Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 93
  1. #1
    Garland Greene's Avatar
    Garland Greene is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    A, A
    Posts
    6,170

    Not a pro/anti Tjack thread but an honest question

    OK lets not turn this into a TJ will be great/TJ Sucks thread That is Not the intent of this thread if you want to debate go elsewhere
    http://www.purplepride.org/forums/index.php?topic=44563.0

    But with every one on each side of the fence what will it take this year for TJack to sway you one way or another or perhaps the opposite of the way you feel now?

    Looking at the playoff teams last year
    Dallas
    Giants
    Washington
    Green Bay
    Seattle
    Pittsburgh
    Patriots
    Jacksonville
    Titans
    San Diego

    Now with the exception of the Titans all of the playoff teams had above average QB play. I think it is unfair to expect numbers close to that of Romo, Brady or Farve. Although that would be nice. I would defend Tjack from someone that would expect that. Rothlisberger and Hasslebeck had above avg years


    QB







    CMP

    ATT

    YDS

    CMP%
    TD

    INT
    RAT
    Eli







    297

    529

    3336

    56.1

    23

    20

    73.9
    Garrard




    208

    325

    2509

    64.0

    18

    3

    102.2
    Campbell


    250

    417

    2700

    60.0

    12

    11 77.6
    Young





    238 382

    2546 62.3 9

    17

    71.1
    Rivers





    277

    460

    3152

    60.2

    21

    15
    82.4

    Garrard and Campbell only played on 14 games, Young who many considered a QB below TJack, but the Titans made the playoffs.Campbell did get hurt at the end of the year and CFollins technically helped them to the playoffs. Eli fans were looking for his head after the Vikings game.

    Rivers seems the most interesting. Why? Because I see his stats as very reachable among the playoff QB's. They are not great but not bad. Rivers had somewhat of an up and down season but they played well when it counted. Garrard who has Avg Wr's at best did not have great stats but did not make alot of mistakes either(3 Int's). Or stats close to Campbell? If any of those those were similar to TJacks stats next year would that be enough to convince the doubter(like myself) that he would be the QB of the future? I would have to say that it would lead me to that way, but that is just me. I would say that he would move to the above average
    category of the NFL Qb's, and depending upon the type of year that our WR's and TE have could warrant a argument for giving him another weapon(or better one) to make him better.

    But what if he had stats close to Young but we still made the playoffs. Would that change you one way or another?
    If he played consistent all year, the stats wouldn't matter as long as we make the playoffs? Again I am not trying to rip TJack What I am trying to do is get a feeling for what people would consider the time to move on from or time to stay with him point with TJack.




  2. #2
    midgensa's Avatar
    midgensa is offline Jersey Retired Free Kick Specialist 3 Champion
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,310

    Re: Not a pro/anti Tjack thread but an honest question

    Simply put I think we should look for somewhere in the area of 58-60% completion percentage ... about 17-20 TDs and only 11-15 INTs as pretty much successful. Not great, but successful. At the high end there you would have 60%, 20TDs and 11INTs, which would be a very solid year for T-Jack. At that point, I would think people would have to jump on the bandwagon for him.

  3. #3
    KrackerJack's Avatar
    KrackerJack is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,502

    Re: Not a pro/anti Tjack thread but an honest question

    In order to make my opinion on TJack change, right now I think he'll do well, If we miss the playoffs, or we don't have a record over .500, I don't want to make the playoffs as an 8-8 team...that won't cut it for me, unless of course, we make it to the Super Bowl, that would be an exception...

    Can't say I'd be totally satisfied with 9-7 either, if we went 9-7 and made the playoffs with TJack at the helm, we'd have to atleast go deep in the playoffs for me to be to be satisfied...

    He has just about all the tools he could ask for...IMO no reason he shouldn't be able atleast get us to 10-6, and I think if he does well, we can do better than that...we don't need him to be like Peyton Manning, we just need him to make good decisions...

    Can't really say stats are that important to me as long as we win...unless we're completely lead by our running game, with little help from the passing game...

    Obvisouly, this is assuming he stays healthy for the entire, or most of, the season...

  4. #4
    Billy Boy is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,426

    Re: Not a pro/anti Tjack thread but an honest question

    "midgensa" wrote:
    Simply put I think we should look for somewhere in the area of 58-60% completion percentage ... about 17-20 TDs and only 11-15 INTs as pretty much successful. Not great, but successful. At the high end there you would have 60%, 20TDs and 11INTs, which would be a very solid year for T-Jack. At that point, I would think people would have to jump on the bandwagon for him.
    With 60% completion percentage TJ would still probably be in the lowest quintile of quarterbacks.
    Also, considering he was consistently playing over 60% the last 7 games last year I wouldn't expect anything less next year.

