Page 30 of 30 FirstFirst ... 20282930
Results 291 to 297 of 297
  1. #291
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Tarvaris Jackson will start at QB against Cardinals

    "bleedpurple" wrote:
    "V" wrote:
    "bleedpurple" wrote:
    "ragz" wrote:

    that is so so lame, eliminate turnovers.
    oh really?
    wow, thats never the difference in any game.
    problem is teams can overcome them if they can score.
    dont fool yourself into thinking our offense is this juggernaut that punches the ball in all year long cuz it hasn't.
    we are gonna need more than what everyone knows we are gonna do, or at least the proof that we can do it if asked too.
    i have no problem on relying on the things we are built around, but i do have a problem with the claim we dont have the personell to throw the football.
    shank obviously is a weapon that is underutilized, and what is berrian on pace to have 30 less catches than he had last year with rex grossman and kyle orten?
    i'm sorry, but averaging 1-2 catches a game for our big play reciever is not exactly something i think is a good gameplan.
    and lets not bs again and act as if we are at least targetting him alot cuz we know that thats not true.
    i dont know what your problem is with thinking somebody besides peterson should be involved on a more regular basis.
    we may very well be good enough to just run the football all the way to the super bowl, but i happen to think that we may have to do more than that just based on the raised level of play during palyoff time.
    you act as if i'm suggesting we have to overhaul, when in reality i'm suggesting what we do do is probably not gonna be good enough in the playoffs.
    maybe it is.

    and comparing the bears to the likes of the giants is just another lame attempt at proving a point.
    teams have been able to throw all over the bears this year, thats why the rushing numbers are as low as they are.
    again, look a little deeper than just some random number.


    and when did we turn the ball over in the tampa game, at the end when we were losing.
    its not exactly like our qb play had us going up and down the field.
    we scored one td.
    tampa pretty much made one big play all day long on offense, and even when your defense plays well, that one play and them slowing down our run lead to a loss.
    turnovers just finished off our day.
    Well spoken Ragz.. i'm with you all the way on this one buddy!!.. i've been saying the same thing all week!!!... 1-2 targets a game for BB is ludacris... sooner or later teams are going to make us win by passing the football by selling out to stop the run.. and until we prove we have the QB play to do that, we will never reach our true potential....

    Not all teams will we be able to run on them like that...
    It's just pure difference of opinion. I think we can run on anybody. I have confidence in the things that our team does well. We have run for under 100 yards in 3 games this year. You guys do not. That is all. Saying our run game is only a product of facing bad run defenses is a total copout.

    Only 5 teams have more giveaways than we do. It is clearly a big factor, whether you want to admit it or not. If teams are able to force us to pass, they will surely win, because we're not good at it. I can't sit here and pretend we are something we're not. I'm not saying just use Peterson. I'm saying use Peterson, use Taylor, use Wade, use Shank, and use Berrian just as we have been doing, but get rid of turnovers.

    Turnovers are never the difference in any game? What? Yes good passing offenses can overcome them if they can score, but we are not a good passing offense.

    If all you're saying is that Berrian deserves more targets then sure I can agree with that. Any talk about changing the style of our offense though I heavily disagree with.

    As far as the Tampa game goes, turnovers don't count when you are losing? please. The first turnover we were down by 3 and about to get the ball back, eerily similar to the GB game which AD drove down the field and won for us. The second turnover we were down by 6 and still had a chance to win it. Don't act like the game was over when those turnovers occurred. TOs have ended our attempts to win ALL FIVE of the games we have lost.

    I'm not saying get away from the run, nor am i saying we shouldn't be a run first team... i would just like us to be a more balanced offense where we can predicate what we do on offense whether we want to run or pass... stop one at your own risk...

    I think i we either had better QB play or better receivers or both, do you realize how much better the running game would be... we'd be pretty damn close to the likes of the old school 49ers, with Montana rice taylor and craig and clark...

    Now, i'm not saying we're as good as they are.. pretty much all hall of famers, but dangerous in that sense of an offense where you can't stop us, bc we can run it as well as pass it and we are good at both...

    that's all i'm saying.. and we are a 2nd receiver, better QB play and maybe a right tackle away from a potential dynasty type offensive football team... AP does that much for our offense... we were close with Moss and Smith... but could just never get the defense to catch up... now we can potentially have both.!
    I would think we should be using the Dallas team of the 90's as what we should be doing offensively. They ran the ball with Emmitt Smith but they also threw the ball down the field to Coke head if the opportunity presented itself. The running game was their bread and butter and Aikman never set the world on fire with the yardge totals he put up, but when they needed to he could push the ball down the field and that kept the defenses from crowding the line of scrimmage. That and not the WCO should be the template that we use for our offense. The question is, do we have a QB who can make those completions down the field when we need to and when they are under pressure.

