Not many.. but late in the Redskins game he looked good when we spread the field, in the Denver game he looked good when we needed some points... But he wasnt given the chance to take over many games.. and i can see y with his first year starting.. but now with whats going to be his second year starting i think the coaches will open it up a little more and that can only help Tjack in the offense


Yup...he looked good in a couple games.
But he looked pretty bad in a few as well.

The original statement was that Jackson gets no "love".
I pointed out the obvious reason why, and now we've turned it into an indictment of Jackson as a QB.


The truth is that Tarvaris's play during the past season was sporadic - he had a couple of good games (The second Detroit game and the San Fran games in particular), a couple of real stinkers (The first Detroit game, the Dallas game, the second Chicago game), and a whole bunch where he sort of did...not much.


Versus Chicago the first time, he only completed 9-23 for 1 TD, with a 5.9 yd average.
AP and the Defense won that one.

Versus San Diego he was 6-12 with a 5.3 YPA.
AP again took that one over.

Versus Oakland he was a lot more productive with regards to passing completions, attempts, and yards...but it was Chester Taylor who ran all over the Raiders.

Versus the Giants, I think everyone will agree that the Defense walked away with that one.

Versus San Fran...he managed his part well...even if he wasn't real points productive.

Bottom line, while I get that this is a "Team" game, and it's supposed to be a "Team" effort, the Quarterback is supposed to LEAD the team.
And, honestly, to this point I haven't seen a lot of that.

Now, if he plays like the 4th quarter of the Bronco's game this coming season, I'll be in awe.
If he steps up and LEADS, I'll be applauding.
But nothing that has happened to this point leads me to believe with any sense of certainty that this will occur.
And, since our window of opportunity with this defense isn't getting any bigger (Pat and Antoine aren't getting younger), we are at a nexus point.
Our Offense is closing the gap - on a talent scale - with our Defense.
If we're going to hit the post season firing on all cylinders, it has to be soon.

What I DON'T want is to be Chicago - they were a QB away from being Superbowl champions 2 years ago.
Therefore, I want a QB that will perform under pressure, will take the game on his shoulders, and will LEAD the offense.

Now, can Tarvaris be "That Guy"?
It's entirely possible...but it's not certain.
So, before he gets the media "love", he has to step his game up a few notches.
I certainly hope he does - but I'm not convinced of it.

Of course, we'll have a much better idea of where he's at in September, won't we.

Ironically, the opener versus the Peckers is on my Birthday...I can't think of a better present than for the Vikes to DESTROY Green Bay, in Lameblow, on Monday night.

Caine

audioghost
05-01-2008, 01:03 AM
I understand he's unproven, I never said he wasn't. However, the prevailing theme in the media is that the Vikings are a QB away from being a contender and should scrap the Tavaris Jackson plan immediately. While Vince Young, virtually the same player, unproven as well, is the 'next big thing'. Media perception sucks...it screws with people's opinions and thats not cool. I'm not saying Jackson deserves the Vince Young treatment necessarily, or that Young deserves the Tavaris Jackson treatment...however, I wish the media would portray both as near equals...both as unproven QBs who are young. That is the word that should be stressed...young QBs. These guys should be expected to screw up...I mean Brett Favre has 4 interception games and he was in the league for nearly twenty years...and to this day, to the media, he is infallible. Look, I just don't think the media is giving this guy a fair shake...not that he should be proclaimed as great, but they need to understand he's young, and for young QBs every game is a learning process.

BloodyHorns82
05-01-2008, 01:51 AM
"audioghost" wrote:


I understand he's unproven, I never said he wasn't. However, the prevailing theme in the media is that the Vikings are a QB away from being a contender and should scrap the Tavaris Jackson plan immediately. While Vince Young, virtually the same player, unproven as well, is the 'next big thing'. Media perception sucks...it screws with people's opinions and thats not cool. I'm not saying Jackson deserves the Vince Young treatment necessarily, or that Young deserves the Tavaris Jackson treatment...however, I wish the media would portray both as near equals...both as unproven QBs who are young. That is the word that should be stressed...young QBs. These guys should be expected to screw up...I mean Brett Favre has 4 interception games and he was in the league for nearly twenty years...and to this day, to the media, he is infallible. Look, I just don't think the media is giving this guy a fair shake...not that he should be proclaimed as great, but they need to understand he's young, and for young QBs every game is a learning process.


