Page 11 of 22 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 218
  1. #101
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,899

    Re: Tarvaris Jackson - QB Or Not QB

    "jkjuggalo" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "jkjuggalo" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "i/opsychvike" wrote:
    thank you. yes, the addition of Berrian and a whole drafts worth of players to help on offense, defense, and special teams and the vikings should be a competitive and winning team this year. Tarvaris will have many more struggles but I think that is just the nature of the quarterback position in the nfl.
    The stats just show that he is accurate enough ( 65% after acclimating to the nfl in the second half of 2007) and has grown enough for people to give him a chance to keep leading a team that has a great running game. He will throw terrible interceptions that make fans cry but with every year of experience those will become fewer and further between.
    You know, I am not sure who I like more with respect to a new/recent poster, you or mjuaire.

    You are both a couple of fine additions to the site.
    I look forward to alot more posts from both of you.

    By the way, just moved you up a couple of columns on the ole spreadsheet.

    ;D
    What is this spreadsheet that you speak of?
    I've seen you mention it in several threads, but I don't think I've ever had it explained to me what it was.


    As far as this subject goes, I think TJack is going to have a good season this year, especially after we draft a QB early to come in as a backup plan.
    I'm thinking we take Brohm, Flacco, or Henne early...should light a fire under TJ's arse.
    Marr has a spreadsheet of his opinions of the validity and usefulness of the content supplied by certain posters.
    I am pretty sure St Peter consults it before granting entrance to heaven... ;D
    I do always feel like he is judging me ;D
    Judge not lest you be judged.......

    I never judge, I just love to talk football.
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  2. #102
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,899

    Re: Tarvaris Jackson - QB Or Not QB

    "kevoncox" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "jkjuggalo" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "i/opsychvike" wrote:
    thank you. yes, the addition of Berrian and a whole drafts worth of players to help on offense, defense, and special teams and the vikings should be a competitive and winning team this year. Tarvaris will have many more struggles but I think that is just the nature of the quarterback position in the nfl.
    The stats just show that he is accurate enough ( 65% after acclimating to the nfl in the second half of 2007) and has grown enough for people to give him a chance to keep leading a team that has a great running game. He will throw terrible interceptions that make fans cry but with every year of experience those will become fewer and further between.
    You know, I am not sure who I like more with respect to a new/recent poster, you or mjuaire.

    You are both a couple of fine additions to the site.
    I look forward to alot more posts from both of you.

    By the way, just moved you up a couple of columns on the ole spreadsheet.

    ;D
    What is this spreadsheet that you speak of?
    I've seen you mention it in several threads, but I don't think I've ever had it explained to me what it was.


    As far as this subject goes, I think TJack is going to have a good season this year, especially after we draft a QB early to come in as a backup plan.
    I'm thinking we take Brohm, Flacco, or Henne early...should light a fire under TJ's arse.
    Marr has a spreadsheet of his opinions of the validity and usefulness of the content supplied by certain posters.
    I am pretty sure St Peter consults it before granting entrance to heaven... ;D
    I have reserved my seat at the depths of said spreadsheet.
    You've actually moved up a few columns of late.
    ;D
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  3. #103
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,899

    Re: Tarvaris Jackson - QB Or Not QB

    "singersp" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "ThorSPL" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "mountainviking" wrote:
    Nice Work iopsychvike!!
    And, Welcome!
    I thought the improvement was obvious enough in the five game win streak, but you've hit the statistical nail on the head.
    Additionaly, TJack made better reads with his feet.
    I wonder if there's a site that tracks first downs, cuz I recall TJack getting 2 or 3 every game we won, on his own, with his feet.


    In the last three games, he started horribly, but finished strong.
    We beat CHI, made the WAS score reasonable, and tied up DEN to force OT.
    I'll agree, he cost us the DET game (week2) with those huck it up there INTs.
    Other than that, his bad decisions were pretty few and far between.
    You can't pin all the blame on him, with the Oline struggling severly at times, TWill dropping more TDs than he caught, and the team in general (coaches included) failing to adjust to the zone blitz/stop AD plan that everyone was throwing at us by late mid season.

    Replace TWill with Berrian.
    Major upgrade.