  2. #292
    ragz's Avatar
    ragz is offline GM
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,114

    Re: Tarvaris Jackson will start at QB against Cardinals

    "bleedpurple" wrote:
    "V" wrote:
    "bleedpurple" wrote:
    "ragz" wrote:

    that is so so lame, eliminate turnovers.
    oh really?
    wow, thats never the difference in any game.
    problem is teams can overcome them if they can score.
    dont fool yourself into thinking our offense is this juggernaut that punches the ball in all year long cuz it hasn't.
    we are gonna need more than what everyone knows we are gonna do, or at least the proof that we can do it if asked too.
    i have no problem on relying on the things we are built around, but i do have a problem with the claim we dont have the personell to throw the football.
    shank obviously is a weapon that is underutilized, and what is berrian on pace to have 30 less catches than he had last year with rex grossman and kyle orten?
    i'm sorry, but averaging 1-2 catches a game for our big play reciever is not exactly something i think is a good gameplan.
    and lets not bs again and act as if we are at least targetting him alot cuz we know that thats not true.
    i dont know what your problem is with thinking somebody besides peterson should be involved on a more regular basis.
    we may very well be good enough to just run the football all the way to the super bowl, but i happen to think that we may have to do more than that just based on the raised level of play during palyoff time.
    you act as if i'm suggesting we have to overhaul, when in reality i'm suggesting what we do do is probably not gonna be good enough in the playoffs.
    maybe it is.

    and comparing the bears to the likes of the giants is just another lame attempt at proving a point.
    teams have been able to throw all over the bears this year, thats why the rushing numbers are as low as they are.
    again, look a little deeper than just some random number.


    and when did we turn the ball over in the tampa game, at the end when we were losing.
    its not exactly like our qb play had us going up and down the field.
    we scored one td.
    tampa pretty much made one big play all day long on offense, and even when your defense plays well, that one play and them slowing down our run lead to a loss.
    turnovers just finished off our day.

    Well spoken Ragz.. i'm with you all the way on this one buddy!!.. i've been saying the same thing all week!!!... 1-2 targets a game for BB is ludacris... sooner or later teams are going to make us win by passing the football by selling out to stop the run.. and until we prove we have the QB play to do that, we will never reach our true potential....

    Not all teams will we be able to run on them like that...
    It's just pure difference of opinion. I think we can run on anybody. I have confidence in the things that our team does well. We have run for under 100 yards in 3 games this year. You guys do not. That is all. Saying our run game is only a product of facing bad run defenses is a total copout.

    Only 5 teams have more giveaways than we do. It is clearly a big factor, whether you want to admit it or not. If teams are able to force us to pass, they will surely win, because we're not good at it. I can't sit here and pretend we are something we're not. I'm not saying just use Peterson. I'm saying use Peterson, use Taylor, use Wade, use Shank, and use Berrian just as we have been doing, but get rid of turnovers.

    Turnovers are never the difference in any game? What? Yes good passing offenses can overcome them if they can score, but we are not a good passing offense.

    If all you're saying is that Berrian deserves more targets then sure I can agree with that. Any talk about changing the style of our offense though I heavily disagree with.

    As far as the Tampa game goes, turnovers don't count when you are losing? please. The first turnover we were down by 3 and about to get the ball back, eerily similar to the GB game which AD drove down the field and won for us. The second turnover we were down by 6 and still had a chance to win it. Don't act like the game was over when those turnovers occurred. TOs have ended our attempts to win ALL FIVE of the games we have lost.

    I'm not saying get away from the run, nor am i saying we shouldn't be a run first team... i would just like us to be a more balanced offense where we can predicate what we do on offense whether we want to run or pass... stop one at your own risk...

    I think i we either had better QB play or better receivers or both, do you realize how much better the running game would be... we'd be pretty gol 'darnit close to the likes of the old school 49ers, with Montana rice taylor and craig and clark...

