Thread: Do the vikings have the worst Q/B situation in the NFC North?

I like the QBs in this order:

Cutler
Rodgers
Jackson
Culpepper

I suppose if Detroit drafts Stafford I would like him over Jackson for the long-term.

Hell I would say that TJoke may be the 5th best QB in the NFC North right now. And 5th may be giving him eo much.
TJoke better than Rodgers and Cutler? Man I am glad I don't use drugs, otherwise I may actually belive that.

If you look at the total QB situation for all teams in the divison i think the vikings are in the best position. I think the divisions qb situations rank as follows

1. Vikings: Jackson-Rosenfels-Booty
2. Lions: Culpepper-Stafford*-Stanton
3. Bears: Cutler-Hanie-Basenez
4. Packers: Rodgers-Flynn-Brohm
*projected

the vikings are the only team that has anything resembling capable backups. It is pretty likely that your back up will see time during the season and the loser of the T-Jack/Sage position battle will be the most capable back up in the division. what happens if your starting QB is injured during the first game like tom brady was do you really want caleb hanie or matt flynn starting games for an extended period. no way.

The other teams, (assuming, of course, the Lions draft Stafford), have QB's you can build a team around.
The Vikes have built a pretty good team around a QB as well but it will remain our Achilles hill.

"jkjuggalo" wrote:

"tclawmen" wrote:

According to most "experts" a NFL team will only go as far as their Q/B play will take them. With the trade of Cutler to Chicago, are the Vikings now the worst team in the NFC North in respect to the Q/B position? Green Bay has Rodgers (young & talented), Detroit has Orlovsky (young & proving himself) has shown his ability to get the ball to Johnson and now Chicago has Cutler (young with Pro Bowl talent). IMO we are now a distant 4th in the division at Q/B and will be for quite some time unless,
to quote Al Michaels "Do you believe in miracles" AKA Jackson (young and continued pet project) & Rosenfels (past 30 & Unkown at best).

We are in a three-way tie at this point.
Cutler=Rodgers=TJack
They all have negative and positive aspects to their game, but they are all improving with time.

They are all better than Culpepper.

ahhh.. homerism at its finest.
Cutler>Rogers>TJack.
And don't call me a TJ hater for that either, its not true.. I just say how it is, and right now, ask any fan of football outside of the NFC north who the best qbs are, and i bet 9 times out of 10 they'll say the same thing.

"Tad7" wrote:

T-Jack = Best QB in the NFC North

and Orlovsky went to Houston

your delirious... heres a question to ask yourself, TJ/SR/JDB or Culpepp, which one would perform better as the vikings quarterback? the answer is culpepper. culpepper would manage the offense alot better than tjack. and that is just being honest.

at the spot were at now, in such a weak division, we have the worse qb's.

We'll probably end up with the worst starter, but like lukeshkin said, we'll probably have the best backup.

Rodgers is terrible.

"gregair13" wrote:

Rodgers is terrible.

You've been drinking and Surfing again.

Wow, you guys are smokin' like you're going to the combine.

We're third our of four.
Green Bay and Chicago have quarterbacks that are much, much better than what we have on our roster.
However, our defense and running game are light years beyond what either the Packers or Bears can muster.