    My bold predictions...BB will be open, and he won't drop near the % that Troy did.
    Another year for the Oline, and they've been showing pretty steady improvement, that should continue.
    Rice looks like he is going to be good, and should be better in year 2.
    Those two guys will catch some balls, and make teams pay for stacking the box.
    Which, in turn, will help the OLine block better, since eventually, the enemy will have to try to stop the passing game too.
    Then when they back off, it will open up the TEs more, and AP and CT will have room to roam!

    We will get a third QB somewhere.
    Hell, maybe KC would take a 6th or 7th to give us Thigpen back.
    I think we'll draft a guy, and that he will most likely be 2nd on the depth chart by mid season if not by the end of preseason, and provide a better chance at wins if TJ gets hurt than Bollinger would.
    You need to post more.

    ;D
    So do you
    Quit cracking me up my friend.
    I was tagged as a post whore a few threads ago.
    ;D
    Well I can honestly say I didn't tag you.
    I have a pretty good idea who did.
    By the way, he cracks me up all the time.
    ;D
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  4. #104
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,899

    Re: Tarvaris Jackson - QB Or Not QB

    "The" wrote:
    "kevoncox" wrote:

    1) That was a joke that you didn't get. Sorry my attempt at humor fell flat.
    2) I don' think his second half of the season was a good one. He has 4 decent games against bad defenses and he got eaten alive by the bears, skins and denver.

    Everyoen points a the 2nd half of the denver game as something good.
    In that game
    1) Devner was beating us 19-3. They then decided to call of the dogs and play zone, which let us back into the game. Why did they do that? They are idiots. Most teams would have keep their foot on our necks till the fat lady sung.

    2) Tjack looked good in the 2nd half but for most teams we would have been too far down to come back( colts, skins, boys, and pats) Thats seemed to be our issues. Down early and try to come back late. It's not a recipe for sucess

    3) Being able to shred a prevent defense won't help us. Teams only play prevent when they think the game is in the bag.
    Hmm...now normally I'm just a floop off, but that comment made me look into some things. Below, I've listed every game last season. The first column is the week, the second is the team played, third is the score at the end of the first quarter (Vikings score first), fourth is the score at the end of the second quarter (Vikings score first), and the fifth column is the result ((Vikings score first).


    Week


    Team Quarter 1
    Quarter 2


    Result


    1





    Atl



    7-0



    7-0





    W 24-13
    2





    Det


    0-0



    7-10





    L 17-20 (OT)
    3



    KC

    7-0


    7-6




    L 10-13
    4



    GB

    0-7


    6-10
    L 16-23
    5



    Bye
    6



    Chi

    7-7


    14-14 W 34-31
    7



    Dal

    7-7


    14-7




    L 14-24
    8



    Phi

    7-3


    10-14 L 16-23
    9



    SD

    7-7

    7-14



    W 35-17
    10



    GB
    0-7

    0-13



    L 0-34
    11



    Oak
    9-3

    19-19



    W 29-22
    12



    NYG 14-7
    24-7



    W 41-17
    13



    Det
    7-3

    35-10



    W 42-10
    14



    SF
    10-0


    27-0



    W 27-7
    15



    Chi
    0-3

    6-13




    W 20-13
    16



    Was



    0-9

    0-22



    L 21-32
    17



    Den 0-0

    3-14



    L 19-22

    So last season, we were behind in the first quarter in four games last season (weeks 4, 10, 15 and 16). Of those two games, we lost three and won one. At the half, we were behind in eight games (weeks 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, and 17). Of those, we won two and lost six.

    To a degree, you're right that in games we were down early, we were likely to lose. That said, we were only down early in half of the games last season, and we managed to lose two of the games in which we were
    ahead at half time. Furthermore, the margins by which we were down at half time only twice exceeded four points (weeks 10 and 17), which hardly constitutes having to play from very far behind.

    I realize you were probably just trying to make a statement exclusively about the Denver game, but the way you worded it came out as something of a blanket statement. Also, I don't see us having to play from very far behind often, as is evidenced above. Even when we were behind early, it generally wasn't by much. And with the the exception of the Green Bay game in week 10 (and perhaps Washington in week 16),
    we weren't involved in any blowouts, unless we were the ones winning. So all in all I really don't feel that, as you put it, "Thats seemed to be our issues. Down early and try to come back late," is really an issue at all, except in (arguably) two games.

    But hey, I'm not trying to pick on you. I mostly wanted to do this because it sparked my interest.
    I love posts like that Drop.
    Excellent job my friend.
    ;D
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  5. #105
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,599
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Tarvaris Jackson - QB Or Not QB

    "StillPurple" wrote:
    He was injured in the first part of the season, right ?

    I thought he looked horrible in the Washington game. Terrible. And that was late. He did look good vs. the Giants, but our defense was beating them like a red-headed stepchild that day.

    I would say he looked good vs. Oakland and SD, but all he did was handoff as I recall in those games, and our RBs tore those teams up.

    The SF game was quite late, and I recall T-Jacks doing absolutely nothing, even with the box stacked and thus his wideouts in single coverage all day (any NFL QB would have torn that scheme up, and it showed that the Niners had no respect for our passing game). Did he audible once and throw when the Niners were putting 9 guys in the box to stop AP ???

    I mean, really, please name one game from 2007 that you can point to and say "our QB won that game".


    You left off the Denver game.
    Yes, we lost, but TJack played a good game.
    Very good to be truthful.
    He showed leadership and good decisions.
    Unfortunately it wouldn't have mattered anyway with Washington winning.

    I can't look at any game from 2007 and say that TJack won the game.
    I also can't look at any game and say that TJack lost the game.
    I also can't find any other QB that was available during FA who could have done any better than TJack.
    Nor do I see anyone in the draft who can come in and do better in 2008.
    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=

  6. #106
    kevoncox's Avatar
    kevoncox is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,849

    Re: Tarvaris Jackson - QB Or Not QB

    "The" wrote:
    "kevoncox" wrote:

    1) That was a joke that you didn't get. Sorry my attempt at humor fell flat.
    2) I don' think his second half of the season was a good one. He has 4 decent games against bad defenses and he got eaten alive by the bears, skins and denver.

    Everyoen points a the 2nd half of the denver game as something good.
    In that game
    1) Devner was beating us 19-3. They then decided to call of the dogs and play zone, which let us back into the game. Why did they do that? They are idiots. Most teams would have keep their foot on our necks till the fat lady sung.

    2) Tjack looked good in the 2nd half but for most teams we would have been too far down to come back( colts, skins, boys, and pats) Thats seemed to be our issues. Down early and try to come back late. It's not a recipe for sucess

    3) Being able to shred a prevent defense won't help us. Teams only play prevent when they think the game is in the bag.
    Hmm...now normally I'm just a floop off, but that comment made me look into some things. Below, I've listed every game last season. The first column is the week, the second is the team played, third is the score at the end of the first quarter (Vikings score first), fourth is the score at the end of the second quarter (Vikings score first), and the fifth column is the result ((Vikings score first).


    Week


    Team Quarter 1
    Quarter 2


    Result


    1





    Atl



    7-0



    7-0





    W 24-13
    2





    Det


    0-0



    7-10





    L 17-20 (OT)
    3



    KC

    7-0


    7-6




    L 10-13
    4



    GB

    0-7


    6-10
    L 16-23
    5



    Bye
    6



    Chi

    7-7


    14-14 W 34-31
    7



    Dal

    7-7


    14-7




    L 14-24
    8



    Phi

    7-3


    10-14 L 16-23
    9



    SD

    7-7

    7-14



    W 35-17
    10



    GB
    0-7

    0-13



    L 0-34
    11



    Oak
    9-3

    19-19



    W 29-22
    12



    NYG 14-7
    24-7



    W 41-17
    13



    Det
    7-3

    35-10



    W 42-10
    14



    SF
    10-0


    27-0



    W 27-7
    15



    Chi
    0-3

    6-13




    W 20-13
    16



    Was



    0-9

    0-22



    L 21-32
    17



    Den 0-0

    3-14



    L 19-22

    So last season, we were behind in the first quarter in four games last season (weeks 4, 10, 15 and 16). Of those two games, we lost three and won one. At the half, we were behind in eight games (weeks 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, and 17). Of those, we won two and lost six.

    To a degree, you're right that in games we were down early, we were likely to lose. That said, we were only down early in half of the games last season, and we managed to lose two of the games in which we were
    ahead at half time. Furthermore, the margins by which we were down at half time only twice exceeded four points (weeks 10 and 17), which hardly constitutes having to play from very far behind.

    I realize you were probably just trying to make a statement exclusively about the Denver game, but the way you worded it came out as something of a blanket statement. Also, I don't see us having to play from very far behind often, as is evidenced above. Even when we were behind early, it generally wasn't by much. And with the the exception of the Green Bay game in week 10 (and perhaps Washington in week 16),
    we weren't involved in any blowouts, unless we were the ones winning. So all in all I really don't feel that, as you put it, "Thats seemed to be our issues. Down early and try to come back late," is really an issue at all, except in (arguably) two games.