I agree with your point AG....although I would say that Young deserves more respect than TJ at this point.
He played for a major University and....Did you watch his BSC championship performance???
Nothing short of amazing.
Obviously this doesn't translate into guaranteed NFL sucess but it was impressive to say the least.

I still have moderate confidence in TJ...He's done pretty well IMO considering his background.
He has lived up to his expectations so far, and that's all we can ask.
If he flops next year, it's probably time to find a solid replacement.
I'm not totally convinced Booty is the guy, although he probably deserves his chance too.


With that said, I don't want to blow a SB run on giving young, unproven QBs "chances".

cogitans
05-01-2008, 03:49 AM
"singersp" wrote:


MN Vikings Tarvaris Jackson

AtucpbjWMJY&feature=related
Let's have the season now.

My favorite one is the last one. I think I just might get myself a Rice jersey next.

singersp
05-01-2008, 04:39 AM
"cogitans" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


MN Vikings Tarvaris Jackson

AtucpbjWMJY&feature=related
Let's have the season now.

My favorite one is the last one. I think I just might get myself a Rice jersey next.


I posted that one so that hopefully the posters that said he has happy feet, no poise or patience in the pocket, bails early & can't run might pick up on that portion of it. In those clips he shows his poise & patience & doesn't bail until the pocket collapses around him & he certainly shows he can run when needed.

Zeus
05-01-2008, 08:11 AM
"ItalianStallion" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"V" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


In spite of Tarvaris' play, against a team starting their 3rd QB, just barely.


That's quite an interesting view of this:

With 4 minutes left, Tarvaris Jackson had the Vikings ahead by TWO fricken TOUCHDOWNS.

How is he possibly to blame for Dwight Smith letting Devin Hester run right by him?


I believe he was talking about the other Chicago game in week 15, in which TJ threw 3 interceptions and fumbled the ball away once.


http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter?game_id=29418&displayPage=tab_gamecenter&season=2007&week=REG15

Just looked over the GameBook and Play-By-Play for that one.
Sure was a stinker - but looks to me like Tarvaris stuck in there and rallied his team to a victory, even after being roughed up and taken out of the game for a bit.


Tarvaris had nothing to do with the team rallying to win that game, AP and the defense did.
Tarvaris put us in a hole and looked lost all game.
He threw while jumping, off his back foot and while being hit.
Against Washington it was more of the same.
I really hope that Tarvaris improves, and I think he will, but until he decides to play well in big games and show any kind of consistency he will not be respected in this league, and rightfully so.


Did AD or the defense throw a TD pass to Robert Ferguson?

=Z=

NodakPaul
05-01-2008, 08:44 AM
"ItalianStallion" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


MN Vikings Tarvaris Jackson

AtucpbjWMJY&feature=related


If highlight videos told the real picure then Troy Wililamson would be a superstar.


I challenge you to find some highlight videos of Troy Williamson in his pro career.

V-Unit
05-01-2008, 09:06 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"V" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:




In spite of Tarvaris' play, against a team starting their 3rd QB, just barely.


That's quite an interesting view of this:

With 4 minutes left, Tarvaris Jackson had the Vikings ahead by TWO fricken TOUCHDOWNS.

How is he possibly to blame for Dwight Smith letting Devin Hester run right by him?


I believe he was talking about the other Chicago game in week 15, in which TJ threw 3 interceptions and fumbled the ball away once.


http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter?game_id=29418&displayPage=tab_gamecenter&season=2007&week=REG15

Just looked over the GameBook and Play-By-Play for that one.
Sure was a stinker - but looks to me like Tarvaris stuck in there and rallied his team to a victory, even after being roughed up and taken out of the game for a bit.


Tarvaris had nothing to do with the team rallying to win that game, AP and the defense did.
Tarvaris put us in a hole and looked lost all game.
He threw while jumping, off his back foot and while being hit.
Against Washington it was more of the same.
I really hope that Tarvaris improves, and I think he will, but until he decides to play well in big games and show any kind of consistency he will not be respected in this league, and rightfully so.


Did AD or the defense throw a TD pass to Robert Ferguson?

