Page 13 of 22 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 213
  1. #121
    Johnson14's Avatar
    Johnson14 is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,681

    Re: Pick 6 on Jackson

    Quote Originally Posted by "gamecocksbaseball31" #1105713
    Quote Originally Posted by "jmcdon00" #1105703
    Quote Originally Posted by "gamecocksbaseball31" #1105698
    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1105366
    Quote Originally Posted by "vikinggreg" #1105340
    Warning this post may contains excessive use of quotes and excuses going back over several years

    If at anytime when reading this you experience dizzness, nausea, blurred vision or bleeding nipples you have exceeded your palatable level of Tarvaris Jackson and may need to step outside and just yell FUCK
    If you experience an erection at anytime while reading this post you are doomed and beyond help

    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1105325
    Quote Originally Posted by "marstc09" #1105322
    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1105319
    Quote Originally Posted by "marstc09" #1105315
    Quote Originally Posted by "NodakPaul" #1105312
    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1105305
    Quote Originally Posted by "12purplepride28" #1105302
    Quote Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1105299
    Quote Originally Posted by "NodakPaul" #1105277
    Quote Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1105206
    In all honesty until that play I was actually grading TJ's performance higher than that of McChunky. Not that it was outstanding but he did move around pretty good and did make a few plays. But once he threw the pick he reverted back to the guarded TJ that was indecisive and ineffective.
    Wait. What?

    Up until that point you thought TJack was playing better than McNabb? Based on what? Up until that point, the Vikings offense had been on the field for exactly three plays. How can you say that TJack was better when McNabb basically hadn't played.

    Up until that point, McNabb was 1-1 for 9 yards, and TJack was 6-9 for 35 yards. Hardly comparable, but if you want to look at apples to apples, McNabb had a better YPC and completion %. I don't know what else you can look at.

    Personally, I was OK with McNabb's performance on the second drive, but getting frustrated that I have yet to see our starting O score a TD. I was actually impressed with TJack's performance after the pick as well. The next drive (where we stopped them on the 1) was his best drive of the game.

    And as far as the pick, it was a bad throw (and a bad catch). Anyone trying to blame the WR only for the INT is blind. Crimney, that is what happens when a bad QB throws to a bad WR. Seattle is in for a long season.

    Can we get off TJack's junk yet? He isn't even a Viking anymore...
    Thanks for answering your own question:P

    TJ moved the ball, got a few first downs and looked almost capable. McNabb didn't move the chains and the drives stalled.
    Mcnabb didn't have a chance. After that blown coverage on the sack then we ran a draw play or something like that I believe. May be wrong. But after they both had the same amount of plays or close to it, Mcnabb looked much better. On the only pass attempt Mcnabb was given, he completed it.
    How can anyone say McNabb looked better at that point in the game when the Sehawks were stalled at the 1? McNabb had 1 series. Handed the ball off to AD, got sacked, threw 1 pass on 3-16, dumping it off to AD, which ended up 7 yards short of the first down. Then we punted.

    Did he look better handing the ball off or what?

    BTW, the pass came after the sack. There was no draw play. The punt came after the pass.
    I don't think McNabb or TJack looked better at that point. Mostly because we only saw three offensive snaps (one pass) from McNabb at that point. There was no comparison. Anyone saying that one or the other looked better when Tjack threw his INT is taking confirmation bias to an art form...

    Nor does it matter if TJack or McNabb played better than the other. They are on different teams! What matters is whether or not TJack played better than Whitehurst (I think he did) and whether or not McNabb played better than Ponder or Webb (I think he did).

    Back to the question at hand - can we take off our pro_Tjack or anti-Tjack shades and see that play for what it really is? A poor throw that was behind the WR, making it a very hard catch, which never the less probably should have been caught. But it wasn't.

    What it was was reminiscent of what we used to see of Tjack here in Minnesota. Take that for what it is worth.
    How can you say T-JOKE played better than Whitehurst? You said that last week too. He played with the 2nd team OL and WRs and looked better. He seems to have a better grasp of a system that T-JOKE knows more. People can say all they want about a QB playing against a 2nd team but he is also playing with a 2nd team. I can hype Whitehurst up all I want but his performance clearly shows the difference.

    Whitehurst: 72% completion, 212 yards, 1 TD
    T-JOKE: 54% completion, 88 yards, 1 INT

    Pete made a HUGE mistake naming T-JOKE his starter. He will have to pull him later, I guarantee. The chants for Charlie will come in the season just like they did Saturday.
    You have to keep in mind that while he did play with some 2nd stringers, he also played against 2nd stringers & not starters too. In order to get an accurate comparison, Whitehurst would have to have better results with the first team against first string defenders.

    If the roles were reversed, & TJ got 212 yds, 1 TD & 72% against second stringers, we'd all here how he did it against "our scrubs".

    I'm sure Whitehurst gets his time with the starters in practices that we don't see & will get some time in the upcoming preseason games. Carroll will base his decision on the entirety of the offseason, not just the preseason games. He's not going to give the nod to the lesser of the two QB's like some people here believe will happen. Just as they believed it happened here.
    None of your post makes sense. Why would you bring up that he played against 2nd team? That is exactly what I said! I just defended it by saying he also played WITH a 2nd team. He does not need to play with starters to prove he is better than TJ. He looks more poised and seems to understand the system better.

    If the roles were reversed my statement would be the same so don't put words in my mouth. The fact is TJ did not impress with the starters and he sure as hell would not have with the 2nd team. The T-JOKE lovers bitched about the line but Charlie played with a worse line and look a hell of a lot more competent.

    How the hell is Pete going to base anything on the offseason and preseason when he ALREADY made the decision!
    Charlie played with a worse line with worse people attacking it. Playing with 1st stringers against first stringers is not the same as playing with 2nd stringers against 2nd stringers. A QB can look more poised and competent when there isn't much pressure.

    Regardless of what Carroll said, he'll start the QB he feels will get him the most wins.
    I'm sure I heard that the other way around when Jackson struggled in the preseason it was because he ended played with the second stringers and the first stringers were better

    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #982769
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "SharperImage" wrote:
    Im a Tjack Supporter, but got gol 'darnit that wasn't fair to him. He has the backup oline who couldnt block a brick, and WRs he had no timing with. While good ol Sage went fullpowered with the starting O, unleashing all the good plays against indys poor D. Let him face a real defense, so i can watch him squirm.
    Yeah. like when TJack over threw that backup Sidney Rice on the sideline.
    Oh wait.
    Or the way that Loadholt played most of the first half. Oh wait.
    Or the way Young played very well when he was in.
    Oh wait.
    Or the way that Indy blitz very rarely, so neither QB should have been under a lot of pressure.
    Oh wait. Or the way that Sage still played against first string LBs and DL.
    Oh wait...

    Trying to take everything away from Sage while making excuses for TJack = fail.
    Sage played a good game, TJack didn't.
    It is just one preseason game, so no reason for anyone to get their panites in a bunch, but at least recognize and admit what happened.
    Yes, I expected Sage to be able to do better with primarily starters than I expected TJack to do later in the game.
    But not THAT much better.
    First string offense > second string offense

    People need to at least recognize and admit that, but most don't.


    The tables can easily be turned next week & we could see a poorer performance from Sage & a better one from Jackson & I'll still say the same thing regarding a QB playing with the first string offense vs. a QB playing against a second string offense.

    Of course any and all fans that have been repeatedly stating that is nothing more than an excuse, won't be able to use that themselves after next weeks game.

    2 funny things

    1- Something about a double sta...something or other

    2- Jackson still over throwing Rice down the sidelines

    But yes there is a difference in playing with the 1's and 2's, or playing 1 quarter, or just a half or even a whole game, reading defenses, leading a team, being a starter or being a back up.....they all vary in range of exacution and I've seen Jackson struggle with almost all (he was a good backup) but there always seems to be as many varying reasons for struggles not being his fault but when others succeed with better production at the same position its because they had some advantage that Jackson was missing when he was playing.

    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #982787
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    So next week, if TJack starts and does poorly against, and Sage plays with the second team and does well, what will be the excuses then?

    My guess is that TJack supporters will claim that TJack was playing against the first team defense (which is probably only about as good as Indy's backups anyway, but that is beside the point).

    I could make a book out of the excuses people make for TJack.
    Some are legit, most are not.
    So next week, if Sage does poorly with the second team and TJ does well, what will be the excuses be?