    But hey, I'm not trying to pick on you. I mostly wanted to do this because it sparked my interest.
    Did you remove the games he didn't play in?
    I'm not sure what games they were but it would be intresting to watch it.

  7. #107
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,599
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Tarvaris Jackson - QB Or Not QB

    "kevoncox" wrote:
    "The" wrote:
    "kevoncox" wrote:

    1) That was a joke that you didn't get. Sorry my attempt at humor fell flat.
    2) I don' think his second half of the season was a good one. He has 4 decent games against bad defenses and he got eaten alive by the bears, skins and denver.

    Everyoen points a the 2nd half of the denver game as something good.
    In that game
    1) Devner was beating us 19-3. They then decided to call of the dogs and play zone, which let us back into the game. Why did they do that? They are idiots. Most teams would have keep their foot on our necks till the fat lady sung.

    2) Tjack looked good in the 2nd half but for most teams we would have been too far down to come back( colts, skins, boys, and pats) Thats seemed to be our issues. Down early and try to come back late. It's not a recipe for sucess

    3) Being able to shred a prevent defense won't help us. Teams only play prevent when they think the game is in the bag.
    Hmm...now normally I'm just a floop off, but that comment made me look into some things. Below, I've listed every game last season. The first column is the week, the second is the team played, third is the score at the end of the first quarter (Vikings score first), fourth is the score at the end of the second quarter (Vikings score first), and the fifth column is the result ((Vikings score first).


    Week

    Team Quarter 1
    Quarter 2

    Result


    1




    Atl


    7-0



    7-0





    W 24-13
    2




    Det


    0-0



    7-10




    L 17-20 (OT)
    3



    KC
    7-0

    7-6




    L 10-13
    4



    GB
    0-7

    6-10
    L 16-23
    5



    Bye
    6



    Chi

    7-7

    14-14 W 34-31
    7



    Dal

    7-7

    14-7



    L 14-24
    8



    Phi

    7-3

    10-14 L 16-23
    9



    SD
    7-7

    7-14



    W 35-17
    10


    GB
    0-7

    0-13



    L 0-34
    11


    Oak
    9-3
    19-19


    W 29-22
    12


    NYG 14-7
    24-7


    W 41-17
    13


    Det
    7-3
    35-10



    W 42-10
    14


    SF
    10-0

    27-0



    W 27-7
    15


    Chi
    0-3

    6-13



    W 20-13
    16


    Was


    0-9
    0-22



    L 21-32
    17


    Den 0-0
    3-14



    L 19-22

    So last season, we were behind in the first quarter in four games last season (weeks 4, 10, 15 and 16). Of those two games, we lost three and won one. At the half, we were behind in eight games (weeks 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, and 17). Of those, we won two and lost six.

    To a degree, you're right that in games we were down early, we were likely to lose. That said, we were only down early in half of the games last season, and we managed to lose two of the games in which we were
    ahead at half time. Furthermore, the margins by which we were down at half time only twice exceeded four points (weeks 10 and 17), which hardly constitutes having to play from very far behind.

    I realize you were probably just trying to make a statement exclusively about the Denver game, but the way you worded it came out as something of a blanket statement. Also, I don't see us having to play from very far behind often, as is evidenced above. Even when we were behind early, it generally wasn't by much. And with the the exception of the Green Bay game in week 10 (and perhaps Washington in week 16),
    we weren't involved in any blowouts, unless we were the ones winning. So all in all I really don't feel that, as you put it, "Thats seemed to be our issues. Down early and try to come back late," is really an issue at all, except in (arguably) two games.

    But hey, I'm not trying to pick on you. I mostly wanted to do this because it sparked my interest.
    Did you remove the games he didn't play in?
    I'm not sure what games they were but it would be intresting to watch it.
    TJack didn't play in weeks 3, 4, 8, or 10.
    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=

  8. #108
    kevoncox's Avatar
    kevoncox is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,849

    Re: Tarvaris Jackson - QB Or Not QB

    Thanks....
    Humm maybe the last 2 games spoke louder about him to me than the rest of the season.
    I was wrong.

  9. #109
    tb04512's Avatar
    tb04512 is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,803

    Re: Tarvaris Jackson - QB Or Not QB

    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "kevoncox" wrote:
    "The" wrote:
    "kevoncox" wrote:

    1) That was a joke that you didn't get. Sorry my attempt at humor fell flat.
    2) I don' think his second half of the season was a good one. He has 4 decent games against bad defenses and he got eaten alive by the bears, skins and denver.

    Everyoen points a the 2nd half of the denver game as something good.
    In that game
    1) Devner was beating us 19-3. They then decided to call of the dogs and play zone, which let us back into the game. Why did they do that? They are idiots. Most teams would have keep their foot on our necks till the fat lady sung.

    2) Tjack looked good in the 2nd half but for most teams we would have been too far down to come back( colts, skins, boys, and pats) Thats seemed to be our issues. Down early and try to come back late. It's not a recipe for sucess

    3) Being able to shred a prevent defense won't help us. Teams only play prevent when they think the game is in the bag.
    Hmm...now normally I'm just a floop off, but that comment made me look into some things. Below, I've listed every game last season. The first column is the week, the second is the team played, third is the score at the end of the first quarter (Vikings score first), fourth is the score at the end of the second quarter (Vikings score first), and the fifth column is the result ((Vikings score first).


    Week

    Team Quarter 1
    Quarter 2

    Result


    1




    Atl


    7-0



    7-0





    W 24-13
    2




    Det


    0-0



    7-10




    L 17-20 (OT)
    3



    KC
    7-0

    7-6




    L 10-13
    4



    GB
    0-7

    6-10
    L 16-23
    5



    Bye
    6



    Chi

    7-7

    14-14 W 34-31
    7



    Dal

    7-7

    14-7



    L 14-24
    8



    Phi

    7-3

    10-14 L 16-23
    9



    SD
    7-7

    7-14



    W 35-17
    10


    GB
    0-7

    0-13



    L 0-34
    11


    Oak
    9-3
    19-19


    W 29-22
    12


    NYG 14-7
    24-7


    W 41-17
    13


    Det
    7-3
    35-10



    W 42-10
    14


    SF
    10-0

    27-0



    W 27-7
    15


    Chi
    0-3

    6-13



    W 20-13
    16


    Was


    0-9
    0-22



    L 21-32
    17


    Den 0-0
    3-14



    L 19-22

    So last season, we were behind in the first quarter in four games last season (weeks 4, 10, 15 and 16). Of those two games, we lost three and won one. At the half, we were behind in eight games (weeks 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, and 17). Of those, we won two and lost six.

    To a degree, you're right that in games we were down early, we were likely to lose. That said, we were only down early in half of the games last season, and we managed to lose two of the games in which we were
    ahead at half time. Furthermore, the margins by which we were down at half time only twice exceeded four points (weeks 10 and 17), which hardly constitutes having to play from very far behind.

    I realize you were probably just trying to make a statement exclusively about the Denver game, but the way you worded it came out as something of a blanket statement. Also, I don't see us having to play from very far behind often, as is evidenced above. Even when we were behind early, it generally wasn't by much. And with the the exception of the Green Bay game in week 10 (and perhaps Washington in week 16),
    we weren't involved in any blowouts, unless we were the ones winning. So all in all I really don't feel that, as you put it, "Thats seemed to be our issues. Down early and try to come back late," is really an issue at all, except in (arguably) two games.

    But hey, I'm not trying to pick on you. I mostly wanted to do this because it sparked my interest.
    Did you remove the games he didn't play in?
    I'm not sure what games they were but it would be intresting to watch it.
    TJack didn't play in weeks 3, 4, 8, or 10.
    looks like we went 0-4 when he didnt play hmmmm

    Thanks josdin00

  10. #110
    kevoncox's Avatar
    kevoncox is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,849

    Re: Tarvaris Jackson - QB Or Not QB

    Yeah, we know.

Page 11 of 22 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Tarvaris Jackson speaks....
    By marstc09 in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 846
    Last Post: 09-20-2010, 05:31 PM
  2. Tarvaris Jackson: "It should have been us"
    By Tad7 in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: 04-08-2010, 09:32 AM
  3. Tarvaris Jackson
    By VIKINAT0R in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 10-25-2007, 10:19 PM
  4. For the Tarvaris Jackson Haters
    By VikingsTw in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 127
    Last Post: 10-25-2007, 01:59 PM
  5. TARVARIS JACKSON
    By DustinDupont in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-30-2006, 10:43 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •