Page 11 of 18 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 180
  1. #101
    cajunvike's Avatar
    cajunvike is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    32,063

    Re: Jackson asserts himself with Vikings - Vikings Leaving Fate in Jackson’s Han

    "C" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    I didn't forget those games in which he didn't start.
    I know that TJack when 8-4, while the other QBs went 0-4.
    I have used the stat myself at times.
    But I have actually stopped using it as a defense of TJack because I broke it down an analyzed it and realized that the W-L record is really not a good indication of a QB's performance.
    Case in point, we lost the Denver game despite great play by TJack.
    We won the second Chicago game despite poor play by Tjack.

    In fact, if you look at the teams we beat when TJack started versus the ones we lost with him starting, you start to see some concerning trends.
    Week Opponent Result Opponent's W/L Starting QB
    1 ATL W 4-12 TJack
    2 DET L 7-9 TJack
    3 KC L 4-12 Holcomb
    4 GB L 13-3 Holcomb
    6 CHI W 7-9 TJack
    7 DAL L 13-3 TJack
    8 PHI L 8-8 Holcomb
    9 SD W 11-5 TJack
    10 GB L 13-3 Bollinger
    11 OAK W 4-12 TJack
    12 NYG W 10-6 TJack
    13 DET W 7-9 TJack
    14 SF W 5-11 TJack
    15 CHI W 7-9 TJack
    16 WAS L 10-6 TJack
    17 DEN L 7-9 TJack

    Out of the 8 games TJack started an won, we played teams with a collective W/L record of 55-73 (43%).
    In fact, TJack only started against and beat two teams with winning records in 2007.
    One of those games, the SD one, was tied until very late in the third, well after TJack was taken out of the game due to injury.

    Out of the 4 games TJack started and lost, we played teams with a collective W/L record of 36-28 (56%).
    Out of the four games TJack did NOT start, we played teams with a collective W/L of 38-26 (61%).


    The 0-4 record of Holcomb and Bollinger is a poor comparison because the situations they played in was not comparable to the situation that TJack played in.
    While I do actually believe that TJack was the better of the three QBs, we can't use their records to support that belief.
    So... the losses... 56% or 61%, that doesn't really scream a whole lot of worth. I mean, that's exactly like having a 3% margin of error in a survey. 3-4% is honestly doesn't hold much water in this argument.

    T-Jack played much better than any other QB on our roster last season... and despite people saying he doesn't react well under pressure, I'm not so sure about that. I saw him make some great last second plays while under immense pressure, whether it be with his feet or arm. I'd say the OL is more to blame for the overall poor performance of our QBs... thanks to Marrdro 101.
    Did you guys get free spreadsheet with the course materials for that class?
    BANNED OR DEAD...I'LL TAKE EITHER ONE

  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: Jackson asserts himself with Vikings - Vikings Leaving Fate in Jackson’s Han

    "C" wrote:
    So... the losses... 56% or 61%, that doesn't really scream a whole lot of worth. I mean, that's exactly like having a 3% margin of error in a survey. 3-4% is honestly doesn't hold much water in this argument.

    T-Jack played much better than any other QB on our roster last season... and despite people saying he doesn't react well under pressure, I'm not so sure about that. I saw him make some great last second plays while under immense pressure, whether it be with his feet or arm. I'd say the OL is more to blame for the overall poor performance of our QBs... thanks to Marrdro 101.
    OK, so the losses were to teams that had similar collective winning percentages.
    That doesn't change the fact that TJacks wins were against teams that were not collectively comparable to the teams faced by the other QBs.
    So saying that TJack is better because he went 8-4 vs 0-4 is not supported by the data.
    The records are not good indactors of whether TJack was better or not.

    As far as TJack playing much better than any other QB - yes he did.
    He also played worse than any other QB on our team.
    That is the biggest problem I have with TJack - the inconsistency.
    He can go from a horrible game (Washington) to a great game (Denver) in a span of a week.
    I would rather have a QB who is good consistently than a QB who is great some days and bad others.

    This is not meant to imply that TJack will not become a consistent QB.
    Rather I am saying that his consistency is my biggest concern at this point.
    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
    cajunvike's Avatar
    cajunvike is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    32,063

    Re: Jackson asserts himself with Vikings - Vikings Leaving Fate in Jackson’s Han

    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "C" wrote:
    So... the losses... 56% or 61%, that doesn't really scream a whole lot of worth. I mean, that's exactly like having a 3% margin of error in a survey. 3-4% is honestly doesn't hold much water in this argument.

    T-Jack played much better than any other QB on our roster last season... and despite people saying he doesn't react well under pressure, I'm not so sure about that. I saw him make some great last second plays while under immense pressure, whether it be with his feet or arm. I'd say the OL is more to blame for the overall poor performance of our QBs... thanks to Marrdro 101.
    OK, so the losses were to teams that had similar collective winning percentages.
    That doesn't change the fact that TJacks wins were against teams that were not collectively comparable to the teams faced by the other QBs.
    So saying that TJack is better because he went 8-4 vs 0-4 is not supported by the data.
    The records are not good indactors of whether TJack was better or not.

    As far as TJack playing much better than any other QB - yes he did.
    He also played worse than any other QB on our team.
    That is the biggest problem I have with TJack - the inconsistency.
    He can go from a horrible game (Washington) to a great game (Denver) in a span of a week.
    I would rather have a QB who is good consistently than a QB who is great some days and bad others.

    This is not meant to imply that TJack will not become a consistent QB.
    Rather I am saying that his consistency is my biggest concern at this point.
    That is the concern of MANY other teams as well...and could be of even more if someone like Tom Brady or Peyton Manning goes down next year.
    Fact is, TJack is the best option RIGHT NOW for the Vikings...and will continue to be until he shows that he can't handle it.
    No need to do anything but wait it out and hope that it works out.
    If it does, then it's all good.
    If it doesn't, then the Vikes retrench and get Booty ready.
    There are no sure things out there just waiting for the Vikes to pick them up...so like it or not, TJack is the immediate future for the Vikings at QB.
    End of story.
    BANNED OR DEAD...I'LL TAKE EITHER ONE

  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: Jackson asserts himself with Vikings - Vikings Leaving Fate in Jackson’s Han

    "cajunvike" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "C" wrote:
    So... the losses... 56% or 61%, that doesn't really scream a whole lot of worth. I mean, that's exactly like having a 3% margin of error in a survey. 3-4% is honestly doesn't hold much water in this argument.

    T-Jack played much better than any other QB on our roster last season... and despite people saying he doesn't react well under pressure, I'm not so sure about that. I saw him make some great last second plays while under immense pressure, whether it be with his feet or arm. I'd say the OL is more to blame for the overall poor performance of our QBs... thanks to Marrdro 101.
    OK, so the losses were to teams that had similar collective winning percentages.
    That doesn't change the fact that TJacks wins were against teams that were not collectively comparable to the teams faced by the other QBs.
    So saying that TJack is better because he went 8-4 vs 0-4 is not supported by the data.
    The records are not good indactors of whether TJack was better or not.

    As far as TJack playing much better than any other QB - yes he did.
    He also played worse than any other QB on our team.
    That is the biggest problem I have with TJack - the inconsistency.
    He can go from a horrible game (Washington) to a great game (Denver) in a span of a week.
    I would rather have a QB who is good consistently than a QB who is great some days and bad others.

    This is not meant to imply that TJack will not become a consistent QB.
    Rather I am saying that his consistency is my biggest concern at this point.
    That is the concern of MANY other teams as well...and could be of even more if someone like Tom Brady or Peyton Manning goes down next year.
    Fact is, TJack is the best option RIGHT NOW for the Vikings...and will continue to be until he shows that he can't handle it.
    No need to do anything but wait it out and hope that it works out.
    If it does, then it's all good.
    If it doesn't, then the Vikes retrench and get Booty ready.
    There are no sure things out there just waiting for the Vikes to pick them up...so like it or not, TJack is the immediate future for the Vikings at QB.
    End of story.
    Let's be realistic - few teams, outside maybe Chicago, Atlanta, and Miami, have the same concern.