    My guess is that Sage supporters will claim that Sage was playing with the second team & TJ was playing with the first, which isn't going to fly with me.

    If you don't think it's a valid excuse for yesterdays game, then you better not use it the next 3 games either.
    The validity of excuses is best summed up with

    Quote Originally Posted by "Prophet" #1061771
    TJack apologists have said his bad showing in preseason games were due to playing with 2nd-4th stringers, yet, Rosenfels plays with the same asshats and does well and it's because he is playing against the 2nd-4th stringers.
    So what's your point?

    Still saying the same thing. Playing with and against starters is different than playing with & against 2nd stringers.

    If you don't believe that to be true, that's your opinion.

    I'll let you in on another tidbit. Playing against the Patriots, is not the same as playing against the Panthers.

    It's simple. Start Whitehurst & see how he does, If he out performs TJ in that role throught the remaining of Preseason AND has proven to be better than TJ throughout TC & all practices since, then by all means, Carroll should give him the nod.
    Sounds like what Chilly should have done when Sage outperformed him.. We all saw how that played out.
    In 09 Tjack clearly outplayed Sage in the preseason.
    clearly? Dream on.
    Hmmm.. 09, im pretty sure that was when Sage "lit it up" in pre season. :huh:

  2. #122
    jmcdon00's Avatar
    jmcdon00 is offline Jersey Retired Snake Champion, Moto Trial Fest 2: Mountain Pack Champion, LL City Truck 2 Champion, Arithmetic sequence Champion, Troops Tower Defense Champion
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,281

    Re: Pick 6 on Jackson

    Quote Originally Posted by "Johnson14" #1105714
    Quote Originally Posted by "gamecocksbaseball31" #1105713
    Quote Originally Posted by "jmcdon00" #1105703
    Quote Originally Posted by "gamecocksbaseball31" #1105698
    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1105366
    Quote Originally Posted by "vikinggreg" #1105340
    Warning this post may contains excessive use of quotes and excuses going back over several years

    If at anytime when reading this you experience dizzness, nausea, blurred vision or bleeding nipples you have exceeded your palatable level of Tarvaris Jackson and may need to step outside and just yell FUCK
    If you experience an erection at anytime while reading this post you are doomed and beyond help

    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1105325
    Quote Originally Posted by "marstc09" #1105322
    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1105319
    Quote Originally Posted by "marstc09" #1105315
    Quote Originally Posted by "NodakPaul" #1105312
    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1105305
    Quote Originally Posted by "12purplepride28" #1105302
    Quote Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1105299
    Quote Originally Posted by "NodakPaul" #1105277
    Quote Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1105206
    In all honesty until that play I was actually grading TJ's performance higher than that of McChunky. Not that it was outstanding but he did move around pretty good and did make a few plays. But once he threw the pick he reverted back to the guarded TJ that was indecisive and ineffective.
    Wait. What?

    Up until that point you thought TJack was playing better than McNabb? Based on what? Up until that point, the Vikings offense had been on the field for exactly three plays. How can you say that TJack was better when McNabb basically hadn't played.

    Up until that point, McNabb was 1-1 for 9 yards, and TJack was 6-9 for 35 yards. Hardly comparable, but if you want to look at apples to apples, McNabb had a better YPC and completion %. I don't know what else you can look at.

    Personally, I was OK with McNabb's performance on the second drive, but getting frustrated that I have yet to see our starting O score a TD. I was actually impressed with TJack's performance after the pick as well. The next drive (where we stopped them on the 1) was his best drive of the game.

    And as far as the pick, it was a bad throw (and a bad catch). Anyone trying to blame the WR only for the INT is blind. Crimney, that is what happens when a bad QB throws to a bad WR. Seattle is in for a long season.

    Can we get off TJack's junk yet? He isn't even a Viking anymore...
    Thanks for answering your own question:P

    TJ moved the ball, got a few first downs and looked almost capable. McNabb didn't move the chains and the drives stalled.
    Mcnabb didn't have a chance. After that blown coverage on the sack then we ran a draw play or something like that I believe. May be wrong. But after they both had the same amount of plays or close to it, Mcnabb looked much better. On the only pass attempt Mcnabb was given, he completed it.
    How can anyone say McNabb looked better at that point in the game when the Sehawks were stalled at the 1? McNabb had 1 series. Handed the ball off to AD, got sacked, threw 1 pass on 3-16, dumping it off to AD, which ended up 7 yards short of the first down. Then we punted.

    Did he look better handing the ball off or what?

    BTW, the pass came after the sack. There was no draw play. The punt came after the pass.
    I don't think McNabb or TJack looked better at that point. Mostly because we only saw three offensive snaps (one pass) from McNabb at that point. There was no comparison. Anyone saying that one or the other looked better when Tjack threw his INT is taking confirmation bias to an art form...

    Nor does it matter if TJack or McNabb played better than the other. They are on different teams! What matters is whether or not TJack played better than Whitehurst (I think he did) and whether or not McNabb played better than Ponder or Webb (I think he did).

    Back to the question at hand - can we take off our pro_Tjack or anti-Tjack shades and see that play for what it really is? A poor throw that was behind the WR, making it a very hard catch, which never the less probably should have been caught. But it wasn't.

    What it was was reminiscent of what we used to see of Tjack here in Minnesota. Take that for what it is worth.
    How can you say T-JOKE played better than Whitehurst? You said that last week too. He played with the 2nd team OL and WRs and looked better. He seems to have a better grasp of a system that T-JOKE knows more. People can say all they want about a QB playing against a 2nd team but he is also playing with a 2nd team. I can hype Whitehurst up all I want but his performance clearly shows the difference.

    Whitehurst: 72% completion, 212 yards, 1 TD
    T-JOKE: 54% completion, 88 yards, 1 INT

    Pete made a HUGE mistake naming T-JOKE his starter. He will have to pull him later, I guarantee. The chants for Charlie will come in the season just like they did Saturday.
    You have to keep in mind that while he did play with some 2nd stringers, he also played against 2nd stringers & not starters too. In order to get an accurate comparison, Whitehurst would have to have better results with the first team against first string defenders.

    If the roles were reversed, & TJ got 212 yds, 1 TD & 72% against second stringers, we'd all here how he did it against "our scrubs".

    I'm sure Whitehurst gets his time with the starters in practices that we don't see & will get some time in the upcoming preseason games. Carroll will base his decision on the entirety of the offseason, not just the preseason games. He's not going to give the nod to the lesser of the two QB's like some people here believe will happen. Just as they believed it happened here.
    None of your post makes sense. Why would you bring up that he played against 2nd team? That is exactly what I said! I just defended it by saying he also played WITH a 2nd team. He does not need to play with starters to prove he is better than TJ. He looks more poised and seems to understand the system better.

    If the roles were reversed my statement would be the same so don't put words in my mouth. The fact is TJ did not impress with the starters and he sure as hell would not have with the 2nd team. The T-JOKE lovers bitched about the line but Charlie played with a worse line and look a hell of a lot more competent.

    How the hell is Pete going to base anything on the offseason and preseason when he ALREADY made the decision!
    Charlie played with a worse line with worse people attacking it. Playing with 1st stringers against first stringers is not the same as playing with 2nd stringers against 2nd stringers. A QB can look more poised and competent when there isn't much pressure.

    Regardless of what Carroll said, he'll start the QB he feels will get him the most wins.
    I'm sure I heard that the other way around when Jackson struggled in the preseason it was because he ended played with the second stringers and the first stringers were better

    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #982769
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "SharperImage" wrote:
    Im a Tjack Supporter, but got gol 'darnit that wasn't fair to him. He has the backup oline who couldnt block a brick, and WRs he had no timing with. While good ol Sage went fullpowered with the starting O, unleashing all the good plays against indys poor D. Let him face a real defense, so i can watch him squirm.
    Yeah. like when TJack over threw that backup Sidney Rice on the sideline.
    Oh wait.
    Or the way that Loadholt played most of the first half. Oh wait.
    Or the way Young played very well when he was in.
    Oh wait.
    Or the way that Indy blitz very rarely, so neither QB should have been under a lot of pressure.
    Oh wait. Or the way that Sage still played against first string LBs and DL.
    Oh wait...