=Z=


Tavaris threw zero TD passes in that game. There was a long 71 yard strike that he did throw to Ferguson, but it was not a TD. Even with that pass, he had a mediocre game. It's pretty clear that we won that game because of our defense and AD. TJ's main job in our offense is to limit turnovers, and he did a horrible job of that in this game. If you want to argue that TJ is unfairly hated, this game is not a good example for you to use.

Zeus
05-01-2008, 09:23 AM
"V" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"V" wrote:






In spite of Tarvaris' play, against a team starting their 3rd QB, just barely.


That's quite an interesting view of this:

With 4 minutes left, Tarvaris Jackson had the Vikings ahead by TWO fricken TOUCHDOWNS.

How is he possibly to blame for Dwight Smith letting Devin Hester run right by him?


I believe he was talking about the other Chicago game in week 15, in which TJ threw 3 interceptions and fumbled the ball away once.


http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter?game_id=29418&displayPage=tab_gamecenter&season=2007&week=REG15

Just looked over the GameBook and Play-By-Play for that one.
Sure was a stinker - but looks to me like Tarvaris stuck in there and rallied his team to a victory, even after being roughed up and taken out of the game for a bit.


Tarvaris had nothing to do with the team rallying to win that game, AP and the defense did.
Tarvaris put us in a hole and looked lost all game.
He threw while jumping, off his back foot and while being hit.
Against Washington it was more of the same.
I really hope that Tarvaris improves, and I think he will, but until he decides to play well in big games and show any kind of consistency he will not be respected in this league, and rightfully so.


Did AD or the defense throw a TD pass to Robert Ferguson?


Tavaris threw zero TD passes in that game. There was a long 71 yard strike that he did throw to Ferguson, but it was not a TD. Even with that pass, he had a mediocre game. It's pretty clear that we won that game because of our defense and AD. TJ's main job in our offense is to limit turnovers, and he did a horrible job of that in this game. If you want to argue that TJ is unfairly hated, this game is not a good example for you to use.

Sorry - mis-remembered the playbook.

I'm not arguing anything about Tarvaris being unfairly hated.
I'm just taking issue with the contention that the Vikings won that game "in spite" of him.

=Z=

V-Unit
05-01-2008, 09:47 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"V" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:








In spite of Tarvaris' play, against a team starting their 3rd QB, just barely.


That's quite an interesting view of this:

With 4 minutes left, Tarvaris Jackson had the Vikings ahead by TWO fricken TOUCHDOWNS.

How is he possibly to blame for Dwight Smith letting Devin Hester run right by him?


I believe he was talking about the other Chicago game in week 15, in which TJ threw 3 interceptions and fumbled the ball away once.


http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter?game_id=29418&displayPage=tab_gamecenter&season=2007&week=REG15

Just looked over the GameBook and Play-By-Play for that one.
Sure was a stinker - but looks to me like Tarvaris stuck in there and rallied his team to a victory, even after being roughed up and taken out of the game for a bit.


Tarvaris had nothing to do with the team rallying to win that game, AP and the defense did.
Tarvaris put us in a hole and looked lost all game.
He threw while jumping, off his back foot and while being hit.
Against Washington it was more of the same.
I really hope that Tarvaris improves, and I think he will, but until he decides to play well in big games and show any kind of consistency he will not be respected in this league, and rightfully so.


Did AD or the defense throw a TD pass to Robert Ferguson?


Tavaris threw zero TD passes in that game. There was a long 71 yard strike that he did throw to Ferguson, but it was not a TD. Even with that pass, he had a mediocre game. It's pretty clear that we won that game because of our defense and AD. TJ's main job in our offense is to limit turnovers, and he did a horrible job of that in this game. If you want to argue that TJ is unfairly hated, this game is not a good example for you to use.

Sorry - mis-remembered the playbook.

I'm not arguing anything about Tarvaris being unfairly hated.
I'm just taking issue with the contention that the Vikings won that game "in spite" of him.

=Z=


We definitely won that game in spite of him. He was barely more than a hindrance. Judge for yourself.

Negatives:
1. His first pass of the game was intercepted, giving the Bears the ball inside our own 20.
2. He recovered well, leading us down the field on our second possession, only to fumble it away when we got into FG range.
3. We tried to run a 2 minute drill to get the lead before halftime, and TJ threw anothe pick on the second play of the drive, again giving the Bears possession inside our own 20.
4. Our first chance to take the lead came with 10 minutes to go in the third. TJ threw a pick on the first play of the drive.
5. TJ turnovers led to 10 of the Bears' 13 points.

Positives:
1. Our first field goal was almost all Jackson. No rushing yards on the drive, but a roughing the passer penalty on Chicago greatly helped.
2. TJ marched us down the field to get a FG before the half, after his previous blunder. Again a roughness penalty on Chicago helped.
3. The strike to Ferguson was clutch.
4. TJ had a legit role in all of our scoring drives.

Zeus
05-01-2008, 10:05 AM
"V" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"V" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:










In spite of Tarvaris' play, against a team starting their 3rd QB, just barely.


That's quite an interesting view of this:

With 4 minutes left, Tarvaris Jackson had the Vikings ahead by TWO fricken TOUCHDOWNS.

How is he possibly to blame for Dwight Smith letting Devin Hester run right by him?


I believe he was talking about the other Chicago game in week 15, in which TJ threw 3 interceptions and fumbled the ball away once.


http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter?game_id=29418&displayPage=tab_gamecenter&season=2007&week=REG15

Just looked over the GameBook and Play-By-Play for that one.
Sure was a stinker - but looks to me like Tarvaris stuck in there and rallied his team to a victory, even after being roughed up and taken out of the game for a bit.


Tarvaris had nothing to do with the team rallying to win that game, AP and the defense did.
Tarvaris put us in a hole and looked lost all game.
He threw while jumping, off his back foot and while being hit.
Against Washington it was more of the same.
I really hope that Tarvaris improves, and I think he will, but until he decides to play well in big games and show any kind of consistency he will not be respected in this league, and rightfully so.


Did AD or the defense throw a TD pass to Robert Ferguson?


Tavaris threw zero TD passes in that game. There was a long 71 yard strike that he did throw to Ferguson, but it was not a TD. Even with that pass, he had a mediocre game. It's pretty clear that we won that game because of our defense and AD. TJ's main job in our offense is to limit turnovers, and he did a horrible job of that in this game. If you want to argue that TJ is unfairly hated, this game is not a good example for you to use.

Sorry - mis-remembered the playbook.

I'm not arguing anything about Tarvaris being unfairly hated.
I'm just taking issue with the contention that the Vikings won that game "in spite" of him.


We definitely won that game in spite of him. He was barely more than a hindrance. Judge for yourself.

Negatives:
1. His first pass of the game was intercepted, giving the Bears the ball inside our own 20.
2. He recovered well, leading us down the field on our second possession, only to fumble it away when we got into FG range.
3. We tried to run a 2 minute drill to get the lead before halftime, and TJ threw anothe pick on the second play of the drive, again giving the Bears possession inside our own 20.
4. Our first chance to take the lead came with 10 minutes to go in the third. TJ threw a pick on the first play of the drive.
5. TJ turnovers led to 10 of the Bears' 13 points.

Positives:
1. Our first field goal was almost all Jackson. No rushing yards on the drive, but a roughing the passer penalty on Chicago greatly helped.
2. TJ marched us down the field to get a FG before the half, after his previous blunder. Again a roughness penalty on Chicago helped.
3. The strike to Ferguson was clutch.
4. TJ had a legit role in all of our scoring drives.


I honestly don't remember the circumstances surrounding those negative plays (or the positives).
Was there pressure?
Did McKinnie miss a block?
Did the receiver make the wrong cut?
Etc.

At this point in the season, I choose to remain positive.
I think Tarvaris progressed last season and was able to lead his team to victory in games where he didn't have his best stuff.


=Z=

StillPurple
05-01-2008, 10:08 AM
There are actually some things I like about Tarvaris. I do like the way he keeps his head and never complains when things don't work out. He, unlike some NFL QBs (Joey Harrington, Favre) never pouts or shows negative emotion when a WR messes up (in the QB's mind). I do like that about Tarvaris.

happy camper
05-01-2008, 10:13 AM
"V" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"V" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"ItalianStallion" wrote:










In spite of Tarvaris' play, against a team starting their 3rd QB, just barely.


That's quite an interesting view of this:

With 4 minutes left, Tarvaris Jackson had the Vikings ahead by TWO fricken TOUCHDOWNS.

