PDA

View Full Version : Frerotte enjoying more freedom



singersp
11-09-2008, 07:03 AM
Vikings Insider: Frerotte enjoying more freedom (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/34115859.html)

The veteran can't go wild, but he has more leeway to call audibles and have input on game plans than previous quarterbacks.

By JUDD ZULGAD, Star Tribune

Last update: November 8, 2008 - 5:40 PM

singersp
11-09-2008, 07:05 AM
Nonetheless, the fact Frerotte has been allowed to completely change a play on two occasions actually shows the level of trust coach Brad Childress and offensive coordinator Darrell Bevell have in him.

Where now, are all the yutzes who claimed Jackson was calling audibles?
;)

Mr-holland
11-09-2008, 10:29 AM
Childress is growing and learning as a coach, It's good to know he has the trust in Frerotte that he allows him to audible once in a while.

NodakPaul
11-09-2008, 11:04 AM
Waiting for the TJack supporters to come in here and say that TJack would be just as successful if he had more freedom... ;D

Mr-holland
11-09-2008, 11:08 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


Waiting for the TJack supporters to come in here and say that TJack would be just as successful if he had more freedom... ;D

I think that TJ's play would be better if he had more freedom, but Frerotte is growing on me ( even though he isn't all that spectacular ) But to say he would be just as successful? Frerotte is a proven veteran, recognizing schemes and match-ups i think Frerotte has the edge

snowinapril
11-09-2008, 12:50 PM
Let the players grow up a bit.
Frerotte deserves to opp to call audibles.
He has been around long enough.


Chilly and the OC = tightwads..... ?

snowinapril
11-09-2008, 12:55 PM
"Mr-holland" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


Waiting for the TJack supporters to come in here and say that TJack would be just as successful if he had more freedom... ;D

I think that TJ's play would be better if he had more freedom, but Frerotte is growing on me ( even though he isn't all that spectacular ) But to say he would be just as successful? Frerotte is a proven veteran, recognizing schemes and match-ups i think Frerotte has the edge


Kind of makes you wonder why they started him (TJ) at the beginning of the season.
He must have taken steps backwards in the real time situations of the game.
Progress?

Frerotte didn't know the system as well at the beginning of the season?
I don't think I ever questioned who the better QB was.
Experience counts for a lot!

I just wish we could luck out like the Falcons or the Bills or the Broncos and pick the right guy to succeed in the draft.


Anyway, I am glad that Frerotte is getting his chance to run the offense.

ThorSPL
11-09-2008, 02:21 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


Waiting for the TJack supporters to come in here and say that TJack would be just as successful if he had more freedom... ;D


Obviously he would have.... when your season was as bad as his had been, there is only one way to go... and that's up. :)

VikesFanInNC
11-09-2008, 03:31 PM
That freedom has done alot of good today when you take 10 years to throw it.

Viking_Queen
11-09-2008, 03:33 PM
He's going to be enjoying the freedom of the unemployment line. ha ha ha

marstc09
11-09-2008, 03:39 PM
I am not enjoying his INTs!

BadlandsVikings
11-09-2008, 03:40 PM
Time for change

MaxVike
11-09-2008, 03:48 PM
Good for Gus.
I'm not enjoying his freedom today
>:(

VikesFanInNC
11-09-2008, 03:49 PM
If they lose this game, Jackson should play the rest of the season.

V4L
11-09-2008, 04:29 PM
Gus is bad

I wouldnt
make the Change yet since he is 5-2 as a starter

but really he is bad

Jackson can do that plus run

C Mac D
11-09-2008, 04:31 PM
Haha, calling for Jackson to start. Although it's funny... I actually agree with it.

Great win today, awesome stuff!

Why don't we utilize Sidney Rice more often? He had a TD, but that was his only catch.

Mr-holland
11-09-2008, 04:36 PM
Limit his freedom!

Look, if we would've lost this game TJ would have started next week. Now i'm afraid that frerotte will start again. TJ deserves a chance because he played better ball in week 1/2 than frerotte did.

V4L
11-09-2008, 04:38 PM
"C" wrote:


Haha, calling for Jackson to start. Although it's funny... I actually agree with it.

Great win today, awesome stuff!

Why don't we utilize Sidney Rice more often? He had a TD, but that was his only catch.



Cuz Gus can't hit his WRs when they are stuck in a jam or dropping balls.. Or when he just flat out throws a bad throw

BBQ Platypus
11-09-2008, 04:55 PM
::) Please.
It seems we've already forgotten last week, when people were awarding him the game ball.
Now they're calling for him to be benched.
I swear, you guys have some kind of heavy amnesia to suggest something like "Bring back T-Jack."

He is no great quarterback by any stretch of the imagination, but he is better than T-Jack.
Hell, he's better than anybody else we have available.
Bottom line - we are weak at the position.
For all his faults, he's the best we have.
Take a look at last week compared to weeks 1 and 2 and tell me that's not true.

Absolutely ridiculous.

V4L
11-09-2008, 05:05 PM
"BBQ" wrote:


::) Please.
It seems we've already forgotten last week, when people were awarding him the game ball.

He is no great quarterback by any stretch of the imagination, but he is better than T-Jack.
Hell, he's better than anybody else we have available.
Bottom line - we are weak at the position.
For all his faults, he's the best we have.
Take a look at last week compared to weeks 1 and 2 and tell me that's not true.



Some gave him the game ball because he played good THAT game

Im still on the tetor totter (sp) with the two QBs but for now ill take Gus because we win for some reason with him in

No one here claimed he was great.. They just liked how he has played minus this game

ThorSPL
11-09-2008, 05:07 PM
"V4L" wrote:


Gus is bad

I wouldnt
make the Change yet since he is 5-2 as a starter

but really he is bad

Jackson can do that plus run


Heh, Jackson's record is pretty good as well... and yeah, Jackson could have definitely taken off for 10-20 yards a few times today. Plus he may have struggled to complete so many to the GB defenders.

V4L
11-09-2008, 05:08 PM
Im on the fence man

I stick with Gus cuz we are winning.. But its not him doing it

But we win

So either way I would not be mad

CCthebest
11-09-2008, 05:16 PM
How can Childress be SO terrible at getting and playing a QB? Isnt that his only claim to fame? Gus is just barely an average BACK UP QB!!!! All we really need is an average starting QB to win 10+ games a year DISPITE Dickless and his coaching staff (other then Fraziersd who is ok).

Mr-holland
11-09-2008, 05:44 PM
"CCthebest" wrote:


How can Childress be SO terrible at getting and playing a QB? Isnt that his only claim to fame? Gus is just barely an average BACK UP QB!!!! All we really need is an average starting QB to win 10+ games a year DISPITE Dickless and his coaching staff (other then Fraziersd who is ok).

I don't agree, should Childress go, Frazier could go right along with him

Purple Floyd
11-09-2008, 06:33 PM
Gus is what he is. He will have good games and occasionally he will have a bad one like he did today. My guess is if you look across the league pretty much every QB in the league has had one game they would like to have back.

He still gives us the best chance to win at this point and unless this game becomes the rule and not the exception then I would stick with him. If we are going to go after another QB in the offseason I want them to change the QB coach too. He hasn't shown me much

singersp
11-09-2008, 06:48 PM
Frerotte enjoying more freedom

More freedom to what? Throw interceptions?

Those were terrible throws today.

Freakout
11-09-2008, 07:04 PM
"CCthebest" wrote:


How can Childress be SO terrible at getting and playing a QB? Isnt that his only claim to fame? Gus is just barely an average BACK UP QB!!!! All we really need is an average starting QB to win 10+ games a year DISPITE Dickless and his coaching staff (other then Fraziersd who is ok).


And that is what scares the hell out of me.
If they chose to draft a QB in the 1st next year I have no faith that they can get the right guy.

QB and a CB to replace Cedric are our two biggest holes to fill in my opinion.

V4L
11-09-2008, 08:32 PM
"Freakout" wrote:


"CCthebest" wrote:


How can Childress be SO terrible at getting and playing a QB? Isnt that his only claim to fame? Gus is just barely an average BACK UP QB!!!! All we really need is an average starting QB to win 10+ games a year DISPITE Dickless and his coaching staff (other then Fraziersd who is ok).


And that is what scares the hell out of me.
If they chose to draft a QB in the 1st next year I have no faith that they can get the right guy.

QB and a CB to replace Cedric are our two biggest holes to fill in my opinion.



Cedric? Why?

He manhandled jennings today

Freakout
11-09-2008, 08:34 PM
"V4L" wrote:


"Freakout" wrote:


"CCthebest" wrote:


How can Childress be SO terrible at getting and playing a QB? Isnt that his only claim to fame? Gus is just barely an average BACK UP QB!!!! All we really need is an average starting QB to win 10+ games a year DISPITE Dickless and his coaching staff (other then Fraziersd who is ok).


And that is what scares the hell out of me.
If they chose to draft a QB in the 1st next year I have no faith that they can get the right guy.

QB and a CB to replace Cedric are our two biggest holes to fill in my opinion.



Cedric? Why?

He manhandled jennings today


Finally.
He has been bad most of the season.

V4L
11-09-2008, 08:36 PM
"Freakout" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


"Freakout" wrote:


"CCthebest" wrote:


How can Childress be SO terrible at getting and playing a QB? Isnt that his only claim to fame? Gus is just barely an average BACK UP QB!!!! All we really need is an average starting QB to win 10+ games a year DISPITE Dickless and his coaching staff (other then Fraziersd who is ok).


And that is what scares the hell out of me.
If they chose to draft a QB in the 1st next year I have no faith that they can get the right guy.

QB and a CB to replace Cedric are our two biggest holes to fill in my opinion.



Cedric? Why?

He manhandled jennings today


Finally.
He has been bad most of the season.



Nope not the last few games

Also shut down Andre Johnson besides falling down on that TD

He plays his zones very well and makes huge tackles

NodakPaul
11-09-2008, 09:38 PM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


Gus is what he is. He will have good games and occasionally he will have a bad one like he did today. My guess is if you look across the league pretty much every QB in the league has had one game they would like to have back.

He still gives us the best chance to win at this point and unless this game becomes the rule and not the exception then I would stick with him. If we are going to go after another QB in the offseason I want them to change the QB coach too. He hasn't shown me much


+1.

Anyone who thinks that TJack could have done better is kidding themselves.
Green Bay leads the league in INTs, so it shouldn't be any big surprise they picked off a few today.
Yet despite that we manager to record 24 points on offense.
I'll take Gus any day over Tjack.
(And next year we need to find the REAL QB of the future.)

V4L
11-09-2008, 11:43 PM
Also enjoying a much better D then the first few weeks of the season

ragz
11-09-2008, 11:55 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


Gus is what he is. He will have good games and occasionally he will have a bad one like he did today. My guess is if you look across the league pretty much every QB in the league has had one game they would like to have back.

He still gives us the best chance to win at this point and unless this game becomes the rule and not the exception then I would stick with him. If we are going to go after another QB in the offseason I want them to change the QB coach too. He hasn't shown me much


+1.

Anyone who thinks that TJack could have done better is kidding themselves.
Green Bay leads the league in INTs, so it shouldn't be any big surprise they picked off a few today.
Yet despite that we manager to record 24 points on offense.
I'll take Gus any day over Tjack.
(And next year we need to find the REAL QB of the future.)

i know, its ridiculous to think anyone coulda done better than 3 ints leading to 17 points and throwing for 150 yards, and your 2 tds consisted of throwing the ball a total of 5 yards.
he wasn't under alot of pressure today, we protected pretty good, and not only his picks were terrible throws, alot of incompletions were terrible.
i'm pretty sure alot of qbs coulda done better.
you act as if his throws were a result of this great defense.
he threw balls directly to defenders where wrs were standing a few steps behind them.
you wanna defend a previous thought, thats fine, but dont come out with that lame defense of this performance.

jkjuggalo
11-10-2008, 12:01 AM
"ragz" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


Gus is what he is. He will have good games and occasionally he will have a bad one like he did today. My guess is if you look across the league pretty much every QB in the league has had one game they would like to have back.

He still gives us the best chance to win at this point and unless this game becomes the rule and not the exception then I would stick with him. If we are going to go after another QB in the offseason I want them to change the QB coach too. He hasn't shown me much


+1.

Anyone who thinks that TJack could have done better is kidding themselves.
Green Bay leads the league in INTs, so it shouldn't be any big surprise they picked off a few today.
Yet despite that we manager to record 24 points on offense.
I'll take Gus any day over Tjack.
(And next year we need to find the REAL QB of the future.)

i know, its ridiculous to think anyone coulda done better than 3 ints leading to 17 points and throwing for 150 yards, and your 2 tds consisted of throwing the ball a total of 5 yards.
he wasn't under alot of pressure today, we protected pretty good, and not only his picks were terrible throws, alot of incompletions were terrible.
i'm pretty sure alot of qbs coulda done better.
you act as if his throws were a result of this great defense.
he threw balls directly to defenders where wrs were standing a few steps behind them.
you wanna defend a previous thought, thats fine, but dont come out with that lame defense of this performance.



+1

You can't defend Gus on this one.
A 50 year old Vietnamese leper could have played better than Gus did today.
TJ may have faltered today also, we cannot argue that hypotheses, but it is getting harder to justify starting this washed up QB that is supposed to be the veteran that takes care of the ball so our running game and defense can get us the W.
Gus almost singlehandedly lost the game for us today.
It also looked like the team lost a lot of confidence in Gus after that 3rd INT.
Could get interesting here in the coming weeks if this shit keeps up.

V4L
11-10-2008, 12:06 AM
yes they were losing confidence in him

He called for a meeting on the sidelines for the starters and only 2 came over ha

ragz
11-10-2008, 12:13 AM
"jkjuggalo" wrote:


"ragz" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


Gus is what he is. He will have good games and occasionally he will have a bad one like he did today. My guess is if you look across the league pretty much every QB in the league has had one game they would like to have back.

He still gives us the best chance to win at this point and unless this game becomes the rule and not the exception then I would stick with him. If we are going to go after another QB in the offseason I want them to change the QB coach too. He hasn't shown me much


+1.

Anyone who thinks that TJack could have done better is kidding themselves.
Green Bay leads the league in INTs, so it shouldn't be any big surprise they picked off a few today.
Yet despite that we manager to record 24 points on offense.
I'll take Gus any day over Tjack.
(And next year we need to find the REAL QB of the future.)

i know, its ridiculous to think anyone coulda done better than 3 ints leading to 17 points and throwing for 150 yards, and your 2 tds consisted of throwing the ball a total of 5 yards.
he wasn't under alot of pressure today, we protected pretty good, and not only his picks were terrible throws, alot of incompletions were terrible.
i'm pretty sure alot of qbs coulda done better.
you act as if his throws were a result of this great defense.
he threw balls directly to defenders where wrs were standing a few steps behind them.
you wanna defend a previous thought, thats fine, but dont come out with that lame defense of this performance.



+1

You can't defend Gus on this one.
A 50 year old Vietnamese leper could have played better than Gus did today.
TJ may have faltered today also, we cannot argue that hypotheses, but it is getting harder to justify starting this washed up QB that is supposed to be the veteran that takes care of the ball so our running game and defense can get us the W.
Gus almost singlehandedly lost the game for us today.
It also looked like the team lost a lot of confidence in Gus after that 3rd INT.
Could get interesting here in the coming weeks if this pooh keeps up.

is that true v4l?
that ain't good.

i doubt it jk, i find it hard to believe childress would admit to being wrong again and make a switch.
plus, he'll just say that we are 5-2.
but he'll fail to mention that our defense has been getting progressively better and just like i thought, peterson is on his way to a huge 2nd half of the season, i hope.
but these questions of course are gonna come up, cuz you abandoned your team plan after 2 games.
not exactly a fair way to assess your team.
i just like the hypocrites who are raging in defense of ferrotte after this game, but jackson was single handedly responsible for the first green bay loss.
i heard that for weeks and heard that leading into this game.
i dont care if anyone prefers one over another, but be fair.


the only reason i'm even having this discussion still is cuz i just wonder what "maybe" his progress woulda been at this point and if our offense would be literally dynamic cuz of his physical tools.
if he started to to show the potential he has i felt like our offense coulda started to become what dallas's did when they benched bledsoe for romo.
but they abandoned it so quick.
i've never said he woulda definitely done that, but the chances of becoming that were more likely with a jackson, than they are gonna be with ferrotte.
like i've said, ferrotte is what ferrotte is, so we gotta live with the kinda throws he made today.

V4L
11-10-2008, 12:16 AM
Yup it happened man

I guess he is our QB so I hope the team isn't losing all faith in him.. Idk if they were just upset or losing faith... But it wasn't good

ragz
11-10-2008, 12:18 AM
"V4L" wrote:


Yup it happened man

I guess he is our QB so I hope the team isn't losing all faith in him.. Idk if they were just upset or losing faith... But it wasn't good

well they were probably just as frustrated as we were cuz i couldnt figure out what he was thinking with his throws.

V4L
11-10-2008, 12:19 AM
"ragz" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


Yup it happened man

I guess he is our QB so I hope the team isn't losing all faith in him.. Idk if they were just upset or losing faith... But it wasn't good

well they were probably just as frustrated as we were cuz i couldnt figure out what he was thinking with his throws.



Me either man

I gotta say the worst one was with Wade WIDEEEE open over the safety and he throws it directly to the guy underneath

What was he thinking or did he just lose that ball?

That was brutal

V-Unit
11-10-2008, 12:38 AM
"V4L" wrote:


"ragz" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


Yup it happened man

I guess he is our QB so I hope the team isn't losing all faith in him.. Idk if they were just upset or losing faith... But it wasn't good

well they were probably just as frustrated as we were cuz i couldnt figure out what he was thinking with his throws.



Me either man

I gotta say the worst one was with Wade WIDEEEE open over the safety and he throws it directly to the guy underneath

What was he thinking or did he just lose that ball?

That was brutal


On all 3 of his picks, he simply never saw the defender. Accurate throws but bad ones. Bad reads as well.

What does TJ do in the situation? Maybe he sees the defender, but at that point he would losee all confidence in his arm, not try to make the throw, try to scramble instead, but get sacked.

Oh and btw, hate the TJ benching all you want, but we are a better team because of Gus. Sure the D and AD have been great, but it makes no sense that Chilly does not get any credit for his defense or how he uses his star RB.

Maybe putting Gus in lets Chilly relax about his QB and enables him to focus on other things?

Either way, I'm not going to defense Gus' day, but he still is better than TJ. Putting TJ back in improves nothing.

jkjuggalo
11-10-2008, 12:54 AM
"V" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


"ragz" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


Yup it happened man

I guess he is our QB so I hope the team isn't losing all faith in him.. Idk if they were just upset or losing faith... But it wasn't good

well they were probably just as frustrated as we were cuz i couldnt figure out what he was thinking with his throws.



Me either man

I gotta say the worst one was with Wade WIDEEEE open over the safety and he throws it directly to the guy underneath

What was he thinking or did he just lose that ball?

That was brutal


On all 3 of his picks, he simply never saw the defender. Accurate throws but bad ones. Bad reads as well.

What does TJ do in the situation? Maybe he sees the defender, but at that point he would losee all confidence in his arm, not try to make the throw, try to scramble instead, but get sacked.

Oh and btw, hate the TJ benching all you want, but we are a better team because of Gus. Sure the D and AD have been great, but it makes no sense that Chilly does not get any credit for his defense or how he uses his star RB.

Maybe putting Gus in lets Chilly relax about his QB and enables him to focus on other things?

Either way, I'm not going to defense Gus' day, but he still is better than TJ. Putting TJ back in improves nothing.




Well it certainly can't hurt.
We have almost lost every game Gus has started and his inconsistent play keeps teams around that we should be slaughtering.
He very nearly cost us the game today with horrendous throws that most college QBs wouldn't make.
People need to admit that Gus does not give us more of a chance to win than TJ.
It is a push.

BBQ Platypus
11-10-2008, 12:58 AM
"jkjuggalo" wrote:


"V" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


"ragz" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


Yup it happened man

I guess he is our QB so I hope the team isn't losing all faith in him.. Idk if they were just upset or losing faith... But it wasn't good

well they were probably just as frustrated as we were cuz i couldnt figure out what he was thinking with his throws.



Me either man

I gotta say the worst one was with Wade WIDEEEE open over the safety and he throws it directly to the guy underneath

What was he thinking or did he just lose that ball?

That was brutal


On all 3 of his picks, he simply never saw the defender. Accurate throws but bad ones. Bad reads as well.

What does TJ do in the situation? Maybe he sees the defender, but at that point he would losee all confidence in his arm, not try to make the throw, try to scramble instead, but get sacked.

Oh and btw, hate the TJ benching all you want, but we are a better team because of Gus. Sure the D and AD have been great, but it makes no sense that Chilly does not get any credit for his defense or how he uses his star RB.

Maybe putting Gus in lets Chilly relax about his QB and enables him to focus on other things?

Either way, I'm not going to defense Gus' day, but he still is better than TJ. Putting TJ back in improves nothing.




Well it certainly can't hurt.
We have almost lost every game Gus has started and his inconsistent play keeps teams around that we should be slaughtering.
He very nearly cost us the game today with horrendous throws that most college QBs wouldn't make.
People need to admit that Gus does not give us more of a chance to win than TJ.
It is a push.



As opposed to the games when T-Jack was playing and we almost won. ::)

I'd also like to point out that we didn't "almost lose" last week against Houston.
Gus had a great game against them.
This was a tougher game against a better pass defense.
A bad performance, yes, but he most certainly hasn't been this bad all year.

It is not a push.
T-Jack wasn't cutting it.
End of story.

jkjuggalo
11-10-2008, 01:20 AM
"BBQ" wrote:


"jkjuggalo" wrote:


"V" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


"ragz" wrote:




Yup it happened man

I guess he is our QB so I hope the team isn't losing all faith in him.. Idk if they were just upset or losing faith... But it wasn't good

well they were probably just as frustrated as we were cuz i couldnt figure out what he was thinking with his throws.



Me either man

I gotta say the worst one was with Wade WIDEEEE open over the safety and he throws it directly to the guy underneath

What was he thinking or did he just lose that ball?

That was brutal


On all 3 of his picks, he simply never saw the defender. Accurate throws but bad ones. Bad reads as well.

What does TJ do in the situation? Maybe he sees the defender, but at that point he would losee all confidence in his arm, not try to make the throw, try to scramble instead, but get sacked.

Oh and btw, hate the TJ benching all you want, but we are a better team because of Gus. Sure the D and AD have been great, but it makes no sense that Chilly does not get any credit for his defense or how he uses his star RB.

Maybe putting Gus in lets Chilly relax about his QB and enables him to focus on other things?

Either way, I'm not going to defense Gus' day, but he still is better than TJ. Putting TJ back in improves nothing.




Well it certainly can't hurt.
We have almost lost every game Gus has started and his inconsistent play keeps teams around that we should be slaughtering.
He very nearly cost us the game today with horrendous throws that most college QBs wouldn't make.
People need to admit that Gus does not give us more of a chance to win than TJ.
It is a push.



As opposed to the games when T-Jack was playing and we almost won. ::)

I'd also like to point out that we didn't "almost lose" last week against Houston.
Gus had a great game against them.
This was a tougher game against a better pass defense.
A bad performance, yes, but he most certainly hasn't been this bad all year.

It is not a push.
T-Jack wasn't cutting it.
End of story.


I never said Gus played bad every game.
I said he is every bit as inconsistent as TJ.
At least TJ tends to throw his picks when we are trying to push it coming from behind.
Gus throws them when we are ahead or tied.

The biggest difference this year has been that the players are actually making plays for Gus.
Berrian has taken a couple short routes to the house, AD's pass blocking is improving, Shank is actually catching the ball, etc.


Gus has not done anything to warrant being a starter in this league over a long career.
Games like the one today show why this is a fact.
When it comes to consistency, yes, it is a push.

Oh, and TJ had almost no chance with the horrible play-calling in those first 2 games.
TJack did not get a fair shake this year, end of story.

jkjuggalo
11-10-2008, 02:00 AM
As far as the point of this thread, Chilly needs to learn how to give the QBs more control, no matter who it may be.
If the QBs can't adjust the plays at the line, we are screwed because the defenses have to have a good idea of what is coming next if I can predict the play half the time.

singersp
11-10-2008, 06:42 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:



Anyone who thinks that TJack could have done better is kidding themselves.
Green Bay leads the league in INTs, so it shouldn't be any big surprise they picked off a few today.
Yet despite that we manager to record 24 points on offense.
I'll take Gus any day over Tjack.
(And next year we need to find the REAL QB of the future.)



You & others will never be happy then. Unless we draft one of those extremely rare QB's that can play well his first year starting if inserted early. No matter who we draft for a QB, they will start out slow while they are learning everything there is to know in the NFL. But fans here will knee-jerk & call for his head after the first year. This will happen year after year. Wash, rinse repeat.

Take a look at Rodgers, this is his fourth year in the system & he is first now getting his start, unlike Jackson who started after his first. Rodgers is 4-5. Do you honestly believe they will dump him after this year? I don't.

This doesn't include you, but there are far to many people here who think the playbook is the only thing a QB needs to learn at the pro level.

We have a lot of new faces on offense that are still learning their roles here. We have veterans still learning a new system. If they struggle, the team struggles as a whole. We will lose games while that is ironed out, it's just the way it is. You get better as you go along. If you have talent, but are not improving, then you must look at coaching or the system. People act as if we we inserted Jackson or Frerotte for that matter into a well oiled machine.

Far from it.

El Vikingo
11-10-2008, 06:54 AM
Gus is our best option rite now by far ,you can say whatever , I say 5-2 as a starter.

singersp
11-10-2008, 07:02 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:



Green Bay leads the league in INTs, so it shouldn't be any big surprise they picked off a few today.



You make it sound like those were well thrown balls, which they weren't. 2 of those picks were thrown right to a defender.

What I find funny is that when Jackson, a 2nd year starter threw for more yards against GB & 2 less INT's, fans were calling for his head, yet when Frerotte, a 15 year vet, throws for less yards & 3 INT's, credit is given to the Packers defense for it.

AD had almost twice the yards he did in this game vs the last time we played GB. That is your difference.

singersp
11-10-2008, 07:07 AM
"El" wrote:


Gus is our best option rite now by far ,you can say whatever , I say 5-2 as a starter.


Other than Carolina, here's the teams we beat & we barely eked out wins in 3 of them;

Detroit






0-9
New Orleans


4-5
Houston





3-6
GB









4-5

Don't be thinking deep run in the playoffs or Super Bowl just yet.

ragz
11-10-2008, 07:22 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:



Anyone who thinks that TJack could have done better is kidding themselves.
Green Bay leads the league in INTs, so it shouldn't be any big surprise they picked off a few today.
Yet despite that we manager to record 24 points on offense.
I'll take Gus any day over Tjack.
(And next year we need to find the REAL QB of the future.)



You & others will never be happy then. Unless we draft one of those extremely rare QB's that can play well his first year starting if inserted early. No matter who we draft for a QB, they will start out slow while they are learning everything there is to know in the NFL. But fans here will knee-jerk & call for his head after the first year. This will happen year after year. Wash, rinse repeat.

Take a look at Rodgers, this is his fourth year in the system & he is first now getting his start, unlike Jackson who started after his first. Rodgers is 4-5. Do you honestly believe they will dump him after this year? I don't.

This doesn't include you, but there are far to many people here who think the playbook is the only thing a QB needs to learn at the pro level.

We have a lot of new faces on offense that are still learning their roles here. We have veterans still learning a new system. If they struggle, the team struggles as a whole. We will lose games while that is ironed out, it's just the way it is. You get better as you go along. If you have talent, but are not improving, then you must look at coaching or the system. People act as if we we inserted Jackson or Frerotte for that matter into a well oiled machine.

Far from it.

singer great points, including the last post i didn/'t quote.
all you gotta do is look around the league.
so many fans wanna jump on bandwagons so fast.
like cutler, like trent edwards, like the next hot college qb.
what happen to culter for a 4 game span, and even this past game where he probably shoulda thrown 2-3 more picks?
what's happened to trent edwards?
they are young guys that are gonna have their share of problems.
the thing is with them is that they've been handed the keys and their offenses dont seem to be run where they are asking their qb to not lose.

jackson had a game against detroit last year, in his 4th career start that was actually less detrimental in the sense of what his picks lead to then ferrottes, and people were benching him then.
now thats a rationale thinking.
they are asking for a kids head in his 4th start and defending a 15 year veteran for throws that almost solely cost us a game we were dominating in every other way.
this has and continues to be a biased "opinion" by fans who never thought jackson shoulda been drafted and never expected him to succeed.
the same people who were saying we should draft drew stanton, kellen clemens, brian brohm, and on and on.
in their minds everyone was better than jackson, so why would it be any different with ferrotte.


for all the clowns who weren't blaming childress for the conservative playcalling causing jacksons lame games, you didnt see the comparison to yesterdays playcalling once ferrotte made those early bad throws? and whata you know, bad comp percentage, no yards, except ferrottes ints killed us.
this is for V, their should be no more defense or excuses given for childress.
and to finish up, is sidney rice literally only gonna be targeted in the red zone.
if he creates a mismatch with his size on 3rd or 4th corners, wouldnt that mismatch exist all over the field.
i'm telling you, another example of childress probably mucking up a young players development.
we proved yesterday that we have plenty of talent, yet the vibe i'm getting is that everyone is still very skeptical that we can pulll this thing off.

PurpleTide
11-10-2008, 07:42 AM
Bottom line is we overcame our mistakes, and made plays at crucial parts of the game. You have to be confident at QB, and Gus shook those bad throws off and led us down the stretch to a win against the Pack. I'll take that.

El Vikingo
11-10-2008, 08:08 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"El" wrote:


Gus is our best option rite now by far ,you can say whatever , I say 5-2 as a starter.


Other than Carolina, here's the teams we beat & we barely eked out wins in 3 of them;

Detroit






0-9
New Orleans


4-5
Houston





3-6
GB









4-5

Don't be thinking deep run in the playoffs or Super Bowl just yet.

If yo wanna play in that field ,thre´s no problem.


Here are the teams we beat with TJ as starter





I think I don´t forget anynone .

and this are the records of the teams we lose against .

Colts 5-4
GB 4-5

A total of .500 ,just the same the teams we beat ,I mean BEAT not lose ,with Gus in the helm not including Detroit.

Like I said ,Gus is our best option ,that can be sad but it is true.

End of story.

Purple Floyd
11-10-2008, 08:52 AM
"El" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"El" wrote:


Gus is our best option rite now by far ,you can say whatever , I say 5-2 as a starter.


Other than Carolina, here's the teams we beat & we barely eked out wins in 3 of them;

Detroit






0-9
New Orleans


4-5
Houston





3-6
GB









4-5

Don't be thinking deep run in the playoffs or Super Bowl just yet.

If yo wanna play in that field ,thre´s no problem.


Here are the teams we beat with TJ as starter





I think I don´t forget anynone .

and this are the records of the teams we lose against .

Colts 5-4
GB 4-5

A total of .500 ,just the same the teams we beat ,I mean BEAT not lose ,with Gus in the helm not including Detroit.

Like I said ,Gus is our best option ,that can be sad but it is true.

End of story.


lol

+1.

I don't think anybody is looking at going deep in the playoffs right now or the SB. What I am looking at is salvaging some respectability in a year that was one good QB away from challenging for a title. The coaches put everything into TJ and he couldn't cut it. Gus is better if only marginally but that small difference is what separates the team from last week and this week where we make mistakes but win and the first 2 weeks where we didn't. Gus is not going to make the pro bowl more than likely and he isn't going to the HOF. He makes dumb throws once in a while but he can put the ball down the field and make the big plays,which is something that Jackson couldn't do. That ability to hit the deep ball has changed the way defenses play us and it has made it easier for us to run with Peterson and to run those screens to Taylor etc.


If you want to go back to a QB who cannot complete the deep pass and back to facing defenses that have 8-9 guys at the line every down so Peterson can take a beating every game then yes, call for jackson to return. Maybe he can make a 20 yard run once in a while. Me, I'll just hope Gus can complete a few passes down the field when he needs to and let Peterson do the running.

V-Unit
11-10-2008, 09:40 AM
"ragz" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:



Anyone who thinks that TJack could have done better is kidding themselves.
Green Bay leads the league in INTs, so it shouldn't be any big surprise they picked off a few today.
Yet despite that we manager to record 24 points on offense.
I'll take Gus any day over Tjack.
(And next year we need to find the REAL QB of the future.)



You & others will never be happy then. Unless we draft one of those extremely rare QB's that can play well his first year starting if inserted early. No matter who we draft for a QB, they will start out slow while they are learning everything there is to know in the NFL. But fans here will knee-jerk & call for his head after the first year. This will happen year after year. Wash, rinse repeat.

Take a look at Rodgers, this is his fourth year in the system & he is first now getting his start, unlike Jackson who started after his first. Rodgers is 4-5. Do you honestly believe they will dump him after this year? I don't.

This doesn't include you, but there are far to many people here who think the playbook is the only thing a QB needs to learn at the pro level.

We have a lot of new faces on offense that are still learning their roles here. We have veterans still learning a new system. If they struggle, the team struggles as a whole. We will lose games while that is ironed out, it's just the way it is. You get better as you go along. If you have talent, but are not improving, then you must look at coaching or the system. People act as if we we inserted Jackson or Frerotte for that matter into a well oiled machine.

Far from it.

singer great points, including the last post i didn/'t quote.
all you gotta do is look around the league.
so many fans wanna jump on bandwagons so fast.
like cutler, like trent edwards, like the next hot college qb.
what happen to culter for a 4 game span, and even this past game where he probably shoulda thrown 2-3 more picks?
what's happened to trent edwards?
they are young guys that are gonna have their share of problems.
the thing is with them is that they've been handed the keys and their offenses dont seem to be run where they are asking their qb to not lose.

jackson had a game against detroit last year, in his 4th career start that was actually less detrimental in the sense of what his picks lead to then ferrottes, and people were benching him then.
now thats a rationale thinking.
they are asking for a kids head in his 4th start and defending a 15 year veteran for throws that almost solely cost us a game we were dominating in every other way.
this has and continues to be a biased "opinion" by fans who never thought jackson shoulda been drafted and never expected him to succeed.
the same people who were saying we should draft drew stanton, kellen clemens, brian brohm, and on and on.
in their minds everyone was better than jackson, so why would it be any different with ferrotte.


for all the clowns who weren't blaming childress for the conservative playcalling causing jacksons lame games, you didnt see the comparison to yesterdays playcalling once ferrotte made those early bad throws? and whata you know, bad comp percentage, no yards, except ferrottes ints killed us.
this is for V, their should be no more defense or excuses given for childress.
and to finish up, is sidney rice literally only gonna be targeted in the red zone.
if he creates a mismatch with his size on 3rd or 4th corners, wouldnt that mismatch exist all over the field.
i'm telling you, another example of childress probably mucking up a young players development.
we proved yesterday that we have plenty of talent, yet the vibe i'm getting is that everyone is still very skeptical that we can pulll this thing off.



Like it or not Ragz, Chilly has improved heavily as a coach. Most of the decisions he has made this year, starting with the admission that his love for TJ was misconceived, have been good ones.

I don't say Chilly has been perfect, but nitpicking about only using Rice in the end zone, and using a conservative offense that runs too much, is bullshit, because both of those things worked, and worked well. Chilly also must be given credit for his defensive dominance. Frazier answers to him.

We have seen good playcalls, and an offense with a clear identity that works save the turnovers. We have seen some struggles on the OL, but those have heavily gone done with Gus more comfortable in the pocket, and Bryant McKinnie back in action. We have also seen games with too many penalties and bad special teams miscues. We are still plagued by a bad QB situation. Point is, there is good and bad and it's ridiculous to give Chilly only blame and no credit.

How many times have we seen our team unable to come back from a simple 6-point deficit during the Chilly era? We have done it twice this year alone. I honestly believe that solid play from the QB position makes this team playoff-worthy and dangerous in those playoffs.

Singer, we are not far from a well-oiled machine on offense. Look at our numbers this year. The only thing holding us back is turnovers.

tastywaves
11-10-2008, 09:49 AM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"El" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"El" wrote:


Gus is our best option rite now by far ,you can say whatever , I say 5-2 as a starter.


Other than Carolina, here's the teams we beat & we barely eked out wins in 3 of them;

Detroit






0-9
New Orleans


4-5
Houston





3-6
GB









4-5

Don't be thinking deep run in the playoffs or Super Bowl just yet.

If yo wanna play in that field ,thre´s no problem.


Here are the teams we beat with TJ as starter





I think I don´t forget anynone .

and this are the records of the teams we lose against .

Colts 5-4
GB 4-5

A total of .500 ,just the same the teams we beat ,I mean BEAT not lose ,with Gus in the helm not including Detroit.