    Trying to take everything away from Sage while making excuses for TJack = fail.
    Sage played a good game, TJack didn't.
    It is just one preseason game, so no reason for anyone to get their panites in a bunch, but at least recognize and admit what happened.
    Yes, I expected Sage to be able to do better with primarily starters than I expected TJack to do later in the game.
    But not THAT much better.
    First string offense > second string offense

    People need to at least recognize and admit that, but most don't.


    The tables can easily be turned next week & we could see a poorer performance from Sage & a better one from Jackson & I'll still say the same thing regarding a QB playing with the first string offense vs. a QB playing against a second string offense.

    Of course any and all fans that have been repeatedly stating that is nothing more than an excuse, won't be able to use that themselves after next weeks game.

    2 funny things

    1- Something about a double sta...something or other

    2- Jackson still over throwing Rice down the sidelines

    But yes there is a difference in playing with the 1's and 2's, or playing 1 quarter, or just a half or even a whole game, reading defenses, leading a team, being a starter or being a back up.....they all vary in range of exacution and I've seen Jackson struggle with almost all (he was a good backup) but there always seems to be as many varying reasons for struggles not being his fault but when others succeed with better production at the same position its because they had some advantage that Jackson was missing when he was playing.

    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #982787
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    So next week, if TJack starts and does poorly against, and Sage plays with the second team and does well, what will be the excuses then?

    My guess is that TJack supporters will claim that TJack was playing against the first team defense (which is probably only about as good as Indy's backups anyway, but that is beside the point).

    I could make a book out of the excuses people make for TJack.
    Some are legit, most are not.
    So next week, if Sage does poorly with the second team and TJ does well, what will be the excuses be?

    My guess is that Sage supporters will claim that Sage was playing with the second team & TJ was playing with the first, which isn't going to fly with me.

    If you don't think it's a valid excuse for yesterdays game, then you better not use it the next 3 games either.
    The validity of excuses is best summed up with

    Quote Originally Posted by "Prophet" #1061771
    TJack apologists have said his bad showing in preseason games were due to playing with 2nd-4th stringers, yet, Rosenfels plays with the same asshats and does well and it's because he is playing against the 2nd-4th stringers.
    So what's your point?

    Still saying the same thing. Playing with and against starters is different than playing with & against 2nd stringers.

    If you don't believe that to be true, that's your opinion.

    I'll let you in on another tidbit. Playing against the Patriots, is not the same as playing against the Panthers.

    It's simple. Start Whitehurst & see how he does, If he out performs TJ in that role throught the remaining of Preseason AND has proven to be better than TJ throughout TC & all practices since, then by all means, Carroll should give him the nod.
    Sounds like what Chilly should have done when Sage outperformed him.. We all saw how that played out.
    In 09 Tjack clearly outplayed Sage in the preseason.
    clearly? Dream on.
    Hmmm.. 09, im pretty sure that was when Sage "lit it up" in pre season. :huh:
    http://www.nfl.com/player/tarvarisjackson/2495863/gamelogs?season=2009
    Tjack
    23/36 63.9% 305yds 8.5p/a 3td 0int 118.4QB rating 5 carries 10yards 0fumbles
    http://www.nfl.com/player/sagerosenfels/2504729/gamelogs?season=2009
    Sage
    19/31 61.3% 232yds 7.5p/a 0td 1int 70.9QB rating 5 carries -5 yards 0 fumbles

    Seems pretty clear to me.

  3. #123
    Johnson14's Avatar
    Johnson14 is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,681

    Re: Pick 6 on Jackson

    Quote Originally Posted by "jmcdon00" #1105715
    Quote Originally Posted by "Johnson14" #1105714
    Quote Originally Posted by "gamecocksbaseball31" #1105713
    Quote Originally Posted by "jmcdon00" #1105703
    Quote Originally Posted by "gamecocksbaseball31" #1105698
    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1105366
    Quote Originally Posted by "vikinggreg" #1105340
    Warning this post may contains excessive use of quotes and excuses going back over several years

    If at anytime when reading this you experience dizzness, nausea, blurred vision or bleeding nipples you have exceeded your palatable level of Tarvaris Jackson and may need to step outside and just yell FUCK
    If you experience an erection at anytime while reading this post you are doomed and beyond help

    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1105325
    Quote Originally Posted by "marstc09" #1105322
    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1105319
    Quote Originally Posted by "marstc09" #1105315
    Quote Originally Posted by "NodakPaul" #1105312
    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1105305
    Quote Originally Posted by "12purplepride28" #1105302
    Quote Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1105299
    Quote Originally Posted by "NodakPaul" #1105277
    Quote Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1105206
    In all honesty until that play I was actually grading TJ's performance higher than that of McChunky. Not that it was outstanding but he did move around pretty good and did make a few plays. But once he threw the pick he reverted back to the guarded TJ that was indecisive and ineffective.
    Wait. What?

    Up until that point you thought TJack was playing better than McNabb? Based on what? Up until that point, the Vikings offense had been on the field for exactly three plays. How can you say that TJack was better when McNabb basically hadn't played.

    Up until that point, McNabb was 1-1 for 9 yards, and TJack was 6-9 for 35 yards. Hardly comparable, but if you want to look at apples to apples, McNabb had a better YPC and completion %. I don't know what else you can look at.

    Personally, I was OK with McNabb's performance on the second drive, but getting frustrated that I have yet to see our starting O score a TD. I was actually impressed with TJack's performance after the pick as well. The next drive (where we stopped them on the 1) was his best drive of the game.

    And as far as the pick, it was a bad throw (and a bad catch). Anyone trying to blame the WR only for the INT is blind. Crimney, that is what happens when a bad QB throws to a bad WR. Seattle is in for a long season.

    Can we get off TJack's junk yet? He isn't even a Viking anymore...
    Thanks for answering your own question:P

    TJ moved the ball, got a few first downs and looked almost capable. McNabb didn't move the chains and the drives stalled.
    Mcnabb didn't have a chance. After that blown coverage on the sack then we ran a draw play or something like that I believe. May be wrong. But after they both had the same amount of plays or close to it, Mcnabb looked much better. On the only pass attempt Mcnabb was given, he completed it.
    How can anyone say McNabb looked better at that point in the game when the Sehawks were stalled at the 1? McNabb had 1 series. Handed the ball off to AD, got sacked, threw 1 pass on 3-16, dumping it off to AD, which ended up 7 yards short of the first down. Then we punted.

    Did he look better handing the ball off or what?

    BTW, the pass came after the sack. There was no draw play. The punt came after the pass.
    I don't think McNabb or TJack looked better at that point. Mostly because we only saw three offensive snaps (one pass) from McNabb at that point. There was no comparison. Anyone saying that one or the other looked better when Tjack threw his INT is taking confirmation bias to an art form...

    Nor does it matter if TJack or McNabb played better than the other. They are on different teams! What matters is whether or not TJack played better than Whitehurst (I think he did) and whether or not McNabb played better than Ponder or Webb (I think he did).

    Back to the question at hand - can we take off our pro_Tjack or anti-Tjack shades and see that play for what it really is? A poor throw that was behind the WR, making it a very hard catch, which never the less probably should have been caught. But it wasn't.

    What it was was reminiscent of what we used to see of Tjack here in Minnesota. Take that for what it is worth.
    How can you say T-JOKE played better than Whitehurst? You said that last week too. He played with the 2nd team OL and WRs and looked better. He seems to have a better grasp of a system that T-JOKE knows more. People can say all they want about a QB playing against a 2nd team but he is also playing with a 2nd team. I can hype Whitehurst up all I want but his performance clearly shows the difference.

    Whitehurst: 72% completion, 212 yards, 1 TD
    T-JOKE: 54% completion, 88 yards, 1 INT

    Pete made a HUGE mistake naming T-JOKE his starter. He will have to pull him later, I guarantee. The chants for Charlie will come in the season just like they did Saturday.
    You have to keep in mind that while he did play with some 2nd stringers, he also played against 2nd stringers & not starters too. In order to get an accurate comparison, Whitehurst would have to have better results with the first team against first string defenders.

    If the roles were reversed, & TJ got 212 yds, 1 TD & 72% against second stringers, we'd all here how he did it against "our scrubs".

