PDA

View Full Version : It’s Time to Move On



COJOMAY
09-26-2008, 09:21 AM
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/60817-minnesota-vikings-its-time-to-move-on

Not much is worse than a subject that cannot be dropped. Of course, there are certain matters that can, and should be talked and debated about as much as possible, but Brad Childress and the infamous quarterback situation is not one of them.

The Minnesota Vikings, and more importantly, their fans, need to move on from this situation. What has happened has happened, and there is nothing we can do to change it. Gus Frerotte will likely be taking snaps until the 2008-09 season has drawn to an end and Tarvaris Jackson will be lucky to see any playing time at all.

That’s just the way it is...

jargomcfargo
09-26-2008, 10:26 AM
"COJOMAY" wrote:


http://bleacherreport.com/articles/60817-minnesota-vikings-its-time-to-move-on

Not much is worse than a subject that cannot be dropped. Of course, there are certain matters that can, and should be talked and debated about as much as possible, but Brad Childress and the infamous quarterback situation is not one of them.

The Minnesota Vikings, and more importantly, their fans, need to move on from this situation. What has happened has happened, and there is nothing we can do to change it. Gus Frerotte will likely be taking snaps until the 2008-09 season has drawn to an end and Tarvaris Jackson will be lucky to see any playing time at all.

That’s just the way it is...


I like the sentiment. But if PP.O is any guage of opinion, this subject is far from over.
Just give Gus one bad game and the TJ supporters will be howling. And some of the rest of us will once again call for Childress' head.

COJOMAY
09-26-2008, 10:32 AM
"jargomcfargo" wrote:


"COJOMAY" wrote:


http://bleacherreport.com/articles/60817-minnesota-vikings-its-time-to-move-on

Not much is worse than a subject that cannot be dropped. Of course, there are certain matters that can, and should be talked and debated about as much as possible, but Brad Childress and the infamous quarterback situation is not one of them.

The Minnesota Vikings, and more importantly, their fans, need to move on from this situation. What has happened has happened, and there is nothing we can do to change it. Gus Frerotte will likely be taking snaps until the 2008-09 season has drawn to an end and Tarvaris Jackson will be lucky to see any playing time at all.

That’s just the way it is...


I like the sentiment. But if PP.O is any guage of opinion, this subject is far from over.
Just give Gus one bad game and the TJ supporters will be howling. And some of the rest of us will once again call for Childress' head.


I fail to see why you are calling for Childress' head. Because of sticking with TJ that many want? For not starting Gus earlier? For not drafting a QB? What?

jargomcfargo
09-26-2008, 10:35 AM
"COJOMAY" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


"COJOMAY" wrote:


http://bleacherreport.com/articles/60817-minnesota-vikings-its-time-to-move-on

Not much is worse than a subject that cannot be dropped. Of course, there are certain matters that can, and should be talked and debated about as much as possible, but Brad Childress and the infamous quarterback situation is not one of them.

The Minnesota Vikings, and more importantly, their fans, need to move on from this situation. What has happened has happened, and there is nothing we can do to change it. Gus Frerotte will likely be taking snaps until the 2008-09 season has drawn to an end and Tarvaris Jackson will be lucky to see any playing time at all.

That’s just the way it is...


I like the sentiment. But if PP.O is any guage of opinion, this subject is far from over.
Just give Gus one bad game and the TJ supporters will be howling. And some of the rest of us will once again call for Childress' head.


I fail to see why you are calling for Childress' head. Because of sticking with TJ that many want? For not starting Gus earlier? For not drafting a QB? What?


I'm not. If things go south and he has a bad season I may. But
I'm saying others will if Gus has even one bad game.

pack93z
09-26-2008, 10:44 AM
Boy.. this sure seems like a Favre thread that Packer fans posted about a 1001 times this offseason.. glad to see we aren't the only ones playing the "Time to move forward" card.
;D

Seriously though.. a QB in your offense right now doesn't have to carry the team.. he just has to be given enough faith from the OC to provide a mere appearance of balance. If Gus can provide that.. then stick with him.. if not.. back to plan A or start the rook.

COJOMAY
09-26-2008, 10:47 AM
They did open up the playbook for Gus and that opened up the running game a bit. He came out throwing and that really helped. With a game under his belt I think he will just get better. Not GREAT but BETTER.

C Mac D
09-26-2008, 10:47 AM
So, what better way to "move on" than to start a thread about it...

jargomcfargo
09-26-2008, 10:52 AM
"C" wrote:


So, what better way to "move on" than to start a thread about it...


I like Gus and support the change. All I'm saying is this debate is far from over if Gus doesn't play well.

C Mac D
09-26-2008, 11:00 AM
"jargomcfargo" wrote:


"C" wrote:


So, what better way to "move on" than to start a thread about it...


I like Gus and support the change. All I'm saying is this debate is far from over if Gus doesn't play well.


Exactly... wait till Shank starts dropping TDs again, then we'll be back to square one.

jdvike
09-26-2008, 11:20 AM
"C" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


"C" wrote:


So, what better way to "move on" than to start a thread about it...


I like Gus and support the change. All I'm saying is this debate is far from over if Gus doesn't play well.


Exactly... wait till Shank starts dropping TDs again, then we'll be back to square one.

Hmmmmmmm...Am I the only one that thinks that CMD hopes the Vikings fail?

jargomcfargo
09-26-2008, 11:22 AM
"jdvike" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


"C" wrote:


So, what better way to "move on" than to start a thread about it...


I like Gus and support the change. All I'm saying is this debate is far from over if Gus doesn't play well.


Exactly... wait till Shank starts dropping TDs again, then we'll be back to square one.

Hmmmmmmm...Am I the only one that thinks that CMD hopes the Vikings fail?


I'm pretty sure he hopes they win the superbowl. I think he expects them to fail however.
Difference between hopes and expectations.

jdvike
09-26-2008, 11:25 AM
I think his blind hatred for Chilly blurs the line. IMO

jargomcfargo
09-26-2008, 11:27 AM
"jdvike" wrote:


I think his blind hatred for Chilly blurs the line. IMO

I can't disagree with that !
:)

i_bleed_purple
09-26-2008, 11:45 AM
"jargomcfargo" wrote:


"jdvike" wrote:


I think his blind hatred for Chilly blurs the line. IMO

I can't disagree with that !
:)


Can't say its unjustified.

Zeus
09-26-2008, 11:50 AM
"jdvike" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


"C" wrote:


So, what better way to "move on" than to start a thread about it...


I like Gus and support the change. All I'm saying is this debate is far from over if Gus doesn't play well.


Exactly... wait till Shank starts dropping TDs again, then we'll be back to square one.


Hmmmmmmm...Am I the only one that thinks that CMD hopes the Vikings fail?


IMHO, there are PLENTY of PPOers who seem to want the Vikings to fail so they can be "right".

=Z=

Zeus
09-26-2008, 11:53 AM
Move on?
MOVE ON?

I'm still bitter about Drew Pearson pushing off.

MOVE ON??

I'm still pissed off at Darrin Nelson.

MOVE ON?!?!?!?!?!?!

If I could slap Denny Green for not taking a knee, I'd take a big fucking swing.

MOVE ON??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!??!!!!?!!?!?!?!

There's no MOVING ON from anything until we can tell the rest of the world WE WON A SUPER BOWL, BITCHES!

=Z=

slavinator
09-26-2008, 12:10 PM
You know great theory Moving On, but as Zues states its a little harder to do.........

I do however beleive
that in order to salvage the season we cannot debate the Fire Childress situation.
Gus vs TJack:
IMO TJack got an early yank, as he was not the reason we lost the Indy game, playcalling Shiancoe or shall I say DropCO was............Gus opens up our limited playbook more.
I also think a clear message from ownership was sent to open up the playbook or else.

I just watched the hail mary push off game the other day and its sad cuz there were calls on 2 plays prior to that which kept Dallas in the game as well.
And holy smokes that was a good team!!!! But interestingly enough we only ran about 8-9 different offensive plays and let the D do the rest.


Darrin Nelson, it stings just typing about it again.

98'- Denny not taking the knee, Robert Griffith dropping that INT in the endzone at the end of regulation, I mean, it hit him squarely between the 2 and 4.
Gary's only miss.............

WE do need a SuperBowl Win, but lets be cautious not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
We have a damn good squad right now, and although a piece or two doesnt fit, lets ride this thing out.
Its tough enough being a Vikes fan.
Friendly fire is not needed.........

pack93z
09-26-2008, 12:15 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


Move on?
MOVE ON?

I'm still bitter about Drew Pearson pushing off.



Ahhh.. still think it was a push off after all these years.. and all the shoves Carter utilized to get open.. yep time to move on.
;D

AQfyJBJoLQs

Clearly no shove from Pearson on that angle.. foot sweep denied.
;)

V4L
09-26-2008, 12:36 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


Move on?
MOVE ON?

I'm still bitter about Drew Pearson pushing off.

MOVE ON??

I'm still pissed off at Darrin Nelson.

MOVE ON?!?!?!?!?!?!

If I could slap Denny Green for not taking a knee, I'd take a big fricken swing.

MOVE ON??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!??!!!!?!!?!?!?!

There's no MOVING ON from anything until we can tell the rest of the world WE WON A SUPER BOWL, BITCHES!

=Z=



BOOOO!!

Zeus
09-26-2008, 12:39 PM
"V4L" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


Move on?
MOVE ON?

I'm still bitter about Drew Pearson pushing off.

MOVE ON??

I'm still pissed off at Darrin Nelson.

MOVE ON?!?!?!?!?!?!

If I could slap Denny Green for not taking a knee, I'd take a big fricken swing.

MOVE ON??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!??!!!!?!!?!?!?!

There's no MOVING ON from anything until we can tell the rest of the world WE WON A SUPER BOWL, BITCHES!


BOOOO!!


Maybe I should have qualified....

Gus vs. TJack?
Miniscule compared to the past.

Fire Chilly?
Miniscule compared to the past.

There are momentous failures and injustices in the past history of the Vikings that only a Super Bowl title can ease.
This tiny in-season shit?
For me - there's no reason to move on since I was never on it in the first place.

=Z=

nailhead77
09-26-2008, 05:53 PM
"Moving on" from the whole tjack vs. gus situation will only happen if we can string together a few wins in a row starting with the titans.
If we lose this weekend and Gus plays even marginal...........its on again!

I think the titans are a little over rated
with their 3-0 start against not so tuff competition and the vikes have a spark that hopefully ignites a forrest fire of wins.

Vikeman
09-26-2008, 06:13 PM
"COJOMAY" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


"COJOMAY" wrote:


http://bleacherreport.com/articles/60817-minnesota-vikings-its-time-to-move-on

Not much is worse than a subject that cannot be dropped. Of course, there are certain matters that can, and should be talked and debated about as much as possible, but Brad Childress and the infamous quarterback situation is not one of them.

The Minnesota Vikings, and more importantly, their fans, need to move on from this situation. What has happened has happened, and there is nothing we can do to change it. Gus Frerotte will likely be taking snaps until the 2008-09 season has drawn to an end and Tarvaris Jackson will be lucky to see any playing time at all.

That’s just the way it is...


I like the sentiment. But if PP.O is any guage of opinion, this subject is far from over.
Just give Gus one bad game and the TJ supporters will be howling. And some of the rest of us will once again call for Childress' head.


I fail to see why you are calling for Childress' head. Because of sticking with TJ that many want? For not starting Gus earlier? For not drafting a QB? What?


I know Brad is a clas guy, and I will support the VIkes through thick and thin...BUT...have we not seen him out-coached by everyone from Herm Edwards to Joe Gibbs and by everyone from that guy in Detroit to Mike Shanahan...Andy Reid to Mike Mcarthy 5 times?
And 2 weeks ago Tony Dungy just made him look stupid.
Let's give him the benefit of doubt for now...but if the Vikes are golfing in early Jan., I can't see bringing him back next year...but if they did, I'd still be a Vikes fan.
Go Vikes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

singersp
09-26-2008, 06:53 PM
Come Sunday after the game the threads will be "Bench Frerotte! Booty Time"

huxx
09-26-2008, 07:21 PM
"singersp" wrote:


Come Sunday after the game the threads will be "Bench Frerotte! Booty Time"

lol...true

Schutz
09-26-2008, 07:32 PM
"singersp" wrote:


Come Sunday after the game the threads will be "Bench Frerotte! Booty Time"


Lord knows there might be a Gus Ferotte "Move on" thread by the end of the season.
Heck Maybe all three of our QBs will have one and we'll be looking to the offseason.
But sadly we'll have nothing to talk about all offseason because we will have "moved on".

Purple Floyd
09-26-2008, 08:56 PM
I don't see much of a chance of a Bench Frerrotte movement if things go south. If they continue to be sub .500 it will be the coach who will be the subject of the move on threads.

AKViking
09-26-2008, 10:56 PM
There is one thing I'd like to see some people get over: the whinnying about how the play book was opened for Gus and not TJ! Ok, you made your point; you believethat it was opened more for Gus.

















Get the floop over it! >:(

You sound like the snivelling little kid crying in the corner, who keeps crying when he's not even sure of why he's crying. Worse yet... you're starting to sound like that windbag Madden: repeating the same crap, over, and over, and over, and over, and over.....


Okay, now that I've relieved some pent up frustration and calmed down a bit, let me apologize if I hurt anybodies feelings.


What we don't know is what the coaches see, hear and understand from practice/games. And what seems all to clear is:
TJ could not handle the "open play book". Some of the players obviously knew TJ limited the play calling. Definitely, he needs more time to develop what skills he does have, and needs to find those he hasn't yet discovered in himself: poise in the pocket, command in the huddle, seeing the entire field etc.

Like others, I believe TJ will play again this year. Hopefully he will show all the lauded development (and much more) that we kept hearing of before the regular season. Also, like most anyone here, I could give a flying moose nugget who the Qb is as long as we keep getting Ws.

bleedpurple
09-27-2008, 10:45 PM
"AKViking" wrote:



There is one thing I'd like to see some people get over: the whinnying about how the play book was opened for Gus and not TJ! Ok, you made your point; you believethat it was opened more for Gus.

















Get the floop over it! >:(

You sound like the snivelling little kid crying in the corner, who keeps crying when he's not even sure of why he's crying. Worse yet... you're starting to sound like that windbag Madden: repeating the same crap, over, and over, and over, and over, and over.....


Okay, now that I've relieved some pent up frustration and calmed down a bit, let me apologize if I hurt anybodies feelings.


What we don't know is what the coaches see, hear and understand from practice/games. And what seems all to clear is:
TJ could not handle the "open play book". Some of the players obviously knew TJ limited the play calling. Definitely, he needs more time to develop what skills he does have, and needs to find those he hasn't yet discovered in himself: poise in the pocket, command in the huddle, seeing the entire field etc.

Like others, I believe TJ will play again this year. Hopefully he will show all the lauded development (and much more) that we kept hearing of before the regular season. Also, like most anyone here, I could give a flying moose nugget who the Qb is as long as we keep getting Ws.


that's funny how you say TJ ppl should stop whining and then all of a sudden bring up the same topic again... i don't care who the QB is either.. but clearly we don't know whether or not he couldn't handle the playbook bc we haven't seen it opened up for him.. and the limited time we did, he played well. i.e. Denver 2nd half, 2nd half packers, and in 2 minute drill situations... unfortunately we never got even remotely creative with the playbook until we were down and had to... in those moments, TJ played quite well....

ultravikingfan
09-27-2008, 10:48 PM
Here's the thing I do not get.

How can people say the playbook was opened up for Gus?
Looked like the same plays in the first few games.
PLUS, don't
you think that the coaching staff studied the Panters Defense at all during the week and maybe were calling plays that they thought would be good plays against the Panthers?
That's not even mentioning the adjustments made during the game.

It's not like they sat down and re-wrote the playbook people.
That's not going to happen in 1 week.

PackSux!
09-28-2008, 12:51 AM
"singersp" wrote:


Come Sunday after the game the threads will be "Bench Frerotte! Booty Time"


I am willing to bet that everyone will be singing "lets ride the magic Gus bus".

And we will also be preaching that "In Gus We Trust".

StillPurple
09-28-2008, 01:00 AM
I also don't buy this stuff about "the playbook has been opened up". I don't even know what that means. Does that mean we were operating with a 50 % playbook under Tarvaris (gee, no wonder he didn't look good !
:P).

What NFL team would enter a game with a "restricted" playbook ?

I don't get that at all. The NFL is EXTREMELY competitive and any disadvantage would be exploited to the max. A team entering the game with a playbook that is not "opened up" would have a huge disadvantage. It makes no sense to me.

PackSux!
09-28-2008, 01:18 AM
"StillPurple" wrote:


I also don't buy this stuff about "the playbook has been opened up". I don't even know what that means. Does that mean we were operating with a 50 % playbook under Tarvaris (gee, no wonder he didn't look good !
:P).

What NFL team would enter a game with a "restricted" playbook ?

I don't get that at all. The NFL is EXTREMELY competitive and any disadvantage would be exploited to the max. A team entering the game with a playbook that is not "opened up" would have a huge disadvantage. It makes no sense to me.


Wow.
I cant believe i just read this.

V4L
09-28-2008, 01:32 AM
"StillPurple" wrote:


I also don't buy this stuff about "the playbook has been opened up". I don't even know what that means. Does that mean we were operating with a 50 % playbook under Tarvaris (gee, no wonder he didn't look good !
:P).

What NFL team would enter a game with a "restricted" playbook ?

I don't get that at all. The NFL is EXTREMELY competitive and any disadvantage would be exploited to the max. A team entering the game with a playbook that is not "opened up" would have a huge disadvantage. It makes no sense to me.



It happens to a certain extent

Some players can't make plays so they are obligated to call them

The Jets haven't opened up all thier plays yet for Favre, he is still learning

In Jackson's case the passing plays were kind of limited.. He didn't use much of the deep ball or longer routes

Idk I guess.. It's a thought.. If Chilly said he in fact did open it up I would believe it.. If he said its the same I would believe that as well

bleedpurple
09-28-2008, 11:37 AM
"StillPurple" wrote:


I also don't buy this stuff about "the playbook has been opened up". I don't even know what that means. Does that mean we were operating with a 50 % playbook under Tarvaris (gee, no wonder he didn't look good !
:P).

What NFL team would enter a game with a "restricted" playbook ?

I don't get that at all. The NFL is EXTREMELY competitive and any disadvantage would be exploited to the max. A team entering the game with a playbook that is not "opened up" would have a huge disadvantage. It makes no sense to me.


ARE U SERIOUS???.. of course they opened up the play book... not only did the players say it!!.. it was blatantly obvious they opened it up... you can tell by the formations, twins right, 4 wide receivers, 2 back set with chester and AD, 3 wide receivers. and not only that, they called something like 10 pass plays to 3 run plays in the first quarter alone...

I'm not sure what you were looking at, but our offense was clearly different... not to mention, Gus had more reads as you can tell he went to BB a few more times than TJ did, and only rolled out like one time...

they blatantly changed the play calls.... c'mon.. !!!

Purple Floyd
09-28-2008, 12:16 PM
I could care less how big the play book is or how open it is. What I care about is when the play is called, is it executed properly? If not then it doesn't matter.

If you have a limited number of plays, but execute better than your opponents you can win. If you have a staggering number of plays that you cannot execute then it is worthless.


What this team needs to do that it has not done enough is to call plays we can execute to take advantage of mismatches between our team and theirs. The job of a coaching staff is to find those mismatches and exploit them. This is something our coaches have not done very consistently but when they have we have done well. '

For instance, last year against San Diego one of their best DL went out with an injury. We capitalized on it by running at the replacement and it resulted in a big fat 296 for AD.

However, against the Colts this year there was a mismatch where they had replacement OL players and we failed to find a way to capitalize on them from a defensive standpoint and they also had injuries on their defense that we failed to capitalize on when we were on offense.

Purple Floyd
09-28-2008, 12:32 PM
"bleedpurple" wrote:


"StillPurple" wrote:


I also don't buy this stuff about "the playbook has been opened up". I don't even know what that means. Does that mean we were operating with a 50 % playbook under Tarvaris (gee, no wonder he didn't look good !
:P).

What NFL team would enter a game with a "restricted" playbook ?

I don't get that at all. The NFL is EXTREMELY competitive and any disadvantage would be exploited to the max. A team entering the game with a playbook that is not "opened up" would have a huge disadvantage. It makes no sense to me.


ARE U SERIOUS???.. of course they opened up the play book... not only did the players say it!!.. it was blatantly obvious they opened it up... you can tell by the formations, twins right, 4 wide receivers, 2 back set with chester and AD, 3 wide receivers. and not only that, they called something like 10 pass plays to 3 run plays in the first quarter alone...

I'm not sure what you were looking at, but our offense was clearly different... not to mention, Gus had more reads as you can tell he went to BB a few more times than TJ did, and only rolled out like one time...

they blatantly changed the play calls.... c'mon.. !!!



Here is a quote from Childress:



MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2008
Head Coach Brad Childress


Q: Was it the same type of game plan you would have gone with if Tarvaris Jackson was playing or did it have to be changed?
A: It is (the same) simply for the fact that you have to attack the defense that you’re seeing. You have to call plays that you believe will attack that
defense. We still managed to roll him and boot him a couple of different times. Garrett (Mills) had a hole and Gus could have helped us getting outside
of that a little bit more because Garrett was blocked for a specifi c point. He’ll just become more and more familiar with that.


Sounds like it stayed the same in Brads opinion. But then he is only the coach

Billy Boy
09-28-2008, 12:52 PM
"jdvike" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


"C" wrote:


So, what better way to "move on" than to start a thread about it...


I like Gus and support the change. All I'm saying is this debate is far from over if Gus doesn't play well.


Exactly... wait till Shank starts dropping TDs again, then we'll be back to square one.

Hmmmmmmm...Am I the only one that thinks that CMD hopes the Vikings fail?


He needs his tears from a Viking loss to use as lube.
He showed me the jar he collects them in.

AKViking
09-29-2008, 10:03 AM
"bleedpurple" wrote:


"AKViking" wrote:



There is one thing I'd like to see some people get over: the whinnying about how the play book was opened for Gus and not TJ! Ok, you made your point; you believethat it was opened more for Gus.

















Get the floop over it! >:(

You sound like the snivelling little kid crying in the corner, who keeps crying when he's not even sure of why he's crying. Worse yet... you're starting to sound like that windbag Madden: repeating the same crap, over, and over, and over, and over, and over.....


Okay, now that I've relieved some pent up frustration and calmed down a bit, let me apologize if I hurt anybodies feelings.



What we don't know is what the coaches see, hear and understand from practice/games. And what seems all to clear is:
TJ could not handle the "open play book". Some of the players obviously knew TJ limited the play calling. Definitely, he needs more time to develop what skills he does have, and needs to find those he hasn't yet discovered in himself: poise in the pocket, command in the huddle, seeing the entire field etc.

Like others, I believe TJ will play again this year. Hopefully he will show all the lauded development (and much more) that we kept hearing of before the regular season. Also, like most anyone here, I could give a flying moose nugget who the Qb is as long as we keep getting Ws.


that's funny how you say TJ ppl should stop whining and then all of a sudden bring up the same topic again... i don't care who the QB is either.. but clearly we don't know whether or not he couldn't handle the playbook bc we haven't seen it opened up for him.. and the limited time we did, he played well. i.e. Denver 2nd half, 2nd half packers, and in 2 minute drill situations... unfortunately we never got even remotely creative with the playbook until we were down and had to... in those moments, TJ played quite well....


::) Guess you are one of the people I was apologizing to. TJ is that you? Is that why you can say with certainty that the play book wasn't opened for you?

You're a TJ supporter, and so am I, but whinnying about the play book not being open doesn't make him a better Qb . When players say the play book will be opened up more for a different Qb there is a reason, yes? From what I have been able to see, it's because TJ's accuracy is very suspect. His ability to read the entire field is marginal at best and he is far too easily rattled into making poor decisions. Thus, a so-so veteran Qb with the ability to complete passes, read the field and stay calm under pressure is starting.

Giving TJ the open play book would be like telling a kid who just got the training wheels off his bike, that he can ride in traffic. He just ain't gonna make it. But with more time to learn maybe the accuracy, reading the whole field, and calm, wise decision making will come. I hope so, and sooner rather than later. Because if he doesn't the future of this team don't look so good.

I feel like I should be sending TJ one of those 'Get better soon' cards from Hallmark. :D

bleedpurple
09-29-2008, 10:54 AM
"AKViking" wrote:


"bleedpurple" wrote:


"AKViking" wrote:



There is one thing I'd like to see some people get over: the whinnying about how the play book was opened for Gus and not TJ! Ok, you made your point; you believethat it was opened more for Gus.

















Get the floop over it! >:(

You sound like the snivelling little kid crying in the corner, who keeps crying when he's not even sure of why he's crying. Worse yet... you're starting to sound like that windbag Madden: repeating the same crap, over, and over, and over, and over, and over.....


Okay, now that I've relieved some pent up frustration and calmed down a bit, let me apologize if I hurt anybodies feelings.


What we don't know is what the coaches see, hear and understand from practice/games. And what seems all to clear is:
TJ could not handle the "open play book". Some of the players obviously knew TJ limited the play calling. Definitely, he needs more time to develop what skills he does have, and needs to find those he hasn't yet discovered in himself: poise in the pocket, command in the huddle, seeing the entire field etc.

Like others, I believe TJ will play again this year. Hopefully he will show all the lauded development (and much more) that we kept hearing of before the regular season. Also, like most anyone here, I could give a flying moose nugget who the Qb is as long as we keep getting Ws.


that's funny how you say TJ ppl should stop whining and then all of a sudden bring up the same topic again... i don't care who the QB is either.. but clearly we don't know whether or not he couldn't handle the playbook bc we haven't seen it opened up for him.. and the limited time we did, he played well. i.e. Denver 2nd half, 2nd half packers, and in 2 minute drill situations... unfortunately we never got even remotely creative with the playbook until we were down and had to... in those moments, TJ played quite well....


::) Guess you are one of the people I was apologizing to. TJ is that you? Is that why you can say with certainty that the play book wasn't opened for you?

You're a TJ supporter, and so am I, but whinnying about the play book not being open doesn't make him a better Qb . When players say the play book will be opened up more for a different Qb there is a reason, yes? From what I have been able to see, it's because TJ's accuracy is very suspect. His ability to read the entire field is marginal at best and he is far too easily rattled into making poor decisions. Thus, a so-so veteran Qb with the ability to complete passes, read the field and stay calm under pressure is starting.

Giving TJ the open play book would be like telling a kid who just got the training wheels off his bike, that he can ride in traffic. He just ain't gonna make it. But with more time to learn maybe the accuracy, reading the whole field, and calm, wise decision making will come. I hope so, and sooner rather than later. Because if he doesn't the future of this team don't look so good.

I feel like I should be sending TJ one of those 'Get better soon' cards from Hallmark. :D


YOu dont' have to appologize to me!!.. Besides that your missing the point!!.. the use of different formations and going 4 wide and all that, makes a difference in what your offense looks like..

Regardless of what plays were called.. no QB can be successful if your running the same bare bones offensive attack using the same formations 2 wide receivers 2 TE or 1 TE and a FB... We rarely ever ran 3 wide receivers, etc. etc.... so if we run the same ole boring stuff, and give TJ only 2 options, if the defense knows this, as we do watching TV obviously they are going to sit on those routes, and receivers aren't going to get open... bc it's sooo predictable..

but if we had mixed it up, regardless, and used a little more creativity as far as formations, even if the plays were the same, atleast it gives the defense something to think about instead of running the exact same plays...

i like TJ but i'm not sold on him either, but like i said, if your going to bench him, atleast know what you got and call a normal game, maybe he wont' handle it, maybe he surprises you.. but atleast find out!!.. you spent all that time preppin him in the offseason, and hitched your wagon to him, might as well make sure he's not the one!.. that's all i'm saying..

but it's a moot point GUS is the guy now!

C Mac D
09-29-2008, 10:59 AM
"bleedpurple" wrote:


but it's a moot point GUS is the guy now!


The saddest sentence ever posted on PPO.

NodakPaul
09-29-2008, 11:16 AM
"C" wrote:


"bleedpurple" wrote:


but it's a moot point GUS is the guy now!


The saddest sentence ever posted on PPO.


I always thought that the saddest sentence ever posted on PPO was Hi, I'm C Mac D, and I have a Vikings problem. (http://www.purplepride.org/forums/index.php?topic=29479.msg502630#msg502630)
At least that is when I am pretty sure that everything went downhill here... ;D

C Mac D
09-29-2008, 11:29 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"bleedpurple" wrote:


but it's a moot point GUS is the guy now!


The saddest sentence ever posted on PPO.


I always thought that the saddest sentence ever posted on PPO was Hi, I'm C Mac D, and I have a Vikings problem. (http://www.purplepride.org/forums/index.php?topic=29479.msg502630#msg502630)
At least that is when I am pretty sure that everything went downhill here... ;D


Wow... you did a little excavating this morning.

"Memories... light the corners of my mind...."

ultravikingfan
09-29-2008, 11:29 AM
"bleedpurple" wrote:


YOu dont' have to appologize to me!!.. Besides that your missing the point!!.. the use of different formations and going 4 wide and all that, makes a difference in what your offense looks like..

Regardless of what plays were called.. no QB can be successful if your running the same bare bones offensive attack using the same formations 2 wide receivers 2 TE or 1 TE and a FB... We rarely ever ran 3 wide receivers, etc. etc.... so if we run the same ole boring stuff, and give TJ only 2 options, if the defense knows this, as we do watching TV obviously they are going to sit on those routes, and receivers aren't going to get open... bc it's sooo predictable..

but if we had mixed it up, regardless, and used a little more creativity as far as formations, even if the plays were the same, atleast it gives the defense something to think about instead of running the exact same plays...

i like TJ but i'm not sold on him either, but like i said, if your going to bench him, atleast know what you got and call a normal game, maybe he wont' handle it, maybe he surprises you.. but atleast find out!!.. you spent all that time preppin him in the offseason, and hitched your wagon to him, might as well make sure he's not the one!.. that's all i'm saying..

but it's a moot point GUS is the guy now!


Yes, going 4 wide makes your Offense look different.
Do we really pose a threat with 4 wide?
We do not really have the WR's to make the plays nor the QB to deliver the ball accurately and timely.
All it does is make our Offense look different and I would rather have results than looks.

We do not always use the same formations....please.
I am watching the Colts game on my PC (because I record every game) and at 10:25 in the first quarter we have 3 wide outs and 2 in the backfield and one of them goes on on a delay.
If you are built to run you have to pose that threat every single play.
We are built to run and we have the line and the backs to make that happen.
If we line up with 2 wide and TE's with a back it tells the Defense that we can either hit them with a quick pass or run; it keeps them guessing.
If we spread them out and totally show pass, you think the Defense is worried?
Hell no.
Our QB's are poor and our WR's & TE's are below average.
Showing run and passing is not predictable and the Defense cannot commit to either.
Showing run and having a good run game sets-up a great play action as well.

Bottom line, we would not be fooling anybody by spreading the field.
We are not a passing team and have to leave the run element in every play we execute.

V4L
09-29-2008, 11:50 AM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"bleedpurple" wrote:


YOu dont' have to appologize to me!!.. Besides that your missing the point!!.. the use of different formations and going 4 wide and all that, makes a difference in what your offense looks like..

Regardless of what plays were called.. no QB can be successful if your running the same bare bones offensive attack using the same formations 2 wide receivers 2 TE or 1 TE and a FB... We rarely ever ran 3 wide receivers, etc. etc.... so if we run the same ole boring stuff, and give TJ only 2 options, if the defense knows this, as we do watching TV obviously they are going to sit on those routes, and receivers aren't going to get open... bc it's sooo predictable..

but if we had mixed it up, regardless, and used a little more creativity as far as formations, even if the plays were the same, atleast it gives the defense something to think about instead of running the exact same plays...

i like TJ but i'm not sold on him either, but like i said, if your going to bench him, atleast know what you got and call a normal game, maybe he wont' handle it, maybe he surprises you.. but atleast find out!!.. you spent all that time preppin him in the offseason, and hitched your wagon to him, might as well make sure he's not the one!.. that's all i'm saying..

but it's a moot point GUS is the guy now!


Yes, going 4 wide makes your Offense look different.
Do we really pose a threat with 4 wide?
We do not really have the WR's to make the plays nor the QB to deliver the ball accurately and timely.
All it does is make our Offense look different and I would rather have results than looks.

We do not always use the same formations....please.
I am watching the Colts game on my PC (because I record every game) and at 10:25 in the first quarter we have 3 wide outs and 2 in the backfield and one of them goes on on a delay.
If you are built to run you have to pose that threat every single play.
We are built to run and we have the line and the backs to make that happen.
If we line up with 2 wide and TE's with a back it tells the Defense that we can either hit them with a quick pass or run; it keeps them guessing.
If we spread them out and totally show pass, you think the Defense is worried?
Hell no.
Our QB's are poor and our WR's & TE's are below average.
Showing run and passing is not predictable and the Defense cannot commit to either.
Showing run and having a good run game sets-up a great play action as well.

Bottom line, we would not be fooling anybody by spreading the field.
We are not a passing team and have to leave the run element in every play we execute.





Berrian, Rice, Wade, and Allison

It's worth a shot

Each one has made some plays.. ANd what we are doing isn't working

One would think we would try

bleedpurple
09-29-2008, 12:37 PM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"bleedpurple" wrote:


YOu dont' have to appologize to me!!.. Besides that your missing the point!!.. the use of different formations and going 4 wide and all that, makes a difference in what your offense looks like..

Regardless of what plays were called.. no QB can be successful if your running the same bare bones offensive attack using the same formations 2 wide receivers 2 TE or 1 TE and a FB... We rarely ever ran 3 wide receivers, etc. etc.... so if we run the same ole boring stuff, and give TJ only 2 options, if the defense knows this, as we do watching TV obviously they are going to sit on those routes, and receivers aren't going to get open... bc it's sooo predictable..

but if we had mixed it up, regardless, and used a little more creativity as far as formations, even if the plays were the same, atleast it gives the defense something to think about instead of running the exact same plays...

i like TJ but i'm not sold on him either, but like i said, if your going to bench him, atleast know what you got and call a normal game, maybe he wont' handle it, maybe he surprises you.. but atleast find out!!.. you spent all that time preppin him in the offseason, and hitched your wagon to him, might as well make sure he's not the one!.. that's all i'm saying..

but it's a moot point GUS is the guy now!


Yes, going 4 wide makes your Offense look different.
Do we really pose a threat with 4 wide?
We do not really have the WR's to make the plays nor the QB to deliver the ball accurately and timely.
All it does is make our Offense look different and I would rather have results than looks.

We do not always use the same formations....please.
I am watching the Colts game on my PC (because I record every game) and at 10:25 in the first quarter we have 3 wide outs and 2 in the backfield and one of them goes on on a delay.
If you are built to run you have to pose that threat every single play.
We are built to run and we have the line and the backs to make that happen.
If we line up with 2 wide and TE's with a back it tells the Defense that we can either hit them with a quick pass or run; it keeps them guessing.
If we spread them out and totally show pass, you think the Defense is worried?
Hell no.
Our QB's are poor and our WR's & TE's are below average.
Showing run and passing is not predictable and the Defense cannot commit to either.
Showing run and having a good run game sets-up a great play action as well.

Bottom line, we would not be fooling anybody by spreading the field.
We are not a passing team and have to leave the run element in every play we execute.




Dude, do you understand that if we spread them out (3 wides) they would have to cover the field and atleast put a man on each receiver, and give us single coverage with possibly a safety on AA... we can either use this and throw it to BB deep or find AA in the slot or better yet, takes a man out of the box and run the ball... We did this all the time with MOss and robert smith...

two TE set's doesn't scare anybody bc our TE's don't put the fear of GOD in anybody...
Either way, going 3 wide one time in a game doesn't constitute any semblance of unpredictability... I'm sorry.. you do that one time and it doesn't count...

What i'm trying to portray, is that if we run multiple sets, it makes the defense have to switch personnel where we can possibly get match up advantages... it can also keep the defense off balance.. but if we're running play in and play out with the same personnel and formations, we're not taking advantage of the other talented skill positions we have... i.e. AA and Chester, and even Maurice Hicks...

Obviously, the bare bones bonified 2 TE sets aren't working so i think you have to alteast go with some different personnel packages to atleast try and get a match up you like.. if we go 3 wide and they expect pass, we can run and vice versa... with 2 wide you still can have a TE in the game..

additionally, we very rarely use motion to determine what kind of defense they are in.. and yesterday, in the game against the titans i'm sure we did but i don't remember 1 play action pass we attempted... we should have been doing that a lot more...

and i'm telling you... the play calling killed us yesterday.. passing out of shotgun on 3rd and 1 is ridiculous.. if your gonna pass atleast use play action... to freeze the defense.. we threw the ball 43 times yesterday with Gus and only ran the ball 18 times.. our running game is obviously our strength, but we really mismanaged that game yesterday, in addition to all the untimely penalties...

ultravikingfan
09-29-2008, 01:47 PM
"bleedpurple" wrote:


"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"bleedpurple" wrote:


YOu dont' have to appologize to me!!.. Besides that your missing the point!!.. the use of different formations and going 4 wide and all that, makes a difference in what your offense looks like..

