Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 50 of 50
  1. #41
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,601
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Stand up if you’re the best team in the NFC North (not so fast, Bears and Li

    "i_bleed_purple" wrote:
    I like the bench route.
    Worked pretty well with Romo.
    Had he gone out there as a rookie, and stunk it up, he may not have lasted long enough to become a solid player.
    Also worked pretty well for Steve young too.

    If we didn't have a coach who was convinced that TJ would work out, he would in all likelyhood not be starting this season, and therefore never actually have a chance to shine.
    You need to let your qb learn the system inside and out, so when it comes time to take over, he doesn't miss a beat (like Young)
    I think had we sat TJ and decided maybe this year give him a shot at starting, a) he would be more confident and might surprise some people
    b) there wouldn't be very many T-Jack haters out there.
    Obviously we didn' have a chance to use this strategy.
    +1

    I really wanted to add to this, but I can't.
    You just summed up my entire argument in one paragraph better than I think I could in a whole page. Kudos.
    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=

  2. #42
    marstc09's Avatar
    marstc09 is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    23,179

    Re: Stand up if you’re the best team in the NFC North (not so fast, Bears and Li

    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "ejmat" wrote:
    I want to know how he determined the Packers had a solid off season.
    Favre retired.
    I'm not sure what FAs they brought in.
    I think they had a decent draft but that's always a question mark.
    I'd like to find out how he made that determination.
    I think Green Bay had a good offseason because they didn't bring in a lot of new people.
    Outside losing Fav-re, they are pretty much the same team that went 13-3 last season.
    And while Rodgers is no Fav-re, they had the advantage of grooming him for several years before thrusting him in the spotlight.

    Sometimes your offseason is measured not by how many new players you bring in, but by how many you didn't.
    Same team? Yes or No? I don't no man. Favre was a major piece in that puzzle. Things could easily just fall apart. Do I believe they will? Probably not but this team will not run the same.

  3. #43
    marstc09's Avatar
    marstc09 is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    23,179

    Re: Stand up if you’re the best team in the NFC North (not so fast, Bears and Li

    "V" wrote:
    "ejmat" wrote:
    I want to know how he determined the Packers had a solid off season.
    Favre retired.
    I'm not sure what FAs they brought in.
    I think they had a decent draft but that's always a question mark.
    I'd like to find out how he made that determination.
    They only lost one key guy, that being Favre. Huge loss, but with every other starter from a 13-3 team returning that equates to a good FA (retaining good young players).

    Also, they had a great draft. Jordy Nelson, Brian Brohm, Patrick Lee, and Jermichael Finley.
    What is solid about retaining players that are under contract?

  4. #44
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,266

    Re: Stand up if you’re the best team in the NFC North (not so fast, Bears and Li

    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "i_bleed_purple" wrote:
    I like the bench route.
    Worked pretty well with Romo.

    Had he gone out there as a rookie, and stunk it up, he may not have lasted long enough to become a solid player.
    Also worked pretty well for Steve young too.

    If we didn't have a coach who was convinced that TJ would work out, he would in all likelyhood not be starting this season, and therefore never actually have a chance to shine.
    You need to let your qb learn the system inside and out, so when it comes time to take over, he doesn't miss a beat (like Young)
    I think had we sat TJ and decided maybe this year give him a shot at starting, a) he would be more confident and might surprise some people
    b) there wouldn't be very many T-Jack haters out there.
    Obviously we didn' have a chance to use this strategy.
    +1

    I really wanted to add to this, but I can't.
    You just summed up my entire argument in one paragraph better than I think I could in a whole page. Kudos.
    He will still come out this year & be more confident & he will still surprise some people. Nothing has changed there except that he will have already have a years experience under his belt & will have already made his mistakes & hopefully learned from them.

    Had he held a clipboard last year, he would be making those mistakes this year instead of last. Maybe not as many, but they would be made.

    Learning the system inside & out means you've got to get in there & play. There is only so much you can learn by holding a clipboard.

    Bottom line is if Childress & the QB coach didn't feel he was ready to play, they would not have started him. It's been said throught his career that T-Jack studies hard & is eager to absorb all he can. I don't think he studied any less by starting than he would have if he simply held a clipboard. In fact I would bet he learned more. I don't think for a minute he would risk throwing T-Jack in there too early simply because BJ didn't pan out. If he wasn't ready, thy would have brought another vet in for last year. As it stood, T-Jack beat everone else out for the starting role.

    Sure Romo & Young sat longer, but what did that really do for them? How can you prove they wouldn't have been equally good had they started a year earlier. Does anyone really think that if the coaches felt Young was ready after 1 year of riding the pine, they would have benched Montana in favor of Young?