    But yes, TJack is the best option for the Vikings now.
    I have never said otherwise.
    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
    VikingsTw is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,144

    Re: Jackson asserts himself with Vikings - Vikings Leaving Fate in Jackson’s Han

    "singersp" wrote:
    "ragz" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "digital420" wrote:
    there are soooo many things that go on in a play that you can't say our season was damaged because Tjack was still learning. WR's dropped very catchable balls, TE's let go some obvious catches.. and when we were facing 9 men in the box. that's one heck of a rush coming at ya even if we didn't do the play action.. but then is Tjack responsible for the play calling?
    With all due respect, the inability of our passing game should placed about 75% on TJack's shoulders.
    Did we have some drops, especially late in the season?
    Yes.
    But with the exception of the Denver game (in which TJack played very well) those drops did not have as much of an impact as the QB play did.
    Especially when running play action against a stacked box.
    Teams stacked the box because they did not take our passing game seriously (nor should they have).

    This is what I mean when I say that some people have a hard time looking at TJack's performance objectively (not trying to pick on you digital).
    Of course our season was impacted because TJack was still learning.
    Did you watch the first Detroit game compared to the second?
    Objectively, we should be able to acknowledge that, instead of automatically shifting the blame over to the WRs and TEs, or the play calling, or the stacked boxes (which TJack didn't face in the first half of the season).


    On the same note, if we are being objective, we need to acknowledge that TJack was playing much better in the second half of the season, which is a good indication that he was learning.
    If that translates into a solid season this year, then I would say that going 8-8 last year was worth it.
    well what you're forgetting is 2 other qbs started 4 games and went 0-4.
    so to say 75 percent when he didn't start in 4 losses that he had no impact on is not entirely fair.
    your point is well taken though.
    i think the people who defend tjack are being objective based on what is expected from a young qb.


    nobody that backs him, at least from what i read, claims hes going to be dan marino, most are just saying that they see signs of potential and realize that our offensive woes cannot be placed on one individual.
    if you combine the two seasons under childress 4 qbs have played and there hasn't been much of a difference on how efficient the pass game has been.
    and the other 3 have had significant amount of playing time as starters where they shouldnt be looking the same as a virtual rookie.
    so when the haters come out swinging about how so many qbs can come in and do a better job, it comes off as blind hate.

    i mean jeff garcia is a great example.
    he was in a terrible division and went 9-7, made the playoffs, but couldn't move the ball to save his life at home against the giants.
    jackson was 8-4.
    granted, having a vet might have made a difference in a close game here or there, but how many close games did we lose due to jackson?


    i think alot of people, including myself, have been giving our offense too much credit over the last 2 years. cuz besides some good rbs, we haven't had much talent, we've had inconsistent pass blocking, and a conservative game plan.
    they seem to think we've corrected alot of things that should help tjack, and of course he has to improve on things himself for us to get a good feel of how much better we really are.

    in the end the point is, outside of a handful of qbs that can carry an offense by themselves, i dont believe many qbs would have made us a whole lot better if any last year.
    so why not let the kid cut his teeth?
    this is the year where he's had enough shapening and its time to start seeing those teeth take some bites outta opposing defenses. wasn't that a cute little metaphor?
    awwwwwww


    Also T-Jack only played in 4 of those 8 games in the first half of the season when the box wasn't stacked. The other 3 QB's were in there for the other 4 & didn't have much better success.

    Our QB's were sacked 38 times last year. T-Jack was sacked 19 of those 38 times in 12 games while the remaining 19 sacks occurred to the other QB's in just 4+ games. That tells me there was a lot of pass pressure coming to all our QB's & the veterans were sacked more times per game than T-Jack was. The front line has to share in the fault for that.
    Great research Singer, that is quite the statistic. Tarvaris was in trouble often and escaped sacks, another reason why I like him, the strength to evade a defenders grip or get rid of the ball.

  6. #106
    VikingsTw is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,144

    Re: Jackson asserts himself with Vikings - Vikings Leaving Fate in Jackson’s Hands

    C Mac D made an exellent point about a very marginal difference in the %'s between the two records. IMO no matter what anyone says QB's will always be judged off winning football games and scoring TD's. Regardless of those who have used it but don't like to use it or never liked to use it, its set in stone a record of 8-4 for Jackson who plays the most important position on the team.