Like I said ,Gus is our best option ,that can be sad but it is true.

End of story.


lol

+1.

I don't think anybody is looking at going deep in the playoffs right now or the SB. What I am looking at is salvaging some respectability in a year that was one good QB away from challenging for a title. The coaches put everything into TJ and he couldn't cut it. Gus is better if only marginally but that small difference is what separates the team from last week and this week where we make mistakes but win and the first 2 weeks where we didn't. Gus is not going to make the pro bowl more than likely and he isn't going to the HOF. He makes dumb throws once in a while but he can put the ball down the field and make the big plays,which is something that Jackson couldn't do. That ability to hit the deep ball has changed the way defenses play us and it has made it easier for us to run with Peterson and to run those screens to Taylor etc.


If you want to go back to a QB who cannot complete the deep pass and back to facing defenses that have 8-9 guys at the line every down so Peterson can take a beating every game then yes, call for jackson to return. Maybe he can make a 20 yard run once in a while. Me, I'll just hope Gus can complete a few passes down the field when he needs to and let Peterson do the running.


Yup, that pretty much sums it up.
Gus' 3 picks almost cost us a game that we pretty much dominated, and we will probably see more of that in the future.
However, he has brought some respect to our vertical passing game that has been non existent far too long.
he's the best we've got at the moment.


Our offense has been far more effective with Gus at the helm than it was with TJ.
TJ may get better in the future, but for now, Gus is our best bet.

tastywaves
11-10-2008, 10:03 AM
"V" wrote:


"ragz" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:



Anyone who thinks that TJack could have done better is kidding themselves.
Green Bay leads the league in INTs, so it shouldn't be any big surprise they picked off a few today.
Yet despite that we manager to record 24 points on offense.
I'll take Gus any day over Tjack.
(And next year we need to find the REAL QB of the future.)



You & others will never be happy then. Unless we draft one of those extremely rare QB's that can play well his first year starting if inserted early. No matter who we draft for a QB, they will start out slow while they are learning everything there is to know in the NFL. But fans here will knee-jerk & call for his head after the first year. This will happen year after year. Wash, rinse repeat.

Take a look at Rodgers, this is his fourth year in the system & he is first now getting his start, unlike Jackson who started after his first. Rodgers is 4-5. Do you honestly believe they will dump him after this year? I don't.

This doesn't include you, but there are far to many people here who think the playbook is the only thing a QB needs to learn at the pro level.

We have a lot of new faces on offense that are still learning their roles here. We have veterans still learning a new system. If they struggle, the team struggles as a whole. We will lose games while that is ironed out, it's just the way it is. You get better as you go along. If you have talent, but are not improving, then you must look at coaching or the system. People act as if we we inserted Jackson or Frerotte for that matter into a well oiled machine.

Far from it.

singer great points, including the last post i didn/'t quote.
all you gotta do is look around the league.
so many fans wanna jump on bandwagons so fast.
like cutler, like trent edwards, like the next hot college qb.
what happen to culter for a 4 game span, and even this past game where he probably shoulda thrown 2-3 more picks?
what's happened to trent edwards?
they are young guys that are gonna have their share of problems.
the thing is with them is that they've been handed the keys and their offenses dont seem to be run where they are asking their qb to not lose.

jackson had a game against detroit last year, in his 4th career start that was actually less detrimental in the sense of what his picks lead to then ferrottes, and people were benching him then.
now thats a rationale thinking.
they are asking for a kids head in his 4th start and defending a 15 year veteran for throws that almost solely cost us a game we were dominating in every other way.
this has and continues to be a biased "opinion" by fans who never thought jackson shoulda been drafted and never expected him to succeed.
the same people who were saying we should draft drew stanton, kellen clemens, brian brohm, and on and on.
in their minds everyone was better than jackson, so why would it be any different with ferrotte.


for all the clowns who weren't blaming childress for the conservative playcalling causing jacksons lame games, you didnt see the comparison to yesterdays playcalling once ferrotte made those early bad throws? and whata you know, bad comp percentage, no yards, except ferrottes ints killed us.
this is for V, their should be no more defense or excuses given for childress.
and to finish up, is sidney rice literally only gonna be targeted in the red zone.
if he creates a mismatch with his size on 3rd or 4th corners, wouldnt that mismatch exist all over the field.
i'm telling you, another example of childress probably mucking up a young players development.
we proved yesterday that we have plenty of talent, yet the vibe i'm getting is that everyone is still very skeptical that we can pulll this thing off.



Like it or not Ragz, Chilly has improved heavily as a coach. Most of the decisions he has made this year, starting with the admission that his love for TJ was misconceived, have been good ones.

I don't say Chilly has been perfect, but nitpicking about only using Rice in the end zone, and using a conservative offense that runs too much, is kaka del rio, because both of those things worked, and worked well. Chilly also must be given credit for his defensive dominance. Frazier answers to him.

We have seen good playcalls, and an offense with a clear identity that works save the turnovers. We have seen some struggles on the OL, but those have heavily gone done with Gus more comfortable in the pocket, and Bryant McKinnie back in action. We have also seen games with too many penalties and bad special teams miscues. We are still plagued by a bad QB situation. Point is, there is good and bad and it's ridiculous to give Chilly only blame and no credit.

How many times have we seen our team unable to come back from a simple 6-point deficit during the Chilly era? We have done it twice this year alone. I honestly believe that solid play from the QB position makes this team playoff-worthy and dangerous in those playoffs.

Singer, we are not far from a well-oiled machine on offense. Look at our numbers this year. The only thing holding us back is turnovers.


I agree with a lot of what your saying V.
I actually feel better about Chilly at this moment than I have since he signed on.
He has changed a lot in his approach to the game, not sure if it is maturity and experience, or just having his ass on the line and knowing that he needs to deliver now or pack it up.
Whatever the case, the team has come around a lot on offense.
The defensive line is finally getting the pressure we've all been craving and expecting.
We have a deep threat for the first time in I can't remember when.
This team has morphed throughout this year and a fair amount of the credit does need to go to Childress.


I'm not sure if we will see the guy coaching us next year, the next 7+ games will probably decide that fate, but at least I'm seeing the guy trying to put together more aggressive approaches to winning a game.


The fact that the GB game was close is not due to how Childress prepared for this game or how he executed during the game.


Next week in Tampa will be another great test for him.
Until we can go into places like Tampa and earn a victory, I will not get too excited about our future.

ragz
11-10-2008, 12:02 PM
"V" wrote:


"ragz" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:



Anyone who thinks that TJack could have done better is kidding themselves.
Green Bay leads the league in INTs, so it shouldn't be any big surprise they picked off a few today.
Yet despite that we manager to record 24 points on offense.
I'll take Gus any day over Tjack.
(And next year we need to find the REAL QB of the future.)



You & others will never be happy then. Unless we draft one of those extremely rare QB's that can play well his first year starting if inserted early. No matter who we draft for a QB, they will start out slow while they are learning everything there is to know in the NFL. But fans here will knee-jerk & call for his head after the first year. This will happen year after year. Wash, rinse repeat.

Take a look at Rodgers, this is his fourth year in the system & he is first now getting his start, unlike Jackson who started after his first. Rodgers is 4-5. Do you honestly believe they will dump him after this year? I don't.

This doesn't include you, but there are far to many people here who think the playbook is the only thing a QB needs to learn at the pro level.

We have a lot of new faces on offense that are still learning their roles here. We have veterans still learning a new system. If they struggle, the team struggles as a whole. We will lose games while that is ironed out, it's just the way it is. You get better as you go along. If you have talent, but are not improving, then you must look at coaching or the system. People act as if we we inserted Jackson or Frerotte for that matter into a well oiled machine.

Far from it.

singer great points, including the last post i didn/'t quote.
all you gotta do is look around the league.
so many fans wanna jump on bandwagons so fast.
like cutler, like trent edwards, like the next hot college qb.
what happen to culter for a 4 game span, and even this past game where he probably shoulda thrown 2-3 more picks?
what's happened to trent edwards?
they are young guys that are gonna have their share of problems.
the thing is with them is that they've been handed the keys and their offenses dont seem to be run where they are asking their qb to not lose.

jackson had a game against detroit last year, in his 4th career start that was actually less detrimental in the sense of what his picks lead to then ferrottes, and people were benching him then.
now thats a rationale thinking.
they are asking for a kids head in his 4th start and defending a 15 year veteran for throws that almost solely cost us a game we were dominating in every other way.
this has and continues to be a biased "opinion" by fans who never thought jackson shoulda been drafted and never expected him to succeed.
the same people who were saying we should draft drew stanton, kellen clemens, brian brohm, and on and on.
in their minds everyone was better than jackson, so why would it be any different with ferrotte.


for all the clowns who weren't blaming childress for the conservative playcalling causing jacksons lame games, you didnt see the comparison to yesterdays playcalling once ferrotte made those early bad throws? and whata you know, bad comp percentage, no yards, except ferrottes ints killed us.
this is for V, their should be no more defense or excuses given for childress.
and to finish up, is sidney rice literally only gonna be targeted in the red zone.
if he creates a mismatch with his size on 3rd or 4th corners, wouldnt that mismatch exist all over the field.
i'm telling you, another example of childress probably mucking up a young players development.
we proved yesterday that we have plenty of talent, yet the vibe i'm getting is that everyone is still very skeptical that we can pulll this thing off.



Like it or not Ragz, Chilly has improved heavily as a coach. Most of the decisions he has made this year, starting with the admission that his love for TJ was misconceived, have been good ones.

I don't say Chilly has been perfect, but nitpicking about only using Rice in the end zone, and using a conservative offense that runs too much, is kaka del rio, because both of those things worked, and worked well. Chilly also must be given credit for his defensive dominance. Frazier answers to him.

We have seen good playcalls, and an offense with a clear identity that works save the turnovers. We have seen some struggles on the OL, but those have heavily gone done with Gus more comfortable in the pocket, and Bryant McKinnie back in action. We have also seen games with too many penalties and bad special teams miscues. We are still plagued by a bad QB situation. Point is, there is good and bad and it's ridiculous to give Chilly only blame and no credit.

How many times have we seen our team unable to come back from a simple 6-point deficit during the Chilly era? We have done it twice this year alone. I honestly believe that solid play from the QB position makes this team playoff-worthy and dangerous in those playoffs.

Singer, we are not far from a well-oiled machine on offense. Look at our numbers this year. The only thing holding us back is turnovers.

so becuz we lost every other game under him when down by 6 points its a huge accomplishment to get 2 wins in games we had no business being behind in in the first place.
i'm assuming you are referring to the new orleans game, which we got 6 turnovers to none i think.
and then yesterday with all the other stats i've listed earlier in our favor.
and somehow this is a good thing?
if we have to win in the last seconds of games where that much stuff in our favor, than your coach can not be doing that bang up of a job.
i mean seriously.
you honestly think that if jeff fisher dominated a game like we did yesterday we are winning by one point, or if we got six turnovers against new orleans we win on a last second field goal.
we are winning some of these games now cuz we are a better football team, not becuz our coaching. its the same reason we lost the chicago game, and the first 2 games of the year.
when you coach to win games by one score, you end up winning some and losing some, which i belive makes you a 500 team.
if thats what hes aiming for, and what you like, we are on our way thusfar.
the end of halves have become a joke, cuz when all you guys forget about how badly we manage them and get no points or give up points, and then lose by one score or have to kick a game winning field goal with no time on the clock, no one brings up the coaching then.
meanwhile thats a huge reason why you end up losing half your games, cuz of clock management and decisions that include the end of a 2nd quarter.
and i dont even wanna hear you try to defend the way our halves come to an end, cuz they have been a mockery since childress got here, and is no better now.

V4L
11-10-2008, 12:54 PM
Rewatching the game and Frerotte looks bad

1st throw missed AP totally going across the middle.. Wouldnt have got much but it was at his feet and like a foot in front

2nd hit Chester on a low pass but fairly accurate

3rd missed Rice in the endzone.. If it was a good corner it would have been picked

4rd hit Rice on a slant in the endzone for a TD.. No complaints

V4L
11-10-2008, 01:05 PM
His next throw was his interception

Wade was 5 yards behind Woodson.. If Gus threw it 5-7 yards deeper and to the right it would have been a huge completion.. The safety wasn't even close but would probably have run Wade down along the sidelines after about a 20-30 yard gain

V4L
11-10-2008, 01:16 PM
This one didn't count because we got bailed out with a penelty

But Frerotte tried to air one out and it sailed way outta bounds and well over Berrians head

He has a good deep ball my ass

Last game he threw 1 that was long and it was poorly underthrown and Berrian made a great play

V4L
11-10-2008, 01:17 PM
Oh another completion!!!

Small pivot route to Chester

So thus far he has 2 pivot route completions to Chester and one was bad

And a slant for a TD to Rice

V4L
11-10-2008, 01:22 PM
Next throw was a throw in the flats to Wade from him being lined up in the backfield

Caught it at the line and took it for 8

So far he hasn't thrown the ball over 5 yards.. And when he has it has been the other guys doing all the work or him missing badly

V4L
11-10-2008, 01:26 PM
Gus dancing in the pocket and throws at the feet of Adrian Peterson

NodakPaul
11-10-2008, 01:40 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:



Green Bay leads the league in INTs, so it shouldn't be any big surprise they picked off a few today.



You make it sound like those were well thrown balls, which they weren't. 2 of those picks were thrown right to a defender.

What I find funny is that when Jackson, a 2nd year starter threw for more yards against GB & 2 less INT's, fans were calling for his head, yet when Frerotte, a 15 year vet, throws for less yards & 3 INT's, credit is given to the Packers defense for it.

AD had almost twice the yards he did in this game vs the last time we played GB. That is your difference.


Stats without context are worthless.

Yes, Gus had 27 less passing yards than TJack.
He also threw the ball 8 fewer times (yet had only one fewer completion).


We were also playing from behind the entire game in week 1, as opposed to playing with a lead for most of the game yesterday.
That means that TJack had to pass more often, while Gus was able to hand off the ball to AD more often.
Of course Gus's passing stats will be down and AD's will be up in that situation.
Why were we playing with a lead BTW?
Because we were able to score early with Gus.
We scored on two of the first three possessions.

And then there is the fact that while Gus had more INTs than TJack, one of TJack's came at a crippling moment - on the final drive, ending the game.

Let's face it, neither QB is a gem.
But Gus was and still is a better QB than TJack.
I had faith in TJack for a long time, but he was never able to get over the hump.
I am content to bide my time on the Gus Bus until next year, and we can search for a real starter in earnest.
I see absolutely nothing that would make me believe that TJack would be a better choice than Gus.

V4L
11-10-2008, 01:42 PM
Dancing in the pocket again

And overthrows Wade for a wide open first down

NodakPaul
11-10-2008, 01:43 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:



Anyone who thinks that TJack could have done better is kidding themselves.
Green Bay leads the league in INTs, so it shouldn't be any big surprise they picked off a few today.
Yet despite that we manager to record 24 points on offense.
I'll take Gus any day over Tjack.
(And next year we need to find the REAL QB of the future.)



You & others will never be happy then. Unless we draft one of those extremely rare QB's that can play well his first year starting if inserted early. No matter who we draft for a QB, they will start out slow while they are learning everything there is to know in the NFL. But fans here will knee-jerk & call for his head after the first year. This will happen year after year. Wash, rinse repeat.

Take a look at Rodgers, this is his fourth year in the system & he is first now getting his start, unlike Jackson who started after his first. Rodgers is 4-5. Do you honestly believe they will dump him after this year? I don't.

This doesn't include you, but there are far to many people here who think the playbook is the only thing a QB needs to learn at the pro level.

We have a lot of new faces on offense that are still learning their roles here. We have veterans still learning a new system. If they struggle, the team struggles as a whole. We will lose games while that is ironed out, it's just the way it is. You get better as you go along. If you have talent, but are not improving, then you must look at coaching or the system. People act as if we we inserted Jackson or Frerotte for that matter into a well oiled machine.

Far from it.


You know better than that.

I didn't call for TJack's head after the first year.
Or the second year for that matter.
I wasn't even calling for it this year.
I optimistically said that the coaching staff, who knows how to develop a player more than any of us, had faith in him, so I wanted to give him every opportunity to come around.
But when the coach makes the decision to pull him two miserable games in, it tells me that there is a problem.

I am willing to give young QBs a chance as long as they have the support of their coaches.
As soon as that is gone, my faith in them is too.

V4L
11-10-2008, 01:45 PM
Frerotte is also enjoying his WRs and RBs taking short passes for 40-80 yards a pop

And AP going off for 200

And his defense giving up half as many yards and sacking the QB 4 more times then they did playing against the same exact team

Gus can't throw against a top 10 D in terms of passing.. They shut him down and pick him off like crazy

Hell if the Bears 4th and 5th stringers can why can't a top 10 D?

Gus would choke in the playoffs

MinnesotaFury
11-10-2008, 02:03 PM
"V4L" wrote:


Frerotte is also enjoying his WRs and RBs taking short passes for 40-80 yards a pop

And AP going off for 200

And his defense giving up half as many yards and sacking the QB 4 more times then they did playing against the same exact team

Gus can't throw against a top 10 D in terms of passing.. They shut him down and pick him off like crazy

Hell if the Bears 4th and 5th stringers can why can't a top 10 D?

Gus would choke in the playoffs


Now ask yourself why Peterson was able to go off for 200...
Gus takes a man or two out of the box.
I'll be the first to admit that he played like @$$ against Green Bay yesterday, but when it comes to a point where you are getting the bulk of your offensive yards by the run, teams start to sell out to the run.

You could argue that any QB can throw against a team that has 8 in the box, but then you'd have to consider why TJack couldn't.
The Vikings are 1 QB away from being Superbowl contenders, that is, if you don't already consider them to be.

Frerotte may not be that guy, but at this point, its all we have.
We need to go QB shopping this offseason ina
bad way.
If the front office isn't committed to JD Booty as our franchise guy, we need to get a QB early in the draft as well.

V4L
11-10-2008, 02:12 PM
"MinnesotaFury" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


Frerotte is also enjoying his WRs and RBs taking short passes for 40-80 yards a pop

And AP going off for 200

And his defense giving up half as many yards and sacking the QB 4 more times then they did playing against the same exact team

Gus can't throw against a top 10 D in terms of passing.. They shut him down and pick him off like crazy

Hell if the Bears 4th and 5th stringers can why can't a top 10 D?

Gus would choke in the playoffs


Now ask yourself why Peterson was able to go off for 200...
Gus takes a man or two out of the box.
I'll be the first to admit that he played like @$$ against Green Bay yesterday, but when it comes to a point where you are getting the bulk of your offensive yards by the run, teams start to sell out to the run.

You could argue that any QB can throw against a team that has 8 in the box, but then you'd have to consider why TJack couldn't.
The Vikings are 1 QB away from being Superbowl contenders, that is, if you don't already consider them to be.

Frerotte may not be that guy, but at this point, its all we have.
We need to go QB shopping this offseason ina
bad way.

If the front office isn't committed to JD Booty as our franchise guy, we need to get a QB early in the draft as well.




Actually not

I was the texans game and saw they pretty much ALWAYS had just 1 safety back

And im watching the Packer game again right now and they still have 8 in the box

No one respects him either because he can't hit the deep ball like people think

V4L
11-10-2008, 02:16 PM
Gus's second pick was horrible

Threw it way behind Berrian who had a step on Williams which he would have took for a huge gain

Hit your slants Gus please

Thus far he has 3 dump offs to RBs and 1 pass to Wade that he took 8 yards from the line and a pass to Sidney

Going into halftime

V4L
11-10-2008, 02:21 PM
I can't argue with the 5-2 record at all

Who knows what jackson would be.. Could be 7-0.. Could be 0-7

Never the less we are winning and it needs to stay

If Gus keeps almost lossing games for us though I would love for us to atleast give Jackson a fair shot that he didn't get this year

V4L
11-10-2008, 02:31 PM
Haha 2 dump offs to Shank

He has 37 passing yards in the first half

Chilldress said stop dumping it off and throw it

V4L
11-10-2008, 02:34 PM
Oh a throw to a WR past 5 yards!!

High and behind but Wade caught it

I had to look at the 2nd pick again.. It looks like Berrian would have had a shot at taking it to the house had Gus not thrown it behind him.. And if Berrian wouldn't have got tripped up

V-Unit
11-10-2008, 02:37 PM
If Gus continues to play like he did against GB, he deserves to get benched. Problem is, there is no one behind him who gives us a legit chance at winning football games.

V4L
11-10-2008, 02:38 PM
Gus hits Chester in the flats to make his stats look somewhat respectable

Adding 47 yards to his stats with a simple dump off

V4L
11-10-2008, 02:47 PM
"V" wrote:


If Gus continues to play like he did against GB, he deserves to get benched. Problem is, there is no one behind him who gives us a legit chance at winning football games.



So we think after 2 games against 2 steller pass D's and coming off an injury and having your number 1 WR hobbled and ur second WR out after awhile in the 2nd game and ur TE having the case of the drops and the D giving up double the ammount of yards they have been and not getting sacks or turnovers at all

Otherwise yah.. I don't think we do

If Gus plays like this again we gotta look at Jackson

Watching the game again makes me hate the way he played even more

He had plenty of time and still over threw or underthrew 75 percent of his throws

He was throwing behind and making horrible reads leading to picks and points

V4L
11-10-2008, 02:51 PM
At this point in the game the Pack have 10 points

All from horrible picks from Gus

We have 21 and had Gus not thrown those picks maybe it could be 21+ to nothing?

Tack on another 7 later on in the game and he gave them 17 points out of 20

WOWWWWWW

V4L
11-10-2008, 02:59 PM
Wow his third was the worst

He had Wade WIDE open once again and didn't make his reads

He stared down Shank the whole time and Collins got over

I heard the design of the play was supposed to go to Wade as well when we were doing the crosses creating a natural pick

WOW Gus gets tested by a good D actually and can't do anything.. It's pathetic

But we win..

V4L
11-10-2008, 03:02 PM
Another screen to Chester for a gain of 11 making Gus's day look just a little better

Purple Floyd
11-10-2008, 03:05 PM
"V4L" wrote:


Another screen to Chester for a gain of 11 making Gus's day look just a little better





V4L

The PP.O Tivo.


I am not sure what your point in all of these posts is, but maybe you could go back and do the play by play of the first two games with Jackson and show us why we would be more impressed with him. ;)

V4L
11-10-2008, 03:08 PM
Im just doing a play by play cuz im bored

I wasn't more impressed with Jackson but I watched the Jackson game yesterday and he looked way more impressive.. The announcers commented how his WRs weren't getting any seperation and the Packers offense was slicing us like butter

And in this game Aikmen said like 2-3 times that Gus is missing everybody and making horrible throws

I've said I would like to give Gus one more week to prove he can't cut it against a good D and will turn it over atleast 2 more times again and then I will be off the bandwagon

V4L
11-10-2008, 03:10 PM
Gus all day skipped to Berrian wide open

3rd down

Wade across the middle throws it too far in front and wade got 2 fingers on it

Gus killed another drive

I just wish I could see how Jackson would do if we had held the Packers under 100 yards the first 3 quarters and AP was going off for 200 like he did this game even tho they were stacking the box after halftime

Purple Floyd
11-10-2008, 03:15 PM
"V4L" wrote:


Im just doing a play by play cuz im bored

I wasn't more impressed with Jackson but I watched the Jackson game yesterday and he looked way more impressive.. The announcers commented how his WRs weren't getting any seperation and the Packers offense was slicing us like butter

And in this game Aikmen said like 2-3 times that Gus is missing everybody and making horrible throws

I've said I would like to give Gus one more week to prove he can't cut it against a good D and will turn it over atleast 2 more times again and then I will be off the bandwagon



yes, Gus had a bad game. I think we all know that. Every QB in the league has bad games and I hope you understand that Gus will probably have more than the average number of bad games, which is why he is a career backup. Jackson, on the other hand, has an occasional good game in the midst of a bunch of uninspiring sub par ones.

Yes, we need a different QB. No, TJ is not that guy.

Yfz01
11-10-2008, 03:17 PM
After Gus played his first game I thought the switch was a good thing.
Gus made some reads that I knew T-Jack wouldn't have made but since then i've watched Gus go down hill.
Now that our offensive line is playing a lot better Gus is doing even worse.
T-Jack would have had a much better game the last few weeks(not to mention that he can destroy GB by running)

V4L
11-10-2008, 03:17 PM
The thing is Gus has only had 1 pretty good game and that was against the Texans when berrian made 2 awesome plays for him

We are winning yes.. 5-2

But if Gus keeps trying his best to hand over games we gotta atleast consider Jackson again

Right now the way Gus is playing it doesn't look like he is any better at all

C Mac D
11-10-2008, 03:18 PM
Money says Childress signs Mark Brunnel in the offseason, then drafts QB Brandon White from the South Dakota Coyotes and talks about how he will eventually "progress"...

SharperImage42
11-10-2008, 03:23 PM
honestly if t-jack played yesterday we woulda won 21-10 probably.

V4L
11-10-2008, 03:24 PM
"Yfz01" wrote:


After Gus played his first game I thought the switch was a good thing.
Gus made some reads that I knew T-Jack wouldn't have made but since then i've watched Gus go down hill.
Now that our offensive line is playing a lot better Gus is doing even worse.
T-Jack would have had a much better game the last few weeks(not to mention that he can destroy GB by running)





+1

V4L
11-10-2008, 03:28 PM
"SharperImage42" wrote:


honestly if t-jack played yesterday we woulda won 21-10 probably.



I believe so too

I don't think Jackson would have given up 17 points single handily

Jackson's first game back.. On the road.. The team is rusty.. And Jackson still out performed Gus by far

Imgine now with AP going for 100 a game 4 weeks in a row.. And 200 against the Pack

The D and special teams really screwed us over that first game.. Also injuries and not being rusty

V4L
11-10-2008, 03:40 PM
And Gus not doing anything all game once again gives it off the RBs on dump offs

Luckily AP was a freak all game expecially that last drive

Gus gets a fat F that game.. Plan and simple looked like a high school QB

C Mac D
11-10-2008, 03:42 PM
"V4L" wrote:


And Gus not doing anything all game once again gives it off the RBs on dump offs

Luckily AP was a freak all game expecially that last drive

Gus gets a fat F that game.. Plan and simple looked like a high school QB


Eh... Green Bay does have the best secondary in the league... and Ferrotte started this years as a second-stringer.

What did you expect honestly?

V4L
11-10-2008, 03:43 PM
"C" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


And Gus not doing anything all game once again gives it off the RBs on dump offs

Luckily AP was a freak all game expecially that last drive

Gus gets a fat F that game.. Plan and simple looked like a high school QB


Eh... Green Bay does have the best secondary in the league... and Ferrotte started this years as a second-stringer.

What did you expect honestly?



To atleast do better then Jackson

And to atleast protect the ball like people think he can

And to atleast hit a WR more then once over 10 yards

Nothing too special

V4L
11-10-2008, 03:49 PM
Gus seriously tried to give this game away

I saw I think 3-5 accurate throws that were right on

And those were dump offs anyway

C Mac D
11-10-2008, 03:53 PM
"V4L" wrote:


Gus seriously tried to give this game away

I saw I think 3-5 accurate throws that were right on

And those were dump offs anyway


Who did you think was our QB? It's Gus Ferrotte... he's been doing this sorta stuff for years, why are you surprised?

I think you have to blame Childress for any and all QB errors... it's his fault we're in the situation we are in, and it's purely because of his ego and stubbornness.

V4L
11-10-2008, 03:55 PM
"C" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


Gus seriously tried to give this game away

I saw I think 3-5 accurate throws that were right on

And those were dump offs anyway


Who did you think was our QB? It's Gus Ferrotte... he's been doing this sorta stuff for years, why are you surprised?

I think you have to blame Childress for any and all QB errors... it's his fault we're in the situation we are in, and it's purely because of his ego and stubbornness.



I wasn't surprised

I knew he would do this

NodakPaul
11-10-2008, 05:25 PM
"V4L" wrote:


"SharperImage42" wrote:


honestly if t-jack played yesterday we woulda won 21-10 probably.



I believe so too

I don't think Jackson would have given up 17 points single handily

Jackson's first game back.. On the road.. The team is rusty.. And Jackson still out performed Gus by far

Imgine now with AP going for 100 a game 4 weeks in a row.. And 200 against the Pack

The D and special teams really screwed us over that first game.. Also injuries and not being rusty


Bullshit.
TJack outperformed Gus "by far"?
Their stats were pretty damn similar IMHO.

T. Jackson

16/35
45.7% 178
1
1
THIRD DOWN EFFICIENCY
7/16 - 43%
TOTAL FIRST DOWNS
21
By Rushing 10
By Passing 7
By Penalty 4
RED ZONE EFFICIENCY
1/3 - 33%
GOAL TO GO EFFICIENCY 1/1 - 100%
TIME OF POSSESSION
32:01

G. Frerotte

15/28
53.6% 151
2
3
THIRD DOWN EFFICIENCY
6/15 - 40%
TOTAL FIRST DOWNS
18
By Rushing 9
By Passing 8
By Penalty 1
RED ZONE EFFICIENCY
1/1 - 100%
GOAL TO GO EFFICIENCY 1/1 - 100%
TIME OF POSSESSION
36:05

I am just not seeing where TJack outperformed Gus.
Oh yeah, there is one more stat -
TJack FINAL SCORE
19
Gus FINAL SCORE
28

There are two big things the offense did differently that won this game for us yesterday.
1) We didn't settle for field goals every time we sniffed the redzone.
2) When the game was on the line, Gus stayed in control and got the ball down the field safely (with 4 runs 3 passes on the final Vikings drive).
Say what you want about Gus's three INTs, but they hurt a helluva lot less than TJack's 1.

SamOchoCinco
11-10-2008, 05:28 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


"SharperImage42" wrote:


honestly if t-jack played yesterday we woulda won 21-10 probably.



I believe so too

I don't think Jackson would have given up 17 points single handily

Jackson's first game back.. On the road.. The team is rusty.. And Jackson still out performed Gus by far

Imgine now with AP going for 100 a game 4 weeks in a row.. And 200 against the Pack

The D and special teams really screwed us over that first game.. Also injuries and not being rusty


Bullshit.
TJack outperformed Gus "by far"?
Their stats were pretty damn similar IMHO.

T. Jackson


16/35
45.7% 178
1
1
THIRD DOWN EFFICIENCY
7/16 - 43%
TOTAL FIRST DOWNS
21
By Rushing 10
By Passing 7
By Penalty 4
RED ZONE EFFICIENCY
1/3 - 33%
GOAL TO GO EFFICIENCY 1/1 - 100%
TIME OF POSSESSION
32:01

G. Frerotte


15/28
53.6% 151
2
3
THIRD DOWN EFFICIENCY
6/15 - 40%
TOTAL FIRST DOWNS
18
By Rushing 9
By Passing 8
By Penalty 1
RED ZONE EFFICIENCY
1/1 - 100%
GOAL TO GO EFFICIENCY 1/1 - 100%
TIME OF POSSESSION
36:05

I am just not seeing where TJack outperformed Gus.
Oh yeah, there is one more stat -
TJack FINAL SCORE
19
Gus FINAL SCORE
28

There are two big things the offense did differently that won this game for us yesterday.
1) We didn't settle for field goals every time we sniffed the redzone.
2) When the game was on the line, Gus stayed in control and got the ball down the field safely (with 4 runs 3 passes on the final Vikings drive).
Say what you want about Gus's three INTs, but they hurt a helluva lot less than TJack's 1.


who was the one that threw the costly interceptions that lead to the packers points? =)

GUS!

who threw 3 interceptions and couldnt get away from the defenders who came at him?

GUS!

who barely beat the lions dispite the fact they were winless and scored only TWELVE POINTS on a horrible defence?

GUS!

V4L
11-10-2008, 05:28 PM
It was also our first game then

And Gus benifited from great field position the whole game til the 3rd quarter

And he also benifited from the D actually playing good

But you can think what you want man.. Jackson didn't turn it over.. He didn't hit only his RBs and he also rushed for 65 yards.. And he also played on the road off of an injury and not played in a few weeks

Gus has had all season to get ready for a big game like this and he failed miserably

He is so lucky Adrian rushed like he did and Chester and AP caught balls like they did

NodakPaul
11-10-2008, 05:30 PM
"V4L" wrote:


Gus seriously tried to give this game away

I saw I think 3-5 accurate throws that were right on

And those were dump offs anyway


LOL, and I am sure that you are completely unbiased in your evaluation.
I mean, it isn't like you are on TJack's jock or anything.
Oh wait... ;)

Face it, there were more than 3 to 5 accurate throws.
Probably not as many as we would like to see, but you are watching just to pick out the negatives now.

BTW, I didn't see any of those 3-5 accurate throws in your little play by play.
Didn't feel the need to comment on the positive?
Or would that have taken away from your rant?

NodakPaul
11-10-2008, 05:31 PM
"SamOchoCinco" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


"SharperImage42" wrote:


honestly if t-jack played yesterday we woulda won 21-10 probably.



I believe so too

I don't think Jackson would have given up 17 points single handily

Jackson's first game back.. On the road.. The team is rusty.. And Jackson still out performed Gus by far

Imgine now with AP going for 100 a game 4 weeks in a row.. And 200 against the Pack

The D and special teams really screwed us over that first game.. Also injuries and not being rusty


kaka del rio.
TJack outperformed Gus "by far"?
Their stats were pretty gol 'darnit similar IMHO.

T. Jackson


16/35
45.7% 178
1
1
THIRD DOWN EFFICIENCY
7/16 - 43%
TOTAL FIRST DOWNS
21
By Rushing 10
By Passing 7
By Penalty 4
RED ZONE EFFICIENCY
1/3 - 33%
GOAL TO GO EFFICIENCY 1/1 - 100%
TIME OF POSSESSION
32:01

G. Frerotte


15/28
53.6% 151
2
3
THIRD DOWN EFFICIENCY
6/15 - 40%
TOTAL FIRST DOWNS
18
By Rushing 9
By Passing 8
By Penalty 1
RED ZONE EFFICIENCY
1/1 - 100%
GOAL TO GO EFFICIENCY 1/1 - 100%
TIME OF POSSESSION
36:05

I am just not seeing where TJack outperformed Gus.
Oh yeah, there is one more stat -
TJack FINAL SCORE
19
Gus FINAL SCORE
28

There are two big things the offense did differently that won this game for us yesterday.
1) We didn't settle for field goals every time we sniffed the redzone.
2) When the game was on the line, Gus stayed in control and got the ball down the field safely (with 4 runs 3 passes on the final Vikings drive).
Say what you want about Gus's three INTs, but they hurt a helluva lot less than TJack's 1.


who was the one that threw the costly interceptions that lead to the packers points? =)

GUS!

who threw 3 interceptions and couldnt get away from the defenders who came at him?

GUS!

who barely beat the lions dispite the fact they were winless and scored only TWELVE POINTS on a horrible defence?

GUS!


Who is leading our team to 5-2?
GUS!

Who lead our team to 0-2?
TJack!

Complain all you want, the TJack experiment failed.
Gus is barely better, but better nonetheless.

SamOchoCinco
11-10-2008, 05:32 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


Gus seriously tried to give this game away

I saw I think 3-5 accurate throws that were right on

And those were dump offs anyway


LOL, and I am sure that you are completely unbiased in your evaluation.
I mean, it isn't like you are on TJack's jock or anything.
Oh wait... ;)

Face it, there were more than 3 to 5 accurate throws.
Probably not as many as we would like to see, but you are watching just to pick out the negatives now.

BTW, I didn't see any of those 3-5 accurate throws in your little play by play.
Didn't feel the need to comment on the positive?
Or would that have taken away from your rant?


just face it. gus sucks. tarvaris sucks.

all our quarterbacks suck.

but we didnt see tarvaris almost losing to the LIONS did we?

V4L
11-10-2008, 05:33 PM
No joke there were about 3-5 throws that were exactly where they needed to be

I could go back and watch once again and point them out

The rest were out of reach.. At feet.. Picked off.. Or thrown out of bounds and over the head

And no im not biased.. I wanna stick with Gus.. Just pointing out the obvious.. Idk how Jackson would have done

C Mac D
11-10-2008, 05:33 PM
Could be worse... we could have Jake Delhomme.

SamOchoCinco
11-10-2008, 05:34 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"SamOchoCinco" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


"SharperImage42" wrote:


honestly if t-jack played yesterday we woulda won 21-10 probably.



I believe so too

I don't think Jackson would have given up 17 points single handily

Jackson's first game back.. On the road.. The team is rusty.. And Jackson still out performed Gus by far

Imgine now with AP going for 100 a game 4 weeks in a row.. And 200 against the Pack

The D and special teams really screwed us over that first game.. Also injuries and not being rusty


kaka del rio.
TJack outperformed Gus "by far"?
Their stats were pretty gol 'darnit similar IMHO.

T. Jackson


16/35
45.7% 178
1
1
THIRD DOWN EFFICIENCY
7/16 - 43%
TOTAL FIRST DOWNS
21
By Rushing 10
By Passing 7
By Penalty 4
RED ZONE EFFICIENCY
1/3 - 33%
GOAL TO GO EFFICIENCY 1/1 - 100%
TIME OF POSSESSION
32:01

G. Frerotte


15/28
53.6% 151
2
3
THIRD DOWN EFFICIENCY
6/15 - 40%
TOTAL FIRST DOWNS
18
By Rushing 9
By Passing 8
By Penalty 1
RED ZONE EFFICIENCY
1/1 - 100%
GOAL TO GO EFFICIENCY 1/1 - 100%
TIME OF POSSESSION
36:05

I am just not seeing where TJack outperformed Gus.
Oh yeah, there is one more stat -
TJack FINAL SCORE
19
Gus FINAL SCORE
28

There are two big things the offense did differently that won this game for us yesterday.
1) We didn't settle for field goals every time we sniffed the redzone.
2) When the game was on the line, Gus stayed in control and got the ball down the field safely (with 4 runs 3 passes on the final Vikings drive).
Say what you want about Gus's three INTs, but they hurt a helluva lot less than TJack's 1.


who was the one that threw the costly interceptions that lead to the packers points? =)

GUS!

who threw 3 interceptions and couldnt get away from the defenders who came at him?

GUS!

who barely beat the lions dispite the fact they were winless and scored only TWELVE POINTS on a horrible defence?

GUS!


Who is leading our team to 5-2?
GUS!

Who lead our team to 0-2?
TJack!

Complain all you want, the TJack experiment failed.
Gus is barely better, but better nonetheless.


all those wins came with Adrian peterson dude. last game he took us on his back. gus almost threw the game away!

and our defence also helped us ALOT. not gus dude sorry

and theres no doubt tarvaris was partly to blame for that 0-2 start. but look at what happened. too many dropped passes, couldnt get our offence to start, and our defence blowing leads.

V4L
11-10-2008, 05:36 PM
"SamOchoCinco" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"SamOchoCinco" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:




honestly if t-jack played yesterday we woulda won 21-10 probably.



I believe so too

I don't think Jackson would have given up 17 points single handily

Jackson's first game back.. On the road.. The team is rusty.. And Jackson still out performed Gus by far

Imgine now with AP going for 100 a game 4 weeks in a row.. And 200 against the Pack

The D and special teams really screwed us over that first game.. Also injuries and not being rusty


kaka del rio.
TJack outperformed Gus "by far"?
Their stats were pretty gol 'darnit similar IMHO.

T. Jackson


16/35
45.7% 178
1
1
THIRD DOWN EFFICIENCY
7/16 - 43%
TOTAL FIRST DOWNS
21
By Rushing 10
By Passing 7
By Penalty 4
RED ZONE EFFICIENCY
1/3 - 33%
GOAL TO GO EFFICIENCY 1/1 - 100%
TIME OF POSSESSION
32:01

G. Frerotte


15/28
53.6% 151
2
3
THIRD DOWN EFFICIENCY
6/15 - 40%
TOTAL FIRST DOWNS
18
By Rushing 9
By Passing 8
By Penalty 1
RED ZONE EFFICIENCY
1/1 - 100%
GOAL TO GO EFFICIENCY 1/1 - 100%
TIME OF POSSESSION
36:05

I am just not seeing where TJack outperformed Gus.
Oh yeah, there is one more stat -
TJack FINAL SCORE
19
Gus FINAL SCORE
28

There are two big things the offense did differently that won this game for us yesterday.
1) We didn't settle for field goals every time we sniffed the redzone.
2) When the game was on the line, Gus stayed in control and got the ball down the field safely (with 4 runs 3 passes on the final Vikings drive).
Say what you want about Gus's three INTs, but they hurt a helluva lot less than TJack's 1.


who was the one that threw the costly interceptions that lead to the packers points? =)

GUS!

who threw 3 interceptions and couldnt get away from the defenders who came at him?

GUS!

who barely beat the lions dispite the fact they were winless and scored only TWELVE POINTS on a horrible defence?

GUS!


Who is leading our team to 5-2?
GUS!

Who lead our team to 0-2?
TJack!

Complain all you want, the TJack experiment failed.
Gus is barely better, but better nonetheless.


all those wins came with Adrian peterson dude. last game he took us on his back. gus almost threw the game away!

and our defence also helped us ALOT. not gus dude sorry

and theres no doubt tarvaris was partly to blame for that 0-2 start. but look at what happened. too many dropped passes, couldnt get our offence to start, and our defence blowing leads.



We also had a chance at the end to hold off a lead in the Colts game and Peyton freaked out and did what he does best and come back

I don't think giving Jackson 2 games against 2 stellar pass D's.. Coming fresh off of an injury.. With your whole team sloppy as hell.. Your number 1 and 2 targets banged up.. And one game on the road is really fair

I want to see him get another shot when Gus throws away the game like I know he will with the Bucs.. He can't face good competion

V4L
11-10-2008, 05:40 PM
Things that should have played a factor:

The ranks of the D's faced.. Gus has played crap.. Jackson played good ones
The Defense of ours actually holding teams down now.. They didn't the first few weeks
It was the first two games of the season fresh off an injury and no playing time
Our number 1 and 2 were banged up
AP hadn't got started yet.. Good game against the Colts but even he couldnt punch one in

Theres more feel free to add.. I just feel Jackson wasn't given a fair shot and im alright with Gus for now cuz the team is carrying him to a 5-2 record so far

NodakPaul
11-10-2008, 05:41 PM
"V4L" wrote:


It was also our first game then

And Gus benifited from great field position the whole game til the 3rd quarter

And he also benifited from the D actually playing good

But you can think what you want man.. Jackson didn't turn it over.. He didn't hit only his RBs and he also rushed for 65 yards.. And he also played on the road off of an injury and not played in a few weeks

Gus has had all season to get ready for a big game like this and he failed miserably

He is so lucky Adrian rushed like he did and Chester and AP caught balls like they did




Jackson didn't turn it over?
Really?
2-10-MIN 45
(1:08) (Shotgun) 7-T.Jackson pass deep right intended for 18-S.Rice INTERCEPTED by 20-A.Bigby at GB 39. 20-A.Bigby to GB 46 for 7 yards (81-V.Shiancoe).

It was a horseshit pass too.
And AD rushed pretty much the same way in week 1.

Week 1:
A. Peterson
19
103 5.42 avg
1
34
Week 10: A. Peterson
30
192 6.4 avg 1
29

The difference in week 10 is that we weren't playing from behind the entire game, so AD actually got to have the ball more often.
11 more times in fact.
TJack couldn't get us in the endzone, and settling for FGs cost us the game.

Want to see a game in which AD played almost identically?
How about the Colts game?
Week 2: A. Peterson
29
160 5.52 avg
0
29
And yet we still lost, only scoring 15 freaking points!
TJack could not put it in the endzone again.

And it was not just this year.
It was several games last year too.
I honestly thought he performed well in the Denver game.
But that was unfortunately the exception, not the rule.
He failed to continue to improve, and lost his job as a result.

Wanting to bench a QB who has gone 5-2 for a QB who is 1-4 in his last 4 games is silly.
We need to face the fact that they both stink.
For now lets go with the one who stinks a little less, and is actually winning games.

SamOchoCinco
11-10-2008, 05:41 PM
"V4L" wrote:


"SamOchoCinco" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"SamOchoCinco" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:






honestly if t-jack played yesterday we woulda won 21-10 probably.



I believe so too

I don't think Jackson would have given up 17 points single handily

Jackson's first game back.. On the road.. The team is rusty.. And Jackson still out performed Gus by far

Imgine now with AP going for 100 a game 4 weeks in a row.. And 200 against the Pack

The D and special teams really screwed us over that first game.. Also injuries and not being rusty


kaka del rio.
TJack outperformed Gus "by far"?
Their stats were pretty gol 'darnit similar IMHO.

T. Jackson


16/35
45.7% 178
1
1
THIRD DOWN EFFICIENCY
7/16 - 43%
TOTAL FIRST DOWNS
21
By Rushing 10
By Passing 7
By Penalty 4
RED ZONE EFFICIENCY
1/3 - 33%
GOAL TO GO EFFICIENCY 1/1 - 100%
TIME OF POSSESSION
32:01

G. Frerotte


15/28
53.6% 151
2
3
THIRD DOWN EFFICIENCY
6/15 - 40%
TOTAL FIRST DOWNS
18
By Rushing 9
By Passing 8
By Penalty 1
RED ZONE EFFICIENCY
1/1 - 100%
GOAL TO GO EFFICIENCY 1/1 - 100%
TIME OF POSSESSION
36:05

I am just not seeing where TJack outperformed Gus.
Oh yeah, there is one more stat -
TJack FINAL SCORE
19
Gus FINAL SCORE
28

There are two big things the offense did differently that won this game for us yesterday.
1) We didn't settle for field goals every time we sniffed the redzone.
2) When the game was on the line, Gus stayed in control and got the ball down the field safely (with 4 runs 3 passes on the final Vikings drive).
Say what you want about Gus's three INTs, but they hurt a helluva lot less than TJack's 1.


who was the one that threw the costly interceptions that lead to the packers points? =)

GUS!

who threw 3 interceptions and couldnt get away from the defenders who came at him?

GUS!

who barely beat the lions dispite the fact they were winless and scored only TWELVE POINTS on a horrible defence?

GUS!


Who is leading our team to 5-2?
GUS!

Who lead our team to 0-2?
TJack!

Complain all you want, the TJack experiment failed.
Gus is barely better, but better nonetheless.


all those wins came with Adrian peterson dude. last game he took us on his back. gus almost threw the game away!

and our defence also helped us ALOT. not gus dude sorry

and theres no doubt tarvaris was partly to blame for that 0-2 start. but look at what happened. too many dropped passes, couldnt get our offence to start, and our defence blowing leads.



We also had a chance at the end to hold off a lead in the Colts game and Peyton freaked out and did what he does best and come back

I don't think giving Jackson 2 games against 2 stellar pass D's.. Coming fresh off of an injury.. With your whole team sloppy as hell.. Your number 1 and 2 targets banged up.. And one game on the road is really fair

I want to see him get another shot when Gus throws away the game like I know he will with the Bucs.. He can't face good competion



he blew goats vs the pack.

imagine whats going to happen when he faces a fast paced, veteran, hardnosed defence thats lead by one of the greatest linebackers of all times.

im calling 4 picks for gus this up coming game

SamOchoCinco
11-10-2008, 05:42 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


It was also our first game then

And Gus benifited from great field position the whole game til the 3rd quarter

And he also benifited from the D actually playing good

But you can think what you want man.. Jackson didn't turn it over.. He didn't hit only his RBs and he also rushed for 65 yards.. And he also played on the road off of an injury and not played in a few weeks

Gus has had all season to get ready for a big game like this and he failed miserably

He is so lucky Adrian rushed like he did and Chester and AP caught balls like they did




Jackson didn't turn it over?
Really?
2-10-MIN 45
(1:08) (Shotgun) 7-T.Jackson pass deep right intended for 18-S.Rice INTERCEPTED by 20-A.Bigby at GB 39. 20-A.Bigby to GB 46 for 7 yards (81-V.Shiancoe).

It was a horseshit pass too.
And AD rushed pretty much the same way in week 1.

Week 1:
A. Peterson

19
103 5.42 avg
1
34
Week 10: A. Peterson

30
192 6.4 avg 1
29

The difference in week 10 is that we weren't playing from behind the entire game, so AD actually got to have the ball more often.
11 more times in fact.
TJack couldn't get us in the endzone, and settling for FGs cost us the game.

Want to see a game in which AD played almost identically?
How about the Colts game?
Week 2: A. Peterson

29
160 5.52 avg
0
29
And yet we still lost, only scoring 15 freaking points!
TJack could not put it in the endzone again.

And it was not just this year.
It was several games last year too.
I honestly thought he performed well in the Denver game.
But that was unfortunately the exception, not the rule.
He failed to continue to improve, and lost his job as a result.

Wanting to bench a QB who has gone 5-2 for a QB who is 1-4 in his last 4 games is silly.
We need to face the fact that they both stink.
For now lets go with the one who stinks a little less, and is actually winning games.



DOES THE LIONS GAME RING A BELL?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!

V4L
11-10-2008, 05:43 PM
4 picks as well man

When Gus plays a good team he can't handle it and looks like Spergyn Wynn on crack

SamOchoCinco
11-10-2008, 05:44 PM
"V4L" wrote:


4 picks as well man

When Gus plays a good team he can't handle it and looks like Spergyn Wynn on crack




HE PLAYES LIKE FREAKING TIM COUCH!

V4L
11-10-2008, 05:52 PM
I hope the team can keep bailing him out

I like these wins

Well kinda.. It's nice.. But not pretty to watch Gus throw.. I've never felt sick to stomach watching a QB throw and hoping it wouldn't get picked like him

V4L
11-10-2008, 05:55 PM
And it's not fair to judge averages when one has played 2 games and one has played 7

Also not fair because one has time to get into a groove and the other was thrown to the wolves

And also not fair because Gus's stats are skewed with huge plays that his team made for him

So I dont play much with stats

NodakPaul
11-10-2008, 05:55 PM
"V4L" wrote:


Things that should have played a factor:

The ranks of the D's faced.. Gus has played crap.. Jackson played good ones
The Defense of ours actually holding teams down now.. They didn't the first few weeks
It was the first two games of the season fresh off an injury and no playing time
Our number 1 and 2 were banged up
AP hadn't got started yet.. Good game against the Colts but even he couldnt punch one in

Theres more feel free to add.. I just feel Jackson wasn't given a fair shot and im alright with Gus for now cuz the team is carrying him to a 5-2 record so far


Let me address these one at a time.


The ranks of the D's faced.. Gus has played crap.. Jackson played good ones
TJack faced the 22nd ranked Packers and the 15th ranked Colts.
Gus faced the 22nd ranked Packers, the 5th ranked Panthers, the 8th ranked Titans, the 24th ranked Saints, the 31st ranked Lions, the 17th ranked Bears, and the 19th ranked Texans.

Gus's losses came against #8 and #17.
TJack's losses came against #15 and #22.


The Defense of ours actually holding teams down now.. They didn't the first few weeks
Defense held teams to 24 and 18 with TJack starting (21 pt avg)
Defense held teams to 10, 30, 27, 10, 48, 21, 27 (24.7 avg)

If you look at the two games Gus lost, the opp team avg was 39 pts.
If you look at the games he won, the opp team avg was 19.
I don't see the D "holding teams down" as a huge factor.


It was the first two games of the season fresh off an injury and no playing time
Gus wasn't really any fresher.
But you are right, TJack was injured during preseason... AGAIN...


Our number 1 and 2 were banged up
I can conceed that.


AP hadn't got started yet.. Good game against the Colts but even he couldnt punch one in
And I think the QB plays a part in that too.

C Mac D
11-10-2008, 05:55 PM
"V4L" wrote:


And it's not fair to judge averages when one has played 2 games and one has played 7

Also not fair because one has time to get into a groove and the other was thrown to the wolves

And also not fair because Gus's stats are skewed with huge plays that his team made for him

So I dont play much with stats


Didn't your parents ever tell you life isn't fair?

NodakPaul
11-10-2008, 05:56 PM
"V4L" wrote:


And it's not fair to judge averages when one has played 2 games and one has played 7

Also not fair because one has time to get into a groove and the other was thrown to the wolves

And also not fair because Gus's stats are skewed with huge plays that his team made for him

So I dont play much with stats


Also not fair to claim that a guy that has done NOTHING could do any better than a guy who has performed.
TJack gets his chance to shine in practice.
Oh wait - he was demoted below Booty to the practice squad.
Don't you think that maybe the coaches are on to something here?

SamOchoCinco
11-10-2008, 05:58 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


And it's not fair to judge averages when one has played 2 games and one has played 7

Also not fair because one has time to get into a groove and the other was thrown to the wolves

And also not fair because Gus's stats are skewed with huge plays that his team made for him

So I dont play much with stats


Also not fair to claim that a guy that has done NOTHING could do any better than a guy who has performed.
TJack gets his chance to shine in practice.
Oh wait - he was demoted below Booty to the practice squad.
Don't you think that maybe the coaches are on to something here?


umm t-jack is on the practice squad? what on earth is your giggly butt talking about?!

get your facts straight

V4L
11-10-2008, 05:59 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


And it's not fair to judge averages when one has played 2 games and one has played 7

Also not fair because one has time to get into a groove and the other was thrown to the wolves

And also not fair because Gus's stats are skewed with huge plays that his team made for him

So I dont play much with stats


Also not fair to claim that a guy that has done NOTHING could do any better than a guy who has performed.
TJack gets his chance to shine in practice.
Oh wait - he was demoted below Booty to the practice squad.
Don't you think that maybe the coaches are on to something here?


The guy that hasn't had a chance to do anything except 2 not so fair chances

Gus hasn't performed.. Actually has done quite bad

And Jackson is still the number 2.. So no that's wrong

NodakPaul
11-10-2008, 06:00 PM
"SamOchoCinco" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


4 picks as well man

When Gus plays a good team he can't handle it and looks like Spergyn Wynn on crack




HE PLAYES LIKE FREAKING TIM COUCH!


As opposed to the stellar performances TJack has put in against good teams...
::)

That is the thing.
I am NOT disagreeing that Gus sucked.
What I am saying is that based on everything we have seen from TJack, he would have been worse.
At the very least Gus is contributing to the wins.

I don't give Gus the full credit for the wins, nor do I give TJack sole blame for the losses.
It doesn't work that way.
But there are some things that I am seeing with Gus.
Fewer drops.
Safeties pulling out of the box.
And wins.
I have said from the beginning that with our D and running game, we only need a mediocre QB to win games.
Gus is mediocre.
TJack is not.

NodakPaul
11-10-2008, 06:01 PM
"V4L" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


And it's not fair to judge averages when one has played 2 games and one has played 7

Also not fair because one has time to get into a groove and the other was thrown to the wolves

And also not fair because Gus's stats are skewed with huge plays that his team made for him

So I dont play much with stats


Also not fair to claim that a guy that has done NOTHING could do any better than a guy who has performed.
TJack gets his chance to shine in practice.
Oh wait - he was demoted below Booty to the practice squad.
Don't you think that maybe the coaches are on to something here?


The guy that hasn't had a chance to do anything except 2 not so fair chances

Gus hasn't performed.. Actually has done quite bad

And Jackson is still the number 2.. So no that's wrong


I thought we had seen 16 games out of TJack... Or do we just forget anything that has happened previously?

SamOchoCinco
11-10-2008, 06:02 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"SamOchoCinco" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


4 picks as well man

When Gus plays a good team he can't handle it and looks like Spergyn Wynn on crack




HE PLAYES LIKE FREAKING TIM COUCH!


As opposed to the stellar performances TJack has put in against good teams...
::)

That is the thing.
I am NOT disagreeing that Gus sucked.
What I am saying is that based on everything we have seen from TJack, he would have been worse.
At the very least Gus is contributing to the wins.

I don't give Gus the full credit for the wins, nor do I give TJack sole blame for the losses.
It doesn't work that way.
But there are some things that I am seeing with Gus.
Fewer drops.
Safeties pulling out of the box.
And wins.
I have said from the beginning that with our D and running game, we only need a mediocre QB to win games.
Gus is mediocre.
TJack is not.


and what makes you think im supporting any of our quarterbacks?

V4L
11-10-2008, 06:04 PM
2 chances are not a good measure IMO

Gus is not mediocore

And the only credit I give to Gus for a win is the Texans game

Otherwise he played badly

NodakPaul
11-10-2008, 06:04 PM
"SamOchoCinco" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


And it's not fair to judge averages when one has played 2 games and one has played 7

Also not fair because one has time to get into a groove and the other was thrown to the wolves

And also not fair because Gus's stats are skewed with huge plays that his team made for him

So I dont play much with stats


Also not fair to claim that a guy that has done NOTHING could do any better than a guy who has performed.
TJack gets his chance to shine in practice.
Oh wait - he was demoted below Booty to the practice squad.
Don't you think that maybe the coaches are on to something here?


umm t-jack is on the practice squad? what on earth is your giggly butt talking about?!

get your facts straight


Sorry, scout team.
::)

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/261793
http://mysportsrumors.com/blog/2008/10/30/tarvaris-jackson-starter-to-scout/

He began the season as the Vikings starter, only to be demoted after two games. That came as no surprise as he and the Vikings were struggling to get anything going on offense. Well now? He’s still technically the Vikings backup QB but is now relegated to scout duty in practice.


It’s a tremendous drop. Typically the scout team is made up of players from the practice squad, and those guys try to simulate what the upcoming opponent would do. Jackson told the St. Paul Pioneer Press, “It’s kind of like a puppet, throwing the football where they want you to throw it, trying to do what the other team does instead of what you normally do.”

And don't be an ass.

V4L
11-10-2008, 06:05 PM
He's not on there anymore Nodak

I would dig up a link but I dont really care to

NodakPaul
11-10-2008, 06:05 PM
"SamOchoCinco" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"SamOchoCinco" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


4 picks as well man

When Gus plays a good team he can't handle it and looks like Spergyn Wynn on crack




HE PLAYES LIKE FREAKING TIM COUCH!


As opposed to the stellar performances TJack has put in against good teams...
::)

That is the thing.
I am NOT disagreeing that Gus sucked.
What I am saying is that based on everything we have seen from TJack, he would have been worse.
At the very least Gus is contributing to the wins.

I don't give Gus the full credit for the wins, nor do I give TJack sole blame for the losses.
It doesn't work that way.
But there are some things that I am seeing with Gus.
Fewer drops.
Safeties pulling out of the box.
And wins.
I have said from the beginning that with our D and running game, we only need a mediocre QB to win games.
Gus is mediocre.
TJack is not.


and what makes you think im supporting any of our quarterbacks?


OK then, what's you solution.
No QB?
Straight wildcat offense?

We need to field a QB.
Gus is the lessor of two evils.

marshallvike
11-10-2008, 06:07 PM
8 pics in last three games sucks bad.

but i do not care when we win! 4-1 in our last 5.
most excellent dude 8)

V4L
11-10-2008, 06:09 PM
Wait til the Bucs game, if you haven't seen how bad he is you will see it

Then again they aren't really known for getting too many turnovers this year.. But they do have a good Pass D

I still feel he will fail like he has been and possibly get carried along by AP and the D

SamOchoCinco
11-10-2008, 06:10 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"SamOchoCinco" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"SamOchoCinco" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


4 picks as well man

When Gus plays a good team he can't handle it and looks like Spergyn Wynn on crack




HE PLAYES LIKE FREAKING TIM COUCH!


As opposed to the stellar performances TJack has put in against good teams...
::)

That is the thing.
I am NOT disagreeing that Gus sucked.
What I am saying is that based on everything we have seen from TJack, he would have been worse.
At the very least Gus is contributing to the wins.

I don't give Gus the full credit for the wins, nor do I give TJack sole blame for the losses.
It doesn't work that way.
But there are some things that I am seeing with Gus.
Fewer drops.
Safeties pulling out of the box.
And wins.
I have said from the beginning that with our D and running game, we only need a mediocre QB to win games.
Gus is mediocre.
TJack is not.


and what makes you think im supporting any of our quarterbacks?


OK then, what's you solution.
No QB?
Straight wildcat offense?

We need to field a QB.
Gus is the lessor of two evils.


omg your so dumb.

I SAID WHO SAYS IM SUPPORTING ANY OUR QUARTERBACKS!

have you ever heard of free agency?!

V4L
11-10-2008, 06:12 PM
"SamOchoCinco" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"SamOchoCinco" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"SamOchoCinco" wrote:




4 picks as well man

When Gus plays a good team he can't handle it and looks like Spergyn Wynn on crack




HE PLAYES LIKE FREAKING TIM COUCH!


As opposed to the stellar performances TJack has put in against good teams...
::)

That is the thing.
I am NOT disagreeing that Gus sucked.
What I am saying is that based on everything we have seen from TJack, he would have been worse.
At the very least Gus is contributing to the wins.

I don't give Gus the full credit for the wins, nor do I give TJack sole blame for the losses.
It doesn't work that way.
But there are some things that I am seeing with Gus.
Fewer drops.
Safeties pulling out of the box.
And wins.
I have said from the beginning that with our D and running game, we only need a mediocre QB to win games.
Gus is mediocre.
TJack is not.


and what makes you think im supporting any of our quarterbacks?


OK then, what's you solution.
No QB?
Straight wildcat offense?

We need to field a QB.
Gus is the lessor of two evils.


omg your so dumb.

I SAID WHO SAYS IM SUPPORTING ANY OUR QUARTERBACKS!

have you ever heard of free agency?!


Sam WTF?

You aren't understanding him

And he's not understanding you

SamOchoCinco
11-10-2008, 06:13 PM
"V4L" wrote:


"SamOchoCinco" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"SamOchoCinco" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:






4 picks as well man

When Gus plays a good team he can't handle it and looks like Spergyn Wynn on crack




HE PLAYES LIKE FREAKING TIM COUCH!


As opposed to the stellar performances TJack has put in against good teams...
::)

That is the thing.
I am NOT disagreeing that Gus sucked.
What I am saying is that based on everything we have seen from TJack, he would have been worse.
At the very least Gus is contributing to the wins.

I don't give Gus the full credit for the wins, nor do I give TJack sole blame for the losses.
It doesn't work that way.
But there are some things that I am seeing with Gus.
Fewer drops.
Safeties pulling out of the box.
And wins.
I have said from the beginning that with our D and running game, we only need a mediocre QB to win games.
Gus is mediocre.
TJack is not.


and what makes you think im supporting any of our quarterbacks?


OK then, what's you solution.
No QB?
Straight wildcat offense?

We need to field a QB.
Gus is the lessor of two evils.


omg your so dumb.

I SAID WHO SAYS IM SUPPORTING ANY OUR QUARTERBACKS!

have you ever heard of free agency?!


Sam WTF?

You aren't understanding him

And he's not understanding you




sorry dude. i didnt mean to call you dumb.

i guess i just lost my temper

marshallvike
11-10-2008, 06:14 PM
"SamOchoCinco" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"SamOchoCinco" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"SamOchoCinco" wrote:




4 picks as well man

When Gus plays a good team he can't handle it and looks like Spergyn Wynn on crack




HE PLAYES LIKE FREAKING TIM COUCH!


As opposed to the stellar performances TJack has put in against good teams...
::)

That is the thing.
I am NOT disagreeing that Gus sucked.
What I am saying is that based on everything we have seen from TJack, he would have been worse.
At the very least Gus is contributing to the wins.

I don't give Gus the full credit for the wins, nor do I give TJack sole blame for the losses.
It doesn't work that way.
But there are some things that I am seeing with Gus.
Fewer drops.
Safeties pulling out of the box.
And wins.
I have said from the beginning that with our D and running game, we only need a mediocre QB to win games.
Gus is mediocre.
TJack is not.


and what makes you think im supporting any of our quarterbacks?


OK then, what's you solution.
No QB?
Straight wildcat offense?

We need to field a QB.
Gus is the lessor of two evils.


omg your so dumb.

I SAID WHO SAYS IM SUPPORTING ANY OUR QUARTERBACKS!

have you ever heard of free agency?!


in november? ??? ??? ???

V4L
11-10-2008, 06:16 PM
haha I was thinking that too

We were talking about our QBs now

SamOchoCinco
11-10-2008, 06:19 PM
"marshallvike" wrote:


"SamOchoCinco" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"SamOchoCinco" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:






4 picks as well man

When Gus plays a good team he can't handle it and looks like Spergyn Wynn on crack




HE PLAYES LIKE FREAKING TIM COUCH!


As opposed to the stellar performances TJack has put in against good teams...
::)

That is the thing.
I am NOT disagreeing that Gus sucked.
What I am saying is that based on everything we have seen from TJack, he would have been worse.
At the very least Gus is contributing to the wins.

I don't give Gus the full credit for the wins, nor do I give TJack sole blame for the losses.
It doesn't work that way.
But there are some things that I am seeing with Gus.
Fewer drops.
Safeties pulling out of the box.
And wins.
I have said from the beginning that with our D and running game, we only need a mediocre QB to win games.
Gus is mediocre.
TJack is not.


and what makes you think im supporting any of our quarterbacks?


OK then, what's you solution.
No QB?
Straight wildcat offense?

We need to field a QB.
Gus is the lessor of two evils.


omg your so dumb.

I SAID WHO SAYS IM SUPPORTING ANY OUR QUARTERBACKS!

have you ever heard of free agency?!


in november? ??? ??? ???


yes. if it has to be done. then do it

marshallvike
11-10-2008, 06:22 PM
and pick up WHO exactly, at this point in the season? jeff george? ::)

NodakPaul
11-10-2008, 06:31 PM
"SamOchoCinco" wrote:


"marshallvike" wrote:


"SamOchoCinco" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"SamOchoCinco" wrote:








4 picks as well man

When Gus plays a good team he can't handle it and looks like Spergyn Wynn on crack




HE PLAYES LIKE FREAKING TIM COUCH!


As opposed to the stellar performances TJack has put in against good teams...
::)

That is the thing.
I am NOT disagreeing that Gus sucked.
What I am saying is that based on everything we have seen from TJack, he would have been worse.
At the very least Gus is contributing to the wins.

I don't give Gus the full credit for the wins, nor do I give TJack sole blame for the losses.
It doesn't work that way.
But there are some things that I am seeing with Gus.
Fewer drops.
Safeties pulling out of the box.
And wins.
I have said from the beginning that with our D and running game, we only need a mediocre QB to win games.
Gus is mediocre.
TJack is not.


and what makes you think im supporting any of our quarterbacks?


OK then, what's you solution.
No QB?
Straight wildcat offense?

We need to field a QB.
Gus is the lessor of two evils.


omg your so dumb.

I SAID WHO SAYS IM SUPPORTING ANY OUR QUARTERBACKS!

have you ever heard of free agency?!


in november? ??? ??? ???


yes. if it has to be done. then do it


If there were any better alternatives out there right now, I would say go for it.
But there aren't.
And we are currently winning...

SamOchoCinco
11-10-2008, 06:33 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"SamOchoCinco" wrote:


"marshallvike" wrote:


"SamOchoCinco" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:










4 picks as well man

When Gus plays a good team he can't handle it and looks like Spergyn Wynn on crack




HE PLAYES LIKE FREAKING TIM COUCH!


As opposed to the stellar performances TJack has put in against good teams...
::)

That is the thing.
I am NOT disagreeing that Gus sucked.
What I am saying is that based on everything we have seen from TJack, he would have been worse.
At the very least Gus is contributing to the wins.

I don't give Gus the full credit for the wins, nor do I give TJack sole blame for the losses.
It doesn't work that way.
But there are some things that I am seeing with Gus.
Fewer drops.
Safeties pulling out of the box.
And wins.
I have said from the beginning that with our D and running game, we only need a mediocre QB to win games.
Gus is mediocre.
TJack is not.


and what makes you think im supporting any of our quarterbacks?


OK then, what's you solution.
No QB?
Straight wildcat offense?

We need to field a QB.
Gus is the lessor of two evils.


omg your so dumb.

I SAID WHO SAYS IM SUPPORTING ANY OUR QUARTERBACKS!

have you ever heard of free agency?!


in november? ??? ??? ???


yes. if it has to be done. then do it


If there were any better alternatives out there right now, I would say go for it.
But there aren't.
And we are currently winning...


but that last packers game we nearly lost... by the matter of about a 1 inch..

i want a more relyable qb than t-jack and gus

marshallvike
11-10-2008, 07:04 PM
"SamOchoCinco" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"SamOchoCinco" wrote:


"marshallvike" wrote:


"SamOchoCinco" wrote:












4 picks as well man

When Gus plays a good team he can't handle it and looks like Spergyn Wynn on crack




HE PLAYES LIKE FREAKING TIM COUCH!


As opposed to the stellar performances TJack has put in against good teams...
::)

That is the thing.
I am NOT disagreeing that Gus sucked.
What I am saying is that based on everything we have seen from TJack, he would have been worse.
At the very least Gus is contributing to the wins.

I don't give Gus the full credit for the wins, nor do I give TJack sole blame for the losses.
It doesn't work that way.
But there are some things that I am seeing with Gus.
Fewer drops.
Safeties pulling out of the box.
And wins.
I have said from the beginning that with our D and running game, we only need a mediocre QB to win games.
Gus is mediocre.
TJack is not.


and what makes you think im supporting any of our quarterbacks?


OK then, what's you solution.
No QB?
Straight wildcat offense?

We need to field a QB.
Gus is the lessor of two evils.


omg your so dumb.

I SAID WHO SAYS IM SUPPORTING ANY OUR QUARTERBACKS!

have you ever heard of free agency?!


in november? ??? ??? ???


yes. if it has to be done. then do it


If there were any better alternatives out there right now, I would say go for it.
But there aren't.
And we are currently winning...


but that last packers game we nearly lost... by the matter of about a 1 inch..

i want a more relyable qb than t-jack and gus


everyone on this site would like a better QB, but there is NOTHING
available at this time so we have to dance with the one we brung.

MaxVike
11-10-2008, 07:47 PM
Gus is our QB...TJack is on the bench; as it should be for now.
Gus has made many, many aweful throws.
He's made many good ones too.
It is a fact that TJack was like a deer in the headlights and needed to be replaced, he sucked early...
Compare/contrast, Gus is moving the ball, TJack did not.


We are now 5-4 and tied for the lead of the NFC North...with Gus as QB.
Even though we have given two games away, Colts and Bears IMO.
He's what we got...yeah, he pissed me off Sunday - BIG TIME!!!
I did not enjoy his newfound freedom, I can assure you.
But, I simply cannot imagine a scenario where TJack would have us here.
I'm sticking to my April/May expectation of 10-6.

Purple Floyd
11-10-2008, 07:52 PM
"MaxVike" wrote:



But, I simply cannot imagine a scenario where TJack would have us here.



Apparently the coaches cannot either or my guess is they would still have him in there.

idahovikefan7
11-10-2008, 08:05 PM
"marshallvike" wrote:


and pick up WHO exactly, at this point in the season? jeff george? ::)


Cunningham!!! lol

No really, i have no problem with Gus right now. Yes he has thrown some absolute horrible throws, but at this point he is managing the game for us. We are getting wins and our team and opponents seem to have confidence in our passing game.

No he is no future solution, but at this point he is the best option.

singersp
11-11-2008, 06:37 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


"SharperImage42" wrote:


honestly if t-jack played yesterday we woulda won 21-10 probably.



I believe so too

I don't think Jackson would have given up 17 points single handily

Jackson's first game back.. On the road.. The team is rusty.. And Jackson still out performed Gus by far

Imgine now with AP going for 100 a game 4 weeks in a row.. And 200 against the Pack

The D and special teams really screwed us over that first game.. Also injuries and not being rusty


Bullshit.
TJack outperformed Gus "by far"?
Their stats were pretty damn similar IMHO.

T. Jackson


16/35
45.7% 178
1
1
THIRD DOWN EFFICIENCY
7/16 - 43%
TOTAL FIRST DOWNS
21
By Rushing 10
By Passing 7
By Penalty 4
RED ZONE EFFICIENCY
1/3 - 33%
GOAL TO GO EFFICIENCY 1/1 - 100%
TIME OF POSSESSION
32:01

G. Frerotte


15/28
53.6% 151
2
3
THIRD DOWN EFFICIENCY
6/15 - 40%
TOTAL FIRST DOWNS
18
By Rushing 9
By Passing 8
By Penalty 1
RED ZONE EFFICIENCY
1/1 - 100%
GOAL TO GO EFFICIENCY 1/1 - 100%
TIME OF POSSESSION
36:05

I am just not seeing where TJack outperformed Gus.
Oh yeah, there is one more stat -
TJack FINAL SCORE
19
Gus FINAL SCORE
28

There are two big things the offense did differently that won this game for us yesterday.
1) We didn't settle for field goals every time we sniffed the redzone.
2) When the game was on the line, Gus stayed in control and got the ball down the field safely (with 4 runs 3 passes on the final Vikings drive).
Say what you want about Gus's three INTs, but they hurt a helluva lot less than TJack's 1.


Gus also is a 15 year vet & played in 9 games this year (as did the team) prior to that game.

Jackson, a developing QB having only been with the team 2 years, played in 1-1/2 games prior to him facing GB on the road, not at home. The team also was unprepared & flat in the season opener & lacked the services of Rice & M-Will & with a much less than 100% Berrian who was definitely slow & still nursing his turf toe injury.

El Vikingo
11-11-2008, 06:54 AM
"MaxVike" wrote:



But, I simply cannot imagine a scenario where TJack would have us here.