    In Romos case, perhaps they felt Romo was not ready or that Bloedsoe could come in that year & take them into the playoffs with the talent they had where as Romo might not of.

    It's real easy to pick two really good QB's who happened to have sat a few years to make your case, but what about the shitload of other QB's who also sat two years & still played mediocre or like shit when they started? My guess is the mediocre QB's who have sat two years or more out number the good ones who have sat by more than 10 to 1.

    Every QB is different & the amount of raw talent they have & how quickly the can learn the system at a pro level, the quicker they will be ready to start.

    People can say all they want about a QB taking more time to develop because they happen to have come from a lower division school, but IMO, that's bullshit. Last time I checked, they still play the same game of football, still have the same rules & still call the same plays as they do in the higher division schools. Not everyone gets a scholarship & not everyone can afford a spendy school, but that's not to say they lack talent.

    In fact I would think it would be easier for a QB to excell in a higher division school where he has damn good lineman, damn good RB's to hand off to & damn good WR's to throw to.

    If your excelling as a QB in a lower division school with less talented linemen, RB's & WR's, there is a lot to be said about that.

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

  5. #45
    marstc09's Avatar
    marstc09 is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    23,179

    Re: Stand up if you’re the best team in the NFC North (not so fast, Bears and Li

    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "i_bleed_purple" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "i_bleed_purple" wrote:
    If I Had to draw my own comparison, it would go like this

    QB- Tie
    RB- Vikings
    FB- Packers
    TE- Packers
    LT- Packers
    LG- Vikings
    C - Vikings
    RG- Vikings
    RT- Packers
    WR1- Packers
    WR2- Packers

    Offense: Packers 6-4-1

    LDE- Packers
    RDE- Vikings
    DT1- Vikings
    DT2- Vikings
    CB1- VIkings
    CB2- Packers
    SLB- Packers
    (can't remember which one Hawk plays, but i'm matching up Hawk and Leber)
    MLB- Vikigns
    WLB- Vikings
    FS
    -
    Vikigns
    SS -
    Vikings

    Defense:
    Vikings 8-3

    P - Vikings
    K - Vikings

    Special Teams: Vikings 2-0

    Coaches

    DC
    -Vikings
    OC
    - Packers
    HC - Packers
    (not a chilly hater, but you need a good coach to make a team that young make a serious run at the superbowl like they did last year)

    Coaches Packers 2-1

    Overall
    VIkings 15-11-1
    Very good breakdown, but to be honest I would give the edge to the Packers in QB, as well as Punting.
    That would make it Vikings 14-13, which sounds about right to me.
    Two very closely matched teams.
    to be honest, i wanted to put Rogers ahead of TJ, but 2 things made me stop.
    a) I would certainly get called on being a TJack hater, as that seems to be the trend here, and b) Although Rogers certainly has upside, as he was once considered the top prospect in that years draft, he is rather unproven.
    At least with TJ, we know what he is capable of, and how he plays, Rogers has played a total of 2 quarters of NFL football.
    For all we know he could pull a Ryan Leaf and come out strong for 2 games, then not throw another TD ever again. (thats what I'm hoping for)
    As of now, TJ has proven he can play (at times), but Rogers upside balances that out, which is why I call for a tie.
    The whole "Rodgers is unproven" thing is mostly just rhetoric that we like to throw around here as Vikings fans.
    I look at it this way.
    If I had to bet $1000 on who was going to end the season with better performance stats, then I would choose Rodgers over TJack any day.
    Does that make me a TJack hater?
    No - I think TJack will do good enough for the Vikings to take the NFC North.
    But on individual performance, I think Rodgers will do better.
    Hmmmmmm I would almost be tempted to take that bet.
    On second thought maybe I will just bookmark it.

  6. #46
    NordicNed is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    9,512

    Re: Stand up if you’re the best team in the NFC North (not so fast, Bears and Li


    [/quote]

    Hmmmmmm I would almost be tempted to take that bet.
    On second thought maybe I will just bookmark it.

    [/quote]


    Hmmmmmmmmmmm
    Think I'll take me some of that action also......
    I think Rogers is going to be a lucky man alone, if he's still standing after that opening night game....


    I LOVE THE SMELL OF VICTORY IN THE MORNING AIR.