    Interesting note:
    Baby Manning's winning Superbowl performance was 55%
    http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=280203017


    All the kids my age pee their pants, it's the coolest.

  5. #5
    midgensa's Avatar
    midgensa is offline Jersey Retired Free Kick Specialist 3 Champion
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,310

    Re: Not a pro/anti Tjack thread but an honest question

    "Billy" wrote:
    "midgensa" wrote:
    Simply put I think we should look for somewhere in the area of 58-60% completion percentage ... about 17-20 TDs and only 11-15 INTs as pretty much successful. Not great, but successful. At the high end there you would have 60%, 20TDs and 11INTs, which would be a very solid year for T-Jack. At that point, I would think people would have to jump on the bandwagon for him.
    With 60% completion percentage TJ would still probably be in the lowest quintile of quarterbacks.
    Also, considering he was consistently playing over 60% the last 7 games last year I wouldn't expect anything less next year.

    Interesting note:
    Baby Manning's winning Superbowl performance was 55%
    http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=280203017
    Yeah ... that is why I said the 60% completion percentage AND the improvement in TDs and INTs. I would think that anyone here would take 60%, 20TDs and 11 INTs as a solid goal. It would likely be unrealistic to expect something like 64% or something from him since he has not really shown reasons to expect that. Of course, I would also be happy with that as well.

  6. #6
    Formo's Avatar
    Formo is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    2,664

    Re: Not a pro/anti Tjack thread but an honest question

    I'm in the same boat as midgensa.

    I'm a supporter of T-Jack.
    And will continue to be until he proves he's NOT an NFL starter.
    How bad does he need to play for me to believe that?
    Pretty bad and consistently bad.
    More INTs than TDs, if he were a turnover king (Daunte anybody?), completion <%50, QB rating of SUCK, etc.

    I will say that the Vikings still need another offensive playmaker.
    Not the level of Adrian, but a star none the less.
    I don't care if he is a TE or WR, but in order to FULLY get the most of T-Jack, I think he needs a big playmaking receiver.
    Until then, we are just ranking a part of Jackson.

    And if he doesn't pan out, I LOVE the Booty pick.
    I think he'll be an extremely serviceable QB, and with a few serviceable years from T-Jack, Booty will get all the time he needs and then some to absorb Chilly's playbook.
    Vegans are eating the rainforests. =(

  7. #7
    kevoncox's Avatar
    kevoncox is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,910

    Re: Not a pro/anti Tjack thread but an honest question

    "Formo" wrote:
    I'm in the same boat as midgensa.

    I'm a supporter of T-Jack.
    And will continue to be until he proves he's NOT an NFL starter.
    How bad does he need to play for me to believe that?
    Pretty bad and consistently bad.
    More INTs than TDs, if he were a turnover king (Daunte anybody?), completion <%50, QB rating of SUCK, etc.

    I will say that the Vikings still need another offensive playmaker.
    Not the level of Adrian, but a star none the less.
    I don't care if he is a TE or WR, but in order to FULLY get the most of T-Jack, I think he needs a big playmaking receiver.
    Until then, we are just ranking a part of Jackson.

    And if he doesn't pan out, I LOVE the Booty pick.
    I think he'll be an extremely serviceable QB, and with a few serviceable years from T-Jack, Booty will get all the time he needs and then some to absorb Chilly's playbook.
    I don't understand the comparison of Dante to Jackson. Dante has done more in half a season that TJ has done his whole career. I know many of you hate Dante but atleast give the guy the respect he deserves. He was, possible is a great QB. At this point Jackson has to hop he can accomplish what Dante has.

  8. #8
    midgensa's Avatar
    midgensa is offline Jersey Retired Free Kick Specialist 3 Champion
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,310

    Re: Not a pro/anti Tjack thread but an honest question

    "kevoncox" wrote:
    "Formo" wrote:
    I'm in the same boat as midgensa.

    I'm a supporter of T-Jack.
    And will continue to be until he proves he's NOT an NFL starter.
    How bad does he need to play for me to believe that?
    Pretty bad and consistently bad.
    More INTs than TDs, if he were a turnover king (Daunte anybody?), completion <%50, QB rating of SUCK, etc.

    I will say that the Vikings still need another offensive playmaker.
    Not the level of Adrian, but a star none the less.
    I don't care if he is a TE or WR, but in order to FULLY get the most of T-Jack, I think he needs a big playmaking receiver.
    Until then, we are just ranking a part of Jackson.

