Thread: Vikings: A groundbreaking performance

"Schutz" wrote:

"ballhog27" wrote:

Vikings had a very good day on the ground, but lets not forget that alot of the passing yards are from Sidney Rice. I think that we need a good...WR. I know alot of you knock TJack but who does he have to throw to? Hopefully this year we will address the need of a veteran Wideout to help out our passing game. I don't want another Bobby Wade coming to the team...because admit it...he isn't good enought to crack the number 2 spot at wideout. Great game for the Vikes...but remember we did play the Raiders and havng 3 or 4 turnovers and still coming out with a win is very rare.
Hope the Vikes take done the ailing Giants next week.
Vikings 27, Giants 20

See when our WR can THROW the ball for deep completions and our QB can't, I wouldn't immeditly start blaming the WR core for T-Jacks longballs.
T-Jack looked Mediocre on Sunday, which is an improvment for him, and who knows maybe after a couple losing seasons T-Jack will figure out what it takes to be an every game QB, but i'd rather find a vet than him.

As for whoever said the steelers win playoffs without a QB, which steelers team are you talking about.
Because I know you're not talking about the Big Ben steelers, or the Terry Bradshaw Steelers.
And to that point, superbowl teams without a good QB are the exeptions to the rule, not the norm.
Look at every team, every DYNASTY, there is a great QB under center.
So although you can hang your hat on the run you more likely than not need a QB to manage the offense.

77% completion percentage is now the average i guess

"tb04512" wrote:

"Schutz" wrote:

"ballhog27" wrote:

Vikings had a very good day on the ground, but lets not forget that alot of the passing yards are from Sidney Rice. I think that we need a good...WR. I know alot of you knock TJack but who does he have to throw to? Hopefully this year we will address the need of a veteran Wideout to help out our passing game. I don't want another Bobby Wade coming to the team...because admit it...he isn't good enought to crack the number 2 spot at wideout. Great game for the Vikes...but remember we did play the Raiders and havng 3 or 4 turnovers and still coming out with a win is very rare.
Hope the Vikes take done the ailing Giants next week.
Vikings 27, Giants 20

See when our WR can THROW the ball for deep completions and our QB can't, I wouldn't immeditly start blaming the WR core for T-Jacks longballs.
T-Jack looked Mediocre on Sunday, which is an improvment for him, and who knows maybe after a couple losing seasons T-Jack will figure out what it takes to be an every game QB, but i'd rather find a vet than him.

As for whoever said the steelers win playoffs without a QB, which steelers team are you talking about.
Because I know you're not talking about the Big Ben steelers, or the Terry Bradshaw Steelers.
And to that point, superbowl teams without a good QB are the exeptions to the rule, not the norm.
Look at every team, every DYNASTY, there is a great QB under center.
So although you can hang your hat on the run you more likely than not need a QB to manage the offense.

77% completion percentage is now the average i guess

ONE GAME!
And in that one AWESOME KICK JIGGLY BUTT game he also had two turnovers, one right in the endzone.
Defend him all you want, he's not going to make it.
But I suppose if you think two turnovers is an improvment T-Jack truly is the answer.
Tell ya what, if we ever go to a Super Bowl with T-jack as our starting QB I will litterally eat my hat.

"Schutz" wrote:

"ballhog27" wrote:

Vikings had a very good day on the ground, but lets not forget that alot of the passing yards are from Sidney Rice. I think that we need a good...WR. I know alot of you knock TJack but who does he have to throw to? Hopefully this year we will address the need of a veteran Wideout to help out our passing game. I don't want another Bobby Wade coming to the team...because admit it...he isn't good enought to crack the number 2 spot at wideout. Great game for the Vikes...but remember we did play the Raiders and havng 3 or 4 turnovers and still coming out with a win is very rare.
Hope the Vikes take done the ailing Giants next week.
Vikings 27, Giants 20

See when our WR can THROW the ball for deep completions and our QB can't, I wouldn't immeditly start blaming the WR core for T-Jacks longballs.
T-Jack looked Mediocre on Sunday, which is an improvment for him, and who knows maybe after a couple losing seasons T-Jack will figure out what it takes to be an every game QB, but i'd rather find a vet than him.

As for whoever said the steelers win playoffs without a QB, which steelers team are you talking about.
Because I know you're not talking about the Big Ben steelers, or the Terry Bradshaw Steelers.
And to that point, superbowl teams without a good QB are the exeptions to the rule, not the norm.
Look at every team, every DYNASTY, there is a great QB under center.
So although you can hang your hat on the run you more likely than not need a QB to manage the offense.

Don't take this as a post to stick up for TJ but damn.......

Gadget plays are just that, trick plays that fool the defense into giving up thier normal coverages, result, wide open players (in Shanks case).

A WR throwing to a wide open TE, which came up short by the way, and a WR making a desparation throw that was horribly thrown, that the WR made a great catch on in no way compares to a QB trying to hit a WR that is facing single or double man coverage my friend.

Ludicrous to try to compare WR's catching abilities or QB/WR throwing abilities my friend.

"Schutz" wrote:

"tb04512" wrote:

"Schutz" wrote:

"ballhog27" wrote:

Vikings had a very good day on the ground, but lets not forget that alot of the passing yards are from Sidney Rice. I think that we need a good...WR. I know alot of you knock TJack but who does he have to throw to? Hopefully this year we will address the need of a veteran Wideout to help out our passing game. I don't want another Bobby Wade coming to the team...because admit it...he isn't good enought to crack the number 2 spot at wideout. Great game for the Vikes...but remember we did play the Raiders and havng 3 or 4 turnovers and still coming out with a win is very rare.
Hope the Vikes take done the ailing Giants next week.
Vikings 27, Giants 20

See when our WR can THROW the ball for deep completions and our QB can't, I wouldn't immeditly start blaming the WR core for T-Jacks longballs.
T-Jack looked Mediocre on Sunday, which is an improvment for him, and who knows maybe after a couple losing seasons T-Jack will figure out what it takes to be an every game QB, but i'd rather find a vet than him.

As for whoever said the steelers win playoffs without a QB, which steelers team are you talking about.
Because I know you're not talking about the Big Ben steelers, or the Terry Bradshaw Steelers.
And to that point, superbowl teams without a good QB are the exeptions to the rule, not the norm.
Look at every team, every DYNASTY, there is a great QB under center.
So although you can hang your hat on the run you more likely than not need a QB to manage the offense.

77% completion percentage is now the average i guess

ONE GAME!
And in that one AWESOME KICK JIGGLY BUTT game he also had two turnovers, one right in the endzone.
Defend him all you want, he's not going to make it.
But I suppose if you think two turnovers is an improvment T-Jack truly is the answer.
Tell ya what, if we ever go to a Super Bowl with T-jack as our starting QB I will litterally eat my hat.

did i say awesome? i think he did above average, its his 8th start? he does need to know pressure is coming and get the ball out of his hands, the endzone int was a good play but the defender and rice threw his hand up like he was open, hes young he'll learn

"tb04512" wrote:

"Schutz" wrote:

"ballhog27" wrote:

Vikings had a very good day on the ground, but lets not forget that alot of the passing yards are from Sidney Rice. I think that we need a good...WR. I know alot of you knock TJack but who does he have to throw to? Hopefully this year we will address the need of a veteran Wideout to help out our passing game. I don't want another Bobby Wade coming to the team...because admit it...he isn't good enought to crack the number 2 spot at wideout. Great game for the Vikes...but remember we did play the Raiders and havng 3 or 4 turnovers and still coming out with a win is very rare.
Hope the Vikes take done the ailing Giants next week.
Vikings 27, Giants 20

See when our WR can THROW the ball for deep completions and our QB can't, I wouldn't immeditly start blaming the WR core for T-Jacks longballs.
T-Jack looked Mediocre on Sunday, which is an improvment for him, and who knows maybe after a couple losing seasons T-Jack will figure out what it takes to be an every game QB, but i'd rather find a vet than him.

As for whoever said the steelers win playoffs without a QB, which steelers team are you talking about.
Because I know you're not talking about the Big Ben steelers, or the Terry Bradshaw Steelers.
And to that point, superbowl teams without a good QB are the exeptions to the rule, not the norm.
Look at every team, every DYNASTY, there is a great QB under center.
So although you can hang your hat on the run you more likely than not need a QB to manage the offense.

77% completion percentage is now the average i guess

Probably below average when playing the Raiders lol.