    Now, i'm not saying we're as good as they are.. pretty much all hall of famers, but dangerous in that sense of an offense where you can't stop us, bc we can run it as well as pass it and we are good at both...

    that's all i'm saying.. and we are a 2nd receiver, better QB play and maybe a right tackle away from a potential dynasty type offensive football team... AP does that much for our offense... we were close with Moss and Smith... but could just never get the defense to catch up... now we can potentially have both.!
    dead on uffda in the previous post.
    and same for bleedpurple.
    nobody i've heard said anything about changing what we do to some dramatic effect, yet again.
    but how many teams consistently throw the ball 20 times and win when the level of the teams you play in the playoffs.
    the bar is gonna have to be raised, and we are gonna have to be a little bit more creative than handoff peterson if we get into the playoffs.
    not a far fetched approach.
    and when i say creative i mean, throwing the ball to some of the 2 or 3 playmakers on your offense.
    to limit berrian to mostly just deep balls, or rice to just the red zone, or taylor mostly exclusively on 3rd downs is not exactly being creative.
    i think its safe to say with the amount of attention the run game is getting week in and week out, that alot of plays are consistently being left on the field becuz we are choosing to just run into the fire.
    hey if it works thats fine with me, i'm just saying that my guy tells me it wont to this effect in the playoffs.

    and the refernce to defenses we played is related to legitmate super bowl contention.
    i mean if you are happy winning a wild card and then going out in the 2nd round when a team stuffs our run, good for you.
    but i'm saying if we want to get into super bowl contention, we are gonna have to do alot of what the giants did last year.
    run the ball, but have the ability to make a team pay with the pass game.
    we are not gonna be changing what we do, its always gonna be run and play defense.
    but we can't just go out there against really good defenses and throw the ball 7 times in a half, cuz we'll end up with no points, and one of those games where we are 3-7 for 30 yards.

    and
    i guess you forget ferrotte going 4 and out with us still down by one score and plenty of time, but the defense yet again made a stop and forced a field goal which they missed before the final fumble.
    and that was another questionable call by your boy childress, going for it on 4th down on our own 30 with still alot of time and a defense playing well.
    but we had less time, and an offense that hadn't done anything for like 2 1/2 quarters.
    like i said in the previous post, the turnovers closed the game out for us, but we had a possession between the 2 turnovers to still take the lead and we couldnt get a first down.


    you mentioned our turnovers being such a huge factor, which it always is, yet ferrotte i guarantee is the majority of those turnovers we have, yet you continue to praise his play and our record.
    again ignoring your own stat, and contradicting yourself by bringing it up.
    turnovers are gonna be huge, cuz good football teams in the playoffs protect the ball well.
    but if the attitude is we cant pass teh ball cuz we are afraid of a turnover, believe me the odds are we will lose anyway cuz the other team is not gonna play like that.
    you have to remember how many close games we lost with that very mentality, and they weren't against playoff teams.
    all i'm saying is we can't be playing passive or afraid, cuz it wont work in the playoffs, or now for that matter.

    "self improvement's masturbation.
    now self destruction" that's enlightenment

  3. #293
    bleedpurple is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,951

    Re: Tarvaris Jackson will start at QB against Cardinals

    "UffDaVikes" wrote:
    "bleedpurple" wrote:
    "V" wrote:
    "bleedpurple" wrote:
    "ragz" wrote:

    that is so so lame, eliminate turnovers.
    oh really?
    wow, thats never the difference in any game.
    problem is teams can overcome them if they can score.
    dont fool yourself into thinking our offense is this juggernaut that punches the ball in all year long cuz it hasn't.
    we are gonna need more than what everyone knows we are gonna do, or at least the proof that we can do it if asked too.
    i have no problem on relying on the things we are built around, but i do have a problem with the claim we dont have the personell to throw the football.
    shank obviously is a weapon that is underutilized, and what is berrian on pace to have 30 less catches than he had last year with rex grossman and kyle orten?
    i'm sorry, but averaging 1-2 catches a game for our big play reciever is not exactly something i think is a good gameplan.
    and lets not bs again and act as if we are at least targetting him alot cuz we know that thats not true.
    i dont know what your problem is with thinking somebody besides peterson should be involved on a more regular basis.
    we may very well be good enough to just run the football all the way to the super bowl, but i happen to think that we may have to do more than that just based on the raised level of play during palyoff time.
    you act as if i'm suggesting we have to overhaul, when in reality i'm suggesting what we do do is probably not gonna be good enough in the playoffs.
    maybe it is.

    and comparing the bears to the likes of the giants is just another lame attempt at proving a point.
    teams have been able to throw all over the bears this year, thats why the rushing numbers are as low as they are.
    again, look a little deeper than just some random number.


    and when did we turn the ball over in the tampa game, at the end when we were losing.
    its not exactly like our qb play had us going up and down the field.
    we scored one td.
    tampa pretty much made one big play all day long on offense, and even when your defense plays well, that one play and them slowing down our run lead to a loss.
    turnovers just finished off our day.

    Well spoken Ragz.. i'm with you all the way on this one buddy!!.. i've been saying the same thing all week!!!... 1-2 targets a game for BB is ludacris... sooner or later teams are going to make us win by passing the football by selling out to stop the run.. and until we prove we have the QB play to do that, we will never reach our true potential....

    Not all teams will we be able to run on them like that...
    It's just pure difference of opinion. I think we can run on anybody. I have confidence in the things that our team does well. We have run for under 100 yards in 3 games this year. You guys do not. That is all. Saying our run game is only a product of facing bad run defenses is a total copout.

    Only 5 teams have more giveaways than we do. It is clearly a big factor, whether you want to admit it or not. If teams are able to force us to pass, they will surely win, because we're not good at it. I can't sit here and pretend we are something we're not. I'm not saying just use Peterson. I'm saying use Peterson, use Taylor, use Wade, use Shank, and use Berrian just as we have been doing, but get rid of turnovers.

    Turnovers are never the difference in any game? What? Yes good passing offenses can overcome them if they can score, but we are not a good passing offense.

    If all you're saying is that Berrian deserves more targets then sure I can agree with that. Any talk about changing the style of our offense though I heavily disagree with.

    As far as the Tampa game goes, turnovers don't count when you are losing? please. The first turnover we were down by 3 and about to get the ball back, eerily similar to the GB game which AD drove down the field and won for us. The second turnover we were down by 6 and still had a chance to win it. Don't act like the game was over when those turnovers occurred. TOs have ended our attempts to win ALL FIVE of the games we have lost.

    I'm not saying get away from the run, nor am i saying we shouldn't be a run first team... i would just like us to be a more balanced offense where we can predicate what we do on offense whether we want to run or pass... stop one at your own risk...

    I think i we either had better QB play or better receivers or both, do you realize how much better the running game would be... we'd be pretty gol 'darnit close to the likes of the old school 49ers, with Montana rice taylor and craig and clark...

    Now, i'm not saying we're as good as they are.. pretty much all hall of famers, but dangerous in that sense of an offense where you can't stop us, bc we can run it as well as pass it and we are good at both...

    that's all i'm saying.. and we are a 2nd receiver, better QB play and maybe a right tackle away from a potential dynasty type offensive football team... AP does that much for our offense... we were close with Moss and Smith... but could just never get the defense to catch up... now we can potentially have both.!
    I would think we should be using the Dallas team of the 90's as what we should be doing offensively. They ran the ball with Emmitt Smith but they also threw the ball down the field to Coke head if the opportunity presented itself. The running game was their bread and butter and Aikman never set the world on fire with the yardge totals he put up, but when they needed to he could push the ball down the field and that kept the defenses from crowding the line of scrimmage. That and not the WCO should be the template that we use for our offense. The question is, do we have a QB who can make those completions down the field when we need to and when they are under pressure.
    i'm not sure i believe that!!.. Irvin changed the game being one of the biggest receivers of his time and now teams are all looking for that prototypical receiver who is 6'3 220...

    Aikman is/was a hall of fame Qb.. i used the 49ers bc they rean the wco, had 2 amazing receivers, a killer TE and running back... the cowboys did to, and they also won multiple superbowls.. so i wouldn't be mad about that either, but when you say cowboys i'm assuming you mean the mentality of run first, and i think they ran it just as good as they passed it..

    either way, both of those teams were dynatsies and i think we could potentially be just as good as those teams with a few more tweaks here and there...

