Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 35
  1. #11
    cyviking's Avatar
    cyviking is offline Starter Spectromancer: Gamer's Pack Champion
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    233

    Re: Hypothetical QB Question

    "Zeus" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "Zeus" wrote:
    "Garland" wrote:
    If Holcomb does Start this weekend(or Bollinger God forbid) and he Lights it up ala derek anderson Week 2 vs. the Bungles, well at least has a very good game. If Tjack is helathy the next week does he get his spot back? What is chilly's policy on loosing your spot to an injury, I don't remeber hearing what his take on it was.
    Hopefully, or he will lose his team, his stance is that injury does not cost starters their jobs.
    If Holcomb performs well against KC and GB, TJack wouldn't be losing his job because of injury...
    That applies more to when a player is doing well (or at least not bad) and then gets injured.
    As much as I like TJack, he was playing badly when he was injured.
    So what?

    Is Kelly Holcomb going to be the Vikings starter in 2009?
    Because the plan is that Tarvaris will be.
    We all knew all along that there were going to be BRUTAL games for TJack this season.
    He's 1-1 as the starter.

    The reason Holcomb is playing is because Tarvaris is hurt.
    If he's not hurt, he's the starter.
    Holcomb hasn't earned the starter's job - it was given to him.
    Holcomb playing well as the starter (if it happens) is irrelevant.

    =Z=

    mostly true, if KH will be the starter this week its due to injury of TJ as you stated but its also due to the fact that BB sucks in all way possible and KH has merited the start over him.
    How sad is it that BB was "competing" to for the starting QB job this summer...
    "Lurker" turned Poster
    2005-06 The Lost Vikings

  2. #12
    jargomcfargo's Avatar
    jargomcfargo is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    4,776

    Re: Hypothetical QB Question

    Scenario 1

    Holcumb plays well,and he will, Tarvaris gets time to heal up completely.Sits until a game where Holcumb struggles. Tarvaris comes off the bench.

    Scenario 2

    Holcumb plays well, but gets yanked when Tarvaris is ready to go.

    Scenario 3

    Holcumb stinks. Tarvaris returns as soon as possible.

    Scenario 4

    Holcumb stinks. Bollinger comes in. Wilf goes ballistic. PP.O server has meltdown.

    I like scenario 1 best.
    “What takes a quarterback to the next level is not arm strength or mobility or any of that stuff. It’s the ability to play on critical downs. Manage third downs, or red zones or four-minute or two-minute situations"
    Dilfer

  3. #13
    nephilimstorm's Avatar
    nephilimstorm is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    2,184

    Re: Hypothetical QB Question

    I like scenario 1 myself too

  4. #14
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,909

    Re: Hypothetical QB Question

    "Zeus" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "Zeus" wrote:
    "Garland" wrote:
    If Holcomb does Start this weekend(or Bollinger God forbid) and he Lights it up ala derek anderson Week 2 vs. the Bungles, well at least has a very good game. If Tjack is helathy the next week does he get his spot back? What is chilly's policy on loosing your spot to an injury, I don't remeber hearing what his take on it was.
    Hopefully, or he will lose his team, his stance is that injury does not cost starters their jobs.
    If Holcomb performs well against KC and GB, TJack wouldn't be losing his job because of injury...
    That applies more to when a player is doing well (or at least not bad) and then gets injured.
    As much as I like TJack, he was playing badly when he was injured.
    So what?

    Is Kelly Holcomb going to be the Vikings starter in 2009?
    Because the plan is that Tarvaris will be.
    We all knew all along that there were going to be BRUTAL games for TJack this season.
    He's 1-1 as the starter.

    The reason Holcomb is playing is because Tarvaris is hurt.
    If he's not hurt, he's the starter.
    Holcomb hasn't earned the starter's job - it was given to him.
    Holcomb playing well as the starter (if it happens) is irrelevant.

    =Z=
    Forget it my friend.
    I've been preaching that tune all week (longer really) but no one wants to listen.
    They only care about the here and now.

    Instant gratification my friend.
    Instant gratification.
    :'(
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  5. #15
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,909

    Re: Hypothetical QB Question

    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "Zeus" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "Zeus" wrote:
    "Garland" wrote:
    If Holcomb does Start this weekend(or Bollinger God forbid) and he Lights it up ala derek anderson Week 2 vs. the Bungles, well at least has a very good game. If Tjack is helathy the next week does he get his spot back? What is chilly's policy on loosing your spot to an injury, I don't remeber hearing what his take on it was.
    Hopefully, or he will lose his team, his stance is that injury does not cost starters their jobs.
    If Holcomb performs well against KC and GB, TJack wouldn't be losing his job because of injury...
    That applies more to when a player is doing well (or at least not bad) and then gets injured.
    As much as I like TJack, he was playing badly when he was injured.
    So what?

    Is Kelly Holcomb going to be the Vikings starter in 2009?
    Because the plan is that Tarvaris will be.
    We all knew all along that there were going to be BRUTAL games for TJack this season.
    He's 1-1 as the starter.

    The reason Holcomb is playing is because Tarvaris is hurt.
    If he's not hurt, he's the starter.
    Holcomb hasn't earned the starter's job - it was given to him.
    Holcomb playing well as the starter (if it happens) is irrelevant.

    =Z=
    While most of expect TJ to be the starter in 2009, he has not been appointed as such yet.
    In fact, I believe that Childress makes it a point to encourage competition during training camp.
    And for the record, even if TJack is benched in favor of Holcomb for the remainder of the year, I would be surprised if TJack did not re-earn the spot in camp.