How is he possibly to blame for Dwight Smith letting Devin Hester run right by him?


I believe he was talking about the other Chicago game in week 15, in which TJ threw 3 interceptions and fumbled the ball away once.


http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter?game_id=29418&displayPage=tab_gamecenter&season=2007&week=REG15

Just looked over the GameBook and Play-By-Play for that one.
Sure was a stinker - but looks to me like Tarvaris stuck in there and rallied his team to a victory, even after being roughed up and taken out of the game for a bit.


Tarvaris had nothing to do with the team rallying to win that game, AP and the defense did.
Tarvaris put us in a hole and looked lost all game.
He threw while jumping, off his back foot and while being hit.
Against Washington it was more of the same.
I really hope that Tarvaris improves, and I think he will, but until he decides to play well in big games and show any kind of consistency he will not be respected in this league, and rightfully so.


Did AD or the defense throw a TD pass to Robert Ferguson?


Tavaris threw zero TD passes in that game. There was a long 71 yard strike that he did throw to Ferguson, but it was not a TD. Even with that pass, he had a mediocre game. It's pretty clear that we won that game because of our defense and AD. TJ's main job in our offense is to limit turnovers, and he did a horrible job of that in this game. If you want to argue that TJ is unfairly hated, this game is not a good example for you to use.

Sorry - mis-remembered the playbook.

I'm not arguing anything about Tarvaris being unfairly hated.
I'm just taking issue with the contention that the Vikings won that game "in spite" of him.

=Z=


We definitely won that game in spite of him. He was barely more than a hindrance. Judge for yourself.

Negatives:
1. His first pass of the game was intercepted, giving the Bears the ball inside our own 20.
2. He recovered well, leading us down the field on our second possession, only to fumble it away when we got into FG range.
3. We tried to run a 2 minute drill to get the lead before halftime, and TJ threw anothe pick on the second play of the drive, again giving the Bears possession inside our own 20.
4. Our first chance to take the lead came with 10 minutes to go in the third. TJ threw a pick on the first play of the drive.
5. TJ turnovers led to 10 of the Bears' 13 points.

Positives:
1. Our first field goal was almost all Jackson. No rushing yards on the drive, but a roughing the passer penalty on Chicago greatly helped.
2. TJ marched us down the field to get a FG before the half, after his previous blunder. Again a roughness penalty on Chicago helped.
3. The strike to Ferguson was clutch.
4. TJ had a legit role in all of our scoring drives.



Wasn't that pass taken out of Ferguson's hands?

I know Ferguson never have the reception, so technically it is an interception and not a fumble, but I have a hard time putting that one on Jackson.

Braddock
05-01-2008, 10:15 AM
I sure hope JDB doesn't start this season, b/c it's starting to feel like he is becoming the new TJ, and TJ is becoming the new Brad Johnson. I don't feel that way (b/c of my man crush on TJ), and hope TJ plays every down during the regular season and playoffs. I don't know why a lot of people are so crazy and think a rookie QB can come in and light it up. Is it b/c of AD last year that some think a rookie can made an immediate impact? Sure they can, but practically never at qb.

NodakPaul
05-01-2008, 10:20 AM
"Braddock" wrote:


I sure hope JDB doesn't start this season, b/c it's starting to feel like he is becoming the new TJ, and TJ is becoming the new Brad Johnson. I don't feel that way (b/c of my man crush on TJ), and hope TJ plays every down during the regular season and playoffs. I don't know why a lot of people are so crazy and think a rookie QB can come in and light it up. Is it b/c of AD last year that some think a rookie can made an immediate impact? Sure they can, but practically never at qb.


The most popular player is always the backup QB...

happy camper
05-01-2008, 10:20 AM
"Braddock" wrote:


I sure hope JDB doesn't start this season, b/c it's starting to feel like he is becoming the new TJ, and TJ is becoming the new Brad Johnson. I don't feel that way (b/c of my man crush on TJ), and hope TJ plays every down during the regular season and playoffs. I don't know why a lot of people are so crazy and think a rookie QB can come in and light it up. Is it b/c of AD last year that some think a rookie can made an immediate impact? Sure they can, but practically never at qb.


I said this when we drafted Booty.

Someone even said something like, "Just watch in preseason, he will be amazing." and it reminded me of how well Jackson looked in preseason and how he was hailed as the savior and then when he struggled, many of those same people bitched about it.

I see the cycle repeating this season. Except, I don't see Booty replacing Jackson at all this season unless it is because of injury.

mountainviking
05-01-2008, 10:38 AM
He does seem to keep his wits about him, most of the time.
While I've seen him frustrated with himself, he doesn't take it out on any of the other guys.
All the off season verbal support from his teammates tells me he does have some leadership qualities, and that, in general, he is pretty well respected by his team.

The five game win streak showed much better decision making.
Especially, when to run and when to throw, and when to throw it away.
I want to say that he got us an average of 2-3 firstdowns a game with his feet during the win streak.

The final three games, the pressure was on, and he started out slow and off, but responded well at the end of each game, to bring home the win vs. CHI, make the WAS game close, and get us an OT chance @ DEN.


All of this shows improvement to me.
With just a bit more and a better No.1 WR, he might be looking real good!
They say, that "the game slows down," for QBs around year 3 or 4.
That, instead of feeling all the pressure from all the angles to succeed on every play, they start to see the play develop as a whole, not in pieces all jumbled together.
Ie. Starting to recognize the defensive game plans/formations ect.
Instead of trying to read what each player will do individually.
Lets hope all the film, offseason effort, and coaching up pays off for him, and us this year!!

mountainviking
05-01-2008, 10:49 AM
Funny thing.
Most of my friends out here in CO, fans of other random teams, think TJack is going to be good, and is the real deal.
It almost seems like MN fans, and fans of the NFC North, sling the most pooh at him.


Kind of like how we hope Rodgers won't work out and that there will be QB controversy and issues in GB...Like we're hoping they don't have the next Favre, they're hoping we don't have the next Tarkenton, or Culpepper in his prime.

As for Booty vs. TJack, I think accuracy and touch can be taught and improved with practice and film study.
But, much like speed, I'm not thinking arm strength for the deep ball can be.
:o

StillPurple
05-01-2008, 03:51 PM
I have never met anyone - outside of MN or on this board - who thinks TJacks can cut it. Most of the time people here in Texas ask me who our QB is, and when I say it, they go "Who ?"...

I don't mind if TJacks starts at QB and plays every snap of every down, as long as we win.

IF, on the other hand, teams stack the box, and we still can't throw, I think it is then time to think of changing QBs. I would be willing to give TJacks 3 or 4 games to show that he can get out of that situation, but if teams are stacking the box and we still don't have a passing game, red lights should be going off, and we will need a change.

I also just don't agree that rookie QBs can't start. What was Roethlisberger ? Vince Young ? Eli Manning started as a rookie, and he is wearing a ring now.

NodakPaul
05-01-2008, 03:58 PM
"StillPurple" wrote:


I have never met anyone - outside of MN or on this board - who thinks TJacks can cut it. Most of the time people here in Texas ask me who our QB is, and when I say it, they go "Who ?"...

I don't mind if TJacks starts at QB and plays every snap of every down, as long as we win.

IF, on the other hand, teams stack the box, and we still can't throw, I think it is then time to think of changing QBs. I would be willing to give TJacks 3 or 4 games to show that he can get out of that situation, but if teams are stacking the box and we still don't have a passing game, red lights should be going off, and we will need a change.

I also just don't agree that rookie QBs can't start. What was Roethlisberger ? Vince Young ? Eli Manning started as a rookie, and he is wearing a ring now.


Vince Young and Eli Manning sucked their rookie years.
Horrible.
Roethlisberger is a fluke.


Plus, they all entered their NFL careers in a much different place than Booty.
So the comparison is poor to begin with.

StillPurple
05-01-2008, 04:25 PM
Didn't Booty and Vince Young both win the Rose Bowl, right before entering the NFL ?

NodakPaul
05-01-2008, 04:27 PM
"StillPurple" wrote:


Didn't Booty and Vince Young both win the Rose Bowl, right before entering the NFL ?


Yup.
And again, you are not bolstering your argument by using Vince Young as an example.
And I am pretty sure there are a couple of subtle differences between Young and Booty outside the Rose Bowl.
;)

Caine
05-01-2008, 05:44 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"cogitans" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


MN Vikings Tarvaris Jackson

AtucpbjWMJY&feature=related
Let's have the season now.

