Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 192
  1. #101
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Vikings’ starting QB job suddenly up for grabs

    Two great posts in a row from Caine and V.

    Now with Peterson in camp the team will have the offensive players it wanted and we can watch the team develop through training camp and see what they have to bring to the table when the season starts.

  2. #102
    Caine's Avatar
    Caine is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    5,135

    Re: Vikings’ starting QB job suddenly up for grabs

    "V" wrote:
    I just think that when we didn't get a serviceable vet to start, we chose to go a certain direction with our QB situation and team as a whole. Starting Bollinger completely goes against the direction which we chose to take.

    I agree that waiting until he is sufficiently prepared is important. However, if he is not properly prepared the coaches know that and should have done something about in FA.

    To me, not doing anything to bring in a vet means that they think TJ is ready, and if he is ready then he needs to start.

    I hope that in the end the better QB is the one who starts, that we don't bench TJ just to see how far Brooks can take us before we expose the more-talented player to the real deal.
    In a previous post I stated what I believe the reasons for NOT bringing in a Vet QB were:

    1:
    If Jackson is to be the "QB of the Future", it wouldn't pay to bring in a quality QB right now...even if Jackson isn't quite ready to go.
    Look at Aaron Rodgers languishing on the bench in Green Bay.
    This will be his third season on the pine, and he was a 1st rounder (Some thought he'd go #1 overall).
    What happens if Favre doesn't retire after this season?
    Will Green Bay drop Favre in favor of Rodgers?
    Not likely.
    The same would be true here if we would have gone after Schaub or Carr.
    Both are likely to be long-term starters, not transition guys (With Carr, we'll have to see how taking a million sacks already will affect his play).
    So, bringing in a big name Vet would have been counter productive in the long term.

    2:
    Bringing in a transition guy would have been costly as well.
    And, to be honest, who's out there?
    With Ziggy doing a Red *Licks Lizards* McCombs impression and electing NOT to pay anyone more than Johnson was making last season, people took note.
    And no one wants to play for peanuts...especially for a team without a huge offensive upside.
    After all, it's hard to sell yourself to another team if you have a season of dismal stats staring them in the face.

    3:
    What we have right now is an almost perfect transitional Quarterback situation.
    No one expects Bollinger to be "The Man" for the next 6 years...but he's cheap enough, and good enough, to limp us through until Jackson is ready and an offense is there for him to run.
    Further, Bollinger starting drops expectations.
    Does anyone here plan to be 5-0 if we start Bollinger?
    (NOTE:
    We play Atlanta, @ Detroit, @ KC, Green Bay, and @ Chicago...week 5 is a Bye week for us).
    I don't.
    But, start Tarvaris, and the clock begins to tick on him.
    The honeymoon period automatically begins.
    If we're 1-3 heading into the Bye with Tarvaris at the helm, the excuses will start wearing thin.

    Honestly, I want to see Tarvaris play - and succeed.
    What I don't want to do is put him in early, shatter his confidence, and then spend next season actively seeking his replacement.


    Caine

  3. #103
    V-Unit's Avatar
    V-Unit is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,317

    Re: Vikings’ starting QB job suddenly up for grabs

    I would not call TJ and Bollinger an almost perfect transitional QB situation. Most times the QB to be replaced is one that has had success in the past (Drew Brees, Kerry Collins, Kurt Warner, Jake Plummer). QBs who are good enough to hold the ship until the young one is ready. I do not thinks Brooks Bollinger is good enough to do that.

    If Brooks starts and sucks, that is just as detrmiental as experiencing TJ's growing pains on the field. For every game Bollinger turns in a poor performance, there will be more and more people, from both inside and outside the organization clamoring for TJ to start. A QB controversy would just kill us this year.

    I say name TJ the starter and stick with him through thick and thin. If he is as good as we all(including Childress) think he is, the growing pains will be bearable in the long run.
    "I hate when threads are destroyed by facts and logic."
    - Prophet


    Thanks Josdin!

  4. #104
    Caine's Avatar
    Caine is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    5,135

    Re: Vikings’ starting QB job suddenly up for grabs

    "V" wrote:
    I would not call TJ and Bollinger an almost perfect transitional QB situation. Most times the QB to be replaced is one that has had success in the past (Drew Brees, Kerry Collins, Kurt Warner, Jake Plummer). QBs who are good enough to hold the ship until the young one is ready. I do not thinks Brooks Bollinger is good enough to do that.

    If Brooks starts and sucks, that is just as detrmiental as experiencing TJ's growing pains on the field. For every game Bollinger turns in a poor performance, there will be more and more people, from both inside and outside the organization clamoring for TJ to start. A QB controversy would just kill us this year.

    I say name TJ the starter and stick with him through thick and thin. If he is as good as we all(including Childress) think he is, the growing pains will be bearable in the long run.
    I know, I'm sounding like a broken record, but I am truly much more concerned about who were putting in around these guys.
    Unless our Receiver Corps is amazingly improved over last season, and unless we can field an offense that offers us some hope for success, I would - in all honesty - rather see Bollinger out there for the simple reason that Bollinger is the more disposable of the two.