    I knew that there would be some brutal games for TJack.
    It is part of learning.
    And for that reason, I don't think Childress would yank him after only one bad game.
    But Childress didn't yank him.
    He got injured, and thus gave Holcomb the opportunity to start.
    If he goes out and pulls in two decisive victories against KC and GB (and it can be attributed to O, not just D), then I think Childress would be hard pressed to keep him starting instead of TJack.


    Yes, we are building a team that will endure, not just flash for a year.
    But at the same time Childress has a responsibility to Wilf to win games.
    And in a year when ticket sales are down, and there are still six home game with available tickets, I think Wilf would rather see some wins and excitement over the continued experience gaining of TJack.

    Just MHO.
    I still a TJack fan, but I am a Viking's fan first.
    If Holcomb plays well, he will get my vote for the starter job.
    It isn't a knock against TJ, just a realization that he could possibly still learn from Holcomb's veteran presence while he is our #2.


    Maybe this will be moot.
    Maybe Holcomb will play like pooh against KC (although our D will still eek out a win) and TJack will be back in to light up the crowd against GB... ;D
    He also has a responsibility to Wilf for the betterment of this team for both the near and the far.
    Wouldn't we be right back in the same boat (scuse the pun) next year with TJ under center, still raw and inexperienced?

    Wouldn't ticket sales still slip?

    At some point the kid (or another kid) will have to play, struggle doing it, for the team to have a long term solution at QB or are we saying that we want to always have a rent a QB running this team?
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  6. #16
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,909

    Re: Hypothetical QB Question

    "jargomcfargo" wrote:
    Scenario 1

    Holcumb plays well,and he will, Tarvaris gets time to heal up completely.Sits until a game where Holcumb struggles. Tarvaris comes off the bench.

    Scenario 2

    Holcumb plays well, but gets yanked when Tarvaris is ready to go.

    Scenario 3

    Holcumb stinks. Tarvaris returns as soon as possible.

    Scenario 4

    Holcumb stinks. Bollinger comes in. Wilf goes ballistic. PP.O server has meltdown.

    I like scenario 1 best.
    I like this one best.

    They fix the fricken OL so that they can block someone.


    Our QB's have time to stand in the pocket while our WR's and TE's (who by the way would then be able to run a route vice blocking all the time) work the seams and get open.


    Our QB's start making completions, our Offense starts to click and all the scheme haters crawl back into thier holes.
    ;D
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  7. #17
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,262

    Re: Hypothetical QB Question

    Now don't get your hopes up to high to possibly see them crushed.

    Let's wait until we win a game with him first.

    No expectations, no dissapointments.

    Ask any Bills fan, there is a reason Holcomb's nickname in Buffalo was Captain Checkdown.

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

  8. #18
    RK.'s Avatar
    RK.
    RK. is offline Ring of Fame Rally Cross II Champion
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    4,457

    Re: Hypothetical QB Question

    More likely is this scenario

    Holcumb plays ok and manages to squeak out a victory but nothing to write home about.
    TJ is at about 85%-90% come the GB game.
    Which ever one Childress decides to play half of the fans will not be happy about it.
    And if gawd forbid we lose to GB we will have endless threads about it till the end of the season calling for the coaches head on a platter.
    ;D

    My hope is that Holcumb has a great day against KC and he and TJ compete for a few weeks for the starting job.
    Given our QB roster I think the coach needs to have to option of pulling a QB if things are not going well.
    Until TJ is really able to step up and lead the team this might be our best option.
    I realize that you can't do it for very long but for a few games I think it might make sense depending on how Holcumb does.


    In the end TJ is our long term QB.
    Its just a matter of when will he be ready.

    WWBGD

  9. #19
    PurpleTide's Avatar
    PurpleTide is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,210

    Re: Hypothetical QB Question

    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "jargomcfargo" wrote:
    Scenario 1

    Holcumb plays well,and he will, Tarvaris gets time to heal up completely.Sits until a game where Holcumb struggles. Tarvaris comes off the bench.

    Scenario 2

    Holcumb plays well, but gets yanked when Tarvaris is ready to go.

    Scenario 3





















    Holcumb stinks. Tarvaris returns as soon as possible.

    Scenario 4

    Holcumb stinks. Bollinger comes in. Wilf goes ballistic. PP.O server has meltdown.

    I like scenario 1 best.
    I like this one best.

    They fix the fricken OL so that they can block someone.


    Our QB's have time to stand in the pocket while our WR's and TE's (who by the way would then be able to run a route vice blocking all the time) work the seams and get open.


    Our QB's start making completions, our Offense starts to click and all the scheme haters crawl back into thier holes.

    ;D

    Set em Straight Marrdro

  10. #20
    Ranger's Avatar
    Ranger is offline Coach
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,080

    Re: Hypothetical QB Question

    Kelly is a really good backup to have, imo, but...he's a backup for a reason.
    He's not only captain checkdown, but he's pretty fragile as well.
    Even if he has a four hundred yarder in KC, he wont be able to last too many games before getting broken.

    TJ is our guy.
    That's what the coaching decided, that's who it needs to be.
    Keep him in as much as you can, and just expect that this season will be one of maturation.
    AP getting some reps, young receivers learning the game...it's not a bad season, even with a repeat of last year's record.

    My only concern is that TJ wouldn't have been MY guy.
    He's too...meh...for me.
    Doesn't have a large college resume in his back pocket and seems to be a serious gamble at potential.


    Shaub is lookin' mighty nice right about now.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Hypothetical question
    By PurplePride80 in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 10-21-2007, 08:29 AM
  2. Hypothetical Question
    By Purplexing in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 03-24-2007, 11:48 AM
  3. hypothetical question! (its a good one)
    By mr.woo in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 03-21-2007, 11:27 PM
  4. Hypothetical question
    By Garland Greene in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-28-2007, 07:35 PM
  5. Hypothetical
    By Redmption in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 05-14-2006, 08:47 PM

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
  •