Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011
Results 101 to 106 of 106
  1. #101
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,266

    Re: Recent QB performances against the Eagles

    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "singersp" wrote:
    "UffDaVikes" wrote:
    "singersp" wrote:
    :
    Yeah, because everyone knows that a young QB's one & only playoff game should be the only thing that is looked at to judge him & his 6 games prior to it should be ignored.

    No, If anything you look at all of the games since he started including the ones he missed because he didn't have the sense to slide while scrambling,which is what ended Culpepper's career, and the ones he didn't play this year because the coaches replaced him with a washed up has-been who probably couldn't start on any team in this league.

    Does he have potential? Probably. Is he the right guy over the long term? No idea. But I am not betting money on it.
    Yet people fail to go back & look at the stats of the vets they want to bring in here & look at the games since they started.

    These are the ones that are content with a continual rotation of aging veteran QB's in their waning years & knee-jerk if a QB doesn't play "lights out" football in their first 2 years starting.

    Hell, Jackson hasn't even started 20 games yet.
    And why hasn't he played 20 games.
    Should the factors that limited him to 20 games in 3 years be taken into consideration?
    To some degree & dependent on how it is used. Using that logic, some people here would have to claim Rodgers as a bust.

    "If at first you don't succeed, parachuting is not for you"

  2. #102
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,601
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Recent QB performances against the Eagles

    "singersp" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "singersp" wrote:
    "UffDaVikes" wrote:
    "singersp" wrote:
    :
    Yeah, because everyone knows that a young QB's one & only playoff game should be the only thing that is looked at to judge him & his 6 games prior to it should be ignored.

    No, If anything you look at all of the games since he started including the ones he missed because he didn't have the sense to slide while scrambling,which is what ended Culpepper's career, and the ones he didn't play this year because the coaches replaced him with a washed up has-been who probably couldn't start on any team in this league.

    Does he have potential? Probably. Is he the right guy over the long term? No idea. But I am not betting money on it.
    Yet people fail to go back & look at the stats of the vets they want to bring in here & look at the games since they started.

    These are the ones that are content with a continual rotation of aging veteran QB's in their waning years & knee-jerk if a QB doesn't play "lights out" football in their first 2 years starting.

    Hell, Jackson hasn't even started 20 games yet.
    And why hasn't he played 20 games.
    Should the factors that limited him to 20 games in 3 years be taken into consideration?
    To some degree & dependent on how it is used. Using that logic, some people here would have to claim Rodgers as a bust.
    What?!?
    I said that the factors that limited him to 20 games in 3 years should be taken into consideration, not the fact that he only played 20 games.
    I would argue that the factors that kept Rodgers on the bench are a helluva lot different that the factors that kept TJack on the bench, wouldn't you?
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

  3. #103
    ragz's Avatar
    ragz is offline GM
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,114

    Re: Recent QB performances against the Eagles

    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "singersp" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "singersp" wrote:
    "UffDaVikes" wrote:
    [quote author=singersp link=topic=50004.msg899619#msg899619 date=1232454970]
    :
    Yeah, because everyone knows that a young QB's one & only playoff game should be the only thing that is looked at to judge him & his 6 games prior to it should be ignored.

    No, If anything you look at all of the games since he started including the ones he missed because he didn't have the sense to slide while scrambling,which is what ended Culpepper's career, and the ones he didn't play this year because the coaches replaced him with a washed up has-been who probably couldn't start on any team in this league.

    Does he have potential? Probably. Is he the right guy over the long term? No idea. But I am not betting money on it.
    Yet people fail to go back & look at the stats of the vets they want to bring in here & look at the games since they started.

    These are the ones that are content with a continual rotation of aging veteran QB's in their waning years & knee-jerk if a QB doesn't play "lights out" football in their first 2 years starting.

    Hell, Jackson hasn't even started 20 games yet.
    And why hasn't he played 20 games.
    Should the factors that limited him to 20 games in 3 years be taken into consideration?
    To some degree & dependent on how it is used. Using that logic, some people here would have to claim Rodgers as a bust.
    What?!?
    I said that the factors that limited him to 20 games in 3 years should be taken into consideration, not the fact that he only played 20 games.
    I would argue that the factors that kept Rodgers on the bench are a helluva lot different that the factors that kept TJack on the bench, wouldn't you?

    [/quote]
    yah just like childess, and the fans constantly wanting to put him on the bench is probably factoring into his up and down play.
    what qb in the nfl gets called to the bench everytime he has one shaky game.
    last year we win 5 in a row, the whole team gets spanked by washington, and jackson needs to be replaced.
    we go into this season, have 2 shaky games on offense, defense, and special teams, jackson needs to be benched.
    comes back in, plays well for pretty much 4 games, the whole offense including him has a bad game, we need to go get sage rosenfels.
    i wonder how good other young qbs progression would be if they were being pulled in and out of the lineup knee jerk?
    "self improvement's masturbation.
    now self destruction" that's enlightenment

  4. #104
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,601
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Recent QB performances against the Eagles

    "ragz" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "singersp" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "singersp" wrote:
    [quote author=UffDaVikes link=topic=50004.msg899629#msg899629 date=1232457224]
    [quote author=singersp link=topic=50004.msg899619#msg899619 date=1232454970]
    :
    Yeah, because everyone knows that a young QB's one & only playoff game should be the only thing that is looked at to judge him & his 6 games prior to it should be ignored.

    No, If anything you look at all of the games since he started including the ones he missed because he didn't have the sense to slide while scrambling,which is what ended Culpepper's career, and the ones he didn't play this year because the coaches replaced him with a washed up has-been who probably couldn't start on any team in this league.

    Does he have potential? Probably. Is he the right guy over the long term? No idea. But I am not betting money on it.
    Yet people fail to go back & look at the stats of the vets they want to bring in here & look at the games since they started.

    These are the ones that are content with a continual rotation of aging veteran QB's in their waning years & knee-jerk if a QB doesn't play "lights out" football in their first 2 years starting.

    Hell, Jackson hasn't even started 20 games yet.
    And why hasn't he played 20 games.
    Should the factors that limited him to 20 games in 3 years be taken into consideration?
    To some degree & dependent on how it is used. Using that logic, some people here would have to claim Rodgers as a bust.
    What?!?
    I said that the factors that limited him to 20 games in 3 years should be taken into consideration, not the fact that he only played 20 games.
    I would argue that the factors that kept Rodgers on the bench are a helluva lot different that the factors that kept TJack on the bench, wouldn't you?

    [/quote]
    yah just like childess, and the fans constantly wanting to put him on the bench is probably factoring into his up and down play.
    what qb in the nfl gets called to the bench everytime he has one shaky game.
    last year we win 5 in a row, the whole team gets spanked by washington, and jackson needs to be replaced.
    we go into this season, have 2 shaky games on offense, defense, and special teams, jackson needs to be benched.
    comes back in, plays well for pretty much 4 games, the whole offense including him has a bad game, we need to go get sage rosenfels.
    i wonder how good other young qbs progression would be if they were being pulled in and out of the lineup knee jerk?
    [/quote]

    If the fans wanting him on the bench becomes a factor in his play, then he deserves to be on the bench.
    A professional football player doesn't cave because some people on an internet forum don't like him.

    And the factors that led to his benching are his inability to stay healthy as well as his shaky play.
    How many times did he hurt himself diving with the ball.
    During that 5 game winning streak last year, he didn't look great in any of them.
    And in the Washington game, he played far worse than anyone else on the team.
    hell, I think his best game last year was against Denver even though we lost.
    Had he not played as well as he did against Denver, he probably wouldn't have been afforded the opportunity to stink it up the first two games of this year.
    I almost wish he hadn't played well because then we wouldn't be in this situation again this year.