  4. #294
    ragz's Avatar
    ragz is offline GM
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,114

    Re: Tarvaris Jackson will start at QB against Cardinals

    "bleedpurple" wrote:
    "UffDaVikes" wrote:
    "bleedpurple" wrote:
    "V" wrote:
    "bleedpurple" wrote:
    [quote author=ragz link=topic=49484.msg881246#msg881246 date=1229583723]

    that is so so lame, eliminate turnovers.
    oh really?
    wow, thats never the difference in any game.
    problem is teams can overcome them if they can score.
    dont fool yourself into thinking our offense is this juggernaut that punches the ball in all year long cuz it hasn't.
    we are gonna need more than what everyone knows we are gonna do, or at least the proof that we can do it if asked too.
    i have no problem on relying on the things we are built around, but i do have a problem with the claim we dont have the personell to throw the football.
    shank obviously is a weapon that is underutilized, and what is berrian on pace to have 30 less catches than he had last year with rex grossman and kyle orten?
    i'm sorry, but averaging 1-2 catches a game for our big play reciever is not exactly something i think is a good gameplan.
    and lets not bs again and act as if we are at least targetting him alot cuz we know that thats not true.
    i dont know what your problem is with thinking somebody besides peterson should be involved on a more regular basis.
    we may very well be good enough to just run the football all the way to the super bowl, but i happen to think that we may have to do more than that just based on the raised level of play during palyoff time.
    you act as if i'm suggesting we have to overhaul, when in reality i'm suggesting what we do do is probably not gonna be good enough in the playoffs.
    maybe it is.

    and comparing the bears to the likes of the giants is just another lame attempt at proving a point.
    teams have been able to throw all over the bears this year, thats why the rushing numbers are as low as they are.
    again, look a little deeper than just some random number.


    and when did we turn the ball over in the tampa game, at the end when we were losing.
    its not exactly like our qb play had us going up and down the field.
    we scored one td.
    tampa pretty much made one big play all day long on offense, and even when your defense plays well, that one play and them slowing down our run lead to a loss.
    turnovers just finished off our day.

    Well spoken Ragz.. i'm with you all the way on this one buddy!!.. i've been saying the same thing all week!!!... 1-2 targets a game for BB is ludacris... sooner or later teams are going to make us win by passing the football by selling out to stop the run.. and until we prove we have the QB play to do that, we will never reach our true potential....

    Not all teams will we be able to run on them like that...
    It's just pure difference of opinion. I think we can run on anybody. I have confidence in the things that our team does well. We have run for under 100 yards in 3 games this year. You guys do not. That is all. Saying our run game is only a product of facing bad run defenses is a total copout.

    Only 5 teams have more giveaways than we do. It is clearly a big factor, whether you want to admit it or not. If teams are able to force us to pass, they will surely win, because we're not good at it. I can't sit here and pretend we are something we're not. I'm not saying just use Peterson. I'm saying use Peterson, use Taylor, use Wade, use Shank, and use Berrian just as we have been doing, but get rid of turnovers.

    Turnovers are never the difference in any game? What? Yes good passing offenses can overcome them if they can score, but we are not a good passing offense.

    If all you're saying is that Berrian deserves more targets then sure I can agree with that. Any talk about changing the style of our offense though I heavily disagree with.

    As far as the Tampa game goes, turnovers don't count when you are losing? please. The first turnover we were down by 3 and about to get the ball back, eerily similar to the GB game which AD drove down the field and won for us. The second turnover we were down by 6 and still had a chance to win it. Don't act like the game was over when those turnovers occurred. TOs have ended our attempts to win ALL FIVE of the games we have lost.

    I'm not saying get away from the run, nor am i saying we shouldn't be a run first team... i would just like us to be a more balanced offense where we can predicate what we do on offense whether we want to run or pass... stop one at your own risk...

    I think i we either had better QB play or better receivers or both, do you realize how much better the running game would be... we'd be pretty gol 'darnit close to the likes of the old school 49ers, with Montana rice taylor and craig and clark...

    Now, i'm not saying we're as good as they are.. pretty much all hall of famers, but dangerous in that sense of an offense where you can't stop us, bc we can run it as well as pass it and we are good at both...

    that's all i'm saying.. and we are a 2nd receiver, better QB play and maybe a right tackle away from a potential dynasty type offensive football team... AP does that much for our offense... we were close with Moss and Smith... but could just never get the defense to catch up... now we can potentially have both.!
    I would think we should be using the Dallas team of the 90's as what we should be doing offensively. They ran the ball with Emmitt Smith but they also threw the ball down the field to Coke head if the opportunity presented itself. The running game was their bread and butter and Aikman never set the world on fire with the yardge totals he put up, but when they needed to he could push the ball down the field and that kept the defenses from crowding the line of scrimmage. That and not the WCO should be the template that we use for our offense. The question is, do we have a QB who can make those completions down the field when we need to and when they are under pressure.
    i'm not sure i believe that!!.. Irvin changed the game being one of the biggest receivers of his time and now teams are all looking for that prototypical receiver who is 6'3 220...

