Page 5 of 22 FirstFirst ... 34567 15 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 213
  1. #41
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,604
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Pick 6 on Jackson

    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1105307
    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1105294
    Quote Originally Posted by "NodakPaul" #1105277
    Can we get off TJack's junk yet? He isn't even a Viking anymore...
    Unfortunately no.

    Expect to see a new thread each & every week if not every time he throws a pick or fumbles.

    He's been a Seahawk for only 25 days, two preseason games & there's already been 5 threads on him now. Some even posted in the Vikings forum.
    Make that 6 now.
    lol.

    For the record, Tate should have caught that ball.
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

  2. #42
    marstc09's Avatar
    marstc09 is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    23,180

    Re: Pick 6 on Jackson

    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1105294
    Quote Originally Posted by "NodakPaul" #1105277
    Can we get off TJack's junk yet? He isn't even a Viking anymore...
    Unfortunately no.

    Expect to see a new thread each & every week if not every time he throws a pick or fumbles.

    He's been a Seahawk for only 25 days, two preseason games & there's already been 4-5 threads on him. Some even posted in the Vikings forum.
    You have a thread for Favre and his interceptions. Why not T-JOKE? Double standards indeed.

  3. #43
    marstc09's Avatar
    marstc09 is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    23,180

    Re: Pick 6 on Jackson

    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1105293
    Quote Originally Posted by "midgensa" #1105292
    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1105291
    Quote Originally Posted by "midgensa" #1105289
    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1105199
    Quote Originally Posted by "midgensa" #1105174
    Quote Originally Posted by "Tad7" #1105169
    Exactly like the old days

    Golden Tate = Troy Williamson
    Yep ... Exactly like the old days.

    Excuses after excuses.
    Yep ... Exactly like the old days.

    Double standards.

    Tell me again how tipped passes were the fault of the receivers & not Favre's.
    Double standards? You blamed everything on Favre and now will not blame Jackson. Pretty obvious who is using double standards.

    Hell, somehow everything that happens right now you are still brining up Favre non-stop. Nobody else brought up Favre in this thread. The title of the thread is clearly nothing to do with Favre. It is simple really ...

    TJACK SUCKS. There is no evidence to the contrary and he has plenty of chances to compile that evidence. Has nothing to do with Favre. Has nothing to do with Childress. Has nothing to do with Brad Johnson. Has nothing to do with Golden Tate. It all has to do with Tarvaris Jackson and his completely lack of ability to be a quality NFL starter.
    My post has to do with the double-standards. It also has to do with Tate. It has nothing to do with TJ not being a legitimate starter for the Seahawks. Read the topic title

    Pick 6 on Jackson

    It has everything to do with that one play. No other plays in that game, not last weeks game. We're talking about the pick 6. There's several other threads that deal with peoples opinion that TJ lacks the ability to be a quality NFL starter.
    Yet you still brought up Favre. That has little to do with that play ... but still managed to bring him up.

    You will post some lame ass response to this ... that is cool. It will still not change the fact that a) T-Jack sucks. b) the stat line on "that one play" is 0-1, 1 INT for Tarvaris Jackson and c) you will still be trying to blame T-Jack's pick six in a preseason game on PP.O members and Brett Favre.
    I brought him up to prove my point. When Favre threw a ball that was tipped by Harvin & then intercepted, the masses did not blame Favre for it. They flamed Harvin. We had this same discussion then. Remember? and we had it again when I believe Berrian tipped one. We've had this "If the ball hits him in the hands" discussion plenty of times before & it always came down to who was throwing the ball as to which way the blame went.

    That is what's lame. I'm simply pointing out that PP.O members who claim the receiver was to blame when Favre was throwing the ball, blame the QB when Jackson's throwing the ball.
    What masses? I would like to see links please.

  4. #44
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,604
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Pick 6 on Jackson

    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.
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

  5. #45
    marstc09's Avatar
    marstc09 is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    23,180

    Re: Pick 6 on Jackson

    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.

  6. #46
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,271

    Re: Pick 6 on Jackson

    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.

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

  7. #47
    marstc09's Avatar
    marstc09 is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    23,180

    Re: Pick 6 on Jackson

    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!

  8. #48
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,271

    Re: Pick 6 on Jackson

    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.

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

  9. #49
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,604
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Pick 6 on Jackson

    [quote="marstc09" #1105315]
    Quote Originally Posted by "NodakPaul" #1105312
    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.
    I think that TJack did better mostly because he was running for his life the whole time and still managed to sustain a decent drive. Not to say that he was light years ahead of Whitehurst - after all his very first drive was a long, sustained, TD drive. But it seemed to me like Whitehurst had more time in the pocket. Or he simply wasn't as jumpy to tun... honestly I don't know (nor do I really care that much). My initial feeling was that TJack played better - but to be fair I was watching our D much more closely than I was watching their O.

    I think the biggest story line should be how incredible shitty their OL is. Hell, I would rather be the backup - less chance of getting murdered on the field...
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

  10. #50
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,271

    Re: Pick 6 on Jackson

    Quote Originally Posted by "NodakPaul" #1105328
    I think the biggest story line should be how incredible shitty their OL is. Hell, I would rather be the backup - less chance of getting murdered on the field...
    It is definitely bad & was worse last week. As I mentioned earlier, as bad mediocre as I feel our OL is, I'd much rather have ours than theirs.

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

Page 5 of 22 FirstFirst ... 34567 15 ... 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
  •