    I'm sure Whitehurst gets his time with the starters in practices that we don't see & will get some time in the upcoming preseason games. Carroll will base his decision on the entirety of the offseason, not just the preseason games. He's not going to give the nod to the lesser of the two QB's like some people here believe will happen. Just as they believed it happened here.
    None of your post makes sense. Why would you bring up that he played against 2nd team? That is exactly what I said! I just defended it by saying he also played WITH a 2nd team. He does not need to play with starters to prove he is better than TJ. He looks more poised and seems to understand the system better.

    If the roles were reversed my statement would be the same so don't put words in my mouth. The fact is TJ did not impress with the starters and he sure as hell would not have with the 2nd team. The T-JOKE lovers bitched about the line but Charlie played with a worse line and look a hell of a lot more competent.

    How the hell is Pete going to base anything on the offseason and preseason when he ALREADY made the decision!
    Charlie played with a worse line with worse people attacking it. Playing with 1st stringers against first stringers is not the same as playing with 2nd stringers against 2nd stringers. A QB can look more poised and competent when there isn't much pressure.

    Regardless of what Carroll said, he'll start the QB he feels will get him the most wins.
    I'm sure I heard that the other way around when Jackson struggled in the preseason it was because he ended played with the second stringers and the first stringers were better

    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #982769
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "SharperImage" wrote:
    Im a Tjack Supporter, but got gol 'darnit that wasn't fair to him. He has the backup oline who couldnt block a brick, and WRs he had no timing with. While good ol Sage went fullpowered with the starting O, unleashing all the good plays against indys poor D. Let him face a real defense, so i can watch him squirm.
    Yeah. like when TJack over threw that backup Sidney Rice on the sideline.
    Oh wait.
    Or the way that Loadholt played most of the first half. Oh wait.
    Or the way Young played very well when he was in.
    Oh wait.
    Or the way that Indy blitz very rarely, so neither QB should have been under a lot of pressure.
    Oh wait. Or the way that Sage still played against first string LBs and DL.
    Oh wait...

    Trying to take everything away from Sage while making excuses for TJack = fail.
    Sage played a good game, TJack didn't.
    It is just one preseason game, so no reason for anyone to get their panites in a bunch, but at least recognize and admit what happened.
    Yes, I expected Sage to be able to do better with primarily starters than I expected TJack to do later in the game.
    But not THAT much better.
    First string offense > second string offense

    People need to at least recognize and admit that, but most don't.


    The tables can easily be turned next week & we could see a poorer performance from Sage & a better one from Jackson & I'll still say the same thing regarding a QB playing with the first string offense vs. a QB playing against a second string offense.

    Of course any and all fans that have been repeatedly stating that is nothing more than an excuse, won't be able to use that themselves after next weeks game.

    2 funny things

    1- Something about a double sta...something or other

    2- Jackson still over throwing Rice down the sidelines

    But yes there is a difference in playing with the 1's and 2's, or playing 1 quarter, or just a half or even a whole game, reading defenses, leading a team, being a starter or being a back up.....they all vary in range of exacution and I've seen Jackson struggle with almost all (he was a good backup) but there always seems to be as many varying reasons for struggles not being his fault but when others succeed with better production at the same position its because they had some advantage that Jackson was missing when he was playing.

    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #982787
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    So next week, if TJack starts and does poorly against, and Sage plays with the second team and does well, what will be the excuses then?

    My guess is that TJack supporters will claim that TJack was playing against the first team defense (which is probably only about as good as Indy's backups anyway, but that is beside the point).

    I could make a book out of the excuses people make for TJack.
    Some are legit, most are not.
    So next week, if Sage does poorly with the second team and TJ does well, what will be the excuses be?

    My guess is that Sage supporters will claim that Sage was playing with the second team & TJ was playing with the first, which isn't going to fly with me.

    If you don't think it's a valid excuse for yesterdays game, then you better not use it the next 3 games either.
    The validity of excuses is best summed up with

    Quote Originally Posted by "Prophet" #1061771
    TJack apologists have said his bad showing in preseason games were due to playing with 2nd-4th stringers, yet, Rosenfels plays with the same asshats and does well and it's because he is playing against the 2nd-4th stringers.
    So what's your point?

    Still saying the same thing. Playing with and against starters is different than playing with & against 2nd stringers.

    If you don't believe that to be true, that's your opinion.

    I'll let you in on another tidbit. Playing against the Patriots, is not the same as playing against the Panthers.

    It's simple. Start Whitehurst & see how he does, If he out performs TJ in that role throught the remaining of Preseason AND has proven to be better than TJ throughout TC & all practices since, then by all means, Carroll should give him the nod.
    Sounds like what Chilly should have done when Sage outperformed him.. We all saw how that played out.
    In 09 Tjack clearly outplayed Sage in the preseason.
    clearly? Dream on.
    Hmmm.. 09, im pretty sure that was when Sage "lit it up" in pre season. :huh:
    http://www.nfl.com/player/tarvarisjackson/2495863/gamelogs?season=2009
    Tjack
    23/36 63.9% 305yds 8.5p/a 3td 0int 118.4QB rating 5 carries 10yards 0fumbles
    http://www.nfl.com/player/sagerosenfels/2504729/gamelogs?season=2009
    Sage
    19/31 61.3% 232yds 7.5p/a 0td 1int 70.9QB rating 5 carries -5 yards 0 fumbles

    Seems pretty clear to me.
    This the year he got traded?.. if so then them stats are wrong! unless im thinking of a different pre season, of course.

  4. #124
    jmcdon00's Avatar
    jmcdon00 is offline Jersey Retired Snake Champion, Moto Trial Fest 2: Mountain Pack Champion, LL City Truck 2 Champion, Arithmetic sequence Champion, Troops Tower Defense Champion
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,281

    Re: Pick 6 on Jackson

    Quote Originally Posted by "Johnson14" #1105716
    Quote Originally Posted by "jmcdon00" #1105715
    Quote Originally Posted by "Johnson14" #1105714
    Quote Originally Posted by "gamecocksbaseball31" #1105713
    Quote Originally Posted by "jmcdon00" #1105703
    Quote Originally Posted by "gamecocksbaseball31" #1105698
    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1105366
    Quote Originally Posted by "vikinggreg" #1105340
    Warning this post may contains excessive use of quotes and excuses going back over several years

    If at anytime when reading this you experience dizzness, nausea, blurred vision or bleeding nipples you have exceeded your palatable level of Tarvaris Jackson and may need to step outside and just yell FUCK
    If you experience an erection at anytime while reading this post you are doomed and beyond help

    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1105325
    Quote Originally Posted by "marstc09" #1105322
    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1105319
    Quote Originally Posted by "marstc09" #1105315
    Quote Originally Posted by "NodakPaul" #1105312
    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1105305
    Quote Originally Posted by "12purplepride28" #1105302
    Quote Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1105299
    Quote Originally Posted by "NodakPaul" #1105277
    Quote Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1105206
    In all honesty until that play I was actually grading TJ's performance higher than that of McChunky. Not that it was outstanding but he did move around pretty good and did make a few plays. But once he threw the pick he reverted back to the guarded TJ that was indecisive and ineffective.
    Wait. What?

    Up until that point you thought TJack was playing better than McNabb? Based on what? Up until that point, the Vikings offense had been on the field for exactly three plays. How can you say that TJack was better when McNabb basically hadn't played.

    Up until that point, McNabb was 1-1 for 9 yards, and TJack was 6-9 for 35 yards. Hardly comparable, but if you want to look at apples to apples, McNabb had a better YPC and completion %. I don't know what else you can look at.

    Personally, I was OK with McNabb's performance on the second drive, but getting frustrated that I have yet to see our starting O score a TD. I was actually impressed with TJack's performance after the pick as well. The next drive (where we stopped them on the 1) was his best drive of the game.

    And as far as the pick, it was a bad throw (and a bad catch). Anyone trying to blame the WR only for the INT is blind. Crimney, that is what happens when a bad QB throws to a bad WR. Seattle is in for a long season.

    Can we get off TJack's junk yet? He isn't even a Viking anymore...
    Thanks for answering your own question:P

    TJ moved the ball, got a few first downs and looked almost capable. McNabb didn't move the chains and the drives stalled.
    Mcnabb didn't have a chance. After that blown coverage on the sack then we ran a draw play or something like that I believe. May be wrong. But after they both had the same amount of plays or close to it, Mcnabb looked much better. On the only pass attempt Mcnabb was given, he completed it.
    How can anyone say McNabb looked better at that point in the game when the Sehawks were stalled at the 1? McNabb had 1 series. Handed the ball off to AD, got sacked, threw 1 pass on 3-16, dumping it off to AD, which ended up 7 yards short of the first down. Then we punted.

    Did he look better handing the ball off or what?

    BTW, the pass came after the sack. There was no draw play. The punt came after the pass.
    I don't think McNabb or TJack looked better at that point. Mostly because we only saw three offensive snaps (one pass) from McNabb at that point. There was no comparison. Anyone saying that one or the other looked better when Tjack threw his INT is taking confirmation bias to an art form...

    Nor does it matter if TJack or McNabb played better than the other. They are on different teams! What matters is whether or not TJack played better than Whitehurst (I think he did) and whether or not McNabb played better than Ponder or Webb (I think he did).

    Back to the question at hand - can we take off our pro_Tjack or anti-Tjack shades and see that play for what it really is? A poor throw that was behind the WR, making it a very hard catch, which never the less probably should have been caught. But it wasn't.

    What it was was reminiscent of what we used to see of Tjack here in Minnesota. Take that for what it is worth.
    How can you say T-JOKE played better than Whitehurst? You said that last week too. He played with the 2nd team OL and WRs and looked better. He seems to have a better grasp of a system that T-JOKE knows more. People can say all they want about a QB playing against a 2nd team but he is also playing with a 2nd team. I can hype Whitehurst up all I want but his performance clearly shows the difference.

    Whitehurst: 72% completion, 212 yards, 1 TD
    T-JOKE: 54% completion, 88 yards, 1 INT

    Pete made a HUGE mistake naming T-JOKE his starter. He will have to pull him later, I guarantee. The chants for Charlie will come in the season just like they did Saturday.
    You have to keep in mind that while he did play with some 2nd stringers, he also played against 2nd stringers & not starters too. In order to get an accurate comparison, Whitehurst would have to have better results with the first team against first string defenders.

    If the roles were reversed, & TJ got 212 yds, 1 TD & 72% against second stringers, we'd all here how he did it against "our scrubs".

    I'm sure Whitehurst gets his time with the starters in practices that we don't see & will get some time in the upcoming preseason games. Carroll will base his decision on the entirety of the offseason, not just the preseason games. He's not going to give the nod to the lesser of the two QB's like some people here believe will happen. Just as they believed it happened here.
    None of your post makes sense. Why would you bring up that he played against 2nd team? That is exactly what I said! I just defended it by saying he also played WITH a 2nd team. He does not need to play with starters to prove he is better than TJ. He looks more poised and seems to understand the system better.

    If the roles were reversed my statement would be the same so don't put words in my mouth. The fact is TJ did not impress with the starters and he sure as hell would not have with the 2nd team. The T-JOKE lovers bitched about the line but Charlie played with a worse line and look a hell of a lot more competent.

    How the hell is Pete going to base anything on the offseason and preseason when he ALREADY made the decision!
    Charlie played with a worse line with worse people attacking it. Playing with 1st stringers against first stringers is not the same as playing with 2nd stringers against 2nd stringers. A QB can look more poised and competent when there isn't much pressure.

    Regardless of what Carroll said, he'll start the QB he feels will get him the most wins.
    I'm sure I heard that the other way around when Jackson struggled in the preseason it was because he ended played with the second stringers and the first stringers were better

    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #982769
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "SharperImage" wrote:
    Im a Tjack Supporter, but got gol 'darnit that wasn't fair to him. He has the backup oline who couldnt block a brick, and WRs he had no timing with. While good ol Sage went fullpowered with the starting O, unleashing all the good plays against indys poor D. Let him face a real defense, so i can watch him squirm.
    Yeah. like when TJack over threw that backup Sidney Rice on the sideline.
    Oh wait.
    Or the way that Loadholt played most of the first half. Oh wait.
    Or the way Young played very well when he was in.
    Oh wait.
    Or the way that Indy blitz very rarely, so neither QB should have been under a lot of pressure.
    Oh wait. Or the way that Sage still played against first string LBs and DL.
    Oh wait...

    Trying to take everything away from Sage while making excuses for TJack = fail.
    Sage played a good game, TJack didn't.
    It is just one preseason game, so no reason for anyone to get their panites in a bunch, but at least recognize and admit what happened.
    Yes, I expected Sage to be able to do better with primarily starters than I expected TJack to do later in the game.
    But not THAT much better.
    First string offense > second string offense

    People need to at least recognize and admit that, but most don't.


    The tables can easily be turned next week & we could see a poorer performance from Sage & a better one from Jackson & I'll still say the same thing regarding a QB playing with the first string offense vs. a QB playing against a second string offense.

    Of course any and all fans that have been repeatedly stating that is nothing more than an excuse, won't be able to use that themselves after next weeks game.

    2 funny things

    1- Something about a double sta...something or other

    2- Jackson still over throwing Rice down the sidelines

    But yes there is a difference in playing with the 1's and 2's, or playing 1 quarter, or just a half or even a whole game, reading defenses, leading a team, being a starter or being a back up.....they all vary in range of exacution and I've seen Jackson struggle with almost all (he was a good backup) but there always seems to be as many varying reasons for struggles not being his fault but when others succeed with better production at the same position its because they had some advantage that Jackson was missing when he was playing.

    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #982787
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    So next week, if TJack starts and does poorly against, and Sage plays with the second team and does well, what will be the excuses then?

    My guess is that TJack supporters will claim that TJack was playing against the first team defense (which is probably only about as good as Indy's backups anyway, but that is beside the point).

    I could make a book out of the excuses people make for TJack.
    Some are legit, most are not.
    So next week, if Sage does poorly with the second team and TJ does well, what will be the excuses be?

    My guess is that Sage supporters will claim that Sage was playing with the second team & TJ was playing with the first, which isn't going to fly with me.

    If you don't think it's a valid excuse for yesterdays game, then you better not use it the next 3 games either.
    The validity of excuses is best summed up with

    Quote Originally Posted by "Prophet" #1061771
    TJack apologists have said his bad showing in preseason games were due to playing with 2nd-4th stringers, yet, Rosenfels plays with the same asshats and does well and it's because he is playing against the 2nd-4th stringers.
    So what's your point?

    Still saying the same thing. Playing with and against starters is different than playing with & against 2nd stringers.

    If you don't believe that to be true, that's your opinion.

    I'll let you in on another tidbit. Playing against the Patriots, is not the same as playing against the Panthers.

    It's simple. Start Whitehurst & see how he does, If he out performs TJ in that role throught the remaining of Preseason AND has proven to be better than TJ throughout TC & all practices since, then by all means, Carroll should give him the nod.
    Sounds like what Chilly should have done when Sage outperformed him.. We all saw how that played out.
    In 09 Tjack clearly outplayed Sage in the preseason.
    clearly? Dream on.
    Hmmm.. 09, im pretty sure that was when Sage "lit it up" in pre season. :huh:
    http://www.nfl.com/player/tarvarisjackson/2495863/gamelogs?season=2009
    Tjack
    23/36 63.9% 305yds 8.5p/a 3td 0int 118.4QB rating 5 carries 10yards 0fumbles
    http://www.nfl.com/player/sagerosenfels/2504729/gamelogs?season=2009
    Sage
    19/31 61.3% 232yds 7.5p/a 0td 1int 70.9QB rating 5 carries -5 yards 0 fumbles

    Seems pretty clear to me.
    This the year he got traded?.. if so then them stats are wrong! unless im thinking of a different pre season, of course.
    Yes, that is the year Sage became a viking. In 2010 they also competed and Tjack played like crap and Sage played well, but when Favre returned they traded Sage.

    I know it seems like it must be wrong because we have all heard a thousand times Tjack has never beat anyone in an open competition. The reality is Sage was brought in to be the starter, Tjack just beat him out. Yes I know beating sage is like beating a 12 year old girl, but many pretend that Tjack couldn't beat a 12 year old girl either.

  5. #125
    Johnson14's Avatar
    Johnson14 is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,681

    Re: Pick 6 on Jackson

    Quote Originally Posted by "jmcdon00" #1105717
    Quote Originally Posted by "Johnson14" #1105716
    Quote Originally Posted by "jmcdon00" #1105715
    Quote Originally Posted by "Johnson14" #1105714
    Quote Originally Posted by "gamecocksbaseball31" #1105713
    Quote Originally Posted by "jmcdon00" #1105703
    Quote Originally Posted by "gamecocksbaseball31" #1105698
    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1105366
    Quote Originally Posted by "vikinggreg" #1105340
    Warning this post may contains excessive use of quotes and excuses going back over several years

    If at anytime when reading this you experience dizzness, nausea, blurred vision or bleeding nipples you have exceeded your palatable level of Tarvaris Jackson and may need to step outside and just yell FUCK
    If you experience an erection at anytime while reading this post you are doomed and beyond help

    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1105325
    Quote Originally Posted by "marstc09" #1105322
    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1105319
    Quote Originally Posted by "marstc09" #1105315
    Quote Originally Posted by "NodakPaul" #1105312
    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1105305
    Quote Originally Posted by "12purplepride28" #1105302
    Quote Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1105299
    Quote Originally Posted by "NodakPaul" #1105277
    Quote Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1105206
    In all honesty until that play I was actually grading TJ's performance higher than that of McChunky. Not that it was outstanding but he did move around pretty good and did make a few plays. But once he threw the pick he reverted back to the guarded TJ that was indecisive and ineffective.
    Wait. What?

    Up until that point you thought TJack was playing better than McNabb? Based on what? Up until that point, the Vikings offense had been on the field for exactly three plays. How can you say that TJack was better when McNabb basically hadn't played.

    Up until that point, McNabb was 1-1 for 9 yards, and TJack was 6-9 for 35 yards. Hardly comparable, but if you want to look at apples to apples, McNabb had a better YPC and completion %. I don't know what else you can look at.

    Personally, I was OK with McNabb's performance on the second drive, but getting frustrated that I have yet to see our starting O score a TD. I was actually impressed with TJack's performance after the pick as well. The next drive (where we stopped them on the 1) was his best drive of the game.

    And as far as the pick, it was a bad throw (and a bad catch). Anyone trying to blame the WR only for the INT is blind. Crimney, that is what happens when a bad QB throws to a bad WR. Seattle is in for a long season.

    Can we get off TJack's junk yet? He isn't even a Viking anymore...
    Thanks for answering your own question:P

    TJ moved the ball, got a few first downs and looked almost capable. McNabb didn't move the chains and the drives stalled.
    Mcnabb didn't have a chance. After that blown coverage on the sack then we ran a draw play or something like that I believe. May be wrong. But after they both had the same amount of plays or close to it, Mcnabb looked much better. On the only pass attempt Mcnabb was given, he completed it.
    How can anyone say McNabb looked better at that point in the game when the Sehawks were stalled at the 1? McNabb had 1 series. Handed the ball off to AD, got sacked, threw 1 pass on 3-16, dumping it off to AD, which ended up 7 yards short of the first down. Then we punted.

    Did he look better handing the ball off or what?

    BTW, the pass came after the sack. There was no draw play. The punt came after the pass.
    I don't think McNabb or TJack looked better at that point. Mostly because we only saw three offensive snaps (one pass) from McNabb at that point. There was no comparison. Anyone saying that one or the other looked better when Tjack threw his INT is taking confirmation bias to an art form...

    Nor does it matter if TJack or McNabb played better than the other. They are on different teams! What matters is whether or not TJack played better than Whitehurst (I think he did) and whether or not McNabb played better than Ponder or Webb (I think he did).

    Back to the question at hand - can we take off our pro_Tjack or anti-Tjack shades and see that play for what it really is? A poor throw that was behind the WR, making it a very hard catch, which never the less probably should have been caught. But it wasn't.

    What it was was reminiscent of what we used to see of Tjack here in Minnesota. Take that for what it is worth.
    How can you say T-JOKE played better than Whitehurst? You said that last week too. He played with the 2nd team OL and WRs and looked better. He seems to have a better grasp of a system that T-JOKE knows more. People can say all they want about a QB playing against a 2nd team but he is also playing with a 2nd team. I can hype Whitehurst up all I want but his performance clearly shows the difference.

    Whitehurst: 72% completion, 212 yards, 1 TD
    T-JOKE: 54% completion, 88 yards, 1 INT

    Pete made a HUGE mistake naming T-JOKE his starter. He will have to pull him later, I guarantee. The chants for Charlie will come in the season just like they did Saturday.
    You have to keep in mind that while he did play with some 2nd stringers, he also played against 2nd stringers & not starters too. In order to get an accurate comparison, Whitehurst would have to have better results with the first team against first string defenders.

    If the roles were reversed, & TJ got 212 yds, 1 TD & 72% against second stringers, we'd all here how he did it against "our scrubs".

    I'm sure Whitehurst gets his time with the starters in practices that we don't see & will get some time in the upcoming preseason games. Carroll will base his decision on the entirety of the offseason, not just the preseason games. He's not going to give the nod to the lesser of the two QB's like some people here believe will happen. Just as they believed it happened here.
    None of your post makes sense. Why would you bring up that he played against 2nd team? That is exactly what I said! I just defended it by saying he also played WITH a 2nd team. He does not need to play with starters to prove he is better than TJ. He looks more poised and seems to understand the system better.

    If the roles were reversed my statement would be the same so don't put words in my mouth. The fact is TJ did not impress with the starters and he sure as hell would not have with the 2nd team. The T-JOKE lovers bitched about the line but Charlie played with a worse line and look a hell of a lot more competent.

    How the hell is Pete going to base anything on the offseason and preseason when he ALREADY made the decision!
    Charlie played with a worse line with worse people attacking it. Playing with 1st stringers against first stringers is not the same as playing with 2nd stringers against 2nd stringers. A QB can look more poised and competent when there isn't much pressure.

    Regardless of what Carroll said, he'll start the QB he feels will get him the most wins.
    I'm sure I heard that the other way around when Jackson struggled in the preseason it was because he ended played with the second stringers and the first stringers were better

    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #982769
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "SharperImage" wrote:
    Im a Tjack Supporter, but got gol 'darnit that wasn't fair to him. He has the backup oline who couldnt block a brick, and WRs he had no timing with. While good ol Sage went fullpowered with the starting O, unleashing all the good plays against indys poor D. Let him face a real defense, so i can watch him squirm.
    Yeah. like when TJack over threw that backup Sidney Rice on the sideline.
    Oh wait.
    Or the way that Loadholt played most of the first half. Oh wait.
    Or the way Young played very well when he was in.
    Oh wait.
    Or the way that Indy blitz very rarely, so neither QB should have been under a lot of pressure.
    Oh wait. Or the way that Sage still played against first string LBs and DL.
    Oh wait...

    Trying to take everything away from Sage while making excuses for TJack = fail.
    Sage played a good game, TJack didn't.
    It is just one preseason game, so no reason for anyone to get their panites in a bunch, but at least recognize and admit what happened.
    Yes, I expected Sage to be able to do better with primarily starters than I expected TJack to do later in the game.
    But not THAT much better.
    First string offense > second string offense

    People need to at least recognize and admit that, but most don't.


    The tables can easily be turned next week & we could see a poorer performance from Sage & a better one from Jackson & I'll still say the same thing regarding a QB playing with the first string offense vs. a QB playing against a second string offense.

    Of course any and all fans that have been repeatedly stating that is nothing more than an excuse, won't be able to use that themselves after next weeks game.

    2 funny things

    1- Something about a double sta...something or other

    2- Jackson still over throwing Rice down the sidelines

    But yes there is a difference in playing with the 1's and 2's, or playing 1 quarter, or just a half or even a whole game, reading defenses, leading a team, being a starter or being a back up.....they all vary in range of exacution and I've seen Jackson struggle with almost all (he was a good backup) but there always seems to be as many varying reasons for struggles not being his fault but when others succeed with better production at the same position its because they had some advantage that Jackson was missing when he was playing.

    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #982787
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    So next week, if TJack starts and does poorly against, and Sage plays with the second team and does well, what will be the excuses then?

    My guess is that TJack supporters will claim that TJack was playing against the first team defense (which is probably only about as good as Indy's backups anyway, but that is beside the point).

    I could make a book out of the excuses people make for TJack.
    Some are legit, most are not.
    So next week, if Sage does poorly with the second team and TJ does well, what will be the excuses be?

    My guess is that Sage supporters will claim that Sage was playing with the second team & TJ was playing with the first, which isn't going to fly with me.

    If you don't think it's a valid excuse for yesterdays game, then you better not use it the next 3 games either.
    The validity of excuses is best summed up with

    Quote Originally Posted by "Prophet" #1061771
    TJack apologists have said his bad showing in preseason games were due to playing with 2nd-4th stringers, yet, Rosenfels plays with the same asshats and does well and it's because he is playing against the 2nd-4th stringers.
    So what's your point?

    Still saying the same thing. Playing with and against starters is different than playing with & against 2nd stringers.

    If you don't believe that to be true, that's your opinion.

    I'll let you in on another tidbit. Playing against the Patriots, is not the same as playing against the Panthers.

    It's simple. Start Whitehurst & see how he does, If he out performs TJ in that role throught the remaining of Preseason AND has proven to be better than TJ throughout TC & all practices since, then by all means, Carroll should give him the nod.
    Sounds like what Chilly should have done when Sage outperformed him.. We all saw how that played out.
    In 09 Tjack clearly outplayed Sage in the preseason.
    clearly? Dream on.
    Hmmm.. 09, im pretty sure that was when Sage "lit it up" in pre season. :huh:
    http://www.nfl.com/player/tarvarisjackson/2495863/gamelogs?season=2009
    Tjack
    23/36 63.9% 305yds 8.5p/a 3td 0int 118.4QB rating 5 carries 10yards 0fumbles
    http://www.nfl.com/player/sagerosenfels/2504729/gamelogs?season=2009
    Sage
    19/31 61.3% 232yds 7.5p/a 0td 1int 70.9QB rating 5 carries -5 yards 0 fumbles

    Seems pretty clear to me.
    This the year he got traded?.. if so then them stats are wrong! unless im thinking of a different pre season, of course.
    Yes, that is the year Sage became a viking. In 2010 they also competed and Tjack played like crap and Sage played well, but when Favre returned they traded Sage.

    I know it seems like it must be wrong because we have all heard a thousand times Tjack has never beat anyone in an open competition. The reality is Sage was brought in to be the starter, Tjack just beat him out. Yes I know beating sage is like beating a 12 year old girl, but many pretend that Tjack couldn't beat a 12 year old girl either.
    LOL... :laugh:

    I just meant i recall Sage putting up impressive numbers in one game, cant remember the opposition, but them stats dont seem to back it up, ah well.

  6. #126
    vikinggreg's Avatar
    vikinggreg is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Great White North
    Posts
    4,779

    Re: Pick 6 on Jackson

    Quote Originally Posted by "Johnson14" #1105718
    Quote Originally Posted by "jmcdon00" #1105717
    Quote Originally Posted by "Johnson14" #1105716
    Quote Originally Posted by "jmcdon00" #1105715
    Quote Originally Posted by "Johnson14" #1105714
    Quote Originally Posted by "gamecocksbaseball31" #1105713
    Quote Originally Posted by "jmcdon00" #1105703
    Quote Originally Posted by "gamecocksbaseball31" #1105698
    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1105366
    Quote Originally Posted by "vikinggreg" #1105340
    Warning this post may contains excessive use of quotes and excuses going back over several years

    If at anytime when reading this you experience dizzness, nausea, blurred vision or bleeding nipples you have exceeded your palatable level of Tarvaris Jackson and may need to step outside and just yell FUCK
    If you experience an erection at anytime while reading this post you are doomed and beyond help

    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1105325
    Quote Originally Posted by "marstc09" #1105322
    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1105319
    Quote Originally Posted by "marstc09" #1105315
    Quote Originally Posted by "NodakPaul" #1105312
    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1105305
    Quote Originally Posted by "12purplepride28" #1105302
    Quote Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1105299
    Quote Originally Posted by "NodakPaul" #1105277
    Quote Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1105206
    In all honesty until that play I was actually grading TJ's performance higher than that of McChunky. Not that it was outstanding but he did move around pretty good and did make a few plays. But once he threw the pick he reverted back to the guarded TJ that was indecisive and ineffective.
    Wait. What?

    Up until that point you thought TJack was playing better than McNabb? Based on what? Up until that point, the Vikings offense had been on the field for exactly three plays. How can you say that TJack was better when McNabb basically hadn't played.

    Up until that point, McNabb was 1-1 for 9 yards, and TJack was 6-9 for 35 yards. Hardly comparable, but if you want to look at apples to apples, McNabb had a better YPC and completion %. I don't know what else you can look at.

    Personally, I was OK with McNabb's performance on the second drive, but getting frustrated that I have yet to see our starting O score a TD. I was actually impressed with TJack's performance after the pick as well. The next drive (where we stopped them on the 1) was his best drive of the game.

    And as far as the pick, it was a bad throw (and a bad catch). Anyone trying to blame the WR only for the INT is blind. Crimney, that is what happens when a bad QB throws to a bad WR. Seattle is in for a long season.

    Can we get off TJack's junk yet? He isn't even a Viking anymore...
    Thanks for answering your own question:P

    TJ moved the ball, got a few first downs and looked almost capable. McNabb didn't move the chains and the drives stalled.
    Mcnabb didn't have a chance. After that blown coverage on the sack then we ran a draw play or something like that I believe. May be wrong. But after they both had the same amount of plays or close to it, Mcnabb looked much better. On the only pass attempt Mcnabb was given, he completed it.
    How can anyone say McNabb looked better at that point in the game when the Sehawks were stalled at the 1? McNabb had 1 series. Handed the ball off to AD, got sacked, threw 1 pass on 3-16, dumping it off to AD, which ended up 7 yards short of the first down. Then we punted.

    Did he look better handing the ball off or what?

    BTW, the pass came after the sack. There was no draw play. The punt came after the pass.
    I don't think McNabb or TJack looked better at that point. Mostly because we only saw three offensive snaps (one pass) from McNabb at that point. There was no comparison. Anyone saying that one or the other looked better when Tjack threw his INT is taking confirmation bias to an art form...

    Nor does it matter if TJack or McNabb played better than the other. They are on different teams! What matters is whether or not TJack played better than Whitehurst (I think he did) and whether or not McNabb played better than Ponder or Webb (I think he did).

    Back to the question at hand - can we take off our pro_Tjack or anti-Tjack shades and see that play for what it really is? A poor throw that was behind the WR, making it a very hard catch, which never the less probably should have been caught. But it wasn't.

    What it was was reminiscent of what we used to see of Tjack here in Minnesota. Take that for what it is worth.
    How can you say T-JOKE played better than Whitehurst? You said that last week too. He played with the 2nd team OL and WRs and looked better. He seems to have a better grasp of a system that T-JOKE knows more. People can say all they want about a QB playing against a 2nd team but he is also playing with a 2nd team. I can hype Whitehurst up all I want but his performance clearly shows the difference.

    Whitehurst: 72% completion, 212 yards, 1 TD
    T-JOKE: 54% completion, 88 yards, 1 INT

    Pete made a HUGE mistake naming T-JOKE his starter. He will have to pull him later, I guarantee. The chants for Charlie will come in the season just like they did Saturday.
    You have to keep in mind that while he did play with some 2nd stringers, he also played against 2nd stringers & not starters too. In order to get an accurate comparison, Whitehurst would have to have better results with the first team against first string defenders.

    If the roles were reversed, & TJ got 212 yds, 1 TD & 72% against second stringers, we'd all here how he did it against "our scrubs".

    I'm sure Whitehurst gets his time with the starters in practices that we don't see & will get some time in the upcoming preseason games. Carroll will base his decision on the entirety of the offseason, not just the preseason games. He's not going to give the nod to the lesser of the two QB's like some people here believe will happen. Just as they believed it happened here.
    None of your post makes sense. Why would you bring up that he played against 2nd team? That is exactly what I said! I just defended it by saying he also played WITH a 2nd team. He does not need to play with starters to prove he is better than TJ. He looks more poised and seems to understand the system better.

    If the roles were reversed my statement would be the same so don't put words in my mouth. The fact is TJ did not impress with the starters and he sure as hell would not have with the 2nd team. The T-JOKE lovers bitched about the line but Charlie played with a worse line and look a hell of a lot more competent.

    How the hell is Pete going to base anything on the offseason and preseason when he ALREADY made the decision!
    Charlie played with a worse line with worse people attacking it. Playing with 1st stringers against first stringers is not the same as playing with 2nd stringers against 2nd stringers. A QB can look more poised and competent when there isn't much pressure.