    Of course, I'm not sold on Jackson to begin with.
    His scouting report doesn't paint a very positive picture, and I haven't seen anything yet to make me think otherwise.
    Now, before people's heads explode, I will agree that we haven't really seen all that much of him as of yet, so all judgements against him are premature.
    However, the reverse is also true.
    All we have to go on so far are a few glimpses and the opinions of a few Viking staffers.
    I hope they're right...they're paid to be right...but they made a lot of statements last season that fell pretty flat.

    Anyway, we'll all know a lot more in a few weeks.
    If Tarvaris starts, it won't break my heart.
    Best case scenario, he weathers the storm and develops under fire.
    Worst case scenario, he crumbles like an old cookie and we're only out a couple of million dollars (His contract isn't all that big).


    Caine

  5. #105
    tb04512's Avatar
    tb04512 is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,803

    Re: Vikings’ starting QB job suddenly up for grabs

    "Caine" wrote:
    "V" wrote:
    I would not call TJ and Bollinger an almost perfect transitional QB situation. Most times the QB to be replaced is one that has had success in the past (Drew Brees, Kerry Collins, Kurt Warner, Jake Plummer). QBs who are good enough to hold the ship until the young one is ready. I do not thinks Brooks Bollinger is good enough to do that.

    If Brooks starts and sucks, that is just as detrmiental as experiencing TJ's growing pains on the field. For every game Bollinger turns in a poor performance, there will be more and more people, from both inside and outside the organization clamoring for TJ to start. A QB controversy would just kill us this year.

    I say name TJ the starter and stick with him through thick and thin. If he is as good as we all(including Childress) think he is, the growing pains will be bearable in the long run.
    I know, I'm sounding like a broken record, but I am truly much more concerned about who were putting in around these guys.
    Unless our Receiver Corps is amazingly improved over last season, and unless we can field an offense that offers us some hope for success, I would - in all honesty - rather see Bollinger out there for the simple reason that Bollinger is the more disposable of the two.

    Of course, I'm not sold on Jackson to begin with.
    His scouting report doesn't paint a very positive picture, and I haven't seen anything yet to make me think otherwise.
    Now, before people's heads explode, I will agree that we haven't really seen all that much of him as of yet, so all judgements against him are premature.
    However, the reverse is also true.
    All we have to go on so far are a few glimpses and the opinions of a few Viking staffers.
    I hope they're right...they're paid to be right...but they made a lot of statements last season that fell pretty flat.

    Anyway, we'll all know a lot more in a few weeks.
    If Tarvaris starts, it won't break my heart.
    Best case scenario, he weathers the storm and develops under fire.
    Worst case scenario, he crumbles like an old cookie and we're only out a couple of million dollars (His contract isn't all that big).


    Caine
    sound only slightly broken my friend
    ;D

    Thanks josdin00

  6. #106
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,198

    Re: Vikings’ starting QB job suddenly up for grabs

    "Caine" wrote:

    1:
    If Jackson is to be the "QB of the Future", it wouldn't pay to bring in a quality QB right now...even if Jackson isn't quite ready to go.
    Look at Aaron Rodgers languishing on the bench in Green Bay.
    This will be his third season on the pine, and he was a 1st rounder (Some thought he'd go #1 overall).


    Caine
    Ah, but how could he be languishing?

    Isn't GB just against rushing the kid in before he's ready with an offense that doesn't have the level of talent required to make him successful.

    "Caine" wrote:
    I am anti rushing the kid in before he's ready with an offense that doesn't have the level of talent required to make him successful.
    Isn't he getting more and more comfortable with the system? I know Rodgers was there for two years, but GB changed the offense & brought in a new playbook just last year.

    "Caine" wrote:
    We may learn nothing about Tarvaris while he rides the pine, but the coaches do.
    Further, he gets more and more comfortable with the system.
    Aren't they just letting Rodgers develop while simultaneously building up an offense for him to actually lead?

    "Caine" wrote:
    let Jackson develop while simultaneously building up an offense for him to actually lead.
    Again. If the line is going to give him time, yet the receivers still drop balls, but it isn't detrimental to T-Jacks confidence in himself or doesn't have a mental impact on his game, then you let the kid play if the coach thinks he's ready.

    That's the key words here, "If the coach thinks he's ready". Childress will know wether or not he's ready & we as fans should probably trust his judgement.

    Being able to see & read defenses & gain experience in real life games can't all be learned while holding a clip board. If he's green on opening day, I feel he'll be just as green 3 months later unless he's in the game learning.

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

  7. #107
    bigbadragz's Avatar
    bigbadragz is offline Coordinator
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    823

    Re: Vikings’ starting QB job suddenly up for grabs

    "Caine" wrote:
    [quote]
    "bigbadragz]<br" wrote:

    It seems rather obvious to me that you didn't read that "whole long rant"...or the words were too big for you to follow along with me, so I'll put it in the simplest of terms....just for you.

    I am not anti-Tarvaris.
    I am anti rushing the kid in before he's ready with an offense that doesn't have the level of talent required to make him successful.
    Pretty simple, huh?
    And, after seeing the end result of doing exactly that last season, I am really not in favor of having 16 weeks of that repeated.

    We may learn nothing about Tarvaris while he rides the pine, but the coaches do.
    Further, he gets more and more comfortable with the system.
    How long did Steve Young sit before he played?
    Roger Staubach?
    Matt Schaub?
    There is a lot to be said for taking the time to properly prepare a Quarterback, and without the offensive firepower to warrant the risk, the upside in taking it is less.
    Cade McNown and Tim Couch are two good examples of QB's rushed in with no support.
    Hung out to dry, they are no longer in the NFL.
    David Carr was also left high-n-dry, and we've yet to see if that will have an impact on him in the future.
    Brian Griese - John Elway's successor - is now a back-up.
    And I could go on forever.


    So, you want to see Tarvaris play?
    So do I.
    The difference between us is that I want a TEAM around him to make him successful...whereas you seems to think that Tarvaris, all by himself, can make it all happen (Even if he couldn't versus Green Bay).

    Nowhere in my "whole long rant" did I ever say or imply that Jackson had to prove himself.
    I said that he needed to develop.
    If you're going to paraphrase me, have the courtesy of getting it right.
    And if you're too dim to see that my comparrison of Johnson's play and jackson's play - regardless of excuses - was focused on the inability of the Offense as a whole to provide a foundation for success for anyone, then maybe you should reread the "whole long rant".

    Finally, I covered why I felt the Vikings didn't go after another QB this off season in a previous post.
    And it wasn't for the reason you stated.

    "bigbadragz]i" wrote:
    i'm baffled[/b].
    I think the bold part sums it up quite nicely.
    'nuff said.

    Caine
    V summed it up best.
    as for you caine, your argument lacks any credibility becuz it goes against what the vikings have choose.
    also you mentioned two qb's who failed cuz they are not nfl calibre players, wouldn't you wanna know that about tavaris or would you rather wait another year and find it out next year?
    those players didn't fail cuz their teams ruined them but becuz they just suck.
    as someone else brought up, troy aikman, peyton manning, drew brees, and the list goes on and on got thrown to the fire and played on poor teams as compared to the handful of guys who sat and then came in.
    it weeds out the haves from the have nots.
    if it's a matter of winning games this year the vikes should have addressed it with a more capable starting qb than bollinger.
    once they didn't do that, tavaris was the direction they were going in.
    and you don't know squat abuot the vikings offense this year cuz it's vastly different from last years, and you don't know what the coaches have witnessed all offseason that warranted this decision.
    so you can continue to write long, boring, insult laden diatribe but it won't change the fact that tavaris is our starter, and you suck balls.
    LET THAT WHICH DOES NOT MATTER, TRULY SLIDE

  8. #108
    Mr Anderson's Avatar
    Mr Anderson is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    7,686

    Re: Vikings’ starting QB job suddenly up for grabs

    Peyton Manning started every game of his rookie season. Went 3-13, threw more INTs than TDs. He turned out just fine.

    Ryan Leaf played a ton his rookie season, obviously turned out terrible.

    Tom Brady sat for years, he turned out great.

    David Carr played his whole rookie season, wasn't terrible, wasn't great. Was sacked an NFL record number of times.

    And Caine, not to pick at your post, Steve Young played with the Buccaneers before he sat behind Joe Montana for the niners so I don't think thats really a valid point.

    The bottom line is, theres no set amount of time to sit a QB. It depends on the person, if TJack is ready, we'll see a QB play well, if he's not we'll see a QB play poorly.

  9. #109
    bigbadragz's Avatar
    bigbadragz is offline Coordinator
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    823

    Re: Vikings’ starting QB job suddenly up for grabs

    [ftp=ftp://http://vikings.scout.com/2/662866.html]http://vikings.scout.com/2/662866.html[/ftp]

    here's a good read for you caine
    LET THAT WHICH DOES NOT MATTER, TRULY SLIDE

  10. #110
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,599
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Vikings’ starting QB job suddenly up for grabs

    "bigbadragz" wrote:
    [ftp=ftp://http://vikings.scout.com/2/662866.html]http://vikings.scout.com/2/662866.html[/ftp]

    here's a good read for you caine
    That link is broken.
    Here is the correct one:
    http://vikings.scout.com/2/662866.html

    And it is a good read.
    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=

Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 94
    Last Post: 12-27-2007, 01:56 PM
  2. Suddenly talk-less T.O. (Pats vs Boys)
    By snowinapril in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 10-18-2007, 12:03 PM
  3. Starting jobs up for grabs
    By singersp in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-16-2007, 12:10 PM
  4. Redskins suddenly look weak
    By COJOMAY in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 08-25-2006, 02:50 PM
  5. Sig up for grabs
    By josdin00 in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-12-2004, 05:20 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
  •