  7. #47
    marstc09's Avatar
    marstc09 is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    23,179

    Re: Stand up if you’re the best team in the NFC North (not so fast, Bears and Li

    "gagarr" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "i_bleed_purple" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "i_bleed_purple" wrote:
    If I Had to draw my own comparison, it would go like this

    QB- Tie
    RB- Vikings
    FB- Packers
    TE- Packers
    LT- Packers
    LG- Vikings
    C - Vikings
    RG- Vikings
    RT- Packers
    WR1- Packers
    WR2- Packers

    Offense: Packers 6-4-1

    LDE- Packers
    RDE- Vikings
    DT1- Vikings
    DT2- Vikings
    CB1- VIkings
    CB2- Packers
    SLB- Packers
    (can't remember which one Hawk plays, but i'm matching up Hawk and Leber)
    MLB- Vikigns
    WLB- Vikings
    FS
    -
    Vikigns
    SS -
    Vikings

    Defense:
    Vikings 8-3

    P - Vikings
    K - Vikings

    Special Teams: Vikings 2-0

    Coaches

    DC
    -Vikings
    OC
    - Packers
    HC - Packers
    (not a chilly hater, but you need a good coach to make a team that young make a serious run at the superbowl like they did last year)

    Coaches Packers 2-1

    Overall
    VIkings 15-11-1
    Very good breakdown, but to be honest I would give the edge to the Packers in QB, as well as Punting.
    That would make it Vikings 14-13, which sounds about right to me.
    Two very closely matched teams.
    to be honest, i wanted to put Rogers ahead of TJ, but 2 things made me stop.
    a) I would certainly get called on being a TJack hater, as that seems to be the trend here, and b) Although Rogers certainly has upside, as he was once considered the top prospect in that years draft, he is rather unproven.
    At least with TJ, we know what he is capable of, and how he plays, Rogers has played a total of 2 quarters of NFL football.
    For all we know he could pull a Ryan Leaf and come out strong for 2 games, then not throw another TD ever again. (thats what I'm hoping for)
    As of now, TJ has proven he can play (at times), but Rogers upside balances that out, which is why I call for a tie.
    The whole "Rodgers is unproven" thing is mostly just rhetoric that we like to throw around here as Vikings fans.
    I look at it this way.
    If I had to bet $1000 on who was going to end the season with better performance stats, then I would choose Rodgers over TJack any day.
    Does that make me a TJack hater?
    No - I think TJack will do good enough for the Vikings to take the NFC North.
    But on individual performance, I think Rodgers will do better.
    If "Rodgers is unproven" is rhetoric then tell us what you are basing your faith in Rodger being better than TJ?
    I'm not a TJ fan, but as I see it his experience as a starter will only make him better.
    If you just look at the 2nd half of the Dallas game, you might just as well look only at Bollingers 2nd half of the SD game and say Bollinger is better than TJ.

    Except for Rodgers having one more year sitting on the bench than TJ, Rodger's got nothing else to recommend that he's better.
    I see no reason to say Rodgers has the edge over TJ, other than lack of faith in TJ getting better.


    I also hate everyone giving GB's WR's such great props.
    They had a HOF QB throwing to them and virtually no one else!
    I know of no former GB WR that has had equal or greater success after leaving GB in Farve's era.
    I think Driver is in for a rude awaking as to how good he is without Farve.
    or any RB! I think Driver also knows it is going to be rough judging by how he acts and his dislike for Rodgers.

  8. #48
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,909

    Re: Stand up if you’re the best team in the NFC North (not so fast, Bears and Li

    "singersp" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "i_bleed_purple" wrote:
    I like the bench route.
    Worked pretty well with Romo.

    Had he gone out there as a rookie, and stunk it up, he may not have lasted long enough to become a solid player.
    Also worked pretty well for Steve young too.

    If we didn't have a coach who was convinced that TJ would work out, he would in all likelyhood not be starting this season, and therefore never actually have a chance to shine.
    You need to let your qb learn the system inside and out, so when it comes time to take over, he doesn't miss a beat (like Young)
    I think had we sat TJ and decided maybe this year give him a shot at starting, a) he would be more confident and might surprise some people
    b) there wouldn't be very many T-Jack haters out there.
    Obviously we didn' have a chance to use this strategy.
    +1

    I really wanted to add to this, but I can't.
    You just summed up my entire argument in one paragraph better than I think I could in a whole page. Kudos.
    He will still come out this year & be more confident & he will still surprise some people. Nothing has changed there except that he will have already have a years experience under his belt & will have already made his mistakes & hopefully learned from them.

    Had he held a clipboard last year, he would be making those mistakes this year instead of last. Maybe not as many, but they would be made.

    Learning the system inside & out means you've got to get in there & play. There is only so much you can learn by holding a clipboard.

    Bottom line is if Childress & the QB coach didn't feel he was ready to play, they would not have started him. It's been said throught his career that T-Jack studies hard & is eager to absorb all he can. I don't think he studied any less by starting than he would have if he simply held a clipboard. In fact I would bet he learned more. I don't think for a minute he would risk throwing T-Jack in there too early simply because BJ didn't pan out. If he wasn't ready, thy would have brought another vet in for last year. As it stood, T-Jack beat everone else out for the starting role.

    Sure Romo & Young sat longer, but what did that really do for them? How can you prove they wouldn't have been equally good had they started a year earlier. Does anyone really think that if the coaches felt Young was ready after 1 year of riding the pine, they would have benched Montana in favor of Young?

    In Romos case, perhaps they felt Romo was not ready or that Bloedsoe could come in that year & take them into the playoffs with the talent they had where as Romo might not of.

    It's real easy to pick two really good QB's who happened to have sat a few years to make your case, but what about the shitload of other QB's who also sat two years & still played mediocre or like pooh when they started? My guess is the mediocre QB's who have sat two years or more out number the good ones who have sat by more than 10 to 1.

    Every QB is different & the amount of raw talent they have & how quickly the can learn the system at a pro level, the quicker they will be ready to start.

    People can say all they want about a QB taking more time to develop because they happen to have come from a lower division school, but IMO, that's kaka del rio. Last time I checked, they still play the same game of football, still have the same rules & still call the same plays as they do in the higher division schools. Not everyone gets a scholarship & not everyone can afford a spendy school, but that's not to say they lack talent.

    In fact I would think it would be easier for a QB to excell in a higher division school where he has gol 'darnit good lineman, gol 'darnit good RB's to hand off to & gol 'darnit good WR's to throw to.

    If your excelling as a QB in a lower division school with less talented linemen, RB's & WR's, there is a lot to be said about that.
    Again, I used to like the bench route as well, but gotta go with Singer on this one (excellent post by the way).

    Just a quick look at the two players stats from sitting on the bench show that everything isn't peaches and cream with that process either..........

    Romo
    http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/player...?playerId=5209

    Young
    http://www.databasefootball.com/play...kid=YOUNGSTE02

    By the way, not sure if Young is a good candidate as he actually played 5 games his first year in the league and 14 in his second and posted about the same (or worse) kindof stats that TJ did (8 TD/13 INT's).
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  9. #49
    V-Unit's Avatar
    V-Unit is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,317

    Re: Stand up if you’re the best team in the NFC North (not so fast, Bears and Li

    "marstc09" wrote:
    "V" wrote:
    "ejmat" wrote:
    I want to know how he determined the Packers had a solid off season.
    Favre retired.
    I'm not sure what FAs they brought in.
    I think they had a decent draft but that's always a question mark.
    I'd like to find out how he made that determination.
    They only lost one key guy, that being Favre. Huge loss, but with every other starter from a 13-3 team returning that equates to a good FA (retaining good young players).

    Also, they had a great draft. Jordy Nelson, Brian Brohm, Patrick Lee, and Jermichael Finley.
    What is solid about retaining players that are under contract?
    Not all were under contract. They made sure to resign key players. When you are 13-3, that is all you need to do.
    "I hate when threads are destroyed by facts and logic."
    - Prophet


    Thanks Josdin!

  10. #50
    ejmat is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    8,849

    Re: Stand up if you’re the best team in the NFC North (not so fast, Bears and Li

    "marstc09" wrote:
    "V" wrote:
    "ejmat" wrote:
    I want to know how he determined the Packers had a solid off season.
    Favre retired.
    I'm not sure what FAs they brought in.
    I think they had a decent draft but that's always a question mark.
    I'd like to find out how he made that determination.
    They only lost one key guy, that being Favre. Huge loss, but with every other starter from a 13-3 team returning that equates to a good FA (retaining good young players).

    Also, they had a great draft. Jordy Nelson, Brian Brohm, Patrick Lee, and Jermichael Finley.
    What is solid about retaining players that are under contract?
    That is really the only facet of them having a solid offseason I can agree with.
    Losing an HOF QB and a good DL isn't very solid to me.
    Strong drafts does not make for a solid offseason.
    It makes for a good draft that can turn into something good.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Similar Threads

  1. Lions off to fast start
    By Purple Floyd in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 08-16-2011, 07:33 PM
  2. Bears | Fast facts: Thomas Jones
    By Prophet in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-29-2006, 02:05 PM
  3. NFC North manageable for Lions
    By singersp in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 07-19-2006, 11:18 AM
  4. Bears are the best team in the North
    By Prophet in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 09-23-2005, 12:00 AM
  5. Jauron to Lions...NFC North getting stronger?
    By sdvikefan in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-26-2004, 10:39 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
  •