    And if he doesn't pan out, I LOVE the Booty pick.
    I think he'll be an extremely serviceable QB, and with a few serviceable years from T-Jack, Booty will get all the time he needs and then some to absorb Chilly's playbook.
    I don't understand the comparison of Dante to Jackson. Dante has done more in half a season that TJ has done his whole career. I know many of you hate Dante but atleast give the guy the respect he deserves. He was, possible is a great QB. At this point Jackson has to hop he can accomplish what Dante has.
    Yeah, I definitely agree. I think Daunte clearly gets a bad rap around here. He was not bad ... and is probably (by the numbers at least) the second best QB in Vikes history.
    He definitely was a little turnover prone, he had 35 lost fumbles and 86 INTs in his 80 starts in Minnesota. That accounts for 1.5 turnovers per game. Which is a little high ... the Pro Bowl QBs in 2007 accounted for 1.01 oer game. He did however account for 164 TDs in those 80 starts. Of course he accounted for 32 of those turnovers in ONE season in 2002.
    All in all ... T-Jack putting up numbers like Culpepper would be a god send. If T-Jack can account for more than TWO TDs a game then we will be damn tough to beat. The problem is if he doesn't win better than Culpepper ... then the numbers won't matter. C-Pep was a very sub-par 38-42 while in a Vikings uniform.

  9. #9
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,266

    Re: Not a pro/anti Tjack thread but an honest question

    "midgensa" wrote:
    "kevoncox" wrote:
    "Formo" wrote:
    I'm in the same boat as midgensa.

    I'm a supporter of T-Jack.
    And will continue to be until he proves he's NOT an NFL starter.
    How bad does he need to play for me to believe that?
    Pretty bad and consistently bad.
    More INTs than TDs, if he were a turnover king (Daunte anybody?), completion <%50, QB rating of SUCK, etc.

    I will say that the Vikings still need another offensive playmaker.
    Not the level of Adrian, but a star none the less.
    I don't care if he is a TE or WR, but in order to FULLY get the most of T-Jack, I think he needs a big playmaking receiver.
    Until then, we are just ranking a part of Jackson.

    And if he doesn't pan out, I LOVE the Booty pick.
    I think he'll be an extremely serviceable QB, and with a few serviceable years from T-Jack, Booty will get all the time he needs and then some to absorb Chilly's playbook.
    I don't understand the comparison of Dante to Jackson. Dante has done more in half a season that TJ has done his whole career. I know many of you hate Dante but atleast give the guy the respect he deserves. He was, possible is a great QB. At this point Jackson has to hop he can accomplish what Dante has.
    Yeah, I definitely agree. I think Daunte clearly gets a bad rap around here. He was not bad ... and is probably (by the numbers at least) the second best QB in Vikes history.
    He definitely was a little turnover prone, he had 35 lost fumbles and 86 INTs in his 80 starts in Minnesota. That accounts for 1.5 turnovers per game. Which is a little high ... the Pro Bowl QBs in 2007 accounted for 1.01 oer game. He did however account for 164 TDs in those 80 starts. Of course he accounted for 32 of those turnovers in ONE season in 2002.
    All in all ... T-Jack putting up numbers like Culpepper would be a god send. If T-Jack can account for more than TWO TDs a game then we will be damn tough to beat. The problem is if he doesn't win better than Culpepper ... then the numbers won't matter. C-Pep was a very sub-par 38-42 while in a Vikings uniform.
    Don't you mean "The Vikings were a very sub-par 38-42 while C-Pep was in a Vikings uniform?"

    Our defense is what cost us many of those games during those years. Despite our high powered offense, our defense, prevent as it was, managed to give up more points than we scored.

    Go back & look at the scores of those 42 games we lost. In 15 of them we put up between 22 to 38 points & still lost the game.

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

  10. #10
    Prophet's Avatar
    Prophet is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    17,388

    Re: Not a pro/anti Tjack thread but an honest question

    "Garland" wrote:
    ...But with every one on each side of the fence what will it take this year for TJack to sway you one way or another or perhaps the opposite of the way you feel now?...
    I disagree with your premise.
    I see some people that think TJack is a wash and other people are willing to give him more than one season before they judge him.

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Honest question....do the Refs hate us?
    By CCthebest in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 11-03-2009, 02:17 AM
  2. Question on Tjack rumor, hopefully a false alarm.
    By farvathevikinglover in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-22-2008, 09:44 PM
  3. The ask a woman a question thread
    By BadlandsVikings in forum Two Beer Minimum
    Replies: 78
    Last Post: 03-26-2008, 04:13 PM
  4. Official ANTI-Veron Davis Thread
    By shockzilla in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 116
    Last Post: 01-06-2006, 01:42 PM
  5. ..this is an honest question..and at 4 weeks....
    By MattShortNB81 in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 10-03-2005, 03:55 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
  •