    Aikman is/was a hall of fame Qb.. i used the 49ers bc they rean the wco, had 2 amazing receivers, a killer TE and running back... the cowboys did to, and they also won multiple superbowls.. so i wouldn't be mad about that either, but when you say cowboys i'm assuming you mean the mentality of run first, and i think they ran it just as good as they passed it..

    either way, both of those teams were dynatsies and i think we could potentially be just as good as those teams with a few more tweaks here and there...
    [/quote]
    well i think we are built and play more like those dallas teams, then we do san frans.
    they were pass first, setup the run and mix it in.
    and when you think about it even our pass game is more dallas.
    we pass if we need to convert 3rd downs, or we take shots down field.
    san fran passed on any down, any time, mostly short, and with players catching and running.
    wco nowadays is so overused anyway cuz 3/4 of the league uses some supposed variation, but we run our team more like dallas then the traditional wco.
    "self improvement's masturbation.
    now self destruction" that's enlightenment

  5. #295
    V-Unit's Avatar
    V-Unit is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,317

    Re: Tarvaris Jackson will start at QB against Cardinals

    "UffDaVikes" wrote:
    "bleedpurple" wrote:
    I'm not saying get away from the run, nor am i saying we shouldn't be a run first team... i would just like us to be a more balanced offense where we can predicate what we do on offense whether we want to run or pass... stop one at your own risk...

    I think i we either had better QB play or better receivers or both, do you realize how much better the running game would be... we'd be pretty damn close to the likes of the old school 49ers, with Montana rice taylor and craig and clark...

    Now, i'm not saying we're as good as they are.. pretty much all hall of famers, but dangerous in that sense of an offense where you can't stop us, bc we can run it as well as pass it and we are good at both...

    that's all i'm saying.. and we are a 2nd receiver, better QB play and maybe a right tackle away from a potential dynasty type offensive football team... AP does that much for our offense... we were close with Moss and Smith... but could just never get the defense to catch up... now we can potentially have both.!
    I would think we should be using the Dallas team of the 90's as what we should be doing offensively. They ran the ball with Emmitt Smith but they also threw the ball down the field to Coke head if the opportunity presented itself. The running game was their bread and butter and Aikman never set the world on fire with the yardge totals he put up, but when they needed to he could push the ball down the field and that kept the defenses from crowding the line of scrimmage. That and not the WCO should be the template that we use for our offense. The question is, do we have a QB who can make those completions down the field when we need to and when they are under pressure.
    Comparing Tahi to Moose
    Comparing Jackson to Aikman
    Comparing Berrian to Irvin
    Comparing our very good OL to their juggernaut OL.

    I would love to be a more balanced team too, but I don't think we have the personnell to do it, as bleedpurple inferred. Thus, I would rather stick to our strengths.
    "I hate when threads are destroyed by facts and logic."
    - Prophet


    Thanks Josdin!

  6. #296
    V-Unit's Avatar
    V-Unit is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,317

    Re: Tarvaris Jackson will start at QB against Cardinals

    "ragz" wrote:

    dead on uffda in the previous post.
    and same for bleedpurple.
    nobody i've heard said anything about changing what we do to some dramatic effect, yet again.
    but how many teams consistently throw the ball 20 times and win when the level of the teams you play in the playoffs.
    the bar is gonna have to be raised, and we are gonna have to be a little bit more creative than handoff peterson if we get into the playoffs.
    not a far fetched approach.
    and when i say creative i mean, throwing the ball to some of the 2 or 3 playmakers on your offense.
    to limit berrian to mostly just deep balls, or rice to just the red zone, or taylor mostly exclusively on 3rd downs is not exactly being creative.
    i think its safe to say with the amount of attention the run game is getting week in and week out, that alot of plays are consistently being left on the field becuz we are choosing to just run into the fire.
    hey if it works thats fine with me, i'm just saying that my guy tells me it wont to this effect in the playoffs.