Regardless of what plays were called.. no QB can be successful if your running the same bare bones offensive attack using the same formations 2 wide receivers 2 TE or 1 TE and a FB... We rarely ever ran 3 wide receivers, etc. etc.... so if we run the same ole boring stuff, and give TJ only 2 options, if the defense knows this, as we do watching TV obviously they are going to sit on those routes, and receivers aren't going to get open... bc it's sooo predictable..

but if we had mixed it up, regardless, and used a little more creativity as far as formations, even if the plays were the same, atleast it gives the defense something to think about instead of running the exact same plays...

i like TJ but i'm not sold on him either, but like i said, if your going to bench him, atleast know what you got and call a normal game, maybe he wont' handle it, maybe he surprises you.. but atleast find out!!.. you spent all that time preppin him in the offseason, and hitched your wagon to him, might as well make sure he's not the one!.. that's all i'm saying..

but it's a moot point GUS is the guy now!


Yes, going 4 wide makes your Offense look different.
Do we really pose a threat with 4 wide?
We do not really have the WR's to make the plays nor the QB to deliver the ball accurately and timely.
All it does is make our Offense look different and I would rather have results than looks.

We do not always use the same formations....please.
I am watching the Colts game on my PC (because I record every game) and at 10:25 in the first quarter we have 3 wide outs and 2 in the backfield and one of them goes on on a delay.
If you are built to run you have to pose that threat every single play.
We are built to run and we have the line and the backs to make that happen.
If we line up with 2 wide and TE's with a back it tells the Defense that we can either hit them with a quick pass or run; it keeps them guessing.
If we spread them out and totally show pass, you think the Defense is worried?
Hell no.
Our QB's are poor and our WR's & TE's are below average.
Showing run and passing is not predictable and the Defense cannot commit to either.
Showing run and having a good run game sets-up a great play action as well.

Bottom line, we would not be fooling anybody by spreading the field.
We are not a passing team and have to leave the run element in every play we execute.




Dude, do you understand that if we spread them out (3 wides) they would have to cover the field and atleast put a man on each receiver, and give us single coverage with possibly a safety on AA... we can either use this and throw it to BB deep or find AA in the slot or better yet, takes a man out of the box and run the ball... We did this all the time with MOss and robert smith...

two TE set's doesn't scare anybody bc our TE's don't put the fear of GOD in anybody...
Either way, going 3 wide one time in a game doesn't constitute any semblance of unpredictability... I'm sorry.. you do that one time and it doesn't count...

What i'm trying to portray, is that if we run multiple sets, it makes the defense have to switch personnel where we can possibly get match up advantages... it can also keep the defense off balance.. but if we're running play in and play out with the same personnel and formations, we're not taking advantage of the other talented skill positions we have... i.e. AA and Chester, and even Maurice Hicks...

Obviously, the bare bones bonified 2 TE sets aren't working so i think you have to alteast go with some different personnel packages to atleast try and get a match up you like.. if we go 3 wide and they expect pass, we can run and vice versa... with 2 wide you still can have a TE in the game..

additionally, we very rarely use motion to determine what kind of defense they are in.. and yesterday, in the game against the titans i'm sure we did but i don't remember 1 play action pass we attempted... we should have been doing that a lot more...

and i'm telling you... the play calling killed us yesterday.. passing out of shotgun on 3rd and 1 is ridiculous.. if your gonna pass atleast use play action... to freeze the defense.. we threw the ball 43 times yesterday with Gus and only ran the ball 18 times.. our running game is obviously our strength, but we really mismanaged that game yesterday, in addition to all the untimely penalties...


Dude, what I am saying is that you said we do not spread it out.
In our first couple drives vs. the Colts we did.

bleedpurple
09-29-2008, 03:26 PM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"bleedpurple" wrote:


"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"bleedpurple" wrote:


YOu dont' have to appologize to me!!.. Besides that your missing the point!!.. the use of different formations and going 4 wide and all that, makes a difference in what your offense looks like..

Regardless of what plays were called.. no QB can be successful if your running the same bare bones offensive attack using the same formations 2 wide receivers 2 TE or 1 TE and a FB... We rarely ever ran 3 wide receivers, etc. etc.... so if we run the same ole boring stuff, and give TJ only 2 options, if the defense knows this, as we do watching TV obviously they are going to sit on those routes, and receivers aren't going to get open... bc it's sooo predictable..

but if we had mixed it up, regardless, and used a little more creativity as far as formations, even if the plays were the same, atleast it gives the defense something to think about instead of running the exact same plays...

i like TJ but i'm not sold on him either, but like i said, if your going to bench him, atleast know what you got and call a normal game, maybe he wont' handle it, maybe he surprises you.. but atleast find out!!.. you spent all that time preppin him in the offseason, and hitched your wagon to him, might as well make sure he's not the one!.. that's all i'm saying..

but it's a moot point GUS is the guy now!


Yes, going 4 wide makes your Offense look different.
Do we really pose a threat with 4 wide?
We do not really have the WR's to make the plays nor the QB to deliver the ball accurately and timely.
All it does is make our Offense look different and I would rather have results than looks.

We do not always use the same formations....please.
I am watching the Colts game on my PC (because I record every game) and at 10:25 in the first quarter we have 3 wide outs and 2 in the backfield and one of them goes on on a delay.
If you are built to run you have to pose that threat every single play.
We are built to run and we have the line and the backs to make that happen.
If we line up with 2 wide and TE's with a back it tells the Defense that we can either hit them with a quick pass or run; it keeps them guessing.
If we spread them out and totally show pass, you think the Defense is worried?
Hell no.
Our QB's are poor and our WR's & TE's are below average.
Showing run and passing is not predictable and the Defense cannot commit to either.
Showing run and having a good run game sets-up a great play action as well.

Bottom line, we would not be fooling anybody by spreading the field.
We are not a passing team and have to leave the run element in every play we execute.




Dude, do you understand that if we spread them out (3 wides) they would have to cover the field and atleast put a man on each receiver, and give us single coverage with possibly a safety on AA... we can either use this and throw it to BB deep or find AA in the slot or better yet, takes a man out of the box and run the ball... We did this all the time with MOss and robert smith...

two TE set's doesn't scare anybody bc our TE's don't put the fear of GOD in anybody...
Either way, going 3 wide one time in a game doesn't constitute any semblance of unpredictability... I'm sorry.. you do that one time and it doesn't count...

What i'm trying to portray, is that if we run multiple sets, it makes the defense have to switch personnel where we can possibly get match up advantages... it can also keep the defense off balance.. but if we're running play in and play out with the same personnel and formations, we're not taking advantage of the other talented skill positions we have... i.e. AA and Chester, and even Maurice Hicks...