Totally agree,TJ just keeps our playbook closer than Gus ,I guess Coach stuff doesn´t trust him.

And that´s the bottom line cause I
said so.

singersp
11-11-2008, 07:04 AM
"El" wrote:



"MaxVike" wrote:



But, I simply cannot imagine a scenario where TJack would have us here.



Totally agree,TJ just keeps our playbook closer than Gus ,I guess Coach stuff doesn´t trust him.

And that´s the bottom line cause I
said so.




Not true.

Quote from Childress;


"....you have to get the roots down, the basics down before you can start going out here. I'm always talking to our coaches about that. The basics, the basics. 'We need to do this good before we start doing this right here. How about we do this instead of going five steps ahead?"


The playbook is being opened up as the team is progressing, regardless of who is at QB.

El Vikingo
11-11-2008, 07:16 AM
Do you still believe in Childress ,my friend?



P.S.. Santa Claus doesn´t exist,Your parents play the role as Santa.
:P

singersp
11-11-2008, 07:22 AM
"El" wrote:


Do you still believe in Childress ,my friend?

P.S.. Santa Claus doesn´t exist,Your parents play the role as Santa.
:P


No I don't believe in Childress, but that is irrelevant.

The choice to open the playbook is still Childress', not Santa Claus, not my parents, not Frerotte's & not a Spanish speaking banana's.

Purple Floyd
11-11-2008, 08:17 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


"SharperImage42" wrote:


honestly if t-jack played yesterday we woulda won 21-10 probably.



I believe so too

I don't think Jackson would have given up 17 points single handily

Jackson's first game back.. On the road.. The team is rusty.. And Jackson still out performed Gus by far

Imgine now with AP going for 100 a game 4 weeks in a row.. And 200 against the Pack

The D and special teams really screwed us over that first game.. Also injuries and not being rusty


Bullshit.
TJack outperformed Gus "by far"?
Their stats were pretty damn similar IMHO.

T. Jackson


16/35
45.7% 178
1
1
THIRD DOWN EFFICIENCY
7/16 - 43%
TOTAL FIRST DOWNS
21
By Rushing 10
By Passing 7
By Penalty 4
RED ZONE EFFICIENCY
1/3 - 33%
GOAL TO GO EFFICIENCY 1/1 - 100%
TIME OF POSSESSION
32:01

G. Frerotte


15/28
53.6% 151
2
3
THIRD DOWN EFFICIENCY
6/15 - 40%
TOTAL FIRST DOWNS
18
By Rushing 9
By Passing 8
By Penalty 1
RED ZONE EFFICIENCY
1/1 - 100%
GOAL TO GO EFFICIENCY 1/1 - 100%
TIME OF POSSESSION
36:05

I am just not seeing where TJack outperformed Gus.
Oh yeah, there is one more stat -
TJack FINAL SCORE
19
Gus FINAL SCORE
28

There are two big things the offense did differently that won this game for us yesterday.
1) We didn't settle for field goals every time we sniffed the redzone.
2) When the game was on the line, Gus stayed in control and got the ball down the field safely (with 4 runs 3 passes on the final Vikings drive).
Say what you want about Gus's three INTs, but they hurt a helluva lot less than TJack's 1.


Gus also is a 15 year vet & played in 9 games this year (as did the team) prior to that game.

Jackson, a developing QB having only been with the team 2 years, played in 1-1/2 games prior to him facing GB on the road, not at home. The team also was unprepared & flat in the season opener & lacked the services of Rice & M-Will & with a much less than 100% Berrian who was definitely slow & still nursing his turf toe injury.


Gus has only played in 7 games this year by my count. Or are you counting holding the clipboard as playing?

NodakPaul
11-11-2008, 08:29 AM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


"SharperImage42" wrote:


honestly if t-jack played yesterday we woulda won 21-10 probably.



I believe so too

I don't think Jackson would have given up 17 points single handily

Jackson's first game back.. On the road.. The team is rusty.. And Jackson still out performed Gus by far

Imgine now with AP going for 100 a game 4 weeks in a row.. And 200 against the Pack

The D and special teams really screwed us over that first game.. Also injuries and not being rusty


kaka del rio.
TJack outperformed Gus "by far"?
Their stats were pretty gol 'darnit similar IMHO.

T. Jackson


16/35
45.7% 178
1
1
THIRD DOWN EFFICIENCY
7/16 - 43%
TOTAL FIRST DOWNS
21
By Rushing 10
By Passing 7
By Penalty 4
RED ZONE EFFICIENCY
1/3 - 33%
GOAL TO GO EFFICIENCY 1/1 - 100%
TIME OF POSSESSION
32:01

G. Frerotte


15/28
53.6% 151
2
3
THIRD DOWN EFFICIENCY
6/15 - 40%
TOTAL FIRST DOWNS
18
By Rushing 9
By Passing 8
By Penalty 1
RED ZONE EFFICIENCY
1/1 - 100%
GOAL TO GO EFFICIENCY 1/1 - 100%
TIME OF POSSESSION
36:05

I am just not seeing where TJack outperformed Gus.
Oh yeah, there is one more stat -
TJack FINAL SCORE
19
Gus FINAL SCORE
28

There are two big things the offense did differently that won this game for us yesterday.
1) We didn't settle for field goals every time we sniffed the redzone.
2) When the game was on the line, Gus stayed in control and got the ball down the field safely (with 4 runs 3 passes on the final Vikings drive).
Say what you want about Gus's three INTs, but they hurt a helluva lot less than TJack's 1.


Gus also is a 15 year vet & played in 9 games this year (as did the team) prior to that game.

Jackson, a developing QB having only been with the team 2 years, played in 1-1/2 games prior to him facing GB on the road, not at home. The team also was unprepared & flat in the season opener & lacked the services of Rice & M-Will & with a much less than 100% Berrian who was definitely slow & still nursing his turf toe injury.


Gus has only played in 7 games this year by my count. Or are you counting holding the clipboard as playing?


Plus, despite the excuses for Jackson, I still don't see how he outperformed Gus.

NodakPaul
11-11-2008, 08:31 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"El" wrote:



"MaxVike" wrote:



But, I simply cannot imagine a scenario where TJack would have us here.



Totally agree,TJ just keeps our playbook closer than Gus ,I guess Coach stuff doesn´t trust him.

And that´s the bottom line cause I
said so.




Not true.

Quote from Childress;


"....you have to get the roots down, the basics down before you can start going out here. I'm always talking to our coaches about that. The basics, the basics. 'We need to do this good before we start doing this right here. How about we do this instead of going five steps ahead?"


The playbook is being opened up as the team is progressing, regardless of who is at QB.


I think the team is progressing faster with Gus than with TJack, hence the playbook opening up faster.

Marrdro
11-11-2008, 08:42 AM
He might be enjoying more freedom but if he doesn't figure out how to lead a reciever instead of throwing to their back shoulder and feet all the damn time, I think some of that freedom might be enjoyed on another roster next year.
:o ::)

Purple Floyd
11-11-2008, 08:43 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:




honestly if t-jack played yesterday we woulda won 21-10 probably.



I believe so too

I don't think Jackson would have given up 17 points single handily

Jackson's first game back.. On the road.. The team is rusty.. And Jackson still out performed Gus by far

Imgine now with AP going for 100 a game 4 weeks in a row.. And 200 against the Pack

The D and special teams really screwed us over that first game.. Also injuries and not being rusty


kaka del rio.
TJack outperformed Gus "by far"?
Their stats were pretty gol 'darnit similar IMHO.

T. Jackson


16/35
45.7% 178
1
1
THIRD DOWN EFFICIENCY
7/16 - 43%
TOTAL FIRST DOWNS
21
By Rushing 10
By Passing 7
By Penalty 4
RED ZONE EFFICIENCY
1/3 - 33%
GOAL TO GO EFFICIENCY 1/1 - 100%
TIME OF POSSESSION
32:01

G. Frerotte


15/28
53.6% 151
2
3
THIRD DOWN EFFICIENCY
6/15 - 40%
TOTAL FIRST DOWNS
18
By Rushing 9
By Passing 8
By Penalty 1
RED ZONE EFFICIENCY
1/1 - 100%
GOAL TO GO EFFICIENCY 1/1 - 100%
TIME OF POSSESSION
36:05

I am just not seeing where TJack outperformed Gus.
Oh yeah, there is one more stat -
TJack FINAL SCORE
19
Gus FINAL SCORE
28

There are two big things the offense did differently that won this game for us yesterday.
1) We didn't settle for field goals every time we sniffed the redzone.
2) When the game was on the line, Gus stayed in control and got the ball down the field safely (with 4 runs 3 passes on the final Vikings drive).
Say what you want about Gus's three INTs, but they hurt a helluva lot less than TJack's 1.


Gus also is a 15 year vet & played in 9 games this year (as did the team) prior to that game.

Jackson, a developing QB having only been with the team 2 years, played in 1-1/2 games prior to him facing GB on the road, not at home. The team also was unprepared & flat in the season opener & lacked the services of Rice & M-Will & with a much less than 100% Berrian who was definitely slow & still nursing his turf toe injury.


Gus has only played in 7 games this year by my count. Or are you counting holding the clipboard as playing?


Plus, despite the excuses for Jackson, I still don't see how he outperformed Gus.


Because he can run ???

that is all I can come up with.

singersp
11-11-2008, 08:52 AM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Gus also is a 15 year vet & played in 9 games this year (as did the team) prior to that game.

Jackson, a developing QB having only been with the team 2 years, played in 1-1/2 games prior to him facing GB on the road, not at home. The team also was unprepared & flat in the season opener & lacked the services of Rice & M-Will & with a much less than 100% Berrian who was definitely slow & still nursing his turf toe injury.


Gus has only played in 7 games this year by my count. Or are you counting holding the clipboard as playing?


He saw play time in 9 games prior to GB, 6 reg. season, 3 preseason. Jackson saw only 1-1/2 & that was only in limited preseason action.

If you want to get technical & not count pre-season time, 15 year seasoned Frerotte played in 6 full games with the starting offense prior to meeting GB at home. Jackson, a 2nd year starter had absolutely 0 plays & 0 games before playing GB at GB.

If you are trying to lead me to believe there is no difference there & for a team playing in it's 9 game vs. it's 1st game, you are talking to the wind.

singersp
11-11-2008, 08:56 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"El" wrote:



"MaxVike" wrote:



But, I simply cannot imagine a scenario where TJack would have us here.



Totally agree,TJ just keeps our playbook closer than Gus ,I guess Coach stuff doesn´t trust him.

And that´s the bottom line cause I
said so.




Not true.

Quote from Childress;


"....you have to get the roots down, the basics down before you can start going out here. I'm always talking to our coaches about that. The basics, the basics. 'We need to do this good before we start doing this right here. How about we do this instead of going five steps ahead?"


The playbook is being opened up as the team is progressing, regardless of who is at QB.


I think the team is progressing faster with Gus than with TJack, hence the playbook opening up faster.


It's a nice opinion, but purely speculation.

NodakPaul
11-11-2008, 09:00 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"El" wrote:



"MaxVike" wrote:



But, I simply cannot imagine a scenario where TJack would have us here.



Totally agree,TJ just keeps our playbook closer than Gus ,I guess Coach stuff doesn´t trust him.

And that´s the bottom line cause I
said so.




Not true.

Quote from Childress;


"....you have to get the roots down, the basics down before you can start going out here. I'm always talking to our coaches about that. The basics, the basics. 'We need to do this good before we start doing this right here. How about we do this instead of going five steps ahead?"


The playbook is being opened up as the team is progressing, regardless of who is at QB.


I think the team is progressing faster with Gus than with TJack, hence the playbook opening up faster.


It's a nice opinion, but purely speculation.


As is your belief that the playbook would still have been opened up with TJack under center...

NodakPaul
11-11-2008, 09:02 AM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:






honestly if t-jack played yesterday we woulda won 21-10 probably.



I believe so too

I don't think Jackson would have given up 17 points single handily

Jackson's first game back.. On the road.. The team is rusty.. And Jackson still out performed Gus by far

Imgine now with AP going for 100 a game 4 weeks in a row.. And 200 against the Pack

The D and special teams really screwed us over that first game.. Also injuries and not being rusty


kaka del rio.
TJack outperformed Gus "by far"?
Their stats were pretty gol 'darnit similar IMHO.

T. Jackson


16/35
45.7% 178
1
1
THIRD DOWN EFFICIENCY
7/16 - 43%
TOTAL FIRST DOWNS
21
By Rushing 10
By Passing 7
By Penalty 4
RED ZONE EFFICIENCY
1/3 - 33%
GOAL TO GO EFFICIENCY 1/1 - 100%
TIME OF POSSESSION
32:01

G. Frerotte


15/28
53.6% 151
2
3
THIRD DOWN EFFICIENCY
6/15 - 40%
TOTAL FIRST DOWNS
18
By Rushing 9
By Passing 8
By Penalty 1
RED ZONE EFFICIENCY
1/1 - 100%
GOAL TO GO EFFICIENCY 1/1 - 100%
TIME OF POSSESSION
36:05

I am just not seeing where TJack outperformed Gus.
Oh yeah, there is one more stat -
TJack FINAL SCORE
19
Gus FINAL SCORE
28

There are two big things the offense did differently that won this game for us yesterday.
1) We didn't settle for field goals every time we sniffed the redzone.
2) When the game was on the line, Gus stayed in control and got the ball down the field safely (with 4 runs 3 passes on the final Vikings drive).
Say what you want about Gus's three INTs, but they hurt a helluva lot less than TJack's 1.


Gus also is a 15 year vet & played in 9 games this year (as did the team) prior to that game.

Jackson, a developing QB having only been with the team 2 years, played in 1-1/2 games prior to him facing GB on the road, not at home. The team also was unprepared & flat in the season opener & lacked the services of Rice & M-Will & with a much less than 100% Berrian who was definitely slow & still nursing his turf toe injury.


Gus has only played in 7 games this year by my count. Or are you counting holding the clipboard as playing?


Plus, despite the excuses for Jackson, I still don't see how he outperformed Gus.


Because he can run ???

that is all I can come up with.


Ahhhh.
That must be what they are focusing on.
Too bad a running QB doesn't have a place in the modern NFL.
It might have worked in the 70's, but we don't need another Vick or Culpepper...

singersp
11-11-2008, 09:03 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"El" wrote:






But, I simply cannot imagine a scenario where TJack would have us here.



Totally agree,TJ just keeps our playbook closer than Gus ,I guess Coach stuff doesn´t trust him.

And that´s the bottom line cause I
said so.




Not true.

Quote from Childress;


"....you have to get the roots down, the basics down before you can start going out here. I'm always talking to our coaches about that. The basics, the basics. 'We need to do this good before we start doing this right here. How about we do this instead of going five steps ahead?"


The playbook is being opened up as the team is progressing, regardless of who is at QB.


I think the team is progressing faster with Gus than with TJack, hence the playbook opening up faster.


It's a nice opinion, but purely speculation.


As is your belief that the playbook would still have been opened up with TJack under center...


Yep. It's all speculation. One not having anymore validity than the other.

NodakPaul
11-11-2008, 09:17 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Gus also is a 15 year vet & played in 9 games this year (as did the team) prior to that game.

Jackson, a developing QB having only been with the team 2 years, played in 1-1/2 games prior to him facing GB on the road, not at home. The team also was unprepared & flat in the season opener & lacked the services of Rice & M-Will & with a much less than 100% Berrian who was definitely slow & still nursing his turf toe injury.


Gus has only played in 7 games this year by my count. Or are you counting holding the clipboard as playing?


He saw play time in 9 games prior to GB, 6 reg. season, 3 preseason. Jackson saw only 1-1/2 & that was only in limited preseason action.

If you want to get technical & not count pre-season time, 15 year seasoned Frerotte played in 6 full games with the starting offense prior to meeting GB at home. Jackson, a 2nd year starter had absolutely 0 plays & 0 games before playing GB at GB.

If you are trying to lead me to believe there is no difference there & for a team playing in it's 9 game vs. it's 1st game, you are talking to the wind.




The fact that TJack could only play in 1 1/2 preseason games also speaks to another one of his problems - durability.

Yes, there is a difference between the supporting teams that TJack and Gus had.
And there is a difference between the QBs.
The two are not mutually exclusive.

I don't understand why some people don't think that TJack should take any of the responsibility for the way he played?
Regardless of the circumstances, he SUCKED, and has sucked in far more games in his short career than he has played well.
At what point do we stop blaming the WRs, the OL, the RBs, the TEs, the Coaching staff, the ball boy, the trainers, Paul Allen, and my neighbor's dog, and start to put some of the blame on the QB himself?

Is Gus the answer? No.
But he is the best solution we have for the remainder of this year.

tastywaves
11-11-2008, 09:56 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Gus also is a 15 year vet & played in 9 games this year (as did the team) prior to that game.

Jackson, a developing QB having only been with the team 2 years, played in 1-1/2 games prior to him facing GB on the road, not at home. The team also was unprepared & flat in the season opener & lacked the services of Rice & M-Will & with a much less than 100% Berrian who was definitely slow & still nursing his turf toe injury.


Gus has only played in 7 games this year by my count. Or are you counting holding the clipboard as playing?


He saw play time in 9 games prior to GB, 6 reg. season, 3 preseason. Jackson saw only 1-1/2 & that was only in limited preseason action.

If you want to get technical & not count pre-season time, 15 year seasoned Frerotte played in 6 full games with the starting offense prior to meeting GB at home. Jackson, a 2nd year starter had absolutely 0 plays & 0 games before playing GB at GB.

If you are trying to lead me to believe there is no difference there & for a team playing in it's 9 game vs. it's 1st game, you are talking to the wind.




The fact that TJack could only play in 1 1/2 preseason games also speaks to another one of his problems - durability.

Yes, there is a difference between the supporting teams that TJack and Gus had.
And there is a difference between the QBs.
The two are not mutually exclusive.

I don't understand why some people don't think that TJack should take any of the responsibility for the way he played?
Regardless of the circumstances, he SUCKED, and has sucked in far more games in his short career than he has played well.
At what point do we stop blaming the WRs, the OL, the RBs, the TEs, the Coaching staff, the ball boy, the trainers, Paul Allen, and my neighbor's dog, and start to put some of the blame on the QB himself?

Is Gus the answer? No.
But he is the best solution we have for the remainder of this year.


My Dr. Phil hat says that people want TJ to be a star NFL QB, because we know what we have with Gus and its not good enough to fill fans expectations.
I'm with you that Gus is our best option right now and that TJ may never be the guy we were all hoping for, but its not real comforting.


TJ has done nothing to prove he will be anything but mediocre at best at this point in his career.
He MAY develop and become something special, but right now the best spot for him is on the sidelines.

ragz
11-11-2008, 06:27 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:








honestly if t-jack played yesterday we woulda won 21-10 probably.



I believe so too

I don't think Jackson would have given up 17 points single handily

Jackson's first game back.. On the road.. The team is rusty.. And Jackson still out performed Gus by far

Imgine now with AP going for 100 a game 4 weeks in a row.. And 200 against the Pack

The D and special teams really screwed us over that first game.. Also injuries and not being rusty


kaka del rio.
TJack outperformed Gus "by far"?
Their stats were pretty gol 'darnit similar IMHO.

T. Jackson

16/35
45.7% 178
1
1
THIRD DOWN EFFICIENCY
7/16 - 43%
TOTAL FIRST DOWNS
21
By Rushing 10
By Passing 7
By Penalty 4
RED ZONE EFFICIENCY
1/3 - 33%
GOAL TO GO EFFICIENCY 1/1 - 100%
TIME OF POSSESSION
32:01

G. Frerotte

15/28
53.6% 151
2
3
THIRD DOWN EFFICIENCY
6/15 - 40%
TOTAL FIRST DOWNS
18
By Rushing 9
By Passing 8
By Penalty 1
RED ZONE EFFICIENCY
1/1 - 100%
GOAL TO GO EFFICIENCY 1/1 - 100%
TIME OF POSSESSION
36:05

I am just not seeing where TJack outperformed Gus.
Oh yeah, there is one more stat -
TJack FINAL SCORE
19
Gus FINAL SCORE
28

There are two big things the offense did differently that won this game for us yesterday.
1) We didn't settle for field goals every time we sniffed the redzone.
2) When the game was on the line, Gus stayed in control and got the ball down the field safely (with 4 runs 3 passes on the final Vikings drive).
Say what you want about Gus's three INTs, but they hurt a helluva lot less than TJack's 1.


Gus also is a 15 year vet & played in 9 games this year (as did the team) prior to that game.

Jackson, a developing QB having only been with the team 2 years, played in 1-1/2 games prior to him facing GB on the road, not at home. The team also was unprepared & flat in the season opener & lacked the services of Rice & M-Will & with a much less than 100% Berrian who was definitely slow & still nursing his turf toe injury.


Gus has only played in 7 games this year by my count. Or are you counting holding the clipboard as playing?


Plus, despite the excuses for Jackson, I still don't see how he outperformed Gus.


Because he can run ???

that is all I can come up with.


Ahhhh.
That must be what they are focusing on.
Too bad a running QB doesn't have a place in the modern NFL.
It might have worked in the 70's, but we don't need another Vick or Culpepper...

you guys are leaving an awful lot out since you wanna say the play was similar.


jackson got to throw the ball 7 times in the first half of his green bay game.
kinda hard to do a whole lot in a half when they dont let you throw.


he also ran for 60+ yards and had to play from behind becuz of special teams and the defense not getting off the field on 3rd down.
why dont you check out the 3rd down conversion rate for green bay in game one as compared to their 1-11 sunday.


so lets think about this fairly instead of just being completely full of shit.
i heard almost all you jackson haters say he lost the game cuz of his pick to end the game.
but somehow ferrotte won the game with his 3 picks that lead to 17 points in which he was playing with a lead that whole time.


peterson had a huge first half against green bay in green bay and couldnt run in the 2nd half.
ferrotte got the o-line and peterson to close a game out and green bay couldnt stop them.


ferrotte got much better defensive play, more help on offense, and got a win by one point.
jackson didn't get 4 points off safeties, 200 yards rushing and a 30 yard td run from peterson, or 47 yard tds on a 2 yard pass.
he was the single reason why we had a chance to win late in that green bay game, while ferrotte was the main reason why we had a chance to lose this game.
and i dont remember jackson having any leadership problems when he was scoring 2 tds in the 4th quarter on the road down by 2-3 scores.
its all a crock.
its dumb comparing 2 games to 7 anyway, but becuz people wanna justify benching a qb after 2 games and that ferrotte has been better than he has been we start making up things that dont reflect how the games really were.
enough already.
jackson may very well stink, but he got a raw deal, and ferrotte "may" very well be our best option, but hes been equally bad as good.
the point i constantly make is that we pretty much knew that about ferrotte, tavaris we will never know.
except for the guys that know for sure after a whole 16 starts.

PackSux!
11-11-2008, 06:40 PM
"ragz" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:










honestly if t-jack played yesterday we woulda won 21-10 probably.



I believe so too

I don't think Jackson would have given up 17 points single handily

Jackson's first game back.. On the road.. The team is rusty.. And Jackson still out performed Gus by far

Imgine now with AP going for 100 a game 4 weeks in a row.. And 200 against the Pack

The D and special teams really screwed us over that first game.. Also injuries and not being rusty


kaka del rio.
TJack outperformed Gus "by far"?
Their stats were pretty gol 'darnit similar IMHO.

T. Jackson


16/35
45.7% 178
1
1
THIRD DOWN EFFICIENCY
7/16 - 43%
TOTAL FIRST DOWNS
21
By Rushing 10
By Passing 7
By Penalty 4
RED ZONE EFFICIENCY
1/3 - 33%
GOAL TO GO EFFICIENCY 1/1 - 100%
TIME OF POSSESSION
32:01

G. Frerotte


15/28
53.6% 151
2
3
THIRD DOWN EFFICIENCY
6/15 - 40%
TOTAL FIRST DOWNS
18
By Rushing 9
By Passing 8
By Penalty 1
RED ZONE EFFICIENCY
1/1 - 100%
GOAL TO GO EFFICIENCY 1/1 - 100%
TIME OF POSSESSION
36:05

I am just not seeing where TJack outperformed Gus.
Oh yeah, there is one more stat -
TJack FINAL SCORE
19
Gus FINAL SCORE
28

There are two big things the offense did differently that won this game for us yesterday.
1) We didn't settle for field goals every time we sniffed the redzone.
2) When the game was on the line, Gus stayed in control and got the ball down the field safely (with 4 runs 3 passes on the final Vikings drive).
Say what you want about Gus's three INTs, but they hurt a helluva lot less than TJack's 1.


Gus also is a 15 year vet & played in 9 games this year (as did the team) prior to that game.

Jackson, a developing QB having only been with the team 2 years, played in 1-1/2 games prior to him facing GB on the road, not at home. The team also was unprepared & flat in the season opener & lacked the services of Rice & M-Will & with a much less than 100% Berrian who was definitely slow & still nursing his turf toe injury.


Gus has only played in 7 games this year by my count. Or are you counting holding the clipboard as playing?


Plus, despite the excuses for Jackson, I still don't see how he outperformed Gus.


Because he can run ???

that is all I can come up with.


Ahhhh.
That must be what they are focusing on.
Too bad a running QB doesn't have a place in the modern NFL.
It might have worked in the 70's, but we don't need another Vick or Culpepper...

you guys are leaving an awful lot out since you wanna say the play was similar.


jackson got to throw the ball 7 times in the first half of his green bay game.
kinda hard to do a whole lot in a half when they dont let you throw.


he also ran for 60+ yards and had to play from behind becuz of special teams and the defense not getting off the field on 3rd down.
why dont you check out the 3rd down conversion rate for green bay in game one as compared to their 1-11 sunday.


so lets think about this fairly instead of just being completely full of pooh.
i heard almost all you jackson haters say he lost the game cuz of his pick to end the game.
but somehow ferrotte won the game with his 3 picks that lead to 17 points in which he was playing with a lead that whole time.


peterson had a huge first half against green bay in green bay and couldnt run in the 2nd half.
ferrotte got the o-line and peterson to close a game out and green bay couldnt stop them.


ferrotte got much better defensive play, more help on offense, and got a win by one point.
jackson didn't get 4 points off safeties, 200 yards rushing and a 30 yard td run from peterson, or 47 yard tds on a 2 yard pass.
he was the single reason why we had a chance to win late in that green bay game, while ferrotte was the main reason why we had a chance to lose this game.
and i dont remember jackson having any leadership problems when he was scoring 2 tds in the 4th quarter on the road down by 2-3 scores.
its all a crock.
its dumb comparing 2 games to 7 anyway, but becuz people wanna justify benching a qb after 2 games and that ferrotte has been better than he has been we start making up things that dont reflect how the games really were.
enough already.
jackson may very well stink, but he got a raw deal, and ferrotte "may" very well be our best option, but hes been equally bad as good.
the point i constantly make is that we pretty much knew that about ferrotte, tavaris we will never know.
except for the guys that know for sure after a whole 16 starts.



That is because Jackson is not smart enough to read a defense and find his open reciever, so he decides to run it.

I cannot honestly believe people actually have hope for Jackson.

He is no doubt athletic enough to be a NFL quarterback but i dont believe he is smart enough to be, not to mention he is not accurate enough yet.

Everyone here with hope better be singing the same tune next season if the Vikings believe once again he will be our franchise quarterback.

QB is the position we need to seriously do something about next season.
I am not convinced that Jackson is the man for the job, no matter how many years he sits on the bench.

Freya
11-11-2008, 06:51 PM
He enjoys the freedom of passing to either team.

ragz
11-11-2008, 07:44 PM
"PackSux!" wrote:


"ragz" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:












honestly if t-jack played yesterday we woulda won 21-10 probably.



I believe so too

I don't think Jackson would have given up 17 points single handily

Jackson's first game back.. On the road.. The team is rusty.. And Jackson still out performed Gus by far

Imgine now with AP going for 100 a game 4 weeks in a row.. And 200 against the Pack

The D and special teams really screwed us over that first game.. Also injuries and not being rusty


kaka del rio.
TJack outperformed Gus "by far"?
Their stats were pretty gol 'darnit similar IMHO.

T. Jackson

16/35
45.7% 178
1
1
THIRD DOWN EFFICIENCY
7/16 - 43%
TOTAL FIRST DOWNS
21
By Rushing 10
By Passing 7
By Penalty 4
RED ZONE EFFICIENCY
1/3 - 33%
GOAL TO GO EFFICIENCY 1/1 - 100%
TIME OF POSSESSION
32:01

G. Frerotte

15/28
53.6% 151
2
3
THIRD DOWN EFFICIENCY
6/15 - 40%
TOTAL FIRST DOWNS
18
By Rushing 9
By Passing 8
By Penalty 1
RED ZONE EFFICIENCY
1/1 - 100%
GOAL TO GO EFFICIENCY 1/1 - 100%
TIME OF POSSESSION
36:05

I am just not seeing where TJack outperformed Gus.
Oh yeah, there is one more stat -
TJack FINAL SCORE
19
Gus FINAL SCORE
28

There are two big things the offense did differently that won this game for us yesterday.
1) We didn't settle for field goals every time we sniffed the redzone.
2) When the game was on the line, Gus stayed in control and got the ball down the field safely (with 4 runs 3 passes on the final Vikings drive).
Say what you want about Gus's three INTs, but they hurt a helluva lot less than TJack's 1.


Gus also is a 15 year vet & played in 9 games this year (as did the team) prior to that game.

Jackson, a developing QB having only been with the team 2 years, played in 1-1/2 games prior to him facing GB on the road, not at home. The team also was unprepared & flat in the season opener & lacked the services of Rice & M-Will & with a much less than 100% Berrian who was definitely slow & still nursing his turf toe injury.


Gus has only played in 7 games this year by my count. Or are you counting holding the clipboard as playing?


Plus, despite the excuses for Jackson, I still don't see how he outperformed Gus.


Because he can run ???

that is all I can come up with.


Ahhhh.
That must be what they are focusing on.
Too bad a running QB doesn't have a place in the modern NFL.
It might have worked in the 70's, but we don't need another Vick or Culpepper...

you guys are leaving an awful lot out since you wanna say the play was similar.


jackson got to throw the ball 7 times in the first half of his green bay game.
kinda hard to do a whole lot in a half when they dont let you throw.


he also ran for 60+ yards and had to play from behind becuz of special teams and the defense not getting off the field on 3rd down.
why dont you check out the 3rd down conversion rate for green bay in game one as compared to their 1-11 sunday.


so lets think about this fairly instead of just being completely full of pooh.
i heard almost all you jackson haters say he lost the game cuz of his pick to end the game.
but somehow ferrotte won the game with his 3 picks that lead to 17 points in which he was playing with a lead that whole time.


peterson had a huge first half against green bay in green bay and couldnt run in the 2nd half.
ferrotte got the o-line and peterson to close a game out and green bay couldnt stop them.


ferrotte got much better defensive play, more help on offense, and got a win by one point.
jackson didn't get 4 points off safeties, 200 yards rushing and a 30 yard td run from peterson, or 47 yard tds on a 2 yard pass.
he was the single reason why we had a chance to win late in that green bay game, while ferrotte was the main reason why we had a chance to lose this game.
and i dont remember jackson having any leadership problems when he was scoring 2 tds in the 4th quarter on the road down by 2-3 scores.
its all a crock.
its dumb comparing 2 games to 7 anyway, but becuz people wanna justify benching a qb after 2 games and that ferrotte has been better than he has been we start making up things that dont reflect how the games really were.
enough already.
jackson may very well stink, but he got a raw deal, and ferrotte "may" very well be our best option, but hes been equally bad as good.
the point i constantly make is that we pretty much knew that about ferrotte, tavaris we will never know.
except for the guys that know for sure after a whole 16 starts.



That is because Jackson is not smart enough to read a defense and find his open reciever, so he decides to run it.

I cannot honestly believe people actually have hope for Jackson.

He is no doubt athletic enough to be a NFL quarterback but i dont believe he is smart enough to be, not to mention he is not accurate enough yet.

Everyone here with hope better be singing the same tune next season if the Vikings believe once again he will be our franchise quarterback.

QB is the position we need to seriously do something about next season.
I am not convinced that Jackson is the man for the job, no matter how many years he sits on the bench.

thats my point.
we learn nothing about him, so coming back to him next year we are starting all over again.
which i dont think will happen anyway.
and for what, so that the defense and running game can win games for ferrotte, who we know is not going to qb next year.
just seems dumb to me.
plus, all the things you just talked about that he supposedly wasn't doing well, all gets better with play, not watching another qb be inaccurate.
anyone that thinks hes gonna get better at reading defenses and being more accurate by sitting makes little sense to me.
or for that matter playing but not asked to do much of anything.
again, his progression is a direct result of his coaching, and for christ sake he has only 16 starts, be realistic guys.

i am getting sick of this convo though, ferrotte is not gonna lose his job.
i can't imagine childress admitting another wrong move again.
unless he really thinks its the only thing left to do to save his job.
but even that would make him look like he doesn't know what hes doing yet again.
we are playing well enough to overcome ferrottes terrible picks, even if he just cuts it down to one a game we are maybe talented enough to continue to win.
he just can't have a game like last week regularly cuz you are gonna lose most of the time.
i dont know if a 15 year vet can learn much more, but hopefully he learns from it.
but he can't lose his agressiveness at the same time cuz then we become the same safe offense everyone was pissed at before.
unless peterson and the offensive line is just becoming that dominant.
apparently i'm as confused as childress usually is.

jmcdon00
11-11-2008, 08:05 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Gus also is a 15 year vet & played in 9 games this year (as did the team) prior to that game.

Jackson, a developing QB having only been with the team 2 years, played in 1-1/2 games prior to him facing GB on the road, not at home. The team also was unprepared & flat in the season opener & lacked the services of Rice & M-Will & with a much less than 100% Berrian who was definitely slow & still nursing his turf toe injury.


Gus has only played in 7 games this year by my count. Or are you counting holding the clipboard as playing?


He saw play time in 9 games prior to GB, 6 reg. season, 3 preseason. Jackson saw only 1-1/2 & that was only in limited preseason action.

If you want to get technical & not count pre-season time, 15 year seasoned Frerotte played in 6 full games with the starting offense prior to meeting GB at home. Jackson, a 2nd year starter had absolutely 0 plays & 0 games before playing GB at GB.

If you are trying to lead me to believe there is no difference there & for a team playing in it's 9 game vs. it's 1st game, you are talking to the wind.




The fact that TJack could only play in 1 1/2 preseason games also speaks to another one of his problems - durability.

Yes, there is a difference between the supporting teams that TJack and Gus had.
And there is a difference between the QBs.
The two are not mutually exclusive.

I don't understand why some people don't think that TJack should take any of the responsibility for the way he played?
Regardless of the circumstances, he SUCKED, and has sucked in far more games in his short career than he has played well.
At what point do we stop blaming the WRs, the OL, the RBs, the TEs, the Coaching staff, the ball boy, the trainers, Paul Allen, and my neighbor's dog, and start to put some of the blame on the QB himself?

Is Gus the answer? No.
But he is the best solution we have for the remainder of this year.

I disagree.
Last 7 starts:
Gus:
129/226 57.1% 1619yds 10td 11int rating 74.0 11rshs 1yd 0td
Tjack
123/209 58.9% 1321yds 7td 7int rating 74.67 44rshs 203yds 2 td

I'll take 9td and 7Int over 10td and 11int anyday. I know the stats don't tell the whole story but I think people are putting a little too much emphasis on 2 bad games by Tjack. Yes he needs to be accountable but so does Gus. If the policy of the coaching staff is after 2 bad games you get benched then it is time for Gus to sit down(although that's not a good policy IMHO).

vikinggreg
11-11-2008, 08:26 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Gus also is a 15 year vet & played in 9 games this year (as did the team) prior to that game.

Jackson, a developing QB having only been with the team 2 years, played in 1-1/2 games prior to him facing GB on the road, not at home. The team also was unprepared & flat in the season opener & lacked the services of Rice & M-Will & with a much less than 100% Berrian who was definitely slow & still nursing his turf toe injury.


Gus has only played in 7 games this year by my count. Or are you counting holding the clipboard as playing?


He saw play time in 9 games prior to GB, 6 reg. season, 3 preseason. Jackson saw only 1-1/2 & that was only in limited preseason action.

If you want to get technical & not count pre-season time, 15 year seasoned Frerotte played in 6 full games with the starting offense prior to meeting GB at home. Jackson, a 2nd year starter had absolutely 0 plays & 0 games before playing GB at GB.

If you are trying to lead me to believe there is no difference there & for a team playing in it's 9 game vs. it's 1st game, you are talking to the wind.




Didn't Jackson have 2 preseason games, sure he was dinged when he finished the 2nd, I'm just wonder how you count 3 for Gus yet Jackson has none.
Jackson had 22 attempts in both his while Frerotte had 35 in 3, and Jackson was running the starting offense for the week of practice before the GB game.
If this is where your going then Jackson hasn't played for 9 games and shouldn't he see the field again cuz he'll only be far worse.

NodakPaul
11-11-2008, 08:45 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Gus also is a 15 year vet & played in 9 games this year (as did the team) prior to that game.

Jackson, a developing QB having only been with the team 2 years, played in 1-1/2 games prior to him facing GB on the road, not at home. The team also was unprepared & flat in the season opener & lacked the services of Rice & M-Will & with a much less than 100% Berrian who was definitely slow & still nursing his turf toe injury.


Gus has only played in 7 games this year by my count. Or are you counting holding the clipboard as playing?


He saw play time in 9 games prior to GB, 6 reg. season, 3 preseason. Jackson saw only 1-1/2 & that was only in limited preseason action.

If you want to get technical & not count pre-season time, 15 year seasoned Frerotte played in 6 full games with the starting offense prior to meeting GB at home. Jackson, a 2nd year starter had absolutely 0 plays & 0 games before playing GB at GB.

If you are trying to lead me to believe there is no difference there & for a team playing in it's 9 game vs. it's 1st game, you are talking to the wind.




The fact that TJack could only play in 1 1/2 preseason games also speaks to another one of his problems - durability.

Yes, there is a difference between the supporting teams that TJack and Gus had.
And there is a difference between the QBs.
The two are not mutually exclusive.

I don't understand why some people don't think that TJack should take any of the responsibility for the way he played?
Regardless of the circumstances, he SUCKED, and has sucked in far more games in his short career than he has played well.
At what point do we stop blaming the WRs, the OL, the RBs, the TEs, the Coaching staff, the ball boy, the trainers, Paul Allen, and my neighbor's dog, and start to put some of the blame on the QB himself?

Is Gus the answer? No.
But he is the best solution we have for the remainder of this year.

I disagree.
Last 7 starts:
Gus:
129/226 57.1% 1619yds 10td 11int rating 74.0 11rshs 1yd 0td
Tjack
123/209 58.9% 1321yds 7td 7int rating 74.67 44rshs 203yds 2 td

I'll take 9td and 7Int over 10td and 11int anyday. I know the stats don't tell the whole story but I think people are putting a little too much emphasis on 2 bad games by Tjack. Yes he needs to be accountable but so does Gus. If the policy of the coaching staff is after 2 bad games you get benched then it is time for Gus to sit down(although that's not a good policy IMHO).


No that's not a good policy.
Nor is it the sole reason that Jackson was benched.
I'll take 5-2 over 0-2 any day.

jmcdon00
11-11-2008, 08:59 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:




Gus also is a 15 year vet & played in 9 games this year (as did the team) prior to that game.

Jackson, a developing QB having only been with the team 2 years, played in 1-1/2 games prior to him facing GB on the road, not at home. The team also was unprepared & flat in the season opener & lacked the services of Rice & M-Will & with a much less than 100% Berrian who was definitely slow & still nursing his turf toe injury.


Gus has only played in 7 games this year by my count. Or are you counting holding the clipboard as playing?


He saw play time in 9 games prior to GB, 6 reg. season, 3 preseason. Jackson saw only 1-1/2 & that was only in limited preseason action.

If you want to get technical & not count pre-season time, 15 year seasoned Frerotte played in 6 full games with the starting offense prior to meeting GB at home. Jackson, a 2nd year starter had absolutely 0 plays & 0 games before playing GB at GB.

If you are trying to lead me to believe there is no difference there & for a team playing in it's 9 game vs. it's 1st game, you are talking to the wind.




The fact that TJack could only play in 1 1/2 preseason games also speaks to another one of his problems - durability.

Yes, there is a difference between the supporting teams that TJack and Gus had.
And there is a difference between the QBs.
The two are not mutually exclusive.

I don't understand why some people don't think that TJack should take any of the responsibility for the way he played?
Regardless of the circumstances, he SUCKED, and has sucked in far more games in his short career than he has played well.
At what point do we stop blaming the WRs, the OL, the RBs, the TEs, the Coaching staff, the ball boy, the trainers, Paul Allen, and my neighbor's dog, and start to put some of the blame on the QB himself?

Is Gus the answer? No.
But he is the best solution we have for the remainder of this year.

I disagree.
Last 7 starts:
Gus:
129/226 57.1% 1619yds 10td 11int rating 74.0 11rshs 1yd 0td
Tjack
123/209 58.9% 1321yds 7td 7int rating 74.67 44rshs 203yds 2 td

I'll take 9td and 7Int over 10td and 11int anyday. I know the stats don't tell the whole story but I think people are putting a little too much emphasis on 2 bad games by Tjack. Yes he needs to be accountable but so does Gus. If the policy of the coaching staff is after 2 bad games you get benched then it is time for Gus to sit down(although that's not a good policy IMHO).


No that's not a good policy.
Nor is it the sole reason that Jackson was benched.
I'll take 5-2 over 0-2 any day.

over there last 7 games Gus is 5-2 and tjack is 3-4, but we all know that one player doesn't win or lose a game it takes a team to do either(example being the vikings 2-0 without Peterson and 11-12 without him, doesn't mean we should bench him). In 4 of Gus's 5 wins the defense scored. Plus Gus better keep winning because if he starts losing tjack will catch up to him(tjack 5-4 in his last 9 starts).

Purple Floyd
11-11-2008, 10:23 PM
"ragz" wrote:


you guys are leaving an awful lot out since you wanna say the play was similar.


jackson got to throw the ball 7 times in the first half of his green bay game.
kinda hard to do a whole lot in a half when they dont let you throw.






Did it ever cross your mind that maybe the reason they didn't let him throw more was that they maybe saw something in practice that made them believe he would not be successful throwing it? Do you think there was some big conspiracy by the coaches to restrict Jackson from throwing the ball so that they could bench him and then put in Gus so they could instead let him throw the ball more?

If not, then what other theory do you have for why he wasn't throwing the ball more. You have to prove at some level that you have the ability to complete a task before you are given the opportunity to do it and that opportunity was probably at practice and the preseason where they saw his progress and decided that his ability to react to changes in defensive coverages was not good enough to trust him with throwing it.

Yes, Gus is not that good of a QB. Shit, when he was the only alternative they gave us to Jackson I was pissed going into the season. But the team has played better with him in there and that is all I need to know.

They had Shank on KFAN today and he backed up the decision to use Gus because he has the experience and a better ability to run the offense.

Purple Floyd
11-11-2008, 10:37 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Gus also is a 15 year vet & played in 9 games this year (as did the team) prior to that game.

Jackson, a developing QB having only been with the team 2 years, played in 1-1/2 games prior to him facing GB on the road, not at home. The team also was unprepared & flat in the season opener & lacked the services of Rice & M-Will & with a much less than 100% Berrian who was definitely slow & still nursing his turf toe injury.


Gus has only played in 7 games this year by my count. Or are you counting holding the clipboard as playing?


He saw play time in 9 games prior to GB, 6 reg. season, 3 preseason. Jackson saw only 1-1/2 & that was only in limited preseason action.

If you want to get technical & not count pre-season time, 15 year seasoned Frerotte played in 6 full games with the starting offense prior to meeting GB at home. Jackson, a 2nd year starter had absolutely 0 plays & 0 games before playing GB at GB.

If you are trying to lead me to believe there is no difference there & for a team playing in it's 9 game vs. it's 1st game, you are talking to the wind.




I am talking to the wind? Did you put up a fart firewall or what?


So you count the mop up time that Gus was playing in preseason throwing to guys and having guys block for him that aren't even on the team any more the same as playing in the regular season? That figures and says a lot right there. Hell, at least Jackson was playing with the first team during his time in the preseason. Gus only got time when Jackson failed to stay healthy for the what, 8th time in 3 years?

The second paragraph is total nonsense so I am not going to respond. I just pray that Jackson can get back in this year and show the coaches, the analysts and myself how frickin great he is and what a mistake it was to bench him.

ragz
11-11-2008, 10:41 PM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"ragz" wrote:


you guys are leaving an awful lot out since you wanna say the play was similar.


jackson got to throw the ball 7 times in the first half of his green bay game.
kinda hard to do a whole lot in a half when they dont let you throw.






Did it ever cross your mind that maybe the reason they didn't let him throw more was that they maybe saw something in practice that made them believe he would not be successful throwing it? Do you think there was some big conspiracy by the coaches to restrict Jackson from throwing the ball so that they could bench him and then put in Gus so they could instead let him throw the ball more?

If not, then what other theory do you have for why he wasn't throwing the ball more. You have to prove at some level that you have the ability to complete a task before you are given the opportunity to do it and that opportunity was probably at practice and the preseason where they saw his progress and decided that his ability to react to changes in defensive coverages was not good enough to trust him with throwing it.

Yes, Gus is not that good of a QB. pooh, when he was the only alternative they gave us to Jackson I was pissed going into the season. But the team has played better with him in there and that is all I need to know.

They had Shank on KFAN today and he backed up the decision to use Gus because he has the experience and a better ability to run the offense.

and whats your theory?
that childress decided to start him cuz he couldnt throw passes?
that makes perfect sense.
you can't develop a qb and be afraid of what the outcome might be at the same time.


so it makes sense that we can live with ferrotte mistakes, but in all of last year we wouldnt throw cuz we were afraid jackson would make a mistake?
still no logic there. if you want me to explain the logic of how childress is running things, i have no idea.
thats why i'm questioning it.
after the way the gameplans after week one and two the whole world knew we had to open up the offense more.
so was it based solely on the entry of ferrotte or coincidental?
i dont know.
you can claim it was cuz of ferrotte, or i can claim it was an easy way for childress to take heat off himself and open up a conservative offense he called kick ass.
we wont know cuz we never got to see jackson in that kinda role.
we've seen him in the game management role, much like ferrotte in his first 2 starts, johnson, holcomb, and bollinger when they started. not exactly a line of awesome qbs but its what they were asked to do.

NodakPaul
11-11-2008, 11:03 PM
"ragz" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"ragz" wrote:


you guys are leaving an awful lot out since you wanna say the play was similar.


jackson got to throw the ball 7 times in the first half of his green bay game.
kinda hard to do a whole lot in a half when they dont let you throw.






Did it ever cross your mind that maybe the reason they didn't let him throw more was that they maybe saw something in practice that made them believe he would not be successful throwing it? Do you think there was some big conspiracy by the coaches to restrict Jackson from throwing the ball so that they could bench him and then put in Gus so they could instead let him throw the ball more?

If not, then what other theory do you have for why he wasn't throwing the ball more. You have to prove at some level that you have the ability to complete a task before you are given the opportunity to do it and that opportunity was probably at practice and the preseason where they saw his progress and decided that his ability to react to changes in defensive coverages was not good enough to trust him with throwing it.

Yes, Gus is not that good of a QB. pooh, when he was the only alternative they gave us to Jackson I was pissed going into the season. But the team has played better with him in there and that is all I need to know.

They had Shank on KFAN today and he backed up the decision to use Gus because he has the experience and a better ability to run the offense.

and whats your theory?
that childress decided to start him cuz he couldnt throw passes?
that makes perfect sense.
you can't develop a qb and be afraid of what the outcome might be at the same time.


so it makes sense that we can live with ferrotte mistakes, but in all of last year we wouldnt throw cuz we were afraid jackson would make a mistake?
still no logic there. if you want me to explain the logic of how childress is running things, i have no idea.
thats why i'm questioning it.
after the way the gameplans after week one and two the whole world knew we had to open up the offense more.
so was it based solely on the entry of ferrotte or coincidental?
i dont know.
you can claim it was cuz of ferrotte, or i can claim it was an easy way for childress to take heat off himself and open up a conservative offense he called kick jiggly butt.
we wont know cuz we never got to see jackson in that kinda role.
we've seen him in the game management role, much like ferrotte in his first 2 starts, johnson, holcomb, and bollinger when they started. not exactly a line of awesome qbs but its what they were asked to do.





Look at the text I highlighted.
Most people realize that both had some truth in it.
Childress opened up the playbooks because he needed to take heat off from himself and because he had more faith in Gus than TJack.
Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive?

We can both agree that the playbook was more restricted with TJack under center.
What exactly makes you think that TJack would be better than Gus if the playbook was opened up?
Is there anything that TJack has done to indicate that he would excel where Gus has failed?
You say yourself that we (you and I) have never seen TJack in a wider offense.


But you know who has?
The coaching staff.
Yes, I know that everyone here thinks that they could be a better head coach than Childress, but the sad fact is that few if any of us actually could.
Childress had a LOT riding on TJack, and I think he would have much rather seen his QB project excel than a vet who has seen over a decade of playing time.
If there was any way, any way that Childress could have been successful with TJack I suspect he would have done it.
That might have saved his job.
The fact that even Childress gave up on TJack speaks volumes IMHO.

But I guess it doesn't matter.
The most popular person on a football team in the back up QB...

ragz
11-11-2008, 11:17 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"ragz" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"ragz" wrote:


you guys are leaving an awful lot out since you wanna say the play was similar.


jackson got to throw the ball 7 times in the first half of his green bay game.
kinda hard to do a whole lot in a half when they dont let you throw.






Did it ever cross your mind that maybe the reason they didn't let him throw more was that they maybe saw something in practice that made them believe he would not be successful throwing it? Do you think there was some big conspiracy by the coaches to restrict Jackson from throwing the ball so that they could bench him and then put in Gus so they could instead let him throw the ball more?

If not, then what other theory do you have for why he wasn't throwing the ball more. You have to prove at some level that you have the ability to complete a task before you are given the opportunity to do it and that opportunity was probably at practice and the preseason where they saw his progress and decided that his ability to react to changes in defensive coverages was not good enough to trust him with throwing it.

Yes, Gus is not that good of a QB. pooh, when he was the only alternative they gave us to Jackson I was pissed going into the season. But the team has played better with him in there and that is all I need to know.

They had Shank on KFAN today and he backed up the decision to use Gus because he has the experience and a better ability to run the offense.

and whats your theory?
that childress decided to start him cuz he couldnt throw passes?
that makes perfect sense.
you can't develop a qb and be afraid of what the outcome might be at the same time.


so it makes sense that we can live with ferrotte mistakes, but in all of last year we wouldnt throw cuz we were afraid jackson would make a mistake?
still no logic there. if you want me to explain the logic of how childress is running things, i have no idea.
thats why i'm questioning it.
after the way the gameplans after week one and two the whole world knew we had to open up the offense more.
so was it based solely on the entry of ferrotte or coincidental?
i dont know.
you can claim it was cuz of ferrotte, or i can claim it was an easy way for childress to take heat off himself and open up a conservative offense he called kick jiggly butt.
we wont know cuz we never got to see jackson in that kinda role.
we've seen him in the game management role, much like ferrotte in his first 2 starts, johnson, holcomb, and bollinger when they started. not exactly a line of awesome qbs but its what they were asked to do.





Look at the text I highlighted.
Most people realize that both had some truth in it.
Childress opened up the playbooks because he needed to take heat off from himself and because he had more faith in Gus than TJack.
Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive?

We can both agree that the playbook was more restricted with TJack under center.
What exactly makes you think that TJack would be better than Gus if the playbook was opened up?
Is there anything that TJack has done to indicate that he would excel where Gus has failed?
You say yourself that we (you and I) have never seen TJack in a wider offense.


But you know who has?
The coaching staff.
Yes, I know that everyone here thinks that they could be a better head coach than Childress, but the sad fact is that few if any of us actually could.
Childress had a LOT riding on TJack, and I think he would have much rather seen his QB project excel than a vet who has seen over a decade of playing time.
If there was any way, any way that Childress could have been successful with TJack I suspect he would have done it.
That might have saved his job.
The fact that even Childress gave up on TJack speaks volumes IMHO.

But I guess it doesn't matter.
The most popular person on a football team in the back up QB...

no hes not.
people just feel like you need to see more.
and if i recall the only time we have really seen him in wide open offense were in the denver game and green bay game this year where he did perform well.
childress, to me, came off as if he was more concerned with jackson not making a costly mistake than he was letting him play the game and learning from possible mistakes.
its bad handling of a young player in my opinion.
he felt he could win with a conservative offense and good defense but neither was as good as he thought they were.
theres nothing wrong with trying to win games a way you think is best, but thats not exactly condusive to developing a young qb.
to me he seemed unwilling to live with the mistakes and thats why we played close to the vest.
thats what i find ironic about now.
hes willing to live with the mistakes but its of a 15 year veteran.
and to me that has everything to do with this probably being his final shot at keeping his job.
but we still have time in the season and we play some pretty good teams so it will be interesting to see if he starts reigning ferrotte in becuz of the turnovers.
and then to see how that works out since our defense is playing good and our o-line and running game are starting to look dominant.

Purple Floyd
11-12-2008, 12:01 AM
"ragz" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"ragz" wrote:


you guys are leaving an awful lot out since you wanna say the play was similar.


jackson got to throw the ball 7 times in the first half of his green bay game.
kinda hard to do a whole lot in a half when they dont let you throw.






Did it ever cross your mind that maybe the reason they didn't let him throw more was that they maybe saw something in practice that made them believe he would not be successful throwing it? Do you think there was some big conspiracy by the coaches to restrict Jackson from throwing the ball so that they could bench him and then put in Gus so they could instead let him throw the ball more?

If not, then what other theory do you have for why he wasn't throwing the ball more. You have to prove at some level that you have the ability to complete a task before you are given the opportunity to do it and that opportunity was probably at practice and the preseason where they saw his progress and decided that his ability to react to changes in defensive coverages was not good enough to trust him with throwing it.

Yes, Gus is not that good of a QB. pooh, when he was the only alternative they gave us to Jackson I was pissed going into the season. But the team has played better with him in there and that is all I need to know.

They had Shank on KFAN today and he backed up the decision to use Gus because he has the experience and a better ability to run the offense.

and whats your theory?
that childress decided to start him cuz he couldnt throw passes?
that makes perfect sense.
you can't develop a qb and be afraid of what the outcome might be at the same time.


so it makes sense that we can live with ferrotte mistakes, but in all of last year we wouldnt throw cuz we were afraid jackson would make a mistake?
still no logic there. if you want me to explain the logic of how childress is running things, i have no idea.
thats why i'm questioning it.
after the way the gameplans after week one and two the whole world knew we had to open up the offense more.
so was it based solely on the entry of ferrotte or coincidental?
i dont know.
you can claim it was cuz of ferrotte, or i can claim it was an easy way for childress to take heat off himself and open up a conservative offense he called kick ass.
we wont know cuz we never got to see jackson in that kinda role.
we've seen him in the game management role, much like ferrotte in his first 2 starts, johnson, holcomb, and bollinger when they started. not exactly a line of awesome qbs but its what they were asked to do.





My theory?

My theory is that either the FO or Childress made a conscious decision to make Jackson our starting QB and they made a decision not to go out and be as aggressive in establishing depth at the most important position on the team as they were at many other positions. My theory is that they didn't want to bring in anyone who would want to openly challenge jackson for the job but instead looked for guys who would be happy holding the clipboard for a paycheck.

All offseason they worked at developing his skills and trying to get him to absorb the offense and learn to read defenses and react to changes in the defense. He also spent time with the WR's trying to get the timing down. Then came the preseason and just like last year the staff treated him like Peyton Manning and only played him for a series or two to try to keep him healthy and he still got hurt trying to be a running back.

Then came game 1. This is the season we were set to contend for the NFC title and go deep in the playoffs if the QB could rise to the occasion. But in game 1, Jackson doesn't look too good. He didn't move the ball that well and we lost the first game. Then we lost the second game and he was not looking sharp at all and he did not loo like he had control of the offense or the team.

Childress defended Jackson on Sunday evening and into Tuesday. Then within about 12 hours he turned 180 degrees and benched him for the year. Now, only a few things could have changed that and my guess is that either Bevell or a few of the players sat down with Childress and told him that Gus gave them a better chance to win or there there was a conversation between Jackson and Childress that led Childress to bench him.

Now, if you would like to elaborate more on your theories for me I am all ears.

Getting back to the point, you may have not seen enough of Jackson to form a final opinion on Jackson but somebody in the organization apparently has. I am not sure who it was but they certainly see more than I do. If you would care to look back you would see that I wanted to see Jackson play until he either imploded or improved so it's not like I am a member of the haters club, I just accept that whoever made the decision made it because it was the best move for the team with the talent we have at that position.

I would rather have had them either bring in a better staff to develop the young players at that position or to bring in a better, more established vet than Gus but they didn't. So now I have to form an opinion of who is the lesser of 2 evils and I have decided at this point that person is Gus. If he implodes then I guess the staff will have to try plan C.

Purple Floyd
11-12-2008, 12:02 AM
"vikinggreg" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Gus also is a 15 year vet & played in 9 games this year (as did the team) prior to that game.

Jackson, a developing QB having only been with the team 2 years, played in 1-1/2 games prior to him facing GB on the road, not at home. The team also was unprepared & flat in the season opener & lacked the services of Rice & M-Will & with a much less than 100% Berrian who was definitely slow & still nursing his turf toe injury.


Gus has only played in 7 games this year by my count. Or are you counting holding the clipboard as playing?


He saw play time in 9 games prior to GB, 6 reg. season, 3 preseason. Jackson saw only 1-1/2 & that was only in limited preseason action.

If you want to get technical & not count pre-season time, 15 year seasoned Frerotte played in 6 full games with the starting offense prior to meeting GB at home. Jackson, a 2nd year starter had absolutely 0 plays & 0 games before playing GB at GB.

If you are trying to lead me to believe there is no difference there & for a team playing in it's 9 game vs. it's 1st game, you are talking to the wind.




Didn't Jackson have 2 preseason games, sure he was dinged when he finished the 2nd, I'm just wonder how you count 3 for Gus yet Jackson has none.
Jackson had 22 attempts in both his while Frerotte had 35 in 3, and Jackson was running the starting offense for the week of practice before the GB game.
If this is where your going then Jackson hasn't played for 9 games and shouldn't he see the field again cuz he'll only be far worse.


Because it is the only way he can support his argument.

petrodemos
11-12-2008, 12:10 AM
okay so lets assume that the coaching staff realized they cant give jackson the playbook and let him call audibles because he is just that inept.

did they come to this realization in week 1 or week 2? because they sure as hell didnt realize it the first couple of preseason games he was still playing. because had they noticed it then, i would like to believe that the FO or coaching staff would have realized, holy mother of bud grant, we better get a gol'darn quarter back in here! and the brett farve trade talk would have been a lot more interesting.

the fact is, the coaching staff sucks and has no clue what they have or what they want. these guys are lucky to be employed, and should give half their paycheck to adrian peterson.

ragz
11-12-2008, 12:22 AM
"petrodemos" wrote:


okay so lets assume that the coaching staff realized they cant give jackson the playbook and let him call audibles because he is just that inept.

did they come to this realization in week 1 or week 2? because they sure as hell didnt realize it the first couple of preseason games he was still playing. because had they noticed it then, i would like to believe that the FO or coaching staff would have realized, holy mother of bud grant, we better get a gol'darn quarter back in here! and the brett farve trade talk would have been a lot more interesting.

the fact is, the coaching staff sucks and has no clue what they have or what they want. these guys are lucky to be employed, and should give half their paycheck to adrian peterson.

well first off none of our qbs have been given the option to audible, including b.johnson.


and secondly you are right and thats what i'm trying to say.
so the coaches knew through practice that jackson couldnt pass and had to hold back the playbook, but name him the starter for 2 straight seasons without bringing in any serious competition.
that makes sense to these people?
but the idea that childress thought he could win by being conservative and trying to protect jackson from making mistakes which limited jacksons development is a far fetched idea?
okay, i guess i live in a fantasy world.

V-Unit
11-12-2008, 01:35 AM
"ragz" wrote:


"petrodemos" wrote:


okay so lets assume that the coaching staff realized they cant give jackson the playbook and let him call audibles because he is just that inept.

did they come to this realization in week 1 or week 2? because they sure as hell didnt realize it the first couple of preseason games he was still playing. because had they noticed it then, i would like to believe that the FO or coaching staff would have realized, holy mother of bud grant, we better get a gol'darn quarter back in here! and the brett farve trade talk would have been a lot more interesting.

the fact is, the coaching staff sucks and has no clue what they have or what they want. these guys are lucky to be employed, and should give half their paycheck to adrian peterson.

well first off none of our qbs have been given the option to audible, including b.johnson.


and secondly you are right and thats what i'm trying to say.
so the coaches knew through practice that jackson couldnt pass and had to hold back the playbook, but name him the starter for 2 straight seasons without bringing in any serious competition.
that makes sense to these people?
but the idea that childress thought he could win by being conservative and trying to protect jackson from making mistakes which limited jacksons development is a far fetched idea?
okay, i guess i live in a fantasy world.



Wow you are so close.

The Coaches saw TJ in practice, and saw either:
A QB who looked good in practice but did not translate those successes to gameday or
A QB who couldn't pass and wasn't picking up the playbook fast enough.

Either way, I agree, it is a total outrage! Chilly might be fired because of his mistrust for TJ panning out, and everyone who pays any attention to the league knows it. Chilly stayed on Plan A for far too long, and has finally converted to Plan B. Again, he waited far too long. Serious competition should have been in here starting in the minicamps before the 2007 season. Instead we handed an unproven QB the job.

The idea of a conservative offense to protect a QB is not a far fetched idea. What is far fetched is that you:
A: Believe the offense gave TJ ZERO chance to develop. If TJ has started to complete the simple throws, and understand the simple plays, progress would surely be seen. Development is a series of small steps. Take AD for example, who went from sharing carries, to learning pass blocking, to learning patience for his blockers, all while getting better each step of the way. How about Cedric Griffin, who started a nickleback, replaced an injured starter, saw struggles as a starter, started playing better, and all of a sudden we see him playing closer to the line these days. Some may say Griffin still isn't good enough, but he is certainly has made enough progress to keep his starting role.
B: Believe that development cannot happen during practice. Of course it can! That is why the alternative to "sink or swim" is "sit until ready." Chilldress saw a stall in development during games. The solution is not to let him throw and let development happen. The solution is to let him focus on practice and let development happen that way. All signs I have seen said that Chilly hoped TJ would grow into a solid starting QB on the field. The growth just was not there. Now, we try the off-field approach. Not what I want, watching a young QB grow in front of your eyes and lead your team to victory is an awesome thing for a fan. Watching a young QB hold your team back however is equally frustrating.

I don't think I will ever understand those who think TJ would have flourished under a more complex offense than he was allowed to run. He was inconsistent when it came to the simple things, so I will never see how adding complexity would help his situation. Some receivers with hands sure, but he was holding back the playcalling, which was holding back the offense. Some refuse to accept that. If we had given him the entire playbook to run before he was ready, it would have been catastrophic failure, and he would have tim-couched his way out of the league. At least now we are giving the guy a chance to regroup and make a run at a second go, maybe.

jkjuggalo
11-12-2008, 02:27 AM
"V" wrote:


"ragz" wrote:


"petrodemos" wrote:


okay so lets assume that the coaching staff realized they cant give jackson the playbook and let him call audibles because he is just that inept.

did they come to this realization in week 1 or week 2? because they sure as hell didnt realize it the first couple of preseason games he was still playing. because had they noticed it then, i would like to believe that the FO or coaching staff would have realized, holy mother of bud grant, we better get a gol'darn quarter back in here! and the brett farve trade talk would have been a lot more interesting.

the fact is, the coaching staff sucks and has no clue what they have or what they want. these guys are lucky to be employed, and should give half their paycheck to adrian peterson.

well first off none of our qbs have been given the option to audible, including b.johnson.


and secondly you are right and thats what i'm trying to say.
so the coaches knew through practice that jackson couldnt pass and had to hold back the playbook, but name him the starter for 2 straight seasons without bringing in any serious competition.
that makes sense to these people?
but the idea that childress thought he could win by being conservative and trying to protect jackson from making mistakes which limited jacksons development is a far fetched idea?
okay, i guess i live in a fantasy world.



Wow you are so close.

The Coaches saw TJ in practice, and saw either:
A QB who looked good in practice but did not translate those successes to gameday or
A QB who couldn't pass and wasn't picking up the playbook fast enough.

Either way, I agree, it is a total outrage! Chilly might be fired because of his mistrust for TJ panning out, and everyone who pays any attention to the league knows it. Chilly stayed on Plan A for far too long, and has finally converted to Plan B. Again, he waited far too long. Serious competition should have been in here starting in the minicamps before the 2007 season. Instead we handed an unproven QB the job.

The idea of a conservative offense to protect a QB is not a far fetched idea. What is far fetched is that you:
A: Believe the offense gave TJ ZERO chance to develop. If TJ has started to complete the simple throws, and understand the simple plays, progress would surely be seen. Development is a series of small steps. Take AD for example, who went from sharing carries, to learning pass blocking, to learning patience for his blockers, all while getting better each step of the way. How about Cedric Griffin, who started a nickleback, replaced an injured starter, saw struggles as a starter, started playing better, and all of a sudden we see him playing closer to the line these days. Some may say Griffin still isn't good enough, but he is certainly has made enough progress to keep his starting role.
B: Believe that development cannot happen during practice. Of course it can! That is why the alternative to "sink or swim" is "sit until ready." Chilldress saw a stall in development during games. The solution is not to let him throw and let development happen. The solution is to let him focus on practice and let development happen that way. All signs I have seen said that Chilly hoped TJ would grow into a solid starting QB on the field. The growth just was not there. Now, we try the off-field approach. Not what I want, watching a young QB grow in front of your eyes and lead your team to victory is an awesome thing for a fan. Watching a young QB hold your team back however is equally frustrating.

I don't think I will ever understand those who think TJ would have flourished under a more complex offense than he was allowed to run. He was inconsistent when it came to the simple things, so I will never see how adding complexity would help his situation. Some receivers with hands sure, but he was holding back the playcalling, which was holding back the offense. Some refuse to accept that. If we had given him the entire playbook to run before he was ready, it would have been catastrophic failure, and he would have tim-couched his way out of the league. At least now we are giving the guy a chance to regroup and make a run at a second go, maybe.


The problem was not the complexity of the offense, it was the stupid play-calling.
I understand why Childress would want to build up TJ's confidence with the short passing game, but this is not the greatest idea when there are 8 defenders in the box.
The linebackers in the NFL can read and react to a pass play and drop into short coverage very quickly.
Those quick slants and comeback routes are not going to be very successful when you have 8-9 guys within 8 yards of the line of scrimmage.


I thought that TJack's best throws were made in the 10-20 yard routes.
The problem with that was that we have had weak receivers (especially last year and w/ Berrian's injury to start this year) that can't run those types of routes well.
Then you have to have an offensive line that will allow the QB time for receivers to run those types of routes.


The point that ragz, myself, and other people have been trying to make though is that Gus is not playing any better than TJack.
They both have their pros and cons.
I can see the argument for both sides.
I just don't think we have seen everything TJ has to offer.
If our offense is stalling or Gus throws some costly picks in the first half this week, Chilly should hand the reigns back over the TJ and see what he can do after nearly half a season on the bench.
I'm hoping that he would be more focused than ever before.

singersp
11-12-2008, 07:20 AM
"V" wrote:


"ragz" wrote:


"petrodemos" wrote:


okay so lets assume that the coaching staff realized they cant give jackson the playbook and let him call audibles because he is just that inept.

did they come to this realization in week 1 or week 2? because they sure as hell didnt realize it the first couple of preseason games he was still playing. because had they noticed it then, i would like to believe that the FO or coaching staff would have realized, holy mother of bud grant, we better get a gol'darn quarter back in here! and the brett farve trade talk would have been a lot more interesting.

the fact is, the coaching staff sucks and has no clue what they have or what they want. these guys are lucky to be employed, and should give half their paycheck to adrian peterson.

well first off none of our qbs have been given the option to audible, including b.johnson.


and secondly you are right and thats what i'm trying to say.
so the coaches knew through practice that jackson couldnt pass and had to hold back the playbook, but name him the starter for 2 straight seasons without bringing in any serious competition.
that makes sense to these people?
but the idea that childress thought he could win by being conservative and trying to protect jackson from making mistakes which limited jacksons development is a far fetched idea?
okay, i guess i live in a fantasy world.



Wow you are so close.


LOL! Or not!

The biggest misconception here is that Childress opened up the playbook for Frerotte & not Jackson because

a) Jackson could not pick up the playbook fast enough
b) Jackson could not pass very well

That is not the case, as Childress himself stated, yet people take someones thoughts & run with it as if it were fact. The blind leading the blind.

The playbook was not opened up because childress wanted them to do the basics well before moving on & opening things up. That included & was not limited to & would have happened if Gus started those first two games as well;

The front line executing there blocks well
Receivers running their routes correctly & getting open
AD being able to show that he could block & catch a pass
The rookies & new FA's on the team learning their roles & the scheme

It was not solely because of Jackson as many of the haters here would like to believe. Frerotte was with this team only a few months heading into the regular season yet people adamantly claim that somehow Frerotte knew Childress' scheme, the playbook & the play calls better than someone who was here for 2-1/2 years.

LMAO!

In Jackson's first two games there were times when it appeared to many here that Jackson was calling audibles & some of the fans here were ridiculing him. You know now that he was not calling audibles but rather dictating to his players where they needed to be for the play that was being called as I stated then.

I also find it amusing that people think it was not opened up because of Jackson's accuracy. Again a big misconception by the fans here.

The fact is that the playbook was not opened up in week one, yet Jackson proved to be more accurate in the pre-season games than Frerotte was.

Going into week one, Jackson's average completion percentage from pre-season was 68.2% to Frerotte's 60% & Childress was confident in Jackson's abilities, yet the book was opened up then. So heading into the regular season, to claim Jackson was inept & Frerotte wasn't is not only laughable, but wrong. Obviously it was for other reasons more so than just QB abilities.

Frerotte's completion average in the regular season is 57.1% to Jackson's 51.7%. That's a difference of only 5.4%. A huge part of that difference is made up by passes that Jackson threw that were dropped by receivers after the balls hit them in their hands. More so than dropped balls we are seeing than what Frerotte is seeing.

Further more, Jackson has thrown 0.5 INT's per game to Frerotte's 1.6 INT's per game.

Where people come up with this notion that Frerotte is head & shoulders & way ahead of the game in accuracy is beyond me. We have seen Frerotte miss receivers many a time that are still standing on the LOS, bouncing the ball off the carpet in front of their feet or just 5 yards out.

No, the playbook was not opened up because of Frerotte's accuracy or the fact that he knows the playbook better. If your going to try & lead me to believe that he knows it better than Jackson because he was here before, don't waste your breath. Different era, different scheme, different playbook, different coach.

singersp
11-12-2008, 07:36 AM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"vikinggreg" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Gus also is a 15 year vet & played in 9 games this year (as did the team) prior to that game.

Jackson, a developing QB having only been with the team 2 years, played in 1-1/2 games prior to him facing GB on the road, not at home. The team also was unprepared & flat in the season opener & lacked the services of Rice & M-Will & with a much less than 100% Berrian who was definitely slow & still nursing his turf toe injury.


Gus has only played in 7 games this year by my count. Or are you counting holding the clipboard as playing?


He saw play time in 9 games prior to GB, 6 reg. season, 3 preseason. Jackson saw only 1-1/2 & that was only in limited preseason action.

If you want to get technical & not count pre-season time, 15 year seasoned Frerotte played in 6 full games with the starting offense prior to meeting GB at home. Jackson, a 2nd year starter had absolutely 0 plays & 0 games before playing GB at GB.

If you are trying to lead me to believe there is no difference there & for a team playing in it's 9 game vs. it's 1st game, you are talking to the wind.




Didn't Jackson have 2 preseason games, sure he was dinged when he finished the 2nd, I'm just wonder how you count 3 for Gus yet Jackson has none.
Jackson had 22 attempts in both his while Frerotte had 35 in 3, and Jackson was running the starting offense for the week of practice before the GB game.
If this is where your going then Jackson hasn't played for 9 games and shouldn't he see the field again cuz he'll only be far worse.


Because it is the only way he can support his argument.


::) WRONG! read it again.

When I counted Frerotte's 3 preseason games, I counted Jackson's 1-1/2 preseason games. I'll highlight it for you so you don't miss it.


Gus also is a 15 year vet & played in 9 games this year (as did the team) prior to that game.

Jackson, a developing QB having only been with the team 2 years, played in 1-1/2 games prior to him facing GB on the road, not at home.

Did you see it now?

But UffDa cried foul & claimed;


Gus has only played in 7 games this year by my count. Or are you counting holding the clipboard as playing?

Not counting the GB game, that meant Frerotte played in 6 regular games prior to the GB game. UffDa completely tossed out the 3 preseason games, which would have made it 9 games total.

With that said & to keep things apples to apples, I tossed out Jackson's preseason games just as UffDa did.

That means Jackson had 0 regular season games & 0 regular season snaps before facing GB at Lambeau & Frerotte had played 6 regular season games prior to facing GB at home.

If you want to include the preseason games as well, it was Jackson 1-1/2 games to Frerotte's 9. Just as I originally stated.

NodakPaul
11-12-2008, 07:41 AM
"singersp" wrote:


The biggest misconception here is that Childress opened up the playbook for Frerotte & not Jackson because

a) Jackson could not pick up the playbook fast enough
b) Jackson could not pass very well

That is not the case, as Childress himself stated, yet people take someones thoughts & run with it as if it were fact. The blind leading the blind.

The playbook was not opened up because childress wanted them to do the basics well before moving on & opening things up. That included & was not limited to & would have happened if Gus started those first two games as well;

The front line executing there blocks well
Receivers running their routes correctly & getting open
AD being able to show that he could block & catch a pass
The rookies & new FA's on the team learning their roles & the scheme

It was not solely because of Jackson as many of the haters here would like to believe. Frerotte was with this team only a few months heading into the regular season yet people adamantly claim that somehow Frerotte knew Childress' scheme, the playbook & the play calls better than someone who was here for 2-1/2 years.

LMAO!

In Jackson's first two games there were times when it appeared to many here that Jackson was calling audibles & some of the fans here were ridiculing him. You know now that he was not calling audibles but rather dictating to his players where they needed to be for the play that was being called as I stated then.

I also find it amusing that people think it was not opened up because of Jackson's accuracy. Again a big misconception by the fans here.

The fact is that the playbook was not opened up in week one, yet Jackson proved to be more accurate in the pre-season games than Frerotte was.

Going into week one, Jackson's average completion percentage from pre-season was 68.2% to Frerotte's 60% & Childress was confident in Jackson's abilities, yet the book was opened up then. Obviously it was for other reasons more so than just QB abilities.

Frerotte's completion average in the regular season is 57.1% to Jackson's 51.7%. That's a difference of only 5.4%. A huge part of that difference is made up by passes that Jackson threw that were dropped by receivers after the balls hit them in their hands. More so than dropped balls we are seeing than what Frerotte is seeing.

Further more, Jackson has thrown 0.5 INT's per game to Frerotte's 1.6 INT's per game.

Where people come up with this notion that Frerotte is head & shoulders & way ahead of the game in accuracy is beyond me. We have seen Frerotte miss receivers many a time that are still standing on the LOS, bouncing the ball off the carpet in front of their feet or just 5 yards out.

No, the playbook was not opened up because of Frerotte's accuracy or the fact that he knows the playbook better. If your going to try & lead me to believe that he knows it better than Jackson because he was here before, don't waste your breath. Different era, different scheme, different playbook, different coach.




NO, it was not SOLELY because of Jackson.
But why can't you admit that Jackson was ONE of the reasons?

Marrdro
11-12-2008, 07:45 AM
This thing still going.

Hey for you guys that don't have a clue and are trying to make the arguement that TJ never audibled, you need to go back and watch some of the games.


Hard to hear exactly what he is saying but there are alot of instances where he clearly audibles out of one play and into another.
Lest we forget how bad our OL blocked when those instances took place.

To date, BJ was the only QB this staff restricted from audibling.

Silly fans.
:o
;D

singersp
11-12-2008, 07:51 AM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"ragz" wrote:


you guys are leaving an awful lot out since you wanna say the play was similar.


jackson got to throw the ball 7 times in the first half of his green bay game.
kinda hard to do a whole lot in a half when they dont let you throw.






Did it ever cross your mind that maybe the reason they didn't let him throw more was that they maybe saw something in practice that made them believe he would not be successful throwing it? Do you think there was some big conspiracy by the coaches to restrict Jackson from throwing the ball so that they could bench him and then put in Gus so they could instead let him throw the ball more?


Not at all. In preseason Jackson completed 68.2% of his passes compared to Frerotte who had 60%.

If a coach is going to limit a QB's throws because he completes 68.2% oh his passes, he needs to get his head examined.

GB has a good pass defense & Childress thought he could win that game by pounding the rock.

singersp
11-12-2008, 08:01 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Gus also is a 15 year vet & played in 9 games this year (as did the team) prior to that game.

Jackson, a developing QB having only been with the team 2 years, played in 1-1/2 games prior to him facing GB on the road, not at home. The team also was unprepared & flat in the season opener & lacked the services of Rice & M-Will & with a much less than 100% Berrian who was definitely slow & still nursing his turf toe injury.


Gus has only played in 7 games this year by my count. Or are you counting holding the clipboard as playing?


He saw play time in 9 games prior to GB, 6 reg. season, 3 preseason. Jackson saw only 1-1/2 & that was only in limited preseason action.

If you want to get technical & not count pre-season time, 15 year seasoned Frerotte played in 6 full games with the starting offense prior to meeting GB at home. Jackson, a 2nd year starter had absolutely 0 plays & 0 games before playing GB at GB.

If you are trying to lead me to believe there is no difference there & for a team playing in it's 9 game vs. it's 1st game, you are talking to the wind.




The fact that TJack could only play in 1 1/2 preseason games also speaks to another one of his problems - durability.

Yes, there is a difference between the supporting teams that TJack and Gus had.
And there is a difference between the QBs.
The two are not mutually exclusive.

I don't understand why some people don't think that TJack should take any of the responsibility for the way he played?
Regardless of the circumstances, he SUCKED, and has sucked in far more games in his short career than he has played well.
At what point do we stop blaming the WRs, the OL, the RBs, the TEs, the Coaching staff, the ball boy, the trainers, Paul Allen, and my neighbor's dog, and start to put some of the blame on the QB himself?

Is Gus the answer? No.
But he is the best solution we have for the remainder of this year.


And at what point will people realize it takes more than a year to develop most QB's in this league?

Go back & look at Frerotte's first years in the league & his first year starting.

Yes Frerotte will win us more games this year than Jackson would have. I would expect that from a 15 year veteran over a player starting out.

If that's the mentality people are going to use for our starting QB's every year, then we shouldn't even bother drafting any more QB's. A good veteran QB is going to be able to outplay a 1st or 2nd year QB almost everytime.

Purple Floyd
11-12-2008, 08:05 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"vikinggreg" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:




Gus also is a 15 year vet & played in 9 games this year (as did the team) prior to that game.

Jackson, a developing QB having only been with the team 2 years, played in 1-1/2 games prior to him facing GB on the road, not at home. The team also was unprepared & flat in the season opener & lacked the services of Rice & M-Will & with a much less than 100% Berrian who was definitely slow & still nursing his turf toe injury.


Gus has only played in 7 games this year by my count. Or are you counting holding the clipboard as playing?


He saw play time in 9 games prior to GB, 6 reg. season, 3 preseason. Jackson saw only 1-1/2 & that was only in limited preseason action.

If you want to get technical & not count pre-season time, 15 year seasoned Frerotte played in 6 full games with the starting offense prior to meeting GB at home. Jackson, a 2nd year starter had absolutely 0 plays & 0 games before playing GB at GB.

If you are trying to lead me to believe there is no difference there & for a team playing in it's 9 game vs. it's 1st game, you are talking to the wind.




Didn't Jackson have 2 preseason games, sure he was dinged when he finished the 2nd, I'm just wonder how you count 3 for Gus yet Jackson has none.
Jackson had 22 attempts in both his while Frerotte had 35 in 3, and Jackson was running the starting offense for the week of practice before the GB game.
If this is where your going then Jackson hasn't played for 9 games and shouldn't he see the field again cuz he'll only be far worse.


Because it is the only way he can support his argument.


::) WRONG! read it again.

When I counted Frerotte's 3 preseason games, I counted Jackson's 1-1/2 preseason games. I'll highlight it for you so you don't miss it.


Gus also is a 15 year vet & played in 9 games this year (as did the team) prior to that game.

Jackson, a developing QB having only been with the team 2 years, played in 1-1/2 games prior to him facing GB on the road, not at home.

Did you see it now?

But UffDa cried foul & claimed;


Gus has only played in 7 games this year by my count. Or are you counting holding the clipboard as playing?

Not counting the GB game, that meant Frerotte played in 6 regular games prior to the GB game. UffDa completely tossed out the 3 preseason games, which would have made it 9 games total.

With that said & to keep things apples to apples, I tossed out Jackson's preseason games just as UffDa did.

That means Jackson had 0 regular season games & 0 regular season snaps before facing GB at Lambeau & Frerotte had played 6 regular season games prior to facing GB at home.

If you want to include the preseason games as well, it was Jackson 1-1/2 games to Frerotte's 9. Just as I originally stated.




Do the preseason games count at the end of the year? If not they don't mean much to me. They are glorified practices. Maybe you should include the scrimmage with the Chiefs in there too along with the scrimmage on Family night in Mankato as well.

You can't spin this argument that way and then try and turn it on me to try and make yourself look better. Just what exactly is the point of the "0 regular season games before GB" comment? It was the first game of the year. Of course it was the first of his season.

Guess what? It was the first game of the year for Rodgers too and he looked much better than Jackson, who has had many games under his belt in the past few years and we all know that you preach that you cannot learn from the sidelines, only by playing. And guess what, it was the first game of the year for gus in the third week and he won.

In the end neither one of them is really worse discussing any longer so I am done. Hopefully you get the chance to see him play significant time this year so he can prove all of us wrong and take the team to several SB's over the next decade with his stellar play.

singersp
11-12-2008, 08:14 AM
"tastywaves" wrote:



My Dr. Phil hat says that people want TJ to be a star NFL QB, because we know what we have with Gus and its not good enough to fill fans expectations.
I'm with you that Gus is our best option right now and that TJ may never be the guy we were all hoping for, but its not real comforting.


TJ has done nothing to prove he will be anything but mediocre at best at this point in his career.
He MAY develop and become something special, but right now the best spot for him is on the sidelines.


As with most QB's, many prove to be mediocre at that point in their career. Will he develop or will he stay the same? We can't answer that yet. For those that THINK THEY CAN
& have already labeled him a bust or just mediocre, you have my sympathy. You would have tossed many a great QB's under the bus at that point in their careers. You wouldn't last long as a HC in the NFL.

Frerotte has been in the league 15 years & has already proven he will be nothing but mediocre.

singersp
11-12-2008, 08:36 AM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"vikinggreg" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:






Gus also is a 15 year vet & played in 9 games this year (as did the team) prior to that game.

Jackson, a developing QB having only been with the team 2 years, played in 1-1/2 games prior to him facing GB on the road, not at home. The team also was unprepared & flat in the season opener & lacked the services of Rice & M-Will & with a much less than 100% Berrian who was definitely slow & still nursing his turf toe injury.


Gus has only played in 7 games this year by my count. Or are you counting holding the clipboard as playing?


He saw play time in 9 games prior to GB, 6 reg. season, 3 preseason. Jackson saw only 1-1/2 & that was only in limited preseason action.

If you want to get technical & not count pre-season time, 15 year seasoned Frerotte played in 6 full games with the starting offense prior to meeting GB at home. Jackson, a 2nd year starter had absolutely 0 plays & 0 games before playing GB at GB.

If you are trying to lead me to believe there is no difference there & for a team playing in it's 9 game vs. it's 1st game, you are talking to the wind.




Didn't Jackson have 2 preseason games, sure he was dinged when he finished the 2nd, I'm just wonder how you count 3 for Gus yet Jackson has none.
Jackson had 22 attempts in both his while Frerotte had 35 in 3, and Jackson was running the starting offense for the week of practice before the GB game.
If this is where your going then Jackson hasn't played for 9 games and shouldn't he see the field again cuz he'll only be far worse.


Because it is the only way he can support his argument.


::) WRONG! read it again.

When I counted Frerotte's 3 preseason games, I counted Jackson's 1-1/2 preseason games. I'll highlight it for you so you don't miss it.


Gus also is a 15 year vet & played in 9 games this year (as did the team) prior to that game.

Jackson, a developing QB having only been with the team 2 years, played in 1-1/2 games prior to him facing GB on the road, not at home.

Did you see it now?

But UffDa cried foul & claimed;


Gus has only played in 7 games this year by my count. Or are you counting holding the clipboard as playing?

Not counting the GB game, that meant Frerotte played in 6 regular games prior to the GB game. UffDa completely tossed out the 3 preseason games, which would have made it 9 games total.

With that said & to keep things apples to apples, I tossed out Jackson's preseason games just as UffDa did.

That means Jackson had 0 regular season games & 0 regular season snaps before facing GB at Lambeau & Frerotte had played 6 regular season games prior to facing GB at home.

If you want to include the preseason games as well, it was Jackson 1-1/2 games to Frerotte's 9. Just as I originally stated.




Do the preseason games count at the end of the year? If not they don't mean much to me. They are glorified practices. Maybe you should include the scrimmage with the Chiefs in there too along with the scrimmage on Family night in Mankato as well.

You can't spin this argument that way and then try and turn it on me to try and make yourself look better. Just what exactly is the point of the "0 regular season games before GB" comment? It was the first game of the year. Of course it was the first of his season.

Guess what? It was the first game of the year for Rodgers too and he looked much better than Jackson, who has had many games under his belt in the past few years and we all know that you preach that you cannot learn from the sidelines, only by playing. And guess what, it was the first game of the year for gus in the third week and he won.

In the end neither one of them is really worse discussing any longer so I am done. Hopefully you get the chance to see him play significant time this year so he can prove all of us wrong and take the team to several SB's over the next decade with his stellar play.


You are the one who spun it. If you don't want to include preseason that is fine with me. I listed it both ways.

Yep, Gus did win his first game, but the team around him had already played two games as they began working the kinks out. Gus was also the lucky recipient of pass interference calls that went his way in his first two wins with passes that would probably not have been complete. Jackson's losses came on a dropped TD pass by Shiancoe at GB which would have given us a win in GB & by Cedrics blown coverage in the Gonzales catch when we played Indy, along with Childress' conservative play.

By no means, do I think at this point in his career Jackson is ready to take us to a SB, much less several SB's.

Nor do I think he gives us the best option to win right now.

What I won't do, as many here have already done, is throw him under the bus and knee-jerkingly claim he will never amount to anything.

Yes, Rodgers won his first start & it was his first game starting. Rodgers is better at this point in his career than Jackson is. That does not mean it will stay that way. Both have a lot to prove in the next few years. I also don't expect GB will cut Rodgers after this year or bench him if he continues to lose this season or if they finish .500 or less.

If Rodgers was playing here & we had a 4-5 record, most of those same fans that called for the benching/cutting of Jackson would be calling for the benching/cutting of Rodgers.

V-Unit
11-12-2008, 09:29 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"ragz" wrote:


you guys are leaving an awful lot out since you wanna say the play was similar.


jackson got to throw the ball 7 times in the first half of his green bay game.
kinda hard to do a whole lot in a half when they dont let you throw.






Did it ever cross your mind that maybe the reason they didn't let him throw more was that they maybe saw something in practice that made them believe he would not be successful throwing it? Do you think there was some big conspiracy by the coaches to restrict Jackson from throwing the ball so that they could bench him and then put in Gus so they could instead let him throw the ball more?


Not at all. In preseason Jackson completed 68.2% of his passes compared to Frerotte who had 60%.

If a coach is going to limit a QB's throws because he completes 68.2% oh his passes, he needs to get his head examined.

GB has a good pass defense & Childress thought he could win that game by pounding the rock.


Using preseason stats to justify? Really?

Even with Frerotte's troubles as of late, putting in a young, inconsistent
QB when we are primed to make a playoff run does not help us at all. We know what we have at Gus and that has made the offense click. Gus' only serious flaw during his starting stint has been turnovers.

One quality of being a veteran is that you have seen many different types of offenses, and I believe that allowed Gus to work into our offense quickly.

In the end, the stat that TJ lovers used so well to support their stance last year is now being used by TJ haters! How ironic. The right QB is the QB who we are winning games with. We have 4 out of our last 5. Suggesting to pulli Gus when the team is winning games like this is way over the top. The starters, playcalling, and scheme are all working for us right now. No need to change the current formula. The mistakes with turnovers and bad ST play will hopefully be fixed, and a hot team will hopefully be good enough to win some games against tougher competition.

Moreover, TJ was also pulled because he simply was not making progress during gameday. The best thing we could possibly do for him is to let him ride the pine. He is far from a savior, and currently, this team doesn't need saving (except for an 0-2 hole, which TJ helped to put us into).

singersp
11-12-2008, 09:31 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


Ahhhh.
That must be what they are focusing on.
Too bad a running QB doesn't have a place in the modern NFL.
It might have worked in the 70's, but we don't need another Vick or Culpepper...


Vick & Culpepper played in the 70's?

::) I can't believe you honestly think that having a QB that has the ability to run for a first down when the pocket collapses, is capable of running for a TD when he sees daylight, can run when there is no open receiver or can scramble while waiting for a receiver to get open is not important to a team or more importantly has no place in the modern day NFL.

I'll take a QB who can do those things over one that will curl up & take a loss on a sack any day.

But that's just me.

Purple Floyd
11-12-2008, 10:22 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


Ahhhh.
That must be what they are focusing on.
Too bad a running QB doesn't have a place in the modern NFL.
It might have worked in the 70's, but we don't need another Vick or Culpepper...


Vick & Culpepper played in the 70's?

::) I can't believe you honestly think that having a QB that has the ability to run for a first down when the pocket collapses, is capable of running for a TD when he sees daylight, can run when there is no open receiver or can scramble while waiting for a receiver to get open is not important to a team or more importantly has no place in the modern day NFL.

I'll take a QB who can do those things over one that will curl up & take a loss on a sack any day.

But that's just me.


I see your point. I mean who would take the take a sack and curl up guys like Brady and Manning over the likes of Vince Young and Michael Vick, who are regarded as the best two in recent history of both styles.

NodakPaul
11-12-2008, 10:32 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


Ahhhh.
That must be what they are focusing on.
Too bad a running QB doesn't have a place in the modern NFL.
It might have worked in the 70's, but we don't need another Vick or Culpepper...


Vick & Culpepper played in the 70's?

::) I can't believe you honestly think that having a QB that has the ability to run for a first down when the pocket collapses, is capable of running for a TD when he sees daylight, can run when there is no open receiver or can scramble while waiting for a receiver to get open is not important to a team or more importantly has no place in the modern day NFL.

I'll take a QB who can do those things over one that will curl up & take a loss on a sack any day.

But that's just me.


No they didn't play in the 70's.
But all of the SUCCESSFUL scrambling QBs played in the 70s.
Since then we have seen Culpepper, Young, Vick, Stewart...
None of them were able to bring their teas over the top.
In today's game, a QB who has patience and waits for the open man or throws the ball away to avoid the sack is more successful than one who makes one or two reads and then takes off if they are covered.

NodakPaul
11-12-2008, 10:41 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Gus also is a 15 year vet & played in 9 games this year (as did the team) prior to that game.

Jackson, a developing QB having only been with the team 2 years, played in 1-1/2 games prior to him facing GB on the road, not at home. The team also was unprepared & flat in the season opener & lacked the services of Rice & M-Will & with a much less than 100% Berrian who was definitely slow & still nursing his turf toe injury.


Gus has only played in 7 games this year by my count. Or are you counting holding the clipboard as playing?


He saw play time in 9 games prior to GB, 6 reg. season, 3 preseason. Jackson saw only 1-1/2 & that was only in limited preseason action.

If you want to get technical & not count pre-season time, 15 year seasoned Frerotte played in 6 full games with the starting offense prior to meeting GB at home. Jackson, a 2nd year starter had absolutely 0 plays & 0 games before playing GB at GB.

If you are trying to lead me to believe there is no difference there & for a team playing in it's 9 game vs. it's 1st game, you are talking to the wind.




The fact that TJack could only play in 1 1/2 preseason games also speaks to another one of his problems - durability.

Yes, there is a difference between the supporting teams that TJack and Gus had.
And there is a difference between the QBs.
The two are not mutually exclusive.

I don't understand why some people don't think that TJack should take any of the responsibility for the way he played?
Regardless of the circumstances, he SUCKED, and has sucked in far more games in his short career than he has played well.
At what point do we stop blaming the WRs, the OL, the RBs, the TEs, the Coaching staff, the ball boy, the trainers, Paul Allen, and my neighbor's dog, and start to put some of the blame on the QB himself?

Is Gus the answer? No.
But he is the best solution we have for the remainder of this year.


And at what point will people realize it takes more than a year to develop most QB's in this league?

Go back & look at Frerotte's first years in the league & his first year starting.

Yes Frerotte will win us more games this year than Jackson would have. I would expect that from a 15 year veteran over a player starting out.

If that's the mentality people are going to use for our starting QB's every year, then we shouldn't even bother drafting any more QB's. A good veteran QB is going to be able to outplay a 1st or 2nd year QB almost everytime.


And the truth shall set you free!

Let's look at the facts:
1) Gus is not the long term answer.
2) TJack is not the long term answer.
3) We will win more games this year with Gus than with TJack.

Given those facts, I don't see how anyone can advocate starting TJack over Gus.
I don't expect a QB to come out on fire in his third year in the NFL (second year starting).
But I do expect to see him get to a certain level in order to continue to keep his job.
Tjack failed to do that in the eyes of everyone except some of the faithful fans here on PP.O.
Most people viewed him as a failed experiment last year...

If you argument is that we need to see what he can do and how he can progress before we write him off, then I have another QB option for you.
Me.
You have never seen what I can do either.
Shouldn't I be allowed two full seasons to prove my mettle.
I would come a lot cheaper than TJack.
I might not have all of the physical skills, but I like to think that I am a fairly intelligent guy and can make decent reads.

Sound stupid?
Well, that's because it is.
And so is continuing to give TJack time as a started just to see what would happen when he has already failed to meet the expectations of the coaching staff (and most of the nfl world too).
How long did the Bears keep Sexy Rexy in the starting spot because of his potential?
How did that work out for them?
I don't want to be another Bears team, who have flashed of brilliance followed by streaks of failure.
I would rather take my chances with Gus this year (we are for first right now) and next year bring in a different starting QB, be that through the draft or Free Agency.
If we do get one in the draft, you can count on me being patient with him as he develops, just like I was with TJack.
But he if fails to perform above scout team level by the beginning of his third year, then we need to look again...

Purple Floyd
11-12-2008, 12:33 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:




Gus also is a 15 year vet & played in 9 games this year (as did the team) prior to that game.

Jackson, a developing QB having only been with the team 2 years, played in 1-1/2 games prior to him facing GB on the road, not at home. The team also was unprepared & flat in the season opener & lacked the services of Rice & M-Will & with a much less than 100% Berrian who was definitely slow & still nursing his turf toe injury.


Gus has only played in 7 games this year by my count. Or are you counting holding the clipboard as playing?


He saw play time in 9 games prior to GB, 6 reg. season, 3 preseason. Jackson saw only 1-1/2 & that was only in limited preseason action.

If you want to get technical & not count pre-season time, 15 year seasoned Frerotte played in 6 full games with the starting offense prior to meeting GB at home. Jackson, a 2nd year starter had absolutely 0 plays & 0 games before playing GB at GB.

If you are trying to lead me to believe there is no difference there & for a team playing in it's 9 game vs. it's 1st game, you are talking to the wind.




The fact that TJack could only play in 1 1/2 preseason games also speaks to another one of his problems - durability.

Yes, there is a difference between the supporting teams that TJack and Gus had.
And there is a difference between the QBs.
The two are not mutually exclusive.

I don't understand why some people don't think that TJack should take any of the responsibility for the way he played?
Regardless of the circumstances, he SUCKED, and has sucked in far more games in his short career than he has played well.
At what point do we stop blaming the WRs, the OL, the RBs, the TEs, the Coaching staff, the ball boy, the trainers, Paul Allen, and my neighbor's dog, and start to put some of the blame on the QB himself?

Is Gus the answer? No.
But he is the best solution we have for the remainder of this year.


And at what point will people realize it takes more than a year to develop most QB's in this league?

Go back & look at Frerotte's first years in the league & his first year starting.

Yes Frerotte will win us more games this year than Jackson would have. I would expect that from a 15 year veteran over a player starting out.

If that's the mentality people are going to use for our starting QB's every year, then we shouldn't even bother drafting any more QB's. A good veteran QB is going to be able to outplay a 1st or 2nd year QB almost everytime.


And the truth shall set you free!

Let's look at the facts:
1) Gus is not the long term answer.
2) TJack is not the long term answer.
3) We will win more games this year with Gus than with TJack.

Given those facts, I don't see how anyone can advocate starting TJack over Gus.
I don't expect a QB to come out on fire in his third year in the NFL (second year starting).
But I do expect to see him get to a certain level in order to continue to keep his job.
Tjack failed to do that in the eyes of everyone except some of the faithful fans here on PP.O.
Most people viewed him as a failed experiment last year...

If you argument is that we need to see what he can do and how he can progress before we write him off, then I have another QB option for you.
Me.
You have never seen what I can do either.
Shouldn't I be allowed two full seasons to prove my mettle.
I would come a lot cheaper than TJack.
I might not have all of the physical skills, but I like to think that I am a fairly intelligent guy and can make decent reads.

Sound stupid?
Well, that's because it is.
And so is continuing to give TJack time as a started just to see what would happen when he has already failed to meet the expectations of the coaching staff (and most of the nfl world too).
How long did the Bears keep Sexy Rexy in the starting spot because of his potential?
How did that work out for them?
I don't want to be another Bears team, who have flashed of brilliance followed by streaks of failure.
I would rather take my chances with Gus this year (we are for first right now) and next year bring in a different starting QB, be that through the draft or Free Agency.
If we do get one in the draft, you can count on me being patient with him as he develops, just like I was with TJack.
But he if fails to perform above scout team level by the beginning of his third year, then we need to look again...


Nice, very nice.

singersp
11-12-2008, 06:01 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


The biggest misconception here is that Childress opened up the playbook for Frerotte & not Jackson because

a) Jackson could not pick up the playbook fast enough
b) Jackson could not pass very well

That is not the case, as Childress himself stated, yet people take someones thoughts & run with it as if it were fact. The blind leading the blind.

The playbook was not opened up because childress wanted them to do the basics well before moving on & opening things up. That included & was not limited to & would have happened if Gus started those first two games as well;

The front line executing there blocks well
Receivers running their routes correctly & getting open
AD being able to show that he could block & catch a pass
The rookies & new FA's on the team learning their roles & the scheme

It was not solely because of Jackson as many of the haters here would like to believe. Frerotte was with this team only a few months heading into the regular season yet people adamantly claim that somehow Frerotte knew Childress' scheme, the playbook & the play calls better than someone who was here for 2-1/2 years.

LMAO!

In Jackson's first two games there were times when it appeared to many here that Jackson was calling audibles & some of the fans here were ridiculing him. You know now that he was not calling audibles but rather dictating to his players where they needed to be for the play that was being called as I stated then.

I also find it amusing that people think it was not opened up because of Jackson's accuracy. Again a big misconception by the fans here.

The fact is that the playbook was not opened up in week one, yet Jackson proved to be more accurate in the pre-season games than Frerotte was.

Going into week one, Jackson's average completion percentage from pre-season was 68.2% to Frerotte's 60% & Childress was confident in Jackson's abilities, yet the book was opened up then. Obviously it was for other reasons more so than just QB abilities.

Frerotte's completion average in the regular season is 57.1% to Jackson's 51.7%. That's a difference of only 5.4%. A huge part of that difference is made up by passes that Jackson threw that were dropped by receivers after the balls hit them in their hands. More so than dropped balls we are seeing than what Frerotte is seeing.

Further more, Jackson has thrown 0.5 INT's per game to Frerotte's 1.6 INT's per game.

Where people come up with this notion that Frerotte is head & shoulders & way ahead of the game in accuracy is beyond me. We have seen Frerotte miss receivers many a time that are still standing on the LOS, bouncing the ball off the carpet in front of their feet or just 5 yards out.

No, the playbook was not opened up because of Frerotte's accuracy or the fact that he knows the playbook better. If your going to try & lead me to believe that he knows it better than Jackson because he was here before, don't waste your breath. Different era, different scheme, different playbook, different coach.




NO, it was not SOLELY because of Jackson.
But why can't you admit that Jackson was ONE of the reasons?



I can admit that. He is part of that team just as Frerotte is. Their performances play a role in it as well. But they are not the only players on offense
& their play is also adversely effected by how well the other players do their jobs.

V4L
11-12-2008, 06:03 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


The biggest misconception here is that Childress opened up the playbook for Frerotte & not Jackson because

a) Jackson could not pick up the playbook fast enough
b) Jackson could not pass very well

That is not the case, as Childress himself stated, yet people take someones thoughts & run with it as if it were fact. The blind leading the blind.

The playbook was not opened up because childress wanted them to do the basics well before moving on & opening things up. That included & was not limited to & would have happened if Gus started those first two games as well;

The front line executing there blocks well
Receivers running their routes correctly & getting open
AD being able to show that he could block & catch a pass
The rookies & new FA's on the team learning their roles & the scheme

It was not solely because of Jackson as many of the haters here would like to believe. Frerotte was with this team only a few months heading into the regular season yet people adamantly claim that somehow Frerotte knew Childress' scheme, the playbook & the play calls better than someone who was here for 2-1/2 years.

LMAO!

In Jackson's first two games there were times when it appeared to many here that Jackson was calling audibles & some of the fans here were ridiculing him. You know now that he was not calling audibles but rather dictating to his players where they needed to be for the play that was being called as I stated then.

I also find it amusing that people think it was not opened up because of Jackson's accuracy. Again a big misconception by the fans here.

The fact is that the playbook was not opened up in week one, yet Jackson proved to be more accurate in the pre-season games than Frerotte was.

Going into week one, Jackson's average completion percentage from pre-season was 68.2% to Frerotte's 60% & Childress was confident in Jackson's abilities, yet the book was opened up then. Obviously it was for other reasons more so than just QB abilities.

Frerotte's completion average in the regular season is 57.1% to Jackson's 51.7%. That's a difference of only 5.4%. A huge part of that difference is made up by passes that Jackson threw that were dropped by receivers after the balls hit them in their hands. More so than dropped balls we are seeing than what Frerotte is seeing.

Further more, Jackson has thrown 0.5 INT's per game to Frerotte's 1.6 INT's per game.

Where people come up with this notion that Frerotte is head & shoulders & way ahead of the game in accuracy is beyond me. We have seen Frerotte miss receivers many a time that are still standing on the LOS, bouncing the ball off the carpet in front of their feet or just 5 yards out.

No, the playbook was not opened up because of Frerotte's accuracy or the fact that he knows the playbook better. If your going to try & lead me to believe that he knows it better than Jackson because he was here before, don't waste your breath. Different era, different scheme, different playbook, different coach.




NO, it was not SOLELY because of Jackson.
But why can't you admit that Jackson was ONE of the reasons?



I can admit that. He is part of that team just as Frerotte is. Their performances play a role in it as well. But they are not the only players on offense
& their play is also adversely effected by how well the other players do their jobs.



Yah most people around here totally toss away the fact that Berrian and Sid were hurt and everyone was in preseason mode til like 4-5

NodakPaul
11-12-2008, 06:37 PM
"V4L" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


The biggest misconception here is that Childress opened up the playbook for Frerotte & not Jackson because

a) Jackson could not pick up the playbook fast enough
b) Jackson could not pass very well

That is not the case, as Childress himself stated, yet people take someones thoughts & run with it as if it were fact. The blind leading the blind.

The playbook was not opened up because childress wanted them to do the basics well before moving on & opening things up. That included & was not limited to & would have happened if Gus started those first two games as well;

The front line executing there blocks well
Receivers running their routes correctly & getting open
AD being able to show that he could block & catch a pass
The rookies & new FA's on the team learning their roles & the scheme

It was not solely because of Jackson as many of the haters here would like to believe. Frerotte was with this team only a few months heading into the regular season yet people adamantly claim that somehow Frerotte knew Childress' scheme, the playbook & the play calls better than someone who was here for 2-1/2 years.

LMAO!

In Jackson's first two games there were times when it appeared to many here that Jackson was calling audibles & some of the fans here were ridiculing him. You know now that he was not calling audibles but rather dictating to his players where they needed to be for the play that was being called as I stated then.

I also find it amusing that people think it was not opened up because of Jackson's accuracy. Again a big misconception by the fans here.

The fact is that the playbook was not opened up in week one, yet Jackson proved to be more accurate in the pre-season games than Frerotte was.

Going into week one, Jackson's average completion percentage from pre-season was 68.2% to Frerotte's 60% & Childress was confident in Jackson's abilities, yet the book was opened up then. Obviously it was for other reasons more so than just QB abilities.

Frerotte's completion average in the regular season is 57.1% to Jackson's 51.7%. That's a difference of only 5.4%. A huge part of that difference is made up by passes that Jackson threw that were dropped by receivers after the balls hit them in their hands. More so than dropped balls we are seeing than what Frerotte is seeing.

Further more, Jackson has thrown 0.5 INT's per game to Frerotte's 1.6 INT's per game.

Where people come up with this notion that Frerotte is head & shoulders & way ahead of the game in accuracy is beyond me. We have seen Frerotte miss receivers many a time that are still standing on the LOS, bouncing the ball off the carpet in front of their feet or just 5 yards out.

No, the playbook was not opened up because of Frerotte's accuracy or the fact that he knows the playbook better. If your going to try & lead me to believe that he knows it better than Jackson because he was here before, don't waste your breath. Different era, different scheme, different playbook, different coach.




NO, it was not SOLELY because of Jackson.
But why can't you admit that Jackson was ONE of the reasons?



I can admit that. He is part of that team just as Frerotte is. Their performances play a role in it as well. But they are not the only players on offense
& their play is also adversely effected by how well the other players do their jobs.



Yah most people around here totally toss away the fact that Berrian and Sid were hurt and everyone was in preseason mode til like 4-5




No, most people here know that.
But that absolutely does NOT mean that TJack would be doing better right now than Gus.
In addition to the other issues we had on the team, TJack was playing poorly - more so than Gus is currently - and that was the major factor that lead to his benching.
Gus in his first two or three games had the same problems that TJack faced.

V4L
11-12-2008, 06:39 PM
Yah we don't know if Jackson would be better or not

Looking at the teams Gus has got to face and the teams Jackson did I think jackson would have done better

But it don't matter the move was made

singersp
11-12-2008, 06:56 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:




Gus also is a 15 year vet & played in 9 games this year (as did the team) prior to that game.

Jackson, a developing QB having only been with the team 2 years, played in 1-1/2 games prior to him facing GB on the road, not at home. The team also was unprepared & flat in the season opener & lacked the services of Rice & M-Will & with a much less than 100% Berrian who was definitely slow & still nursing his turf toe injury.


Gus has only played in 7 games this year by my count. Or are you counting holding the clipboard as playing?


He saw play time in 9 games prior to GB, 6 reg. season, 3 preseason. Jackson saw only 1-1/2 & that was only in limited preseason action.

If you want to get technical & not count pre-season time, 15 year seasoned Frerotte played in 6 full games with the starting offense prior to meeting GB at home. Jackson, a 2nd year starter had absolutely 0 plays & 0 games before playing GB at GB.

If you are trying to lead me to believe there is no difference there & for a team playing in it's 9 game vs. it's 1st game, you are talking to the wind.




The fact that TJack could only play in 1 1/2 preseason games also speaks to another one of his problems - durability.

Yes, there is a difference between the supporting teams that TJack and Gus had.
And there is a difference between the QBs.
The two are not mutually exclusive.

I don't understand why some people don't think that TJack should take any of the responsibility for the way he played?
Regardless of the circumstances, he SUCKED, and has sucked in far more games in his short career than he has played well.
At what point do we stop blaming the WRs, the OL, the RBs, the TEs, the Coaching staff, the ball boy, the trainers, Paul Allen, and my neighbor's dog, and start to put some of the blame on the QB himself?

Is Gus the answer? No.
But he is the best solution we have for the remainder of this year.


And at what point will people realize it takes more than a year to develop most QB's in this league?

Go back & look at Frerotte's first years in the league & his first year starting.

Yes Frerotte will win us more games this year than Jackson would have. I would expect that from a 15 year veteran over a player starting out.

If that's the mentality people are going to use for our starting QB's every year, then we shouldn't even bother drafting any more QB's. A good veteran QB is going to be able to outplay a 1st or 2nd year QB almost everytime.


And the truth shall set you free!

Let's look at the facts:
1) Gus is not the long term answer.
2) TJack is not the long term answer.
3) We will win more games this year with Gus than with TJack.

Given those facts, I don't see how anyone can advocate starting TJack over Gus.
I don't expect a QB to come out on fire in his third year in the NFL (second year starting).
But I do expect to see him get to a certain level in order to continue to keep his job.
Tjack failed to do that in the eyes of everyone except some of the faithful fans here on PP.O.
Most people viewed him as a failed experiment last year...

If you argument is that we need to see what he can do and how he can progress before we write him off, then I have another QB option for you.
Me.
You have never seen what I can do either.
Shouldn't I be allowed two full seasons to prove my mettle.
I would come a lot cheaper than TJack.
I might not have all of the physical skills, but I like to think that I am a fairly intelligent guy and can make decent reads.

Sound stupid?
Well, that's because it is.
And so is continuing to give TJack time as a started just to see what would happen when he has already failed to meet the expectations of the coaching staff (and most of the nfl world too).
How long did the Bears keep Sexy Rexy in the starting spot because of his potential?
How did that work out for them?
I don't want to be another Bears team, who have flashed of brilliance followed by streaks of failure.
I would rather take my chances with Gus this year (we are for first right now) and next year bring in a different starting QB, be that through the draft or Free Agency.
If we do get one in the draft, you can count on me being patient with him as he develops, just like I was with TJack.
But he if fails to perform above scout team level by the beginning of his third year, then we need to look again...


First off, I was behind the move to replace Jackson with Frerotte after seeing he was not ready to assume the role yet. Do I have to post this in everyone of my posts? Secondly, I unlike you can't see tossing away a QB after he has started 16 games in this league & thinking that is more than ample time to judge his career is over. History will prove you wrong as many good QB's have started as slowly or even worse than Jackson has.

What's funny about you advocating Gus over Jackson though, is that by your own standards & judging criteria the man you want starting, you would have kicked under the bus 13 years ago.

Frerotte's record after his 16th start & in the 3rd year of his NFL career was 4-12 & his pass completion percentage was about 48%. Also in that time he had 19 TD's & 16 INT's.

Using your judging criteria he should have been benched & out of the league in 1996 after his 16th game because that was enough time to determine he'd never amount to anything.

singersp
11-12-2008, 07:20 PM
"V" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"ragz" wrote:


you guys are leaving an awful lot out since you wanna say the play was similar.


jackson got to throw the ball 7 times in the first half of his green bay game.
kinda hard to do a whole lot in a half when they dont let you throw.






Did it ever cross your mind that maybe the reason they didn't let him throw more was that they maybe saw something in practice that made them believe he would not be successful throwing it? Do you think there was some big conspiracy by the coaches to restrict Jackson from throwing the ball so that they could bench him and then put in Gus so they could instead let him throw the ball more?


Not at all. In preseason Jackson completed 68.2% of his passes compared to Frerotte who had 60%.

If a coach is going to limit a QB's throws because he completes 68.2% oh his passes, he needs to get his head examined.

GB has a good pass defense & Childress thought he could win that game by pounding the rock.


Using preseason stats to justify? Really?


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


Do the preseason games count at the end of the year? If not they don't mean much to me. They are glorified practices. Maybe you should include the scrimmage with the Chiefs in there too along with the scrimmage on Family night in Mankato as well.


Um, yes really.

While pre-season wins & losses don't matter & don't mean squat because of all the player rotations that are made, individual performances during that time are very important. How well they do during those practices, training camps & glorified practices as you call them is what a coach uses to determine who makes the team & who starts in many cases. Pre-season stats are a reflection of those performances.

Both of you welcome QB competition in training camp.

What the hell do you think the coach looks at in determining which one he cuts, which one he starts & which one is his backup?

What do you think Childress looked at in determining that Frerotte should stay & Bollinger be cut?

What do you think Childress looks at to determine whether a rookie should be made a starter or be placed higher on the depth charts over veteran players & a veteran player let go.

What do you think Childress looks at when determining which of his rookies he should keep & which he should let go?

To say that a players performance during training camp & the preseason games games doesn't matter to the team or the HC is laughable. That is one of the main reason those games are played.

Jackson outplayed Frerotte throughout camp & pre-season & that is why he got the nod to start. I'm well aware of the fact that Childress said Jackson was his man earlier in the year, but do you think for even a second that if Jackson stunk it up in preseason & Frerotte lit it up, that Childress would have started Jackson anyways?

I sure as hell don't. Childress' job was on the line, if that was the case in preseason, Frerotte would have gotten the nod in a heartbeat.

i_bleed_purple
11-12-2008, 07:25 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"V" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"ragz" wrote:


you guys are leaving an awful lot out since you wanna say the play was similar.


jackson got to throw the ball 7 times in the first half of his green bay game.
kinda hard to do a whole lot in a half when they dont let you throw.






Did it ever cross your mind that maybe the reason they didn't let him throw more was that they maybe saw something in practice that made them believe he would not be successful throwing it? Do you think there was some big conspiracy by the coaches to restrict Jackson from throwing the ball so that they could bench him and then put in Gus so they could instead let him throw the ball more?


Not at all. In preseason Jackson completed 68.2% of his passes compared to Frerotte who had 60%.

If a coach is going to limit a QB's throws because he completes 68.2% oh his passes, he needs to get his head examined.

GB has a good pass defense & Childress thought he could win that game by pounding the rock.


Using preseason stats to justify? Really?


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


Do the preseason games count at the end of the year? If not they don't mean much to me. They are glorified practices. Maybe you should include the scrimmage with the Chiefs in there too along with the scrimmage on Family night in Mankato as well.


Um, yes really.

While pre-season wins & losses don't matter & don't mean squat because of all the player rotations that are made, individual performances during that time are very important. How well they do during those practices, training camps & glorified practices as you call them is what a coach uses to determine who makes the team & who starts in many cases. Pre-season stats are a reflection of those performances.

Both of you welcome QB competition in training camp.

What the hell do you think the coach looks at in determining which one he cuts, which one he starts & which one is his backup?

What do you think Childress looked at in determining that Frerotte should stay & Bollinger be cut?

What do you think Childress looks at to determine whether a rookie should be made a starter or be placed higher on the depth charts over veteran players & a veteran player let go.

What do you think Childress looks at when determining which of his rookies he should keep & which he should let go?

To say that a players performance during training camp & the preseason games games doesn't matter to the team or the HC is laughable. That is one of the main reason those games are played.


but thats not what he's saying, he said at the END OF THE YEAR, preseason games don't count, and it doesn't matter to him how anyone performs in preseason.
I think we all know it matters to the coaches and FO, but its just fun for the fans.
noone really cares that Peterson and Taylor got next to nothing during the preseason, because its only preseason.
the purpose of preseason is relaly to evaluate new and young players, to see where they fit in the scheme of things.
noone really cares and looks to far into the performance of the starters.

NodakPaul
11-12-2008, 09:03 PM
"V4L" wrote:


Yah we don't know if Jackson would be better or not

Looking at the teams Gus has got to face and the teams Jackson did I think jackson would have done better

But it don't matter the move was made


How so?
The defenses Gus faced have been much stronger than the defenses TJack faced.

TJack
Green Bay - 21st ranked Defense
Indianapolis - 15th ranked Defense

Gus
Carolina - 8 ranked Defense
Tennessee Titans - 5 ranked Defense
New Orleans - 24 ranked Defense
Lions - 31 ranked Defense
Bears - 17 ranked Defense
Texans - 19 ranked Defense
Green Bay - 21st ranked Defense

The two teams we lost to with TJack were ranked 15th and 21st.
The two teams we lost to with Gus were ranked 5th and 17th.
I don't understand what you see that makes you think we would have beaten Tennessee or Chicago with TJack.

NodakPaul
11-12-2008, 09:13 PM
"singersp" wrote:


First off, I was behind the move to replace Jackson with Frerotte after seeing he was not ready to assume the role yet. Do I have to post this in everyone of my posts? Secondly, I unlike you can't see tossing away a QB after he has started 16 games in this league & thinking that is more than ample time to judge his career is over. History will prove you wrong as many good QB's have started as slowly or even worse than Jackson has.

What's funny about you advocating Gus over Jackson though, is that by your own standards & judging criteria the man you want starting, you would have kicked under the bus 13 years ago.

Frerotte's record after his 16th start & in the 3rd year of his NFL career was 4-12 & his pass completion percentage was about 48%. Also in that time he had 19 TD's & 16 INT's.

Using your judging criteria he should have been benched & out of the league in 1996 after his 16th game because that was enough time to determine he'd never amount to anything.


There are a lot of QBs I would rather have starting over Gus.
Unfortunately none of them are on the Vikings.
I am in favor of Gus starting because he is the best QB we have on our team right now.

And yes, by my standards I probably would not have settled for Gus as the starter in his 3rd year.
I say probably because I didn't follow his career all that closely in 1994-1996.
Hell, I still don't want to settle for Gus as a starter - which is why I hope we look for a real QB in the offseason.

Is that really your argument?
That you want to hold on to TJack because he might be as good as Gus someday?
Holy shit.
Seriously, I have much higher aspirations in our starting QB.

And for the record, I do not, nor have i ever, judged TJack strictly on his win-loss record.
Anybody who does that is an idiot.
Among other things, with TJack I don't see the confidence, the reads, the passes, the decisions, OR the wins that I expect out of my QB.
The TJack experiment is over, and was a failure.
We are salvaging what we can out of this season behind Gus, and hopefully next year he will return to the backup/mentor role that he is more suited to.

Yfz01
11-12-2008, 09:17 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


Yah we don't know if Jackson would be better or not

Looking at the teams Gus has got to face and the teams Jackson did I think jackson would have done better

But it don't matter the move was made


How so?
The defenses Gus faced have been much stronger than the defenses TJack faced.

TJack
Green Bay - 21st ranked Defense
Indianapolis - 15th ranked Defense

Gus
Carolina - 8 ranked Defense
Tennessee Titans - 5 ranked Defense
New Orleans - 24 ranked Defense
Lions - 31 ranked Defense
Bears - 17 ranked Defense
Texans - 19 ranked Defense
Green Bay - 21st ranked Defense

The two teams we lost to with TJack were ranked 15th and 21st.
The two teams we lost to with Gus were ranked 5th and 17th.
I don't understand what you see that makes you think we would have beaten Tennessee or Chicago with TJack.


I don't think you understand...

Defense against the PASS!
TJacks teams
The Packers are ranked 3rd

Indianapolis is ranked 7th!

Gus teams
Carolina which is ranked 4th.
Tennessee is 12th
New Orleans is 27th
Lions is 29th
Chicago is 30th
Texans is 14th.
Packers are 3rd.

Uh.. T-Jack has played better teams against the pass.

NodakPaul
11-12-2008, 09:36 PM
"Yfz01" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


Yah we don't know if Jackson would be better or not

Looking at the teams Gus has got to face and the teams Jackson did I think jackson would have done better

But it don't matter the move was made


How so?
The defenses Gus faced have been much stronger than the defenses TJack faced.

TJack
Green Bay - 21st ranked Defense
Indianapolis - 15th ranked Defense

Gus
Carolina - 8 ranked Defense
Tennessee Titans - 5 ranked Defense
New Orleans - 24 ranked Defense
Lions - 31 ranked Defense
Bears - 17 ranked Defense
Texans - 19 ranked Defense
Green Bay - 21st ranked Defense

The two teams we lost to with TJack were ranked 15th and 21st.
The two teams we lost to with Gus were ranked 5th and 17th.
I don't understand what you see that makes you think we would have beaten Tennessee or Chicago with TJack.


I don't think you understand...

Defense against the PASS!
TJacks teams
The Packers are ranked 3rd

Indianapolis is ranked 7th!

Gus teams
Carolina which is ranked 4th.
Tennessee is 12th
New Orleans is 27th
Lions is 29th
Chicago is 30th
Texans is 14th.
Packers are 3rd.

Uh.. T-Jack has played better teams against the pass.





OK.
TJack lost to teams ranked 3rd and 7th against the pass.
Gus lost to teams ranked 12th and 30th against the pass.
Fair enough.

Gus, however, also beat teams ranked 3rd and 4th against the pass. TJack beat teams ranked... oh wait...

Using the stats that you put up, TJack has not played better teams against the pass.
The best two teams TJack faced against the pass were ranked 3rd and 7th.
The best two teams Gus faced against the pass were ranked 3rd and 4th.
BTW, TJack lost both of his games, and Gus won both of his.

Your argument simply doesn't hold water.

Caine
11-12-2008, 09:39 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Yfz01" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


Yah we don't know if Jackson would be better or not

Looking at the teams Gus has got to face and the teams Jackson did I think jackson would have done better

But it don't matter the move was made


How so?
The defenses Gus faced have been much stronger than the defenses TJack faced.

TJack
Green Bay - 21st ranked Defense
Indianapolis - 15th ranked Defense

Gus
Carolina - 8 ranked Defense
Tennessee Titans - 5 ranked Defense
New Orleans - 24 ranked Defense
Lions - 31 ranked Defense
Bears - 17 ranked Defense
Texans - 19 ranked Defense
Green Bay - 21st ranked Defense

The two teams we lost to with TJack were ranked 15th and 21st.
The two teams we lost to with Gus were ranked 5th and 17th.
I don't understand what you see that makes you think we would have beaten Tennessee or Chicago with TJack.


I don't think you understand...

Defense against the PASS!
TJacks teams
The Packers are ranked 3rd

Indianapolis is ranked 7th!

Gus teams
Carolina which is ranked 4th.
Tennessee is 12th
New Orleans is 27th
Lions is 29th
Chicago is 30th
Texans is 14th.
Packers are 3rd.

Uh.. T-Jack has played better teams against the pass.





OK.
TJack lost to teams ranked 3rd and 7th against the pass.
Gus lost to teams ranked 12th and 30th against the pass.
Fair enough.

Gus, however, also beat teams ranked 3rd and 4th against the pass. TJack beat teams ranked... oh wait...

Using the stats that you put up, TJack has not played better teams against the pass.
The best two teams TJack faced against the pass were ranked 3rd and 7th.
The best two teams Gus faced against the pass were ranked 3rd and 4th.
BTW, TJack lost both of his games, and Gus won both of his.

Your argument simply doesn't hold water.


Don't you just love it when their own arguement bites them in the kiester?


;)

Caine

ragz
11-12-2008, 11:39 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


This thing still going.

Hey for you guys that don't have a clue and are trying to make the arguement that TJ never audibled, you need to go back and watch some of the games.


Hard to hear exactly what he is saying but there are alot of instances where he clearly audibles out of one play and into another.
Lest we forget how bad our OL blocked when those instances took place.

To date, BJ was the only QB this staff restricted from audibling.

Silly fans.

:o
;D

why in gods name would that be the case then?
a 15 year vet cant audible but a virtual rookie can.
everything i've ever heard is that the qbs are not allowed to change the play, including when ferrotte came in.
their maybe certain reads where players assignments change due to that, but when plays are changed usually you see some movement, or change of formations, or communication between o-line, rb, and some hand signals towards wrs.
when do we ever see that?
i mean honestly.
we play 8 road games a year, if qbs are changing plays wouldnt they have to let the wrs know with some kinda action towards them?
cuz god knows they can't hear em.
i think what you may be talking about is pointing out reads, or changing assignments or patterns within the play called.
but i haven't seen our qbs surveying the field and then going from under center, to shotgun, or running backs shifting from i to flank, or a wr going in motion after a play got changed.
its probably why we have very little problems with the playclock, and also why we haven't been very good on 3rd downs in my opinion.
if you can't change the play, even if you make a read that the defense has you snuffed out, you have to run the play.
you may be right marr, but compared to how other teams call audibles, it doesn't look like we are.


as for all the other stuff.
i'm bored with it.
everyone knows childress sucks.


no one knows for sure tavaris sucks.
people who say he never made any progress didn't watch the 5 game winning streak or forgot it cuz he had 2 poor games following it, and then a very promising game following that.


we know what ferrotte is, everyone has known for a long time and he will probably not make any progress, and maybe get worse the more film teams get on him within our system.


for the vikes to make a run they are gonna need the defense to become a force, and the o-line and peterson to dominate.
childress can get away with a bland offense if those parts of the team hold up, which is still iffy.
the last 2 weeks we ran all over bad run defenses, and the defense i think is still vulnerable to the pass game.
i would not be surprised to see a more conservative game in the likes of tavaris in several of the next games.
the problem with all that in the past was that we didnt have the defense or the consistency on the o-line to be trying ti win like that.
maybe now they can get it to to work.
its the only chance i see of making the playoffs.
cuz we ain't gonna win many shootouts if we turn the ball over the way we do.
and if the defense is playing good but ferrotte is giving teams points every week, that will end up killing us.
maybe we end up being better than i think in certain areas but i think this is probably the best and only way to get in.

V4L
11-13-2008, 02:04 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Yfz01" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


Yah we don't know if Jackson would be better or not

Looking at the teams Gus has got to face and the teams Jackson did I think jackson would have done better

But it don't matter the move was made


How so?
The defenses Gus faced have been much stronger than the defenses TJack faced.

TJack
Green Bay - 21st ranked Defense
Indianapolis - 15th ranked Defense

Gus
Carolina - 8 ranked Defense
Tennessee Titans - 5 ranked Defense
New Orleans - 24 ranked Defense
Lions - 31 ranked Defense
Bears - 17 ranked Defense
Texans - 19 ranked Defense
Green Bay - 21st ranked Defense

The two teams we lost to with TJack were ranked 15th and 21st.
The two teams we lost to with Gus were ranked 5th and 17th.
I don't understand what you see that makes you think we would have beaten Tennessee or Chicago with TJack.


I don't think you understand...

Defense against the PASS!
TJacks teams
The Packers are ranked 3rd

Indianapolis is ranked 7th!

Gus teams
Carolina which is ranked 4th.
Tennessee is 12th
New Orleans is 27th
Lions is 29th
Chicago is 30th
Texans is 14th.
Packers are 3rd.

Uh.. T-Jack has played better teams against the pass.





OK.
TJack lost to teams ranked 3rd and 7th against the pass.
Gus lost to teams ranked 12th and 30th against the pass.
Fair enough.

Gus, however, also beat teams ranked 3rd and 4th against the pass. TJack beat teams ranked... oh wait...

Using the stats that you put up, TJack has not played better teams against the pass.
The best two teams TJack faced against the pass were ranked 3rd and 7th.
The best two teams Gus faced against the pass were ranked 3rd and 4th.
BTW, TJack lost both of his games, and Gus won both of his.

Your argument simply doesn't hold water.



Lol sure the team beat them but how did he do in those games?

I don't think he did too hot

Good try with the win thing though.. You know just as well as we do that Gus almost gave GB that game

I think Gus did alright in Carolina game tho.. I was happy too.. Nothing special but he definitley helped

ragz
11-13-2008, 02:24 AM
"V4L" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Yfz01" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


Yah we don't know if Jackson would be better or not

Looking at the teams Gus has got to face and the teams Jackson did I think jackson would have done better

But it don't matter the move was made


How so?
The defenses Gus faced have been much stronger than the defenses TJack faced.

TJack
Green Bay - 21st ranked Defense
Indianapolis - 15th ranked Defense

Gus
Carolina - 8 ranked Defense
Tennessee Titans - 5 ranked Defense
New Orleans - 24 ranked Defense
Lions - 31 ranked Defense
Bears - 17 ranked Defense
Texans - 19 ranked Defense
Green Bay - 21st ranked Defense

The two teams we lost to with TJack were ranked 15th and 21st.
The two teams we lost to with Gus were ranked 5th and 17th.
I don't understand what you see that makes you think we would have beaten Tennessee or Chicago with TJack.


I don't think you understand...

Defense against the PASS!
TJacks teams
The Packers are ranked 3rd

Indianapolis is ranked 7th!

Gus teams
Carolina which is ranked 4th.
Tennessee is 12th
New Orleans is 27th
Lions is 29th
Chicago is 30th
Texans is 14th.
Packers are 3rd.

Uh.. T-Jack has played better teams against the pass.





OK.
TJack lost to teams ranked 3rd and 7th against the pass.
Gus lost to teams ranked 12th and 30th against the pass.
Fair enough.

Gus, however, also beat teams ranked 3rd and 4th against the pass. TJack beat teams ranked... oh wait...

Using the stats that you put up, TJack has not played better teams against the pass.
The best two teams TJack faced against the pass were ranked 3rd and 7th.
The best two teams Gus faced against the pass were ranked 3rd and 4th.
BTW, TJack lost both of his games, and Gus won both of his.

Your argument simply doesn't hold water.



Lol sure the team beat them but how did he do in those games?

I don't think he did too hot

Good try with the win thing though.. You know just as well as we do that Gus almost gave GB that game

I think Gus did alright in Carolina game tho.. I was happy too.. Nothing special but he definitley helped

well bad games for tavaris are when hes not very good on 3rd down, and shank drops a td and the defense gives up 18 points in the last 18 minutes.
ferrottes bad game is 3 ints leading to 17 points, the defense getting 4 sacks and giving up only 3 points, and taylor taking a 3 yard pass 47 yards.
you guys are ridiculous on how bad you wanna try to make him, and blame him for losses.


who cares v4l anymore.
if he gets his chance he gets a chance.
not matter what the qb play has to be better.
if ferrotte continues to stink, tavaris could come in and stink too.
going back and forth is probably not a good formula, though gruden does it well.
but that was my same thinking after only 2 games, way too quick to make a change, especially when you are the one that committed to him.


childress got scared, and everyone that talks about it like it was a strategic move is full of shit.
he had all last years film, all training camp, all preseason to notice anything he thought was a major problem with jackson.
but then after 2 games in which he was mediocre he changes everything midstream?
maybe both childress and jackson getting booed changed his mind?
or his shitty approval rating amongst viking fans.
has childress come off to you as a real decisive guy during the games?
he hasn't too me, so why wouldnt he handle this situation just as badly?
he had to make a bold move for his own sake, i can understand it, maybe not fair, or best for the team in the long run, but its his job to lose.
thats why i reserve the right to rip him.

singersp
11-13-2008, 06:50 AM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"V" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:




you guys are leaving an awful lot out since you wanna say the play was similar.


jackson got to throw the ball 7 times in the first half of his green bay game.
kinda hard to do a whole lot in a half when they dont let you throw.






Did it ever cross your mind that maybe the reason they didn't let him throw more was that they maybe saw something in practice that made them believe he would not be successful throwing it? Do you think there was some big conspiracy by the coaches to restrict Jackson from throwing the ball so that they could bench him and then put in Gus so they could instead let him throw the ball more?


Not at all. In preseason Jackson completed 68.2% of his passes compared to Frerotte who had 60%.

If a coach is going to limit a QB's throws because he completes 68.2% oh his passes, he needs to get his head examined.

GB has a good pass defense & Childress thought he could win that game by pounding the rock.


Using preseason stats to justify? Really?


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


Do the preseason games count at the end of the year? If not they don't mean much to me. They are glorified practices. Maybe you should include the scrimmage with the Chiefs in there too along with the scrimmage on Family night in Mankato as well.


Um, yes really.

While pre-season wins & losses don't matter & don't mean squat because of all the player rotations that are made, individual performances during that time are very important. How well they do during those practices, training camps & glorified practices as you call them is what a coach uses to determine who makes the team & who starts in many cases. Pre-season stats are a reflection of those performances.

Both of you welcome QB competition in training camp.

What the hell do you think the coach looks at in determining which one he cuts, which one he starts & which one is his backup?

What do you think Childress looked at in determining that Frerotte should stay & Bollinger be cut?

What do you think Childress looks at to determine whether a rookie should be made a starter or be placed higher on the depth charts over veteran players & a veteran player let go.

What do you think Childress looks at when determining which of his rookies he should keep & which he should let go?

To say that a players performance during training camp & the preseason games games doesn't matter to the team or the HC is laughable. That is one of the main reason those games are played.


but thats not what he's saying, he said at the END OF THE YEAR, preseason games don't count, and it doesn't matter to him how anyone performs in preseason.
I think we all know it matters to the coaches and FO, but its just fun for the fans.
noone really cares that Peterson and Taylor got next to nothing during the preseason, because its only preseason.
the purpose of preseason is relaly to evaluate new and young players, to see where they fit in the scheme of things.
noone really cares and looks to far into the performance of the starters.


When you are trying to determine who your starting QB will be, who your back up should be as well as third srtinger, the coaches are definitely looking at how they perform before the start of the regular season. Wins & losses don't count, but individual performances do.

UffDa will claim the preseason games don't mean much to him, but when he is voicing his opinion on what rookies should make the cut, what is he formulating his opinion on?

NodakPaul
11-13-2008, 08:46 AM
"ragz" wrote:


well bad games for tavaris are when hes not very good on 3rd down, and shank drops a td and the defense gives up 18 points in the last 18 minutes.
ferrottes bad game is 3 ints leading to 17 points, the defense getting 4 sacks and giving up only 3 points, and taylor taking a 3 yard pass 47 yards.
you guys are ridiculous on how bad you wanna try to make him, and blame him for losses.




Ummm, yeah.
Those were both bad games.
I don't think there is any debate on that.
And I am not trying to blame the losses on TJack.
I am trying to dispel the ridiculous notion that TJack could have done better than Gus in the last seven games.
This has been said again and again here:

"V4L" wrote:

Looking at the teams Gus has got to face and the teams Jackson did I think jackson would have done better


"Yfz01" wrote:

Uh.. T-Jack has played better teams against the pass.


Neither TJack or Gus should be starters in today's NFL.
They both could probably be serviceable back ups - I think Gus has proven that, and I would be willing to give TJack a shot in that role.
But neither one is a starting QB.
That being said, Gus is the best choice we have available.
That is all I or anyone else here is trying to say.

Purple Floyd
11-13-2008, 08:57 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"V" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:






you guys are leaving an awful lot out since you wanna say the play was similar.


jackson got to throw the ball 7 times in the first half of his green bay game.
kinda hard to do a whole lot in a half when they dont let you throw.






Did it ever cross your mind that maybe the reason they didn't let him throw more was that they maybe saw something in practice that made them believe he would not be successful throwing it? Do you think there was some big conspiracy by the coaches to restrict Jackson from throwing the ball so that they could bench him and then put in Gus so they could instead let him throw the ball more?


Not at all. In preseason Jackson completed 68.2% of his passes compared to Frerotte who had 60%.

If a coach is going to limit a QB's throws because he completes 68.2% oh his passes, he needs to get his head examined.

GB has a good pass defense & Childress thought he could win that game by pounding the rock.


Using preseason stats to justify? Really?


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


Do the preseason games count at the end of the year? If not they don't mean much to me. They are glorified practices. Maybe you should include the scrimmage with the Chiefs in there too along with the scrimmage on Family night in Mankato as well.


Um, yes really.

While pre-season wins & losses don't matter & don't mean squat because of all the player rotations that are made, individual performances during that time are very important. How well they do during those practices, training camps & glorified practices as you call them is what a coach uses to determine who makes the team & who starts in many cases. Pre-season stats are a reflection of those performances.

Both of you welcome QB competition in training camp.

What the hell do you think the coach looks at in determining which one he cuts, which one he starts & which one is his backup?

What do you think Childress looked at in determining that Frerotte should stay & Bollinger be cut?

What do you think Childress looks at to determine whether a rookie should be made a starter or be placed higher on the depth charts over veteran players & a veteran player let go.

What do you think Childress looks at when determining which of his rookies he should keep & which he should let go?

To say that a players performance during training camp & the preseason games games doesn't matter to the team or the HC is laughable. That is one of the main reason those games are played.


but thats not what he's saying, he said at the END OF THE YEAR, preseason games don't count, and it doesn't matter to him how anyone performs in preseason.
I think we all know it matters to the coaches and FO, but its just fun for the fans.
noone really cares that Peterson and Taylor got next to nothing during the preseason, because its only preseason.
the purpose of preseason is relaly to evaluate new and young players, to see where they fit in the scheme of things.
noone really cares and looks to far into the performance of the starters.


When you are trying to determine who your starting QB will be, who your back up should be as well as third srtinger, the coaches are definitely looking at how they perform before the start of the regular season. Wins & losses don't count, but individual performances do.

UffDa will claim the preseason games don't mean much to him, but when he is voicing his opinion on what rookies should make the cut, what is he formulating his opinion on?


You are pretty good at selecting quotes and changing their context to try to help you argument but it isn't going to work on me. If you want to keep going down that road you need to find someone else.

Now, I am going to do this again and I am going to type very,very slowly to see if that helps you.

As to my claim that preseason games don't mean much, here is the context:

The statement was in response to your statement that gus has played in 9 games this year and jackson only 1.5 this year before facing GB. Now, you can nit pick all you want, but including preseason games in with regular games in the same category is wrong. Had you said gus played in 2 preseason games and 7 regular season games while jackson played in 1.5 preseason games and 2 regular season games we would not have an argument. At the end of the year when you post the team record you are not going to have 20 games figured into the record because the preseason games do not count the same. Are they important? Yes, in their own way they are. But are they equal enough to regular season games to allow you to lump them in with regular season games to make a blanket statement? Not as far as I am concerned. If you wish to in your mind then I guess then we can disagree. But keep it in context and don't try to twist what I am saying to try to try to justify your position. If it is valid it will stand on it's own.


The real facts are that they both played in preseason. There was no open competition and if you think for one minute that Childress ran the preseason in a way that gave both QB's a fair shot at starting in the first game of the year you are wrong.

Gus was brought in late first off so he had no time to attend the vast majority of the offseason programs and drills. Next, Childress specifically stated they brought him in as a backup and that Jackson was the starter and gave jackson all of the reps a starter would get while Gus got the snaps that a backup would get. If it were an open competition they would have split the time that each got with the starters so they could evaluate them evenly. That never happened. So if that is the case, then how do you justify your statement that Gus playing with the second string in preseason and Jackson playing with the first string until he got hurt should be counted equally to the regular season games and how was that playing time with the second string going to help him in the regular season with the starting team and how did it give the coaches a good evaluation compared to what they got from Jackson on the first team?

Purple Floyd
11-13-2008, 09:11 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"ragz" wrote:


well bad games for tavaris are when hes not very good on 3rd down, and shank drops a td and the defense gives up 18 points in the last 18 minutes.
ferrottes bad game is 3 ints leading to 17 points, the defense getting 4 sacks and giving up only 3 points, and taylor taking a 3 yard pass 47 yards.
you guys are ridiculous on how bad you wanna try to make him, and blame him for losses.




Ummm, yeah.
Those were both bad games.
I don't think there is any debate on that.
And I am not trying to blame the losses on TJack.
I am trying to dispel the ridiculous notion that TJack could have done better than Gus in the last seven games.
This has been said again and again here:

"V4L" wrote:

Looking at the teams Gus has got to face and the teams Jackson did I think jackson would have done better


"Yfz01" wrote:

Uh.. T-Jack has played better teams against the pass.


Neither TJack or Gus should be starters in today's NFL.
They both could probably be serviceable back ups - I think Gus has proven that, and I would be willing to give TJack a shot in that role.
But neither one is a starting QB.
That being said, Gus is the best choice we have available.
That is all I or anyone else here is trying to say.


Exactly.

The other thing that never gets mentioned is that developing a QB during the regular season rarely happens on a team that (Theoretically) has the talent to challenge for a championship. Teams that are built to contend just don't put a guy in the starting role if he isn't at least fundamentally sound and displaying the capability to execute the offense. There are rare exceptions like Rothlisberger in Pitt a few years back but that was due to injury, not because he was anointed as is the case with Jackson and it is even more rare for a team to purposely not bring in a more proven, experienced vet to challenge for the job and to be there if things go wrong. This staff has brought in Henson, Bollinger, Gus, Holcolm etc who are no where near quality started material.

To be in the situation where we are even having a debate as to whether any of them would be a better choice that Jackson just reinforces the point that is so hard for some to swallow. Jackson is just not a good QB.

Will he ever be? I can't say but my stance is that he will not. Can any of his supporters convince me that another coach would look at a guy that a team has invested this much time into and gotten this production out of him and decide that they are going to take a chance on bringing him in and spending at least an equal amount of time of their own to develop his skills? If so I would like to hear about it.

V4L
11-13-2008, 12:01 PM
In your post up there Uffda it says Gus never got first team reps

He did though in mini and training camp.. Not much but he did

And he played in preseason with the first team a bit

I didn't read ur post too well cuz im tired and it was long so I kinda zoomed through it so Idk if you were talking about this exactly or not

singersp
11-14-2008, 06:34 AM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"V" wrote:








you guys are leaving an awful lot out since you wanna say the play was similar.


jackson got to throw the ball 7 times in the first half of his green bay game.
kinda hard to do a whole lot in a half when they dont let you throw.






Did it ever cross your mind that maybe the reason they didn't let him throw more was that they maybe saw something in practice that made them believe he would not be successful throwing it? Do you think there was some big conspiracy by the coaches to restrict Jackson from throwing the ball so that they could bench him and then put in Gus so they could instead let him throw the ball more?


Not at all. In preseason Jackson completed 68.2% of his passes compared to Frerotte who had 60%.

If a coach is going to limit a QB's throws because he completes 68.2% oh his passes, he needs to get his head examined.

GB has a good pass defense & Childress thought he could win that game by pounding the rock.


Using preseason stats to justify? Really?


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


Do the preseason games count at the end of the year? If not they don't mean much to me. They are glorified practices. Maybe you should include the scrimmage with the Chiefs in there too along with the scrimmage on Family night in Mankato as well.


Um, yes really.

While pre-season wins & losses don't matter & don't mean squat because of all the player rotations that are made, individual performances during that time are very important. How well they do during those practices, training camps & glorified practices as you call them is what a coach uses to determine who makes the team & who starts in many cases. Pre-season stats are a reflection of those performances.

Both of you welcome QB competition in training camp.

What the hell do you think the coach looks at in determining which one he cuts, which one he starts & which one is his backup?

What do you think Childress looked at in determining that Frerotte should stay & Bollinger be cut?

What do you think Childress looks at to determine whether a rookie should be made a starter or be placed higher on the depth charts over veteran players & a veteran player let go.

What do you think Childress looks at when determining which of his rookies he should keep & which he should let go?

To say that a players performance during training camp & the preseason games games doesn't matter to the team or the HC is laughable. That is one of the main reason those games are played.


but thats not what he's saying, he said at the END OF THE YEAR, preseason games don't count, and it doesn't matter to him how anyone performs in preseason.
I think we all know it matters to the coaches and FO, but its just fun for the fans.
noone really cares that Peterson and Taylor got next to nothing during the preseason, because its only preseason.
the purpose of preseason is relaly to evaluate new and young players, to see where they fit in the scheme of things.
noone really cares and looks to far into the performance of the starters.


When you are trying to determine who your starting QB will be, who your back up should be as well as third srtinger, the coaches are definitely looking at how they perform before the start of the regular season. Wins & losses don't count, but individual performances do.

UffDa will claim the preseason games don't mean much to him, but when he is voicing his opinion on what rookies should make the cut, what is he formulating his opinion on?


You are pretty good at selecting quotes and changing their context to try to help you argument but it isn't going to work on me. If you want to keep going down that road you need to find someone else.

Now, I am going to do this again and I am going to type very,very slowly to see if that helps you.

As to my claim that preseason games don't mean much, here is the context:

The statement was in response to your statement that gus has played in 9 games this year and jackson only 1.5 this year before facing GB. Now, you can nit pick all you want, but including preseason games in with regular games in the same category is wrong. Had you said gus played in 2 preseason games and 7 regular season games while jackson played in 1.5 preseason games and 2 regular season games we would not have an argument. At the end of the year when you post the team record you are not going to have 20 games figured into the record because the preseason games do not count the same. Are they important? Yes, in their own way they are. But are they equal enough to regular season games to allow you to lump them in with regular season games to make a blanket statement? Not as far as I am concerned. If you wish to in your mind then I guess then we can disagree. But keep it in context and don't try to twist what I am saying to try to try to justify your position. If it is valid it will stand on it's own.


The real facts are that they both played in preseason. There was no open competition and if you think for one minute that Childress ran the preseason in a way that gave both QB's a fair shot at starting in the first game of the year you are wrong.

Gus was brought in late first off so he had no time to attend the vast majority of the offseason programs and drills. Next, Childress specifically stated they brought him in as a backup and that Jackson was the starter and gave jackson all of the reps a starter would get while Gus got the snaps that a backup would get. If it were an open competition they would have split the time that each got with the starters so they could evaluate them evenly. That never happened. So if that is the case, then how do you justify your statement that Gus playing with the second string in preseason and Jackson playing with the first string until he got hurt should be counted equally to the regular season games and how was that playing time with the second string going to help him in the regular season with the starting team and how did it give the coaches a good evaluation compared to what they got from Jackson on the first team?


You are the one twisting & taking shit out of context. We are not talking about how pre-season snaps & wins matter at the end of the year. No one here mentioned the end of the year but you.

What we were originally talking about is how much playing time & how well each QB performed during that play time up until the point they each faced GB. You don't look at the games played after the GB game because we were talking about how well each did against GB & the amount of game time, preseason or regular season time, each QB had prior to their respective GB games. I don't know why you can't grasp that, it was clearly stated & it was broken down also;

"singersp" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Gus also is a 15 year vet & played in 9 games this year (as did the team) prior to that game.