    and the refernce to defenses we played is related to legitmate super bowl contention.
    i mean if you are happy winning a wild card and then going out in the 2nd round when a team stuffs our run, good for you.
    but i'm saying if we want to get into super bowl contention, we are gonna have to do alot of what the giants did last year.
    run the ball, but have the ability to make a team pay with the pass game.
    we are not gonna be changing what we do, its always gonna be run and play defense.
    but we can't just go out there against really good defenses and throw the ball 7 times in a half, cuz we'll end up with no points, and one of those games where we are 3-7 for 30 yards.

    and
    i guess you forget ferrotte going 4 and out with us still down by one score and plenty of time, but the defense yet again made a stop and forced a field goal which they missed before the final fumble.
    and that was another questionable call by your boy childress, going for it on 4th down on our own 30 with still alot of time and a defense playing well.
    but we had less time, and an offense that hadn't done anything for like 2 1/2 quarters.
    like i said in the previous post, the turnovers closed the game out for us, but we had a possession between the 2 turnovers to still take the lead and we couldnt get a first down.


    you mentioned our turnovers being such a huge factor, which it always is, yet ferrotte i guarantee is the majority of those turnovers we have, yet you continue to praise his play and our record.
    again ignoring your own stat, and contradicting yourself by bringing it up.
    turnovers are gonna be huge, cuz good football teams in the playoffs protect the ball well.
    but if the attitude is we cant pass teh ball cuz we are afraid of a turnover, believe me the odds are we will lose anyway cuz the other team is not gonna play like that.
    you have to remember how many close games we lost with that very mentality, and they weren't against playoff teams.
    all i'm saying is we can't be playing passive or afraid, cuz it wont work in the playoffs, or now for that matter.

    Run the ball, but have the ability to make plays with the passing game. That is exactly what I have been preaching all year long. All year. There is a difference between passing effectively and passing more, a distincition which you still ignore.

    Yes, Frerotte went four and out because thats what happens when we start passing a lot. We suck at it. You know very well that Chilldress is not my boy. I was pissed at Chilly for that series. I'm pissed any time we pass on 1st and 10, 2nd and 6, 3rd and 3, or 4th and 2. Run the Damn Ball.

    I have said several times that I was disappointed with Frerotte's turnovers. Several times. Yet, for all the turnovers he had, TJ was just as bad as the 2007 year you praise him for. There is no contradiction. If TJ plays like Gus with half the turnovers, we'll be fine.

    How is running the ball passive? Running is our strength and bread and butter. The big plays against Arizona were big, but it was our success that really took their will. Punishing teams with a good running game is not passive. If you want to see TJ start winning games with his arm, sure that would be great, but I'm not putting my eggs in that basket.
    "I hate when threads are destroyed by facts and logic."
    - Prophet


    Thanks Josdin!

  7. #297
    ragz's Avatar
    ragz is offline GM
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,114

    Re: Tarvaris Jackson will start at QB against Cardinals

    "V" wrote:
    "ragz" wrote:

    dead on uffda in the previous post.
    and same for bleedpurple.
    nobody i've heard said anything about changing what we do to some dramatic effect, yet again.
    but how many teams consistently throw the ball 20 times and win when the level of the teams you play in the playoffs.
    the bar is gonna have to be raised, and we are gonna have to be a little bit more creative than handoff peterson if we get into the playoffs.
    not a far fetched approach.
    and when i say creative i mean, throwing the ball to some of the 2 or 3 playmakers on your offense.
    to limit berrian to mostly just deep balls, or rice to just the red zone, or taylor mostly exclusively on 3rd downs is not exactly being creative.
    i think its safe to say with the amount of attention the run game is getting week in and week out, that alot of plays are consistently being left on the field becuz we are choosing to just run into the fire.
    hey if it works thats fine with me, i'm just saying that my guy tells me it wont to this effect in the playoffs.

    and the refernce to defenses we played is related to legitmate super bowl contention.
    i mean if you are happy winning a wild card and then going out in the 2nd round when a team stuffs our run, good for you.
    but i'm saying if we want to get into super bowl contention, we are gonna have to do alot of what the giants did last year.
    run the ball, but have the ability to make a team pay with the pass game.
    we are not gonna be changing what we do, its always gonna be run and play defense.
    but we can't just go out there against really good defenses and throw the ball 7 times in a half, cuz we'll end up with no points, and one of those games where we are 3-7 for 30 yards.

    and
    i guess you forget ferrotte going 4 and out with us still down by one score and plenty of time, but the defense yet again made a stop and forced a field goal which they missed before the final fumble.
    and that was another questionable call by your boy childress, going for it on 4th down on our own 30 with still alot of time and a defense playing well.
    but we had less time, and an offense that hadn't done anything for like 2 1/2 quarters.
    like i said in the previous post, the turnovers closed the game out for us, but we had a possession between the 2 turnovers to still take the lead and we couldnt get a first down.


    you mentioned our turnovers being such a huge factor, which it always is, yet ferrotte i guarantee is the majority of those turnovers we have, yet you continue to praise his play and our record.
    again ignoring your own stat, and contradicting yourself by bringing it up.
    turnovers are gonna be huge, cuz good football teams in the playoffs protect the ball well.
    but if the attitude is we cant pass teh ball cuz we are afraid of a turnover, believe me the odds are we will lose anyway cuz the other team is not gonna play like that.
    you have to remember how many close games we lost with that very mentality, and they weren't against playoff teams.
    all i'm saying is we can't be playing passive or afraid, cuz it wont work in the playoffs, or now for that matter.

    Run the ball, but have the ability to make plays with the passing game. That is exactly what I have been preaching all year long. All year. There is a difference between passing effectively and passing more, a distincition which you still ignore.

    Yes, Frerotte went four and out because thats what happens when we start passing a lot. We suck at it. You know very well that Chilldress is not my boy. I was pissed at Chilly for that series. I'm pissed any time we pass on 1st and 10, 2nd and 6, 3rd and 3, or 4th and 2. Run the gol 'darnit Ball.

    I have said several times that I was disappointed with Frerotte's turnovers. Several times. Yet, for all the turnovers he had, TJ was just as bad as the 2007 year you praise him for. There is no contradiction. If TJ plays like Gus with half the turnovers, we'll be fine.

    How is running the ball passive? Running is our strength and bread and butter. The big plays against Arizona were big, but it was our success that really took their will. Punishing teams with a good running game is not passive. If you want to see TJ start winning games with his arm, sure that would be great, but I'm not putting my eggs in that basket.
    what are you talking about.
    ferrotte went 4 and out throwing, and missing an open wr on that 4th down too, cuz it was late in the game.
    we couldnt just run, not enough time.


    didn't jackson throw 4 ints in his 2nd start of the year, his 4th nfl start but a young qb can't have a bad game according to you.
    so after 2 other qbs helped make us 3-6 what were jacksons numbers like?
    not ferrottes getting worse and worse and giving the other team at least a td per game.
    your comparison is just not accurate.
    you try to claim jackson was playing as badly as ferrotte while we were winning and between his completion percentage, rushing yds, tds he accounted for, and his picks, they dont.
    jackson wasn't lighting the world on fire but he wasn't giving the team points every week, and was actually picking up some first downs with his feet.
    but whatever.

    and quantity does matter, cuz you literally are leaving plays out on the field that probably end up 2 yd runs.
    its not passive, its just stupid.
    if you have an advantage becuz of a defenses formation it doesnt matter what your bread and butter is you should attack it.
    when you only throw a handful of times you are leaving yourself very little room for error in the sense of just completing passes for first downs and tds.
    how quickly you forget how hard it has been for our offense to get into the end zone.
    just cuz we did it the last 6 quarters doesnt mean our gameplan all of a sudden is perfect.
    and lets not forget all the games where we dont throw the ball for 3 quarters and then when were down by some points in the 4th all of a sudden our qb has to go out there and win it.


    bottom line is there has to be more balance if we are gonna expect ourselves to move on the better defenses we are gonna see in the playoffs.
    its not like peterson is only gonna get 10 carries.
    the only way peterson has a game where he gets few carries is if we dont move early, are going three and out, and dig ourselves a hole where we are throwing the whole second half.
    the run game is always gonna be there, but we can't have the mentality that we have to hide the pass game, it just wont work in the playoffs.
    "self improvement's masturbation.
    now self destruction" that's enlightenment

Page 30 of 30 FirstFirst ... 20282930

Similar Threads

  1. Tarvaris Jackson: "It should have been us"
    By Tad7 in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: 04-08-2010, 09:32 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-26-2009, 07:48 AM
  3. Replies: 65
    Last Post: 11-05-2007, 08:16 AM
  4. Start Tarvaris? No, start THINKING.
    By Caine in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 142
    Last Post: 11-13-2006, 03:07 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
  •