My favorite one is the last one. I think I just might get myself a Rice jersey next.


I posted that one so that hopefully the posters that said he has happy feet, no poise or patience in the pocket, bails early & can't run might pick up on that portion of it. In those clips he shows his poise & patience & doesn't bail until the pocket collapses around him & he certainly shows he can run when needed.


Here's the thing, if I made a montage of all of his BAD plays...well...it would take a lot longer to play out.

Did Tarvaris grow and mature last season?
Based solely upon the Denver game he did...but if you look back only 1 week to Washington, that assertion falls a bit flat.
Yes, part of it was play calling...but it's hard to call running plays when you KNOW that 8-9 are going to be in the box.
It's hard to call any route other than the come-back when that's all your QB and Receivers have demonstrated any consistancy in.
Fact is, against a competant Defense, it's hard to WIN under those conditions.

He was not an accurate passer most of the season.
He connected on a handful of deep balls, but the majority were dump offs and come-backs (which explains his 6.5 yard average).
He had 5 fumbles (3 lost).
12 int's.
He did not do really well.

Other teams fans and the media are saying we are a QB away because that has already been demonstrated.
How many years has Chicago waited for Sexy Rexy to step up?
They were a QB away 2 years ago.


Peterson gets the "love" because he has already demonstrated that he's a monster on the field.
He's already broken games wide open.
Tarvaris hasn't.
He's had a couple of games where he was a very positive force (4th quarter versus Denver), but the MAJORITY of his games were very....limited.
And, at this level, you can't be that "nonexistant" and still get "love" from the media and the fans.


Again (and again, and again), I'm not saying he can't be or won't be...I'm saying he hasn't yet been.
Regardless, he will be our starter come September 8th.
He's the best option going right now.
Booty won't be ready, and Frerotte isn't starter material anymore.
So, we have Jackson, and we have to win with Jackson.
And to me, that means that Jackson has to step up.
The excuses of small school and little experience are gone or so much diminished as to make them irrelevant now.
The kid has 14 starts (and 2 appearances) under his belt...things had better be falling into place for him.

And, if they have, you will see the Media start gushing on him.
You will see the fans gushing on him.
But if he struggles the majority of the time again, you will see people screaming for the hook.

Caine

ItalianStallion
05-01-2008, 05:44 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"StillPurple" wrote:


I have never met anyone - outside of MN or on this board - who thinks TJacks can cut it. Most of the time people here in Texas ask me who our QB is, and when I say it, they go "Who ?"...

I don't mind if TJacks starts at QB and plays every snap of every down, as long as we win.

IF, on the other hand, teams stack the box, and we still can't throw, I think it is then time to think of changing QBs. I would be willing to give TJacks 3 or 4 games to show that he can get out of that situation, but if teams are stacking the box and we still don't have a passing game, red lights should be going off, and we will need a change.

I also just don't agree that rookie QBs can't start. What was Roethlisberger ? Vince Young ? Eli Manning started as a rookie, and he is wearing a ring now.


Vince Young and Eli Manning sucked their rookie years.
Horrible.
Roethlisberger is a fluke.


Plus, they all entered their NFL careers in a much different place than Booty.
So the comparison is poor to begin with.


Tarvaris was not a rookie last year.
I believe Eli and Vince both took their teams to the playoffs in their first full year of starting whereas someone like Tarvaris did not.
I know your point was about Booty, and even if he was to play this season, I don't think he could do much better than Tarvaris.

singersp
05-01-2008, 06:56 PM
"StillPurple" wrote:


I have never met anyone - outside of MN or on this board - who thinks TJacks can cut it. Most of the time people here in Texas ask me who our QB is, and when I say it, they go "Who ?"...

I don't mind if TJacks starts at QB and plays every snap of every down, as long as we win.

IF, on the other hand, teams stack the box, and we still can't throw, I think it is then time to think of changing QBs. I would be willing to give TJacks 3 or 4 games to show that he can get out of that situation, but if teams are stacking the box and we still don't have a passing game, red lights should be going off, and we will need a change.

I also just don't agree that rookie QBs can't start. What was Roethlisberger ? Vince Young ? Eli Manning started as a rookie, and he is wearing a ring now.



And what was JaMarcus Russell? Was he not the #1 pick in the draft last year? How did he do again?.....oh yeah..........

Here's a good example why not to start a rookie QB.


He [JaMarcus Russell] did eventually get playing time, seeing sporadic duty late in the season before starting in the Raiders' final game against the San Diego Chargers. He finished the season going 36–66 for 373 yards, 2 TDs, 4 INTs, and a 55.9 passer rating.

http://en.epochtimes.com/news/8-4-30/69999.html

;)


Had the Vikings signed JaMarcus Russell, last years #1 pick, I'm sure there would have been a flurry of threads begging to start him.

StillPurple
05-01-2008, 07:32 PM
A couple of thoughts:

- We drafted (maybe) Booty because we play in the NFC North, and on cold days in Green Bay and Chicago, throwing the ball deep might not work due to cold and wind...

- Booty is the kind of QB who can work, because he knows how to go through his progressions. He will be accurate and has a fast release on the short slants and medium passes we need.

- I see Booty being a better QB, by far, than Tarvaris, when the field is shortened (red zone, etc.). Tarvaris will be better in an open field, where he can throw long.

Just some thoughts...

DustinDupont
05-01-2008, 07:35 PM
"StillPurple" wrote:


A couple of thoughts:

- We drafted (maybe) Booty because we play in the NFC North, and on cold days in Green Bay and Chicago, throwing the ball deep might not work due to cold and wind...

- Booty is the kind of QB who can work, because he knows how to go through his progressions. He will be accurate and has a fast release on the short slants and medium passes we need.

- I see Booty being a better QB, by far, than Tarvaris, when the field is shortened (red zone, etc.). Tarvaris will be better in an open field, where he can throw long.

Just some thoughts...


But in the red zine Tarvaris also has the ability to run...

singersp
05-01-2008, 08:28 PM
"StillPurple" wrote:


A couple of thoughts:

- We drafted (maybe) Booty because we play in the NFC North, and on cold days in Green Bay and Chicago, throwing the ball deep might not work due to cold and wind...



We only play two of those games a year. Besides, we've had many QB's play here who could throw the long ball in both those stadiums. Look how well Favre did it for years.

singersp
05-01-2008, 08:40 PM
"Caine" wrote:



Again (and again, and again), I'm not saying he can't be or won't be...I'm saying he hasn't yet been.
Regardless, he will be our starter come September 8th.
He's the best option going right now.
Booty won't be ready, and Frerotte isn't starter material anymore. So, we have Jackson, and we have to win with Jackson.
And to me, that means that Jackson has to step up.
The excuses of small school and little experience are gone or so much diminished as to make them irrelevant now.
The kid has 14 starts (and 2 appearances) under his belt...things had better be falling into place for him.

And, if they have, you will see the Media start gushing on him.
You will see the fans gushing on him.
But if he struggles the majority of the time again, you will see people screaming for the hook.

Caine


Those are my thoughts as well. I've never said he would be great or that he would be a bust. My argument is that 1 year is not enough time to fairly judge a QB in most cases. If most teams did that based on a QB's first year play, most of those teams would be throwing in a new starting QB every year.

Those bright spots that you mention are areas where I see the improvement & the hope. Those are the areas I'd like to see him more consistent in.

It's an improvement over what we saw of him in 2006. Rookie mistakes are going to happen, it's all part of the learning process. Although I'd like to see a bigger improvement this year.

IMO the window we have right now to win the super bowl is small & we need to hit it clicking on all cylinders, not just in the QB dept.

Zeus
05-02-2008, 07:51 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"StillPurple" wrote:


A couple of thoughts:

- We drafted (maybe) Booty because we play in the NFC North, and on cold days in Green Bay and Chicago, throwing the ball deep might not work due to cold and wind...



We only play two of those games a year. Besides, we've had many QB's play here who could throw the long ball in both those stadiums. Look how well Favre did it for years.


And in 2008, the Vikings don't have one single "cold-weather" game scheduled.
The Green Bay game in Lambeau is the season-opener, they play at Chicago on 10/19 and the last 4 road games involve a dome, 2 trips to Florida and one to Arizona (which also is a dome).

=Z=

ThorSPL
05-02-2008, 08:42 AM
What a thread...

This is all a moot point.

Questions will be answered in the fall