Jackson, a developing QB having only been with the team 2 years, played in 1-1/2 games prior to him facing GB on the road, not at home. The team also was unprepared & flat in the season opener & lacked the services of Rice & M-Will & with a much less than 100% Berrian who was definitely slow & still nursing his turf toe injury.


Gus has only played in 7 games this year by my count. Or are you counting holding the clipboard as playing?


He saw play time in 9 games prior to GB, 6 reg. season, 3 preseason. Jackson saw only 1-1/2 & that was only in limited preseason action.

If you want to get technical & not count pre-season time, 15 year seasoned Frerotte played in 6 full games with the starting offense prior to meeting GB at home. Jackson, a 2nd year starter had absolutely 0 plays & 0 games before playing GB at GB.

Purple Floyd
11-14-2008, 09:00 AM
"singersp" wrote:





What we were originally talking about is how much playing time & how well each QB performed during that play time up until the point they each faced GB. You don't look at the games played after the GB game because we were talking about how well each did against GB & the amount of game time, preseason or regular season time, each QB had prior to their respective GB games. I don't know why you can't grasp that, it was clearly stated & it was broken down also;




"singersp" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


"SharperImage42" wrote:


honestly if t-jack played yesterday we woulda won 21-10 probably.



I believe so too

I don't think Jackson would have given up 17 points single handily

Jackson's first game back.. On the road.. The team is rusty.. And Jackson still out performed Gus by far

Imgine now with AP going for 100 a game 4 weeks in a row.. And 200 against the Pack

The D and special teams really screwed us over that first game.. Also injuries and not being rusty


Bullshit.
TJack outperformed Gus "by far"?
Their stats were pretty damn similar IMHO.

T. Jackson

16/35
45.7% 178
1
1
THIRD DOWN EFFICIENCY
7/16 - 43%
TOTAL FIRST DOWNS
21
By Rushing 10
By Passing 7
By Penalty 4
RED ZONE EFFICIENCY
1/3 - 33%
GOAL TO GO EFFICIENCY 1/1 - 100%
TIME OF POSSESSION
32:01

G. Frerotte

15/28
53.6% 151
2
3
THIRD DOWN EFFICIENCY
6/15 - 40%
TOTAL FIRST DOWNS
18
By Rushing 9
By Passing 8
By Penalty 1
RED ZONE EFFICIENCY
1/1 - 100%
GOAL TO GO EFFICIENCY 1/1 - 100%
TIME OF POSSESSION
36:05

I am just not seeing where TJack outperformed Gus.
Oh yeah, there is one more stat -
TJack FINAL SCORE
19
Gus FINAL SCORE
28

There are two big things the offense did differently that won this game for us yesterday.
1) We didn't settle for field goals every time we sniffed the redzone.
2) When the game was on the line, Gus stayed in control and got the ball down the field safely (with 4 runs 3 passes on the final Vikings drive).
Say what you want about Gus's three INTs, but they hurt a helluva lot less than TJack's 1.


Gus also is a 15 year vet & played in 9 games this year (as did the team) prior to that game.

Jackson, a developing QB having only been with the team 2 years, played in 1-1/2 games prior to him facing GB on the road, not at home. The team also was unprepared & flat in the season opener & lacked the services of Rice & M-Will & with a much less than 100% Berrian who was definitely slow & still nursing his turf toe injury.


Really? Because when you include all of the quotes in the string and not just what you decided would fit your statement, you can clearly see that the conversation you commented on was whether Jackson would have done better if he had played in THAT game, not how well each did or how much each of them had played prior to facing GB.
;)

Sorry. Try again.

V-Unit
11-14-2008, 09:07 AM
"ragz" wrote:



well bad games for tavaris are when hes not very good on 3rd down, and shank drops a td and the defense gives up 18 points in the last 18 minutes.
ferrottes bad game is 3 ints leading to 17 points, the defense getting 4 sacks and giving up only 3 points, and taylor taking a 3 yard pass 47 yards.
you guys are ridiculous on how bad you wanna try to make him, and blame him for losses.




LMAO
A bad game for Tarvaris is when he completes 32% of his passes, and gets sacked 3 times, not even breaking 100 yards passing
A bad game for Tavaris is when he completes 51% of his passes and throws 4 picks leading to 14 points while the defense has to bail him out with 5 turnovers of their own.
A bad game for Tavaris is 3 picks, 2 sacks and a fumble for a QB rating of 50.

TJ has had games just as bad as Gus' last two bad games.

I agree Gus must play better, and I'm happy you finally understand that consistency at the QB position when it comes to both who plays and how he plays, is a neccesity.

singersp
11-15-2008, 09:49 AM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:





What we were originally talking about is how much playing time & how well each QB performed during that play time up until the point they each faced GB. You don't look at the games played after the GB game because we were talking about how well each did against GB & the amount of game time, preseason or regular season time, each QB had prior to their respective GB games. I don't know why you can't grasp that, it was clearly stated & it was broken down also;




"singersp" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


"SharperImage42" wrote:


honestly if t-jack played yesterday we woulda won 21-10 probably.



I believe so too

I don't think Jackson would have given up 17 points single handily

Jackson's first game back.. On the road.. The team is rusty.. And Jackson still out performed Gus by far

Imgine now with AP going for 100 a game 4 weeks in a row.. And 200 against the Pack

The D and special teams really screwed us over that first game.. Also injuries and not being rusty


Bullshit.
TJack outperformed Gus "by far"?
Their stats were pretty damn similar IMHO.

T. Jackson


16/35
45.7% 178
1
1
THIRD DOWN EFFICIENCY
7/16 - 43%
TOTAL FIRST DOWNS
21
By Rushing 10
By Passing 7
By Penalty 4
RED ZONE EFFICIENCY
1/3 - 33%
GOAL TO GO EFFICIENCY 1/1 - 100%
TIME OF POSSESSION
32:01

G. Frerotte


15/28
53.6% 151
2
3
THIRD DOWN EFFICIENCY
6/15 - 40%
TOTAL FIRST DOWNS
18
By Rushing 9
By Passing 8
By Penalty 1
RED ZONE EFFICIENCY
1/1 - 100%
GOAL TO GO EFFICIENCY 1/1 - 100%
TIME OF POSSESSION
36:05

I am just not seeing where TJack outperformed Gus.
Oh yeah, there is one more stat -
TJack FINAL SCORE
19
Gus FINAL SCORE
28

There are two big things the offense did differently that won this game for us yesterday.
1) We didn't settle for field goals every time we sniffed the redzone.
2) When the game was on the line, Gus stayed in control and got the ball down the field safely (with 4 runs 3 passes on the final Vikings drive).
Say what you want about Gus's three INTs, but they hurt a helluva lot less than TJack's 1.


Gus also is a 15 year vet & played in 9 games this year (as did the team) prior to that game.

Jackson, a developing QB having only been with the team 2 years, played in 1-1/2 games prior to him facing GB on the road, not at home. The team also was unprepared & flat in the season opener & lacked the services of Rice & M-Will & with a much less than 100% Berrian who was definitely slow & still nursing his turf toe injury.


Really? Because when you include all of the quotes in the string and not just what you decided would fit your statement, you can clearly see that the conversation you commented on was whether Jackson would have done better if he had played in THAT game, not how well each did or how much each of them had played prior to facing GB.
;)

Sorry. Try again.


My reply to that string was directed at Nodak's comments, not SI & not V4L. Nowhere did I claim Jackson would have played better in the 2nd GB game. What I was merely pointing out was how much experience (years) & how much 2008 playing time each had prior to each of them facing GB & how well each performed considering those circumstances. That should be taken into consideration as well along with the roster which in the first game didn't include McKinney & both Rice & Berrian were unhealthy.

SamOchoCinco
11-15-2008, 11:35 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


Yah we don't know if Jackson would be better or not

Looking at the teams Gus has got to face and the teams Jackson did I think jackson would have done better

But it don't matter the move was made


How so?
The defenses Gus faced have been much stronger than the defenses TJack faced.

TJack
Green Bay - 21st ranked Defense
Indianapolis - 15th ranked Defense

Gus
Carolina - 8 ranked Defense
Tennessee Titans - 5 ranked Defense
New Orleans - 24 ranked Defense
Lions - 31 ranked Defense
Bears - 17 ranked Defense
Texans - 19 ranked Defense
Green Bay - 21st ranked Defense

The two teams we lost to with TJack were ranked 15th and 21st.
The two teams we lost to with Gus were ranked 5th and 17th.
I don't understand what you see that makes you think we would have beaten Tennessee or Chicago with TJack.


gus didnt do any better vs the packers.

and gus did horrible vs the lions of all teams.

but im not supporting any of the two quarterbacks we have used.
they both are god aweful. nothing more than backup quarterbacks at most.

but gus isnt as good at people think! the man is nothing more than a backup! he proved it durring that greenbay game.

EVEN TYLER THIGPEN did better than him with wayyyy less talent

NodakPaul
11-15-2008, 12:38 PM
"SamOchoCinco" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


Yah we don't know if Jackson would be better or not

Looking at the teams Gus has got to face and the teams Jackson did I think jackson would have done better

But it don't matter the move was made


How so?
The defenses Gus faced have been much stronger than the defenses TJack faced.

TJack
Green Bay - 21st ranked Defense
Indianapolis - 15th ranked Defense

Gus
Carolina - 8 ranked Defense
Tennessee Titans - 5 ranked Defense
New Orleans - 24 ranked Defense
Lions - 31 ranked Defense
Bears - 17 ranked Defense
Texans - 19 ranked Defense
Green Bay - 21st ranked Defense

The two teams we lost to with TJack were ranked 15th and 21st.
The two teams we lost to with Gus were ranked 5th and 17th.
I don't understand what you see that makes you think we would have beaten Tennessee or Chicago with TJack.


gus didnt do any better vs the packers.

and gus did horrible vs the lions of all teams.

but im not supporting any of the two quarterbacks we have used.
they both are god aweful. nothing more than backup quarterbacks at most.

but gus isnt as good at people think! the man is nothing more than a backup! he proved it durring that greenbay game.

EVEN TYLER THIGPEN did better than him with wayyyy less talent


Again, I wasn't saying anything about how good Gus is.
I was pointing out that TJack is NOT any better, nor could he have done any better.

BTW, Thigpen has had a couple of good game - but so has Gus and TJack for that matter.
There is context that surrounds game beyond just stats, so it is just as ludicrous to say that Thigpen is any better at this point.

NodakPaul
11-15-2008, 12:40 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:





What we were originally talking about is how much playing time & how well each QB performed during that play time up until the point they each faced GB. You don't look at the games played after the GB game because we were talking about how well each did against GB & the amount of game time, preseason or regular season time, each QB had prior to their respective GB games. I don't know why you can't grasp that, it was clearly stated & it was broken down also;




"singersp" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


"SharperImage42" wrote:


honestly if t-jack played yesterday we woulda won 21-10 probably.



I believe so too

I don't think Jackson would have given up 17 points single handily

Jackson's first game back.. On the road.. The team is rusty.. And Jackson still out performed Gus by far

Imgine now with AP going for 100 a game 4 weeks in a row.. And 200 against the Pack

The D and special teams really screwed us over that first game.. Also injuries and not being rusty


kaka del rio.
TJack outperformed Gus "by far"?
Their stats were pretty gol 'darnit similar IMHO.

T. Jackson


16/35
45.7% 178
1
1
THIRD DOWN EFFICIENCY
7/16 - 43%
TOTAL FIRST DOWNS
21
By Rushing 10
By Passing 7
By Penalty 4
RED ZONE EFFICIENCY
1/3 - 33%
GOAL TO GO EFFICIENCY 1/1 - 100%
TIME OF POSSESSION
32:01

G. Frerotte


15/28
53.6% 151
2
3
THIRD DOWN EFFICIENCY
6/15 - 40%
TOTAL FIRST DOWNS
18
By Rushing 9
By Passing 8
By Penalty 1
RED ZONE EFFICIENCY
1/1 - 100%
GOAL TO GO EFFICIENCY 1/1 - 100%
TIME OF POSSESSION
36:05

I am just not seeing where TJack outperformed Gus.
Oh yeah, there is one more stat -
TJack FINAL SCORE
19
Gus FINAL SCORE
28

There are two big things the offense did differently that won this game for us yesterday.
1) We didn't settle for field goals every time we sniffed the redzone.
2) When the game was on the line, Gus stayed in control and got the ball down the field safely (with 4 runs 3 passes on the final Vikings drive).
Say what you want about Gus's three INTs, but they hurt a helluva lot less than TJack's 1.


Gus also is a 15 year vet & played in 9 games this year (as did the team) prior to that game.

Jackson, a developing QB having only been with the team 2 years, played in 1-1/2 games prior to him facing GB on the road, not at home. The team also was unprepared & flat in the season opener & lacked the services of Rice & M-Will & with a much less than 100% Berrian who was definitely slow & still nursing his turf toe injury.


Really? Because when you include all of the quotes in the string and not just what you decided would fit your statement, you can clearly see that the conversation you commented on was whether Jackson would have done better if he had played in THAT game, not how well each did or how much each of them had played prior to facing GB.
;)

Sorry. Try again.


My reply to that string was directed at Nodak's comments, not SI & not V4L. Nowhere did I claim Jackson would have played better in the 2nd GB game. What I was merely pointing out was how much experience (years) & how much 2008 playing time each had prior to each of them facing GB & how well each performed considering those circumstances. That should be taken into consideration as well along with the roster which in the first game didn't include McKinney & both Rice & Berrian were unhealthy.




Who said I didn't take those facts into consideration?
Even with that, I fail to see how Tjack outperformed Gus "by far" (which was the specific quote I was responding to).

V4L
11-15-2008, 12:59 PM
Okay if it's bugging you that bad here it is

Tarvaris has had the second best game out of all the QBs this year against GB behind Tony Romo who didn't do too hot himself

I factor in that the team was rusty and Tarvaris was hurt and coming off not playing in weeks.. And that he was at Lambeau.. Rodgers picked apart our D and their offense had over 300 yards and in Gus's game they had less then 200

The stats were fairly equal.. Gus had less yards and more turnovers but 1 more TD.. But he also had Chester taking one for 60 and a TD to pad his stats

Tarvaris also had 65 rushing yards to Gus's -1

Gus wasn't hitting the open guys at all and alot of times didn't even see them.. I saw atleast 5 horrible throws and 3 of them went for picks

Jackson had 1 turnover which didn't lead to any points

Gus had 3 which lead to 17

So Jackson was +6 in his scoring.. And Gus was -3

Jackson had the odds stacked against him and performed decent.. Gus has had all the time in the world to throw the ball and the luxary of Adrian Peterson having his biggest game of the year and the D playing as good as they have all year and he still almost lost the game for us.. If it weren't for a missed field goal we wouldn't have won by 1 point

V4L
11-15-2008, 01:05 PM
And 75 percent of Gus's throws were little dump offs or routes streaking across the middle

I saw 2 passes over 10 yards.. And 1 was when Chester made a nice play

If anyone doesn't think Jackson couldn't have hit his RBs like Gus was doing is lying to themselves.. That was one horrible performance and im 95 percent sure he will show his true colors again against Tampa

I hope to god im wrong.. But if I am I hope the D and AP can bail him out ONCE AGAIN

V4L
11-15-2008, 01:07 PM
Throw in the fact that we had 4 starters miss playing time in the first couple weeks and there ya go

I feel Jackson had a better performance then Gus against GB.. Stats might not show it all.. But watching both games again this week I saw how poorly Gus played and how average Jackson played.. Jackson looked hesitant but atleast saw the open guys and didn't miss by much or give up 17 points

Yfz01
11-15-2008, 01:52 PM
T-Jack would have played better in the last Packers game, no doubt in my mind!

How could he not?
Gus missed a few chances for big gains because he threw behind the reciever or straight to a D back.
There should have been a touchdown to Wade but Gus made the wrong read.
HE HAD all freakin day to throw and he was throwing to the wrong team.
He's just lucky that Taylor caught some bad passes and made so much out of everything.
Hell, even that first throw to Sidney Rice was pathetic...

PurplePeopleEaters
11-15-2008, 01:59 PM
"V4L" wrote:


Throw in the fact that we had 4 starters miss playing time in the first couple weeks and there ya go

I feel Jackson had a better performance then Gus against GB.. Stats might not show it all.. But watching both games again this week I saw how poorly Gus played and how average Jackson played.. Jackson looked hesitant but atleast saw the open guys and didn't miss by much or give up 17 points


It's crazy how much you've changed your mind on this subject.

Here's all I need to know

With Tarvaris starting at QB, we were 0-2
With Gus starting at QB, we are 5-2.
With Tarvaris at QB, we lose to the Packers
With Gus at QB, we beat the Packers.

It's not a good idea to throw Tarvaris back in there only to have people calling for his head within another week of him holding the starting job. Tarvaris does not have what it takes whatsoever. Gus gives us a better chance to win as evidenced by our record under Gus vs. our record under Jackson. All you had to do was watch the first to games to see how hesitant and scared Tarvaris plays, especially when there is a decent pass rush.

V4L
11-16-2008, 12:39 AM
"PurplePeopleEaters" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


Throw in the fact that we had 4 starters miss playing time in the first couple weeks and there ya go

I feel Jackson had a better performance then Gus against GB.. Stats might not show it all.. But watching both games again this week I saw how poorly Gus played and how average Jackson played.. Jackson looked hesitant but atleast saw the open guys and didn't miss by much or give up 17 points


It's crazy how much you've changed your mind on this subject.

Here's all I need to know

With Tarvaris starting at QB, we were 0-2
With Gus starting at QB, we are 5-2.
With Tarvaris at QB, we lose to the Packers
With Gus at QB, we beat the Packers.

It's not a good idea to throw Tarvaris back in there only to have people calling for his head within another week of him holding the starting job. Tarvaris does not have what it takes whatsoever. Gus gives us a better chance to win as evidenced by our record under Gus vs. our record under Jackson. All you had to do was watch the first to games to see how hesitant and scared Tarvaris plays, especially when there is a decent pass rush.




I haven't changed my mind at all

The Packers game was 6 days ago so I couldn't judge weather or not Jackson did better or worse.. During the game I was saying wow I wonder if Jackson could make some of these throws.. He was during his 2 games

Im totally gonna disregard records because 2 games isn't much expecially when your team was playing how it was

Ill say it ONCE AGAIN.. Gus hasn't lost us a game persay so I would like to keep him in.. If he plays like he did last week then I don't want him in

THEN I will be calling for Jackson.. At this point i'm playin devils advocate and just pointing out facts and how I feel

Schutz
11-16-2008, 01:39 AM
"V4L" wrote:


"PurplePeopleEaters" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


Throw in the fact that we had 4 starters miss playing time in the first couple weeks and there ya go

I feel Jackson had a better performance then Gus against GB.. Stats might not show it all.. But watching both games again this week I saw how poorly Gus played and how average Jackson played.. Jackson looked hesitant but atleast saw the open guys and didn't miss by much or give up 17 points


It's crazy how much you've changed your mind on this subject.

Here's all I need to know

With Tarvaris starting at QB, we were 0-2
With Gus starting at QB, we are 5-2.
With Tarvaris at QB, we lose to the Packers
With Gus at QB, we beat the Packers.

It's not a good idea to throw Tarvaris back in there only to have people calling for his head within another week of him holding the starting job. Tarvaris does not have what it takes whatsoever. Gus gives us a better chance to win as evidenced by our record under Gus vs. our record under Jackson. All you had to do was watch the first to games to see how hesitant and scared Tarvaris plays, especially when there is a decent pass rush.




I haven't changed my mind at all

The Packers game was 6 days ago so I couldn't judge weather or not Jackson did better or worse.. During the game I was saying wow I wonder if Jackson could make some of these throws.. He was during his 2 games

Im totally gonna disregard records because 2 games isn't much expecially when your team was playing how it was

Ill say it ONCE AGAIN.. Gus hasn't lost us a game persay so I would like to keep him in.. If he plays like he did last week then I don't want him in

THEN I will be calling for Jackson.. At this point i'm playin devils advocate and just pointing out facts and how I feel




Exactly, my problem with starting Gus is not that T-Jack is so much better but they are pretty much the same product with one being young and having a chance at a future.
As it is right now it's just like asking if you want to be punched in the Kidneys or the Junk.

BloodyHorns82
11-16-2008, 01:43 AM
"PurplePeopleEaters" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


Throw in the fact that we had 4 starters miss playing time in the first couple weeks and there ya go

I feel Jackson had a better performance then Gus against GB.. Stats might not show it all.. But watching both games again this week I saw how poorly Gus played and how average Jackson played.. Jackson looked hesitant but atleast saw the open guys and didn't miss by much or give up 17 points


It's crazy how much you've changed your mind on this subject.

Here's all I need to know

With Tarvaris starting at QB, we were 0-2
With Gus starting at QB, we are 5-2.
With Tarvaris at QB, we lose to the Packers
With Gus at QB, we beat the Packers.

It's not a good idea to throw Tarvaris back in there only to have people calling for his head within another week of him holding the starting job. Tarvaris does not have what it takes whatsoever. Gus gives us a better chance to win as evidenced by our record under Gus vs. our record under Jackson. All you had to do was watch the first to games to see how hesitant and scared Tarvaris plays, especially when there is a decent pass rush.

It sounds like you are giving all the blame for those two losses all on Tjack, when anyone who watched the game knows that is not true.
It also sounds like you are giving Gus all the credit for those two wins, anyone who watched any of those games knows that wasn't the case. In 4 of his wins the defense scored, you can't possibly think they only scored because Gus was the QB.

What this team needs, and needed from the start of the season was a QB who could keep you in a game, Tjack can do that.
And if you do want to go by wins alone remember that Tjack was 8-4 in his sophmore year, and won 5 in a row. Once Gus wins 5 in a row I will say it was the right move to put him in.

singersp
11-16-2008, 04:45 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:





What we were originally talking about is how much playing time & how well each QB performed during that play time up until the point they each faced GB. You don't look at the games played after the GB game because we were talking about how well each did against GB & the amount of game time, preseason or regular season time, each QB had prior to their respective GB games. I don't know why you can't grasp that, it was clearly stated & it was broken down also;




"singersp" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


"SharperImage42" wrote:


honestly if t-jack played yesterday we woulda won 21-10 probably.



I believe so too

I don't think Jackson would have given up 17 points single handily

Jackson's first game back.. On the road.. The team is rusty.. And Jackson still out performed Gus by far

Imgine now with AP going for 100 a game 4 weeks in a row.. And 200 against the Pack

The D and special teams really screwed us over that first game.. Also injuries and not being rusty


kaka del rio.
TJack outperformed Gus "by far"?
Their stats were pretty gol 'darnit similar IMHO.

T. Jackson


16/35
45.7% 178
1
1
THIRD DOWN EFFICIENCY
7/16 - 43%
TOTAL FIRST DOWNS
21
By Rushing 10
By Passing 7
By Penalty 4
RED ZONE EFFICIENCY
1/3 - 33%
GOAL TO GO EFFICIENCY 1/1 - 100%
TIME OF POSSESSION
32:01

G. Frerotte


15/28
53.6% 151
2
3
THIRD DOWN EFFICIENCY
6/15 - 40%
TOTAL FIRST DOWNS
18
By Rushing 9
By Passing 8
By Penalty 1
RED ZONE EFFICIENCY
1/1 - 100%
GOAL TO GO EFFICIENCY 1/1 - 100%
TIME OF POSSESSION
36:05

I am just not seeing where TJack outperformed Gus.
Oh yeah, there is one more stat -
TJack FINAL SCORE
19
Gus FINAL SCORE
28

There are two big things the offense did differently that won this game for us yesterday.
1) We didn't settle for field goals every time we sniffed the redzone.
2) When the game was on the line, Gus stayed in control and got the ball down the field safely (with 4 runs 3 passes on the final Vikings drive).
Say what you want about Gus's three INTs, but they hurt a helluva lot less than TJack's 1.


Gus also is a 15 year vet & played in 9 games this year (as did the team) prior to that game.

Jackson, a developing QB having only been with the team 2 years, played in 1-1/2 games prior to him facing GB on the road, not at home. The team also was unprepared & flat in the season opener & lacked the services of Rice & M-Will & with a much less than 100% Berrian who was definitely slow & still nursing his turf toe injury.


Really? Because when you include all of the quotes in the string and not just what you decided would fit your statement, you can clearly see that the conversation you commented on was whether Jackson would have done better if he had played in THAT game, not how well each did or how much each of them had played prior to facing GB.
;)

Sorry. Try again.


My reply to that string was directed at Nodak's comments, not SI & not V4L. Nowhere did I claim Jackson would have played better in the 2nd GB game. What I was merely pointing out was how much experience (years) & how much 2008 playing time each had prior to each of them facing GB & how well each performed considering those circumstances. That should be taken into consideration as well along with the roster which in the first game didn't include McKinney & both Rice & Berrian were unhealthy.




Who said I didn't take those facts into consideration?
Even with that, I fail to see how Tjack outperformed Gus "by far" (which was the specific quote I was responding to).


I was merely adding my comments to it. Did Jackson play better against GB Than Frerotte did? Yes he did.

Did Jackson play better by far? No, he didn't.

NodakPaul
11-17-2008, 10:33 AM
"V4L" wrote:


Okay if it's bugging you that bad here it is

Tarvaris has had the second best game out of all the QBs this year against GB behind Tony Romo who didn't do too hot himself

I factor in that the team was rusty and Tarvaris was hurt and coming off not playing in weeks.. And that he was at Lambeau.. Rodgers picked apart our D and their offense had over 300 yards and in Gus's game they had less then 200

The stats were fairly equal.. Gus had less yards and more turnovers but 1 more TD.. But he also had Chester taking one for 60 and a TD to pad his stats

Tarvaris also had 65 rushing yards to Gus's -1

Gus wasn't hitting the open guys at all and alot of times didn't even see them.. I saw atleast 5 horrible throws and 3 of them went for picks

Jackson had 1 turnover which didn't lead to any points

Gus had 3 which lead to 17

So Jackson was +6 in his scoring.. And Gus was -3

Jackson had the odds stacked against him and performed decent.. Gus has had all the time in the world to throw the ball and the luxary of Adrian Peterson having his biggest game of the year and the D playing as good as they have all year and he still almost lost the game for us.. If it weren't for a missed field goal we wouldn't have won by 1 point




When you watch games with an agenda, you will always pick out specific things that help your cause but omit the ones that don't.
Here is an example:


Jackson had 1 turnover which didn't lead to any points

Gus had 3 which lead to 17

What you conveniently leave out is that Jackson's turnover came on the final drive - literally killing any chance we had of a comeback.
No, it didn't lead to points because there were only 54 second left and Green Bay kneeled the ball.
On Gus's last drive against Green Bay, however, he went 3 for 3 for 29 yards, with AD running 4 times too.
Had he choked like TJack in the final drive, it would have ended the same.

Here is another one:

Jackson had the odds stacked against him and performed decent.. Gus has had all the time in the world to throw the ball and the luxary of Adrian Peterson having his biggest game of the year...

Why do you say that Jackson had the odds stacked against him, but Gus apparently should have won this game hands down?


And for the record, Jackson also had the luxury of AD in the backfield.
The fact that we were able to score early in the second game changed the way we were able to utilize AD.
So to put it clearly - AD had a monster game because the offense was clicking, and the offense was clicking because AD was running well.
With Jackson under center, the offense wasn't clicking.
Was it entirely his fault - not at all.
But to ignore the fact the he had an impact on it is blind.
Claiming that Jackson's performance met the expectations set for him is blind.


Even on his 5 game winning steak, which you like to bring up, he was not meeting expectations.
Maybe he benefited from the "Gus" factor.
Because the team was winning, it warranted further time as a starter.
However, the fact is that - similar to the way Gus is now - he was not playing at a starting level.
Getting wins on the team's back does not excuse the shortcomings of either one of them.


Next year we need to seriously pursue a real QB.
Part of the reason I want Childress gone now is because we didn't do it last offseason.
Jackson had his chance - it is over.
If you still have faith that he may develop in to something, good for you.
Let him develop as the backup QB that he is.
Maybe he will get a shot in the future if our starter goes down, or if another team wants to take a chance.
But he does not deserve to see the starting spot based on ANY of his past performances.
And Gus is just a band aid that will probably squeak out a few more wins, and might even get us in the playoffs in a weak division.
But his run will be over this year too.

i_bleed_purple
11-17-2008, 11:13 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


Okay if it's bugging you that bad here it is

Tarvaris has had the second best game out of all the QBs this year against GB behind Tony Romo who didn't do too hot himself

I factor in that the team was rusty and Tarvaris was hurt and coming off not playing in weeks.. And that he was at Lambeau.. Rodgers picked apart our D and their offense had over 300 yards and in Gus's game they had less then 200

The stats were fairly equal.. Gus had less yards and more turnovers but 1 more TD.. But he also had Chester taking one for 60 and a TD to pad his stats

Tarvaris also had 65 rushing yards to Gus's -1

Gus wasn't hitting the open guys at all and alot of times didn't even see them.. I saw atleast 5 horrible throws and 3 of them went for picks

Jackson had 1 turnover which didn't lead to any points

Gus had 3 which lead to 17

So Jackson was +6 in his scoring.. And Gus was -3

Jackson had the odds stacked against him and performed decent.. Gus has had all the time in the world to throw the ball and the luxary of Adrian Peterson having his biggest game of the year and the D playing as good as they have all year and he still almost lost the game for us.. If it weren't for a missed field goal we wouldn't have won by 1 point




When you watch games with an agenda, you will always pick out specific things that help your cause but omit the ones that don't.
Here is an example:


Jackson had 1 turnover which didn't lead to any points

Gus had 3 which lead to 17

What you conveniently leave out is that Jackson's turnover came on the final drive - literally killing any chance we had of a comeback.
No, it didn't lead to points because there were only 54 second left and Green Bay kneeled the ball.
On Gus's last drive against Green Bay, however, he went 3 for 3 for 29 yards, with AD running 4 times too.
Had he choked like TJack in the final drive, it would have ended the same.

Here is another one:

Jackson had the odds stacked against him and performed decent.. Gus has had all the time in the world to throw the ball and the luxary of Adrian Peterson having his biggest game of the year...

Why do you say that Jackson had the odds stacked against him, but Gus apparently should have won this game hands down?


And for the record, Jackson also had the luxury of AD in the backfield.
The fact that we were able to score early in the second game changed the way we were able to utilize AD.
So to put it clearly - AD had a monster game because the offense was clicking, and the offense was clicking because AD was running well.
With Jackson under center, the offense wasn't clicking.
Was it entirely his fault - not at all.
But to ignore the fact the he had an impact on it is blind.
Claiming that Jackson's performance met the expectations set for him is blind.


Even on his 5 game winning steak, which you like to bring up, he was not meeting expectations.
Maybe he benefited from the "Gus" factor.
Because the team was winning, it warranted further time as a starter.
However, the fact is that - similar to the way Gus is now - he was not playing at a starting level.
Getting wins on the team's back does not excuse the shortcomings of either one of them.


Next year we need to seriously pursue a real QB.
Part of the reason I want Childress gone now is because we didn't do it last offseason.
Jackson had his chance - it is over.
If you still have faith that he may develop in to something, good for you.
Let him develop as the backup QB that he is.
Maybe he will get a shot in the future if our starter goes down, or if another team wants to take a chance.
But he does not deserve to see the starting spot based on ANY of his past performances.
And Gus is just a band aid that will probably squeak out a few more wins, and might even get us in the playoffs in a weak division.
But his run will be over this year too.


I'm still mad we didn't go after Volek

As far as backup QB's are concerned, he was the best available, he has a great deep ball, and spent time behind some pretty good qb's.

V4L
11-17-2008, 12:15 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


Okay if it's bugging you that bad here it is

Tarvaris has had the second best game out of all the QBs this year against GB behind Tony Romo who didn't do too hot himself

I factor in that the team was rusty and Tarvaris was hurt and coming off not playing in weeks.. And that he was at Lambeau.. Rodgers picked apart our D and their offense had over 300 yards and in Gus's game they had less then 200

The stats were fairly equal.. Gus had less yards and more turnovers but 1 more TD.. But he also had Chester taking one for 60 and a TD to pad his stats

Tarvaris also had 65 rushing yards to Gus's -1

Gus wasn't hitting the open guys at all and alot of times didn't even see them.. I saw atleast 5 horrible throws and 3 of them went for picks

Jackson had 1 turnover which didn't lead to any points

Gus had 3 which lead to 17

So Jackson was +6 in his scoring.. And Gus was -3

Jackson had the odds stacked against him and performed decent.. Gus has had all the time in the world to throw the ball and the luxary of Adrian Peterson having his biggest game of the year and the D playing as good as they have all year and he still almost lost the game for us.. If it weren't for a missed field goal we wouldn't have won by 1 point




When you watch games with an agenda, you will always pick out specific things that help your cause but omit the ones that don't.
Here is an example:


Jackson had 1 turnover which didn't lead to any points

Gus had 3 which lead to 17

What you conveniently leave out is that Jackson's turnover came on the final drive - literally killing any chance we had of a comeback.
No, it didn't lead to points because there were only 54 second left and Green Bay kneeled the ball.
On Gus's last drive against Green Bay, however, he went 3 for 3 for 29 yards, with AD running 4 times too.
Had he choked like TJack in the final drive, it would have ended the same.

Here is another one:

Jackson had the odds stacked against him and performed decent.. Gus has had all the time in the world to throw the ball and the luxary of Adrian Peterson having his biggest game of the year...

Why do you say that Jackson had the odds stacked against him, but Gus apparently should have won this game hands down?


And for the record, Jackson also had the luxury of AD in the backfield.
The fact that we were able to score early in the second game changed the way we were able to utilize AD.
So to put it clearly - AD had a monster game because the offense was clicking, and the offense was clicking because AD was running well.
With Jackson under center, the offense wasn't clicking.
Was it entirely his fault - not at all.
But to ignore the fact the he had an impact on it is blind.
Claiming that Jackson's performance met the expectations set for him is blind.


Even on his 5 game winning steak, which you like to bring up, he was not meeting expectations.
Maybe he benefited from the "Gus" factor.
Because the team was winning, it warranted further time as a starter.
However, the fact is that - similar to the way Gus is now - he was not playing at a starting level.
Getting wins on the team's back does not excuse the shortcomings of either one of them.


Next year we need to seriously pursue a real QB.
Part of the reason I want Childress gone now is because we didn't do it last offseason.
Jackson had his chance - it is over.
If you still have faith that he may develop in to something, good for you.
Let him develop as the backup QB that he is.
Maybe he will get a shot in the future if our starter goes down, or if another team wants to take a chance.
But he does not deserve to see the starting spot based on ANY of his past performances.
And Gus is just a band aid that will probably squeak out a few more wins, and might even get us in the playoffs in a weak division.
But his run will be over this year too.




Okay well say Jackson's turnover did turn into points that still 7 given up to Gus's 17

And when I said he had the luxary of Adrian Peterson I meant he had his best game of the year.. 192 and a score and some huge catches.. And that Gus had all day cuz the line was picking up the blitz which they failed to do with Jackson

And when I say he had the odds stacked against him this is what I meant.. Not entirely but his odds of winning are far less when you play on the road.. It's your first game back.. Your team didn't play physical and got manhandled.. Your 1 and 2 are banged up

While Gus had quite a few games before his Packer game to get ready and get into the swing of things.. Rice and Berrian were healthy.. AP went nuts.. The D held them under 200 yards.. And we win by 1 at home

Now im not saying Jackson didn't play his part in the loses.. I blame the whole team.. I blame the special teams for setting up Peyton and Aaron with 50-60 yards to go only.. I blame the D for giving up late scores and big plays at the end.. I blame Adrian Peterson for scoring once in the two games Jackson was in.. I blame the line for not blocking well.. I blame the coaches.. I blame everyone..

And in Gus's wins when he deserved credit I gave it to him.. And I will continue to do that.. He had a slightly subpar game against Tampa but didn't turn the ball over so that was okay.. The Tampa D played great and took away alot of throws Gus could have made

To me I saw improvement in Jackson in the last few games he has played.. I still think if he was getting on page with Berrian and his team he would play about on par with Gus.. I can't say who I think would be better cuz Gus is up and down as I think Jackson would be

At this point we stick with Gus.. He is 5-3 as a starter.. If we lose another and Gus plays bad I will not support him one bit.. He played okay in Tampa.. Not as bad as I thought.. So as of now iim willing to feel okay with Jackson on the bench

ThorSPL
11-17-2008, 12:34 PM
I officially give Frerotte the freedom to retire.


He has looked worse than T-Jack did when he was benched with a team around him playing far better than what T-Jack had. (Yes, he may be part of the reason the team is playing better, but still....)