Obviously, the bare bones bonified 2 TE sets aren't working so i think you have to alteast go with some different personnel packages to atleast try and get a match up you like.. if we go 3 wide and they expect pass, we can run and vice versa... with 2 wide you still can have a TE in the game..

additionally, we very rarely use motion to determine what kind of defense they are in.. and yesterday, in the game against the titans i'm sure we did but i don't remember 1 play action pass we attempted... we should have been doing that a lot more...

and i'm telling you... the play calling killed us yesterday.. passing out of shotgun on 3rd and 1 is ridiculous.. if your gonna pass atleast use play action... to freeze the defense.. we threw the ball 43 times yesterday with Gus and only ran the ball 18 times.. our running game is obviously our strength, but we really mismanaged that game yesterday, in addition to all the untimely penalties...


Dude, what I am saying is that you said we do not spread it out.
In our first couple drives vs. the Colts we did.



oh, ok... i don't tape the games, so i have no way of going back and analyzing them... esp. when we loose, it just makes me mad to look a a tape of a game when i know the outcome.. it's like getting dumped by the girl of your dreams and them looking at pictures of yall being happy together, its torture.. what's the point!!..

with that said, i thought you were saying that there was no need to go 4 wide bc our receivers suck.... i don't remember spreading them out and going 3 and 4 wide against the colts.. but if you say we did, then i believe you... to me the last two games our offense.. (atleast to me) has been a lot less predictable.. besides the fact that it seems like Bevell is trying to make up for lost time now by throwing the ball entirely too much lately!!..

We can't win for loosing!

ultravikingfan
09-29-2008, 03:30 PM
"bleedpurple" wrote:


"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"bleedpurple" wrote:


"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"bleedpurple" wrote:


YOu dont' have to appologize to me!!.. Besides that your missing the point!!.. the use of different formations and going 4 wide and all that, makes a difference in what your offense looks like..

Regardless of what plays were called.. no QB can be successful if your running the same bare bones offensive attack using the same formations 2 wide receivers 2 TE or 1 TE and a FB... We rarely ever ran 3 wide receivers, etc. etc.... so if we run the same ole boring stuff, and give TJ only 2 options, if the defense knows this, as we do watching TV obviously they are going to sit on those routes, and receivers aren't going to get open... bc it's sooo predictable..

but if we had mixed it up, regardless, and used a little more creativity as far as formations, even if the plays were the same, atleast it gives the defense something to think about instead of running the exact same plays...

i like TJ but i'm not sold on him either, but like i said, if your going to bench him, atleast know what you got and call a normal game, maybe he wont' handle it, maybe he surprises you.. but atleast find out!!.. you spent all that time preppin him in the offseason, and hitched your wagon to him, might as well make sure he's not the one!.. that's all i'm saying..

but it's a moot point GUS is the guy now!


No what I am saying is that we just do not run 2 WR sets.
We do spread it out.
Also, by us spreading it out more we are not fooling anyone.
We would be making the defense's job easier because we cannot pass the ball.
Whether it is our WR's, TE, QB or the Line...we are not built to pass the ball.


We can show run on every play and pop off a few quick hits, which is what I would like to see.
Screw the deep crap.
Comebacks, slants, etc...just to keep them guessing.

Yes, going 4 wide makes your Offense look different.
Do we really pose a threat with 4 wide?
We do not really have the WR's to make the plays nor the QB to deliver the ball accurately and timely.
All it does is make our Offense look different and I would rather have results than looks.

We do not always use the same formations....please.
I am watching the Colts game on my PC (because I record every game) and at 10:25 in the first quarter we have 3 wide outs and 2 in the backfield and one of them goes on on a delay.
If you are built to run you have to pose that threat every single play.
We are built to run and we have the line and the backs to make that happen.
If we line up with 2 wide and TE's with a back it tells the Defense that we can either hit them with a quick pass or run; it keeps them guessing.
If we spread them out and totally show pass, you think the Defense is worried?
Hell no.
Our QB's are poor and our WR's & TE's are below average.
Showing run and passing is not predictable and the Defense cannot commit to either.
Showing run and having a good run game sets-up a great play action as well.

Bottom line, we would not be fooling anybody by spreading the field.
We are not a passing team and have to leave the run element in every play we execute.




Dude, do you understand that if we spread them out (3 wides) they would have to cover the field and atleast put a man on each receiver, and give us single coverage with possibly a safety on AA... we can either use this and throw it to BB deep or find AA in the slot or better yet, takes a man out of the box and run the ball... We did this all the time with MOss and robert smith...

two TE set's doesn't scare anybody bc our TE's don't put the fear of GOD in anybody...
Either way, going 3 wide one time in a game doesn't constitute any semblance of unpredictability... I'm sorry.. you do that one time and it doesn't count...

What i'm trying to portray, is that if we run multiple sets, it makes the defense have to switch personnel where we can possibly get match up advantages... it can also keep the defense off balance.. but if we're running play in and play out with the same personnel and formations, we're not taking advantage of the other talented skill positions we have... i.e. AA and Chester, and even Maurice Hicks...

Obviously, the bare bones bonified 2 TE sets aren't working so i think you have to alteast go with some different personnel packages to atleast try and get a match up you like.. if we go 3 wide and they expect pass, we can run and vice versa... with 2 wide you still can have a TE in the game..

additionally, we very rarely use motion to determine what kind of defense they are in.. and yesterday, in the game against the titans i'm sure we did but i don't remember 1 play action pass we attempted... we should have been doing that a lot more...

and i'm telling you... the play calling killed us yesterday.. passing out of shotgun on 3rd and 1 is ridiculous.. if your gonna pass atleast use play action... to freeze the defense.. we threw the ball 43 times yesterday with Gus and only ran the ball 18 times.. our running game is obviously our strength, but we really mismanaged that game yesterday, in addition to all the untimely penalties...


Dude, what I am saying is that you said we do not spread it out.
In our first couple drives vs. the Colts we did.



oh, ok... i don't tape the games, so i have no way of going back and analyzing them... esp. when we loose, it just makes me mad to look a a tape of a game when i know the outcome.. it's like getting dumped by the girl of your dreams and them looking at pictures of yall being happy together, its torture.. what's the point!!..

with that said, i thought you were saying that there was no need to go 4 wide bc our receivers suck.... i don't remember spreading them out and going 3 and 4 wide against the colts.. but if you say we did, then i believe you... to me the last two games our offense.. (atleast to me) has been a lot less predictable.. besides the fact that it seems like Bevell is trying to make up for lost time now by throwing the ball entirely too much lately!!..

We can't win for loosing!