    Regardless of what Carroll said, he'll start the QB he feels will get him the most wins.
    I'm sure I heard that the other way around when Jackson struggled in the preseason it was because he ended played with the second stringers and the first stringers were better

    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #982769
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "SharperImage" wrote:
    Im a Tjack Supporter, but got gol 'darnit that wasn't fair to him. He has the backup oline who couldnt block a brick, and WRs he had no timing with. While good ol Sage went fullpowered with the starting O, unleashing all the good plays against indys poor D. Let him face a real defense, so i can watch him squirm.
    Yeah. like when TJack over threw that backup Sidney Rice on the sideline.
    Oh wait.
    Or the way that Loadholt played most of the first half. Oh wait.
    Or the way Young played very well when he was in.
    Oh wait.
    Or the way that Indy blitz very rarely, so neither QB should have been under a lot of pressure.
    Oh wait. Or the way that Sage still played against first string LBs and DL.
    Oh wait...

    Trying to take everything away from Sage while making excuses for TJack = fail.
    Sage played a good game, TJack didn't.
    It is just one preseason game, so no reason for anyone to get their panites in a bunch, but at least recognize and admit what happened.
    Yes, I expected Sage to be able to do better with primarily starters than I expected TJack to do later in the game.
    But not THAT much better.
    First string offense > second string offense

    People need to at least recognize and admit that, but most don't.


    The tables can easily be turned next week & we could see a poorer performance from Sage & a better one from Jackson & I'll still say the same thing regarding a QB playing with the first string offense vs. a QB playing against a second string offense.

    Of course any and all fans that have been repeatedly stating that is nothing more than an excuse, won't be able to use that themselves after next weeks game.

    2 funny things

    1- Something about a double sta...something or other

    2- Jackson still over throwing Rice down the sidelines

    But yes there is a difference in playing with the 1's and 2's, or playing 1 quarter, or just a half or even a whole game, reading defenses, leading a team, being a starter or being a back up.....they all vary in range of exacution and I've seen Jackson struggle with almost all (he was a good backup) but there always seems to be as many varying reasons for struggles not being his fault but when others succeed with better production at the same position its because they had some advantage that Jackson was missing when he was playing.

    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #982787
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    So next week, if TJack starts and does poorly against, and Sage plays with the second team and does well, what will be the excuses then?

    My guess is that TJack supporters will claim that TJack was playing against the first team defense (which is probably only about as good as Indy's backups anyway, but that is beside the point).

    I could make a book out of the excuses people make for TJack.
    Some are legit, most are not.
    So next week, if Sage does poorly with the second team and TJ does well, what will be the excuses be?

    My guess is that Sage supporters will claim that Sage was playing with the second team & TJ was playing with the first, which isn't going to fly with me.

    If you don't think it's a valid excuse for yesterdays game, then you better not use it the next 3 games either.
    The validity of excuses is best summed up with

    Quote Originally Posted by "Prophet" #1061771
    TJack apologists have said his bad showing in preseason games were due to playing with 2nd-4th stringers, yet, Rosenfels plays with the same asshats and does well and it's because he is playing against the 2nd-4th stringers.
    So what's your point?

    Still saying the same thing. Playing with and against starters is different than playing with & against 2nd stringers.

    If you don't believe that to be true, that's your opinion.

    I'll let you in on another tidbit. Playing against the Patriots, is not the same as playing against the Panthers.

    It's simple. Start Whitehurst & see how he does, If he out performs TJ in that role throught the remaining of Preseason AND has proven to be better than TJ throughout TC & all practices since, then by all means, Carroll should give him the nod.
    Sounds like what Chilly should have done when Sage outperformed him.. We all saw how that played out.
    In 09 Tjack clearly outplayed Sage in the preseason.
    clearly? Dream on.
    Hmmm.. 09, im pretty sure that was when Sage "lit it up" in pre season. :huh:
    http://www.nfl.com/player/tarvarisjackson/2495863/gamelogs?season=2009
    Tjack
    23/36 63.9% 305yds 8.5p/a 3td 0int 118.4QB rating 5 carries 10yards 0fumbles
    http://www.nfl.com/player/sagerosenfels/2504729/gamelogs?season=2009
    Sage
    19/31 61.3% 232yds 7.5p/a 0td 1int 70.9QB rating 5 carries -5 yards 0 fumbles

    Seems pretty clear to me.
    This the year he got traded?.. if so then them stats are wrong! unless im thinking of a different pre season, of course.
    Yes, that is the year Sage became a viking. In 2010 they also competed and Tjack played like crap and Sage played well, but when Favre returned they traded Sage.

    I know it seems like it must be wrong because we have all heard a thousand times Tjack has never beat anyone in an open competition. The reality is Sage was brought in to be the starter, Tjack just beat him out. Yes I know beating sage is like beating a 12 year old girl, but many pretend that Tjack couldn't beat a 12 year old girl either.
    LOL... :laugh:

    I just meant i recall Sage putting up impressive numbers in one game, cant remember the opposition, but them stats dont seem to back it up, ah well.
    It was the 2010 preseason against the Rams in which Sage had the 300 yard game

  7. #127
    MulletMullitia's Avatar
    MulletMullitia is offline PP.O Ambassador
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    943
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Pick 6 on Jackson

    Holy quotes Batman. My head hurts :S

    Sorry Rick! Keep up the good work.

  8. #128
    12purplepride28's Avatar
    12purplepride28 is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    1,855
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Pick 6 on Jackson

    Where is infidel and his quoting style when we need him.
    I am NOT here to provide good football insight or rational observations. I am an emotional 19 year old Viking fan and I expect you to adjust your expectations from my posts.

  9. #129
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Pick 6 on Jackson

    Quote Originally Posted by "MulletMullitia" #1105726
    Holy quotes Batman. My head hurts :S
    In the words of Zeus "Would it kill you to trim the quotes a bit?"

  10. #130
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,271

    Re: Pick 6 on Jackson

    Quote Originally Posted by "gamecocksbaseball31" #1105693
    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1105650
    Quote Originally Posted by "gamecocksbaseball31" #1105557
    Yes, you can obviously have combinations as Paul pointed out, but that's not what was being argued by the TJ lovers. They are saying it wasn't a bad pass and it was all on Tate.
    They are? Find me a quote where someone said it was a great pass. It has nothing to do with love for TJ.

    If Whitehurst throws that pass, it's still a very catchable ball & the receiver should have caught it.

    If Portis throws that pass, it's still a very catchable ball & the receiver should have caught it.

    If McNabb throws that pass, it's still a very catchable ball & the receiver should have caught it.

    If Ponder throws that pass, it's still a very catchable ball & the receiver should have caught it.

    If Webb throws that pass, it's still a very catchable ball & the receiver should have caught it.

    Get it yet!

    If Bomar throws that pass, I'm just impressed that he even threw a pass in a NFL game.
    Are you OK? Do you have trouble deciphering words and putting sentences together? It seems that way because no where did I say that anyone said it was a GREAT pass. Someone can say it wasn't a bad pass (like you and others have been doing) without saying it was a good or great pass. I know, that may be tough for you to figure out.

    We don't need to bring up other QB's. That's what you always resort to when talking about TJ. It is an obvious cover that most of us are able to see through. Deep down you know TJ isn't worthy of playing QB in this league whether you are willing to admit it or not.
    I have absolutely no problem deciphering words and putting sentences together. You are insinuating that some people are calling it a good or great pass. If it isn't a bad pass, it must be a _______ pass. Fill in the blank.

    Call it whatever fucking kind of pass you want. At the end of the day it's a catchable pass & should have been caught by the receiver.

    Yes we do need to bring up other QB's. Your hatred is so bias that you cant comprehend any pass thrown by Jackson to be catchable, unless it's by a defender.

    Again, the pass was still very catchable, regardless of who threw it.

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

Page 13 of 22 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 2008 NFL Draft pick-by-pick analysis
    By Prophet in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-28-2008, 08:41 AM
  2. With the 72nd pick in the draft the Vikings pick?
    By ViKing24 in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 04-30-2007, 03:44 AM
  3. And with the 7th pick of the 2007 draft, the Minnesota Vikings pick...
    By NodakPaul in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 344
    Last Post: 03-15-2007, 01:24 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-01-2007, 06:20 PM
  5. Agent: Tarvaris Jackson popular pick
    By singersp in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 125
    Last Post: 05-20-2006, 12:02 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
  •