    And Nodak your biggest concern was one of my expectations, Tarvaris being inconsistent. I don't know that anyone felt he was gonna be consitent, last year I was a little worried entering the season with him at QB but was ready to get these mistakes out of the way and into the learning curve quickly. Now he has had a complete offseason, only his second one might I add to develop his game for the better. Now that he has had his time and we have weapons at WR I look for the biggest jump in his development this season. The only unit holding him back is the Oline, we will only be as explosive as the oline allows, we now have playmakers at every skill position on the offense.

  7. #107
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,207

    Re: Jackson asserts himself with Vikings - Vikings Leaving Fate in Jackson’s Han

    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "seaniemck7" wrote:
    Awesome insight there, NP.
    The only thing I would contend is the W/L % of the 4 games in which TJ did not play.
    Half of those games were against the same team, GB (13-3).
    I will come up with my own analysis taken that into effect.
    However, you bring up a very intriguing point of view.
    You are correct, and I struggled with how to report on that.
    I was trying to decide if the W/L record should be counted once or twice.
    In the end I went with twice, because it was still two different games, albeit against the same team.
    It's one way to look at it but how much does it really tell you? You took the opponents win/loss% of a full season, but what were their actual win/loss% at the time the game was played?

    Also the teams that our opponents played in determining their win/loss% should be taken into account.
    Did the ones who had a high winning % have that higher winning percentage because they had an easy schedule & played a bunch of sub par teams?

    Did the teams with a low win/loss% have that lower % because they faced a lot of tough teams?

    There is certainly no easy way in determining how well he ended up doing because there are so many different factors that play into it.

    That's why I look at progress. He made a lot of progress from his first game to his last, but it wasn't all up hill. There was
    inconsistancy. Two steps forward, 1 step back & 1 step forward two steps back type games, but the net result was progress.

    I was glad to hear this off-season when he stated the game slowed down for him.

    For instance, in two of the games TJ won (Oakland & NYG) AD wasn't in the game. Another factor that plays a role in it is predictability. When AD was in there, the odds were damn high he was going to get the ball. When Taylor was in there odds were high it was going to be a pass, so certainly the D was going think pass, target the QB's and bring more pressure.

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

  8. #108
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,207

    Re: Jackson asserts himself with Vikings - Vikings Leaving Fate in Jackson’s Han

    "VikingsTw" wrote:
    "singersp" wrote:

    Also T-Jack only played in 4 of those 8 games in the first half of the season when the box wasn't stacked. The other 3 QB's were in there for the other 4 & didn't have much better success.

    Our QB's were sacked 38 times last year. T-Jack was sacked 19 of those 38 times in 12 games while the remaining 19 sacks occurred to the other QB's in just 4+ games. That tells me there was a lot of pass pressure coming to all our QB's & the veterans were sacked more times per game than T-Jack was. The front line has to share in the fault for that.
    Great research Singer, that is quite the statistic. Tarvaris was in trouble often and escaped sacks, another reason why I like him, the strength to evade a defenders grip or get rid of the ball.
    It worked for Tarkenton.

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

  9. #109
    VikingsTw is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,144

    Re: Jackson asserts himself with Vikings - Vikings Leaving Fate in Jackson’s Han

    "singersp" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "seaniemck7" wrote:
    Awesome insight there, NP.
    The only thing I would contend is the W/L % of the 4 games in which TJ did not play.
    Half of those games were against the same team, GB (13-3).
    I will come up with my own analysis taken that into effect.
    However, you bring up a very intriguing point of view.
    You are correct, and I struggled with how to report on that.
    I was trying to decide if the W/L record should be counted once or twice.
    In the end I went with twice, because it was still two different games, albeit against the same team.
    It's one way to look at it but how much does it really tell you? You took the opponents win/loss% of a full season, but what were their actual win/loss% at the time the game was played?

    Also the teams that our opponents played in determining their win/loss% should be taken into account.
    Did the ones who had a high winning % have that higher winning percentage because they had an easy schedule & played a bunch of sub par teams?

    Did the teams with a low win/loss% have that lower % because they faced a lot of tough teams?

    There is certainly no easy way in determining how well he ended up doing because there are so many different factors that play into it.

    For instance, in two of the games TJ won (Oakland & NYG) AD wasn't in the game. Another factor that plays a role in it is predictability. When AD was in there, the odds were gol 'darnit high he was going to get the ball. When Taylor was in there odds were high it was going to be a pass, so certainly the D was going think pass, target the QB's and bring more pressure.
    Good point there about Taylor being a clue to a pass play, hopefully AP has devolped his blocking and awarness enough to be more full time. This would help bring down the predictabilty.

  10. #110
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,601
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Jackson asserts himself with Vikings - Vikings Leaving Fate in Jackson’s Han

    "singersp" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "seaniemck7" wrote:
    Awesome insight there, NP.
    The only thing I would contend is the W/L % of the 4 games in which TJ did not play.
    Half of those games were against the same team, GB (13-3).
    I will come up with my own analysis taken that into effect.
    However, you bring up a very intriguing point of view.
    You are correct, and I struggled with how to report on that.
    I was trying to decide if the W/L record should be counted once or twice.
    In the end I went with twice, because it was still two different games, albeit against the same team.
    It's one way to look at it but how much does it really tell you? You took the opponents win/loss% of a full season, but what were their actual win/loss% at the time the game was played?

    Also the teams that our opponents played in determining their win/loss% should be taken into account.
    Did the ones who had a high winning % have that higher winning percentage because they had an easy schedule & played a bunch of sub par teams?

    Did the teams with a low win/loss% have that lower % because they faced a lot of tough teams?

    There is certainly no easy way in determining how well he ended up doing because there are so many different factors that play into it.

    That's why I look at progress. He made a lot of progress from his first game to his last, but it wasn't all up hill. There was
    inconsistancy. Two steps forward, 1 step back & 1 step forward two steps back type games, but the net result was progress.

    I was glad to hear this off-season when he stated the game slowed down for him.

    For instance, in two of the games TJ won (Oakland & NYG) AD wasn't in the game. Another factor that plays a role in it is predictability. When AD was in there, the odds were gol 'darnit high he was going to get the ball. When Taylor was in there odds were high it was going to be a pass, so certainly the D was going think pass, target the QB's and bring more pressure.
    Obviously you can pick apart any stat - and you are correct in saying that the analysis was incomplete.
    But you were missing the point.
    I was pointing out that using TJack's 8-4 record and comparing it to the other QB's 0-4 record was a faulty comparison because they faced different caliber of teams, and I think a significant difference of winning % between the two groups is enough to demonstrate that without going into an in depth and time consuming analysis.
    We have a habit of just looking at wins and loses here in Minnesota and declaring a QB good or bad because of it.
    I am sure we all remember Brad Johnson's 7-2 run in 2005.
    Yet whenever I brought up quality of win, people would shut me down, saying that he was the answer for 2006.
    How did that work out again?

    The same goes here.
    I agree that TJack made progress - more than I actually expected out of him.
    And so far EVERYTHING I have seen this offseason in relation to TJack has been positive.
    But when people herald his win/loss record as an indicator of future performance, I again question the quality of the teams he beat.

    Part of me wonders if his progress last season was so apparent because he was so below standard when he started.
    Going from a poor QB to a mediocre one shows a lot of progress.
    But in the end you are still left with a mediocre QB - which I think is a fairly accurate description of TJack at this point in his career.
    I honestly have no idea where his progress will eventually stop.
    He could continue to progress into a great QB, or he could have peaked already.
    It is hard to say, and unfortunately there is no way of knowing without playing him.


    If I had to guess, I would say that TJack will level out in the average to good range.
    We saw flashes of both great and horrid last year, and I suspect that the true TJack lies somewhere in the middle.
    Luckily, I think we only need an average QB to go deep into January this year.
    And if TJack proves me wrong and plays great, then we are bound for Tampa in February.
    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=

Page 11 of 18 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. For Vikings, Jackson’s the man
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 08-16-2008, 07:54 AM
  2. Vikings - Helping Hands
    By singersp in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-22-2008, 06:49 AM
  3. Wilf's Words Might Have Sealed Vikings' Fate
    By jessejames09 in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 08-09-2007, 07:46 AM
  4. Vikings are in good hands
    By ultravikingfan in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-02-2007, 05:53 PM
  5. Haddix loosening hands for Vikings
    By singersp in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 04-13-2007, 10:13 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
  •