    This is the third offseason in a row in which we are faced with the decision to go with Jackson or find someone else.
    And for the third time in a row, we cannot be confident in saying that Jackson is good or bad.
    In my mind, it isn't up to everyone else to prove that a QB is bad.
    It is up to the QB to prove that he is good enough to start.
    And for the third year in a row Jackson has failed to do that.
    It is time to bring in a legitimate QB.
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

  5. #105
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Recent QB performances against the Eagles

    "singersp" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "singersp" wrote:
    "UffDaVikes" wrote:
    "singersp" wrote:
    :
    Yeah, because everyone knows that a young QB's one & only playoff game should be the only thing that is looked at to judge him & his 6 games prior to it should be ignored.

    No, If anything you look at all of the games since he started including the ones he missed because he didn't have the sense to slide while scrambling,which is what ended Culpepper's career, and the ones he didn't play this year because the coaches replaced him with a washed up has-been who probably couldn't start on any team in this league.

    Does he have potential? Probably. Is he the right guy over the long term? No idea. But I am not betting money on it.
    Yet people fail to go back & look at the stats of the vets they want to bring in here & look at the games since they started.

    These are the ones that are content with a continual rotation of aging veteran QB's in their waning years & knee-jerk if a QB doesn't play "lights out" football in their first 2 years starting.

    Hell, Jackson hasn't even started 20 games yet.
    And why hasn't he played 20 games.
    Should the factors that limited him to 20 games in 3 years be taken into consideration?
    To some degree & dependent on how it is used. Using that logic, some people here would have to claim Rodgers as a bust.
    OK. Now you are really grasping at straws.

    Jackson was drafted and named the starter in his second year and the staff never brought in any starter caliber talent to provide him competition, yet he only started less than 20 games over 2 plus years.

    Rodgers was drafted to sit behind the most prolific passer in NFL history. A man who never missed a game in what, 17 years? Yet he has already started 16 consecutive in his only season starting.

    You are really better than that.

  6. #106
    ragz's Avatar
    ragz is offline GM
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,114

    Re: Recent QB performances against the Eagles

    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "ragz" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "singersp" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    [quote author=singersp link=topic=50004.msg899647#msg899647 date=1232459156]
    [quote author=UffDaVikes link=topic=50004.msg899629#msg899629 date=1232457224]
    [quote author=singersp link=topic=50004.msg899619#msg899619 date=1232454970]
    :
    Yeah, because everyone knows that a young QB's one & only playoff game should be the only thing that is looked at to judge him & his 6 games prior to it should be ignored.

    No, If anything you look at all of the games since he started including the ones he missed because he didn't have the sense to slide while scrambling,which is what ended Culpepper's career, and the ones he didn't play this year because the coaches replaced him with a washed up has-been who probably couldn't start on any team in this league.

    Does he have potential? Probably. Is he the right guy over the long term? No idea. But I am not betting money on it.
    Yet people fail to go back & look at the stats of the vets they want to bring in here & look at the games since they started.

    These are the ones that are content with a continual rotation of aging veteran QB's in their waning years & knee-jerk if a QB doesn't play "lights out" football in their first 2 years starting.

    Hell, Jackson hasn't even started 20 games yet.
    And why hasn't he played 20 games.
    Should the factors that limited him to 20 games in 3 years be taken into consideration?
    To some degree & dependent on how it is used. Using that logic, some people here would have to claim Rodgers as a bust.
    What?!?
    I said that the factors that limited him to 20 games in 3 years should be taken into consideration, not the fact that he only played 20 games.
    I would argue that the factors that kept Rodgers on the bench are a helluva lot different that the factors that kept TJack on the bench, wouldn't you?

    [/quote]
    yah just like childess, and the fans constantly wanting to put him on the bench is probably factoring into his up and down play.
    what qb in the nfl gets called to the bench everytime he has one shaky game.
    last year we win 5 in a row, the whole team gets spanked by washington, and jackson needs to be replaced.
    we go into this season, have 2 shaky games on offense, defense, and special teams, jackson needs to be benched.
    comes back in, plays well for pretty much 4 games, the whole offense including him has a bad game, we need to go get sage rosenfels.
    i wonder how good other young qbs progression would be if they were being pulled in and out of the lineup knee jerk?
    [/quote]

    If the fans wanting him on the bench becomes a factor in his play, then he deserves to be on the bench.
    A professional football player doesn't cave because some people on an internet forum don't like him.

    And the factors that led to his benching are his inability to stay healthy as well as his shaky play.
    How many times did he hurt himself diving with the ball.
    During that 5 game winning streak last year, he didn't look great in any of them.
    And in the Washington game, he played far worse than anyone else on the team.
    hell, I think his best game last year was against Denver even though we lost.
    Had he not played as well as he did against Denver, he probably wouldn't have been afforded the opportunity to stink it up the first two games of this year.
    I almost wish he hadn't played well because then we wouldn't be in this situation again this year.

    This is the third offseason in a row in which we are faced with the decision to go with Jackson or find someone else.
    And for the third time in a row, we cannot be confident in saying that Jackson is good or bad.
    In my mind, it isn't up to everyone else to prove that a QB is bad.
    It is up to the QB to prove that he is good enough to start.
    And for the third year in a row Jackson has failed to do that.
    It is time to bring in a legitimate QB.
    [/quote]
    i'm not saying the fans are effecting his play, i'm saying that benching him after game 2 of his 2nd year as a starter did not help him or answer any questions to whether hes our qb for next season.
    same thing as the previous year.
    its as if he has to be perfect in every game for people to believe he has a chance.
    and if not we are ready to make a move.
    his injuries in year 2 were not that serious, and if he was probably more established would have been out there, but instead we hear the typical childress coach speak that "he's not able to move out there the way we would like him too".
    just like the fans have to live with the good and the bad of a young qb, childress has to live with him decision and let it play out.
    his handling of jackson can not be construde as a positive thing in my opinion.
    whether its saying he hasn't brought in serious competition, or waffling on him early in each season.
    but just like alot of childress's decision making in games, he doesnt seem to know for sure what he wants to do and with jackson being a qb who was suppposed to be a project learning from childress can't be a good thing.
    to be honest, part of the reason i think jackson has a chance is becuz of how hes been "okay" under the circumstances hes faced with here.
    i think as fans, too many of us have given the vikes way more credit than they deserve.
    the cardinals proved anyone had a chance to go if you pieced things together at the right time.
    problem is with us, we never really have.
    even when we've gone on good streaks over the last few years has ever felt like we had it together, or did it feel like we were just better than the teams we beat?


    i personally believe childress is our biggest problem.
    alot believe its our qb and almost any qb will make it better.
    odds are we are probably never gonna really find out with the both of them here becuz the combo is hindering one or the other.
    i dont like being negatitive, okay i probably do, but i can't see us advancing very far unless we just become so good talent wise that childress can't mess it up.
    so if we invest in qb and dont fix some of the other stuff i feel like we'll see the same result.
    "self improvement's masturbation.
    now self destruction" that's enlightenment

Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011

Similar Threads

  1. Best Performances Ever v Lions
    By Webby in forum Gameday Previews
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-21-2009, 09:25 PM
  2. Top 10 gutsiest performances of all-time
    By Tad7 in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06-30-2009, 07:47 PM
  3. Vikings Performances v Lions
    By Webby in forum Gameday Previews
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-16-2007, 10:08 AM
  4. More classic DEVO performances
    By shockzilla in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-19-2007, 07:54 PM
  5. My recent sigs
    By PurplePeopleEaters in forum Help / Suggestion Box
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 08-06-2006, 06:00 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •