Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Quotes

  1. #1
    Tad7's Avatar
    Tad7 is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,451

    Quotes

    When you quote another poster I would like it more if it just quoted the one post and not the entire conversation.

    agree or disagree?
    Skol Vikings! Go Cubs!

    X MARKS THE SPOT

  2. #2
    HEY's Avatar
    HEY
    HEY is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    2,201
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Quotes

    I definitely agree with you, Tad7.

    I see a lot of post around here with as much as five or more different quotes in it. It's not a big problem, but it can get a little annoying sometimes because it's usually not necessary and it takes up unnecessary space.

    I always try to short down the quote section as much as possible by only including the relevant quotes which in most cases is usually the last quote.

    Also... sometimes I only include a few sentences of a person's quote if I only want to reply to a certain part of his post. The only con is that I'm not sure if the person with the quote approve that I shorten their post by taking out some of the content as I might risk taking his words out of context, but I always try my best to avoid that.

  3. #3
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Quotes

    When you quote another poster I would like it more if it just quoted the one post and not the entire conversation.

    agree or disagree?
    I definitely agree with you, Tad7.

    I see a lot of post around here with as much as five or more different quotes in it. It's not a big problem, but it can get a little annoying sometimes because it's usually not necessary and it takes up unnecessary space.

    I always try to short down the quote section as much as possible by only including the relevant quotes which in most cases is usually the last quote.

    Also... sometimes I only include a few sentences of a person's quote if I only want to reply to a certain part of his post. The only con is that I'm not sure if the person with the quote approve that I shorten their post by taking out some of the content as I might risk taking his words out of context, but I always try my best to avoid that.
    Hows that?????????????:evil:
    :woohoo:

  4. #4
    Caine's Avatar
    Caine is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    5,139

    Re: Quotes

    Quote Originally Posted by "Tad7" #1090230
    When you quote another poster I would like it more if it just quoted the one post and not the entire conversation.

    agree or disagree?
    That's situational.

    Some threads wind up splitting into 2 and 3 separate conversations, all simultaneous. And while you CAN cut down some of the previous quotes, for the sake of context and completeness it's often better NOT to.

    Honestly, it takes all of 3 seconds to scroll through a page...is it really a big deal?

    Not in my opinion.

    Caine

  5. #5
    HEY's Avatar
    HEY
    HEY is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    2,201
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Quotes

    Just to take an example, I came to think of this thread when I saw this post in "The Official Tarvaris Jackson tour watch"-thread:
    Quote Originally Posted by "Caine" #1090233
    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1090228
    Quote Originally Posted by "Caine" #1090223
    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1090210
    Quote Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1090206
    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1090204
    Quote Originally Posted by "Caine" #1090201
    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1090189
    Quote Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1090154
    Quote Originally Posted by "vikinggreg" #1090127
    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1090117
    Quote Originally Posted by "12purplepride28" #1089979
    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1089974
    Quote Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1089961
    I think it is pretty obvious from all of the reports that our future HOF QB Tarvaris Jackson is going to command too much money for us to keep and he is going to bolt to the team who pays him the most.
    What reports? I haven't seen or heard of any. Links?

    And why is this is General NFL? Is it because of his FA status? If that's the case, then all articles/threads regarding Rice, Greenway, Leber, Edwards, Robison, etc should be funneled in to the general NFL as well.
    It's because he's not going to be a Viking and we all know it. Greenway is franchised, Rice will be resigned, and we don't know about the other 3. But we can all be sure the tjokester is gone from our team.
    Hmmm yeah, that of course explains why threads about Carter, Page & Randle still end up in the Vikings forum even though they went on to play for other teams.
    The players you are comparing Jackson to are ring of honor inductees, players that were pro bowlers and all pros as Vikings, players that have set records for the team and in some cases records for the league, some have had their numbers retired by the team and made it to the hall of fame. They have also been named to 25th and 40th anniversary teams or made the list of top 50 all time Vikings......Jackson didn't complete one season as a starter....I'm guessing this makes a difference in how their careers as Vikings are viewed
    Boggles the mind that he would make that case while also stating that he never made a comparison between Jackson and a HOF player.
    There you go again twisting shit. When did I ever say I never made a comparison between Jackson & a HOF player?

    You accused me of saying TJ WAS/WOULD BE a HOF player, which I never did.
    HUGE HUGE difference.

    I've used HOF QB's as an example when people claimed, TJ would never be one based only on his stats after 1 year. I merely showed those who think they can judge QB's based on 1st starting year stats that history has proved them wrong time & time again & there were several HOF QB's who started as slow or worse than him.

    Anything is possible. 1 year is not enough time. The same will be true for Webb, but I'm sure many fans will be ready to toss him under the bus after a few more losses.
    I get what you're saying, but why would you use HOF QB stats to defend someone that you now claim even YOU don't believe will ever be a HOF'er? That sounds an awful lot like arguing for the sake of arguing.

    Your comparisons - and you weren't the only one doing it - were posted at the time to try and convince those of us who had taken an anti-Jackson stance that he still had potential, that he was improving, and that he was on pace in development terms.

    ...and you used HOF QB's as your template.

    See how easily that can be construed as claiming Jackson is a Future HOF QB?

    If THAT is the guide you're using for comparrisin, then you are ESSENTIALLY claiming that he is of the same cloth.

    ..and he obviously wasn't.

    My point is,. if you didn't think he would rise to that level, then why use that level to compare him to? Couldn't find any 5-year project wash-outs to use as a comparison model?

    Caine
    I didn't use it to claim he would rise to that level, the way it was actually used was this;

    People here claimed that TJ, based solely on his 1st year starting stats, was a bust. If you recall, I then went & found several damn good QB's & HOF QB's that started out similarly to TJ (bad first & even 2nd seasons) & said using the same logic & judgment criteria they used to label TJ a bust after 1 year+, they would have had to label those QB's a bust as well. Clearly, they were not busts.

    The potential for TJ at that point could have gone 1 of 3 ways, but we weren't going to know which 1 of the 3 it would be while he was sitting on the bench & not starting. He needed to be started to find out which, rather than continue to keep him on the payroll if he was not going to pan out or keep him on the bench if he was going to pan out.

    Bottom line, you don't find out unless you continue to play him.
    They did play him. We weren't making our decisions based on watching him in practice for gods sake, we were watching him play actual football games and from that we could see he was not that good. In the end we were right.

    The thing you fail to address is how many people watching the QB's you put out there thought they were going to be a failure because of how they were playing. In the cases you cited it was not the play or the productivity of the QB that led to the poor records of the teams, it was because the teams had no talent and it took time for the rest of the talent on the team to catch up to the QB. OTOH here the team was waiting for the talent of the QB to catch up to them and it never happened. Why- Because he doesn't have that kind of talent. End of story.
    Which talent are you speaking of that he had to throw to in 2007, the year he started?

    Troy Williamson? LOL!

    Allison? Wade? Ferguson?

    We had Rice, but he wasn't playing at the level he's playing at now.

    We also had Shiancoe, but the majority of the fans thought he was a bust then, as they continued to believe at the start of the 2008 season.

    The O-line had major issues then as well, as it has had every year of Childress KOA.

    We were more than a QB away from a SB then as we still are & as we were in 2009. Favre got us closer, but the pounding he took as a result of a piss-poor O-line, left us short.

    Doesn't matter who we insert at QB. Without fixing the O-line, we won't win a SB. Maybe close, but no cigar.
    Here's the problem....your defense of Jackson - and the comparison models - continued after the '08 campaign as well...the one he was replaced by Gus Frerotte in. By that time, we had a full season of Jackson to look at ('07), a partial season to gauge progress ('08), and many of us had drawn the conclusion that, 3 years after drafting him, he wasn't panning out.

    You continued to defend him.

    No matter what element of his game WE stated was lacking, you - and a handful of others - would make excuse after excuse about him. The biggest was that he simply needed to play more...

    ...the irony being that he WASN'T playing more because he sucked.

    After '09, his garbage time stats were used as justification of his alleged progress. And no matter how often those of us who were convinced that Jackson wasn't going to pan out stated that garbage time stats were called "garbage time" for a reason, you and a handful of others continued to defend him.

    Last season, when Favre struggled, you and a growing contingent of others started comparing Favre's 2010 stats to Jackson's past stats and tried to use THAT COMPARISON as the basis for starting Jackson. It didn't matter that every time Jackson was given control of the team he tanked...you, and a growing group, clamored ever louder for Jackson to be inserted as the starter.

    And then Favre got hurt...bad...and Jackson started again. And the Jackson supporters tried to twist the Buffalo game into a "Great Jackson Performance"...despite the fact that he'd actually sucked, he'd been bailed out by receivers and the defense, and that Buffalo sucked wang.

    Then Jackson got hurt...while reverting to the typical Jackson ineffective form versus the Giants. And the excuses came trotting out again...

    Then Jackson got put on IR, ending all possibility of him ending ANY of his 5 seasons thus far while not being on the "You Suck" list.

    So, as much as you NOW try and claim you were only making those comparisons after his first year, that's not actually true. Your defense of him has continued throughout this debacle. Despite the mounting evidence of his inability to grasp the system, to read defenses, and to elevate his game, you continued to blame every element BUT Jackson.

    The receivers, the line, the coaches, the play calling, the scheme...hell, if this went on any longer, I'm sure the equipment manager and the teams publicist would probably have been blamed as well.

    But it was never about JACKSON....and it should have been. He simply did not perform. He NEVER performed. He'd have small flashes of competency - which you and the others would point to as validation for every unfounded claim of improvement - but they would pale in comparison to the miscues, mistakes, misreads, missed throws, and down right failings...which were conveniently excused.

    In the end, Jackson will be gone. He never showed ON THE FIELD the potential he was alleged to have...but that's been his detraction since his college days.

    Just admit you were wrong. Jackson had LOTS of shots to prove himself,,,and he never did. It's not "unfair"....that's how the NFL works.

    Favre got his shot because Majekowski got hurt....and Favre shined.

    Brady got his shot because Bledsoe got hurt...and Brady shined.

    Cassel got his shot because Brady got hurt...and Cassel shined.

    Jackson got his shot because he was HANDED the starting job in '07...and he sucked.
    And he was HANDED the starting job in '08 .... and sucked.
    Then Frerotte got hurt....and Jackson didn't suck for a game...then he did again.
    Then he played garbage ball in '09.
    Then Favre got hurt in '10 and Jackson....say it with me....SUCKED.

    How many more fucking shots does this guy need?

    Caine
    Yes I still defended him in 2008. Up until the Lions game, TJ had played 2 games in 2008. Count them 2. And while he didn't play well other played poorly also, but you and others continued to claim it must have been all TJ's fault because any talk of the poor receivers or lines we had was nothing more than excuses. It's funny how those "excuses" became valid & legit reasons for Favre's poor performances.
    Show me ONE post where I made an excuse for Favre? Show me ONE post where I didn't FLAT OUT say that Favre played like crap last season. Just ONE.

    You can't, because I never did.

    Unlike you and the other "Jackson Apologists", I didn't make excuses for poor performance. I stated clearly and plainly that Favre sucked.

    I also addressed the O-Line, Receivers, and Defense...but NEVER did I excuse Favre for poor play.

    And that's the difference between us on this matter. I believe that the individual has to rise above his circumstances...last season, Favre didn't. Jackson NEVER did.

    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1090228
    You keep stating he wasn't panning out after 3 years, so he was replaced be Frerotte, insinuating as if the guy had 48 games (3 seasons of 16 under his belt).
    Did I say that? I merely stated he'd been here 3 years. He'd had 3 YEARS to learn the system.

    Brady was in New England for an entire YEAR before he got the call. He answered it.

    Favre had been with Green Bay for 3 games when he got the call. He answered it.

    Cassel sat the bench for 3 years before getting HIS shot....he made the most of it.

    Philip Rivers waited two years for his shot...and ran with it.

    Chad Pennington sat for 2 years before opportunity knocked. He answered...injuries shortened his career.

    Matt Ryan NEVER sat.

    Carson Palmer sat for a season....then made the most of his opportunity.

    None of these guys had numerous starts prior to taking control. None of these guys were benched for aged veterans after being given their shot. They all took the opportunity afforded them and made the most of it.

    Jackson, by way of comparison, was given opportunity after opportunity after opportunity after opportunity...and never made a significantly positive impression.

    So stop pretending that he didn't get a shot. He did. No, he didn't get 5 consecutive seasons of sucking as a starter to "prove" what he had...neither does ANYONE ELSE!!!! You either prove it when they call your number, or you sit down and shut up.

    They called....he choked.

    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1090228
    At that point, Jackson had only 16 starts under his belt. I stated he needed more playing time, rather than a start here & there to determine how he would pan out. You & other had him labeled before the beginning of the '08 season, so that makes 1 season you really had to look at plus a few games in his rookie when he was tossed in just to give him some playing time.
    Again with the playing time...

    NO ONE gets that kind of luxury. NO ONE gets unlimited "playing time" opportunities to see if MAYBE they have it.

    Hell, most guys get a game or two in relief, and if they don't shine, they fade away.

    And, you conveniently forget, he was the ANOINTED STARTER!!!! Chiller didn't have him compete for the job, he GAVE it to him. No franchise has the luxury of having a starter suck, season after season, just to "make sure".

    The clock is ticking...our players age, our contracts expire, our team changes. You either produce, or you leave.

    Jackson had more leeway than ANY QB I've EVER seen. And he STILL failed.

    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1090228
    Apparently 14 & less starts was enough to make up your mind as well as others that he wouldn't pan out, which is what prompted me to put up a list of QB's who didn't pan out after 16 games, but eventually did because the coaches stuck with them.
    Yup. 14 starts was enough to SHOW me that Jackson wasn't ready.

    That didn't mean they had to cut him. They could have put him on the bench and groomed him some more (which they eventually did), but by the end of season 3 ('08), I was pretty sure we'd seen all we were going to see from Jackson.

    His development wasn't there. His improvement wasn't there. He never progressed sufficiently for me to believe that, "This was a guy we could bank our franchise on".

    2010 was merely proof positive of everything I've been saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1090228
    I was never wrong about Jackson, I stated he needed more playing time to prove one way or the other to me whether he was going to cut it or not. That didn't change the whole time he was on the bench. I never stated that he would pan out if only he had more chances. I said give him more chances so we know for sure. Again, I'm not going to say for sure one way or another whether a QB was going to pan out after 16 starts without watching him play more, especially given the circumstances & the coach.
    And THAT'S why you were wrong. You kept saying "He needs more playing time" and I'm telling you that NO ONE GETS THAT!!!!!

    You were asking for something we didn't have the LUXURY of giving.

    Playing time is REAL time. You don't get to struggle, season after season, during REAL time and not get replaced.

    Look at Madieu Williams. He's been here 3 years, and we're tired of him.

    Bernard Berrian has been here 3 years and you'd have a tough time finding anyone NOT named Bernard Berrian who thinks he's worth keeping.

    And those guys aren't QB's. QB's are WAY more valuable.

    Jackson is a QB. He doesn't get 3 years of suck to find out MAYBE he'll make it. He has to produce.

    And he never did. Even though he WAS given the time. Jackson played in 36 games. He started 20 of them. He had opportunity after opportunity....but he never made it happen.

    Yes, you were - and ARE - wrong about Jackson. And as long as you continue to insist that he needs more playing time, you will continue to make the same mistake you've been making for years. Nobody gets the kind of leeway you're demanding for Jackson. NO ONE. But for some reason you think Jackson deserves it.

    You and Jackson....maybe...

    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1090228
    Webb's had 2 starts so far & has played in 5. Have you got him labeled as a bust yet? As a starter?

    I hope to God you give him more than 12 starts before you label him. Since he was on the roster all of 2010, you've had a full year (using your logic) to evaluate him.
    I have labeled Joe Webb exactly what he is - a 6th round pick, converted from WR, with 1 year under his belt. For a very RAW Rookie, he looked alright.

    He looked a lot more in control than Jackson did after 5 years.

    But he needs work...and not as the starter. He needs to develop.

    But if Frazier hands him the starting job next season, I expect him to PRODUCE like a starter. I expect his learning curve to be very steep, and for him to grow quickly into the role.

    After all, we don;t have the luxury of playing "maybe" for 3-5 years.

    Unlike the Jackson Project.

    Caine
    Not trying to call anyone out here. This is just a random selection which I wanted to use as an example.

  6. #6
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Quotes

    Quote Originally Posted by "HEY" #1090237
    Just to take an example, I came to think of this thread when I saw this post in "The Official Tarvaris Jackson tour watch"-thread:
    Quote Originally Posted by "Caine" #1090233
    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1090228
    Quote Originally Posted by "Caine" #1090223
    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1090210
    Quote Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1090206
    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1090204
    Quote Originally Posted by "Caine" #1090201
    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1090189
    Quote Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1090154
    Quote Originally Posted by "vikinggreg" #1090127
    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1090117
    Quote Originally Posted by "12purplepride28" #1089979
    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1089974
    Quote Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1089961
    I think it is pretty obvious from all of the reports that our future HOF QB Tarvaris Jackson is going to command too much money for us to keep and he is going to bolt to the team who pays him the most.
    What reports? I haven't seen or heard of any. Links?

    And why is this is General NFL? Is it because of his FA status? If that's the case, then all articles/threads regarding Rice, Greenway, Leber, Edwards, Robison, etc should be funneled in to the general NFL as well.
    It's because he's not going to be a Viking and we all know it. Greenway is franchised, Rice will be resigned, and we don't know about the other 3. But we can all be sure the tjokester is gone from our team.
    Hmmm yeah, that of course explains why threads about Carter, Page & Randle still end up in the Vikings forum even though they went on to play for other teams.
    The players you are comparing Jackson to are ring of honor inductees, players that were pro bowlers and all pros as Vikings, players that have set records for the team and in some cases records for the league, some have had their numbers retired by the team and made it to the hall of fame. They have also been named to 25th and 40th anniversary teams or made the list of top 50 all time Vikings......Jackson didn't complete one season as a starter....I'm guessing this makes a difference in how their careers as Vikings are viewed
    Boggles the mind that he would make that case while also stating that he never made a comparison between Jackson and a HOF player.
    There you go again twisting shit. When did I ever say I never made a comparison between Jackson & a HOF player?

    You accused me of saying TJ WAS/WOULD BE a HOF player, which I never did.
    HUGE HUGE difference.

    I've used HOF QB's as an example when people claimed, TJ would never be one based only on his stats after 1 year. I merely showed those who think they can judge QB's based on 1st starting year stats that history has proved them wrong time & time again & there were several HOF QB's who started as slow or worse than him.

    Anything is possible. 1 year is not enough time. The same will be true for Webb, but I'm sure many fans will be ready to toss him under the bus after a few more losses.
    I get what you're saying, but why would you use HOF QB stats to defend someone that you now claim even YOU don't believe will ever be a HOF'er? That sounds an awful lot like arguing for the sake of arguing.

    Your comparisons - and you weren't the only one doing it - were posted at the time to try and convince those of us who had taken an anti-Jackson stance that he still had potential, that he was improving, and that he was on pace in development terms.

    ...and you used HOF QB's as your template.

    See how easily that can be construed as claiming Jackson is a Future HOF QB?

    If THAT is the guide you're using for comparrisin, then you are ESSENTIALLY claiming that he is of the same cloth.

    ..and he obviously wasn't.

    My point is,. if you didn't think he would rise to that level, then why use that level to compare him to? Couldn't find any 5-year project wash-outs to use as a comparison model?

    Caine
    I didn't use it to claim he would rise to that level, the way it was actually used was this;

    People here claimed that TJ, based solely on his 1st year starting stats, was a bust. If you recall, I then went & found several damn good QB's & HOF QB's that started out similarly to TJ (bad first & even 2nd seasons) & said using the same logic & judgment criteria they used to label TJ a bust after 1 year+, they would have had to label those QB's a bust as well. Clearly, they were not busts.

    The potential for TJ at that point could have gone 1 of 3 ways, but we weren't going to know which 1 of the 3 it would be while he was sitting on the bench & not starting. He needed to be started to find out which, rather than continue to keep him on the payroll if he was not going to pan out or keep him on the bench if he was going to pan out.

    Bottom line, you don't find out unless you continue to play him.
    They did play him. We weren't making our decisions based on watching him in practice for gods sake, we were watching him play actual football games and from that we could see he was not that good. In the end we were right.

    The thing you fail to address is how many people watching the QB's you put out there thought they were going to be a failure because of how they were playing. In the cases you cited it was not the play or the productivity of the QB that led to the poor records of the teams, it was because the teams had no talent and it took time for the rest of the talent on the team to catch up to the QB. OTOH here the team was waiting for the talent of the QB to catch up to them and it never happened. Why- Because he doesn't have that kind of talent. End of story.
    Which talent are you speaking of that he had to throw to in 2007, the year he started?

    Troy Williamson? LOL!

    Allison? Wade? Ferguson?

    We had Rice, but he wasn't playing at the level he's playing at now.

    We also had Shiancoe, but the majority of the fans thought he was a bust then, as they continued to believe at the start of the 2008 season.

    The O-line had major issues then as well, as it has had every year of Childress KOA.

    We were more than a QB away from a SB then as we still are & as we were in 2009. Favre got us closer, but the pounding he took as a result of a piss-poor O-line, left us short.

    Doesn't matter who we insert at QB. Without fixing the O-line, we won't win a SB. Maybe close, but no cigar.
    Here's the problem....your defense of Jackson - and the comparison models - continued after the '08 campaign as well...the one he was replaced by Gus Frerotte in. By that time, we had a full season of Jackson to look at ('07), a partial season to gauge progress ('08), and many of us had drawn the conclusion that, 3 years after drafting him, he wasn't panning out.

    You continued to defend him.

    No matter what element of his game WE stated was lacking, you - and a handful of others - would make excuse after excuse about him. The biggest was that he simply needed to play more...

    ...the irony being that he WASN'T playing more because he sucked.

    After '09, his garbage time stats were used as justification of his alleged progress. And no matter how often those of us who were convinced that Jackson wasn't going to pan out stated that garbage time stats were called "garbage time" for a reason, you and a handful of others continued to defend him.

    Last season, when Favre struggled, you and a growing contingent of others started comparing Favre's 2010 stats to Jackson's past stats and tried to use THAT COMPARISON as the basis for starting Jackson. It didn't matter that every time Jackson was given control of the team he tanked...you, and a growing group, clamored ever louder for Jackson to be inserted as the starter.

    And then Favre got hurt...bad...and Jackson started again. And the Jackson supporters tried to twist the Buffalo game into a "Great Jackson Performance"...despite the fact that he'd actually sucked, he'd been bailed out by receivers and the defense, and that Buffalo sucked wang.

    Then Jackson got hurt...while reverting to the typical Jackson ineffective form versus the Giants. And the excuses came trotting out again...

    Then Jackson got put on IR, ending all possibility of him ending ANY of his 5 seasons thus far while not being on the "You Suck" list.

    So, as much as you NOW try and claim you were only making those comparisons after his first year, that's not actually true. Your defense of him has continued throughout this debacle. Despite the mounting evidence of his inability to grasp the system, to read defenses, and to elevate his game, you continued to blame every element BUT Jackson.

    The receivers, the line, the coaches, the play calling, the scheme...hell, if this went on any longer, I'm sure the equipment manager and the teams publicist would probably have been blamed as well.

    But it was never about JACKSON....and it should have been. He simply did not perform. He NEVER performed. He'd have small flashes of competency - which you and the others would point to as validation for every unfounded claim of improvement - but they would pale in comparison to the miscues, mistakes, misreads, missed throws, and down right failings...which were conveniently excused.

    In the end, Jackson will be gone. He never showed ON THE FIELD the potential he was alleged to have...but that's been his detraction since his college days.

    Just admit you were wrong. Jackson had LOTS of shots to prove himself,,,and he never did. It's not "unfair"....that's how the NFL works.

    Favre got his shot because Majekowski got hurt....and Favre shined.

    Brady got his shot because Bledsoe got hurt...and Brady shined.

    Cassel got his shot because Brady got hurt...and Cassel shined.

    Jackson got his shot because he was HANDED the starting job in '07...and he sucked.
    And he was HANDED the starting job in '08 .... and sucked.
    Then Frerotte got hurt....and Jackson didn't suck for a game...then he did again.
    Then he played garbage ball in '09.
    Then Favre got hurt in '10 and Jackson....say it with me....SUCKED.

    How many more fucking shots does this guy need?

    Caine
    Yes I still defended him in 2008. Up until the Lions game, TJ had played 2 games in 2008. Count them 2. And while he didn't play well other played poorly also, but you and others continued to claim it must have been all TJ's fault because any talk of the poor receivers or lines we had was nothing more than excuses. It's funny how those "excuses" became valid & legit reasons for Favre's poor performances.
    Show me ONE post where I made an excuse for Favre? Show me ONE post where I didn't FLAT OUT say that Favre played like crap last season. Just ONE.

    You can't, because I never did.

    Unlike you and the other "Jackson Apologists", I didn't make excuses for poor performance. I stated clearly and plainly that Favre sucked.

    I also addressed the O-Line, Receivers, and Defense...but NEVER did I excuse Favre for poor play.

    And that's the difference between us on this matter. I believe that the individual has to rise above his circumstances...last season, Favre didn't. Jackson NEVER did.

    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1090228
    You keep stating he wasn't panning out after 3 years, so he was replaced be Frerotte, insinuating as if the guy had 48 games (3 seasons of 16 under his belt).
    Did I say that? I merely stated he'd been here 3 years. He'd had 3 YEARS to learn the system.

    Brady was in New England for an entire YEAR before he got the call. He answered it.

    Favre had been with Green Bay for 3 games when he got the call. He answered it.

    Cassel sat the bench for 3 years before getting HIS shot....he made the most of it.

    Philip Rivers waited two years for his shot...and ran with it.

    Chad Pennington sat for 2 years before opportunity knocked. He answered...injuries shortened his career.

    Matt Ryan NEVER sat.

    Carson Palmer sat for a season....then made the most of his opportunity.

    None of these guys had numerous starts prior to taking control. None of these guys were benched for aged veterans after being given their shot. They all took the opportunity afforded them and made the most of it.

    Jackson, by way of comparison, was given opportunity after opportunity after opportunity after opportunity...and never made a significantly positive impression.

    So stop pretending that he didn't get a shot. He did. No, he didn't get 5 consecutive seasons of sucking as a starter to "prove" what he had...neither does ANYONE ELSE!!!! You either prove it when they call your number, or you sit down and shut up.

    They called....he choked.

    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1090228
    At that point, Jackson had only 16 starts under his belt. I stated he needed more playing time, rather than a start here & there to determine how he would pan out. You & other had him labeled before the beginning of the '08 season, so that makes 1 season you really had to look at plus a few games in his rookie when he was tossed in just to give him some playing time.
    Again with the playing time...

    NO ONE gets that kind of luxury. NO ONE gets unlimited "playing time" opportunities to see if MAYBE they have it.

    Hell, most guys get a game or two in relief, and if they don't shine, they fade away.

    And, you conveniently forget, he was the ANOINTED STARTER!!!! Chiller didn't have him compete for the job, he GAVE it to him. No franchise has the luxury of having a starter suck, season after season, just to "make sure".

    The clock is ticking...our players age, our contracts expire, our team changes. You either produce, or you leave.

    Jackson had more leeway than ANY QB I've EVER seen. And he STILL failed.

    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1090228
    Apparently 14 & less starts was enough to make up your mind as well as others that he wouldn't pan out, which is what prompted me to put up a list of QB's who didn't pan out after 16 games, but eventually did because the coaches stuck with them.
    Yup. 14 starts was enough to SHOW me that Jackson wasn't ready.

    That didn't mean they had to cut him. They could have put him on the bench and groomed him some more (which they eventually did), but by the end of season 3 ('08), I was pretty sure we'd seen all we were going to see from Jackson.

    His development wasn't there. His improvement wasn't there. He never progressed sufficiently for me to believe that, "This was a guy we could bank our franchise on".

    2010 was merely proof positive of everything I've been saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1090228
    I was never wrong about Jackson, I stated he needed more playing time to prove one way or the other to me whether he was going to cut it or not. That didn't change the whole time he was on the bench. I never stated that he would pan out if only he had more chances. I said give him more chances so we know for sure. Again, I'm not going to say for sure one way or another whether a QB was going to pan out after 16 starts without watching him play more, especially given the circumstances & the coach.
    And THAT'S why you were wrong. You kept saying "He needs more playing time" and I'm telling you that NO ONE GETS THAT!!!!!

    You were asking for something we didn't have the LUXURY of giving.

    Playing time is REAL time. You don't get to struggle, season after season, during REAL time and not get replaced.

    Look at Madieu Williams. He's been here 3 years, and we're tired of him.

    Bernard Berrian has been here 3 years and you'd have a tough time finding anyone NOT named Bernard Berrian who thinks he's worth keeping.

    And those guys aren't QB's. QB's are WAY more valuable.

    Jackson is a QB. He doesn't get 3 years of suck to find out MAYBE he'll make it. He has to produce.

    And he never did. Even though he WAS given the time. Jackson played in 36 games. He started 20 of them. He had opportunity after opportunity....but he never made it happen.

    Yes, you were - and ARE - wrong about Jackson. And as long as you continue to insist that he needs more playing time, you will continue to make the same mistake you've been making for years. Nobody gets the kind of leeway you're demanding for Jackson. NO ONE. But for some reason you think Jackson deserves it.

    You and Jackson....maybe...

    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1090228
    Webb's had 2 starts so far & has played in 5. Have you got him labeled as a bust yet? As a starter?

    I hope to God you give him more than 12 starts before you label him. Since he was on the roster all of 2010, you've had a full year (using your logic) to evaluate him.
    I have labeled Joe Webb exactly what he is - a 6th round pick, converted from WR, with 1 year under his belt. For a very RAW Rookie, he looked alright.

    He looked a lot more in control than Jackson did after 5 years.

    But he needs work...and not as the starter. He needs to develop.

    But if Frazier hands him the starting job next season, I expect him to PRODUCE like a starter. I expect his learning curve to be very steep, and for him to grow quickly into the role.

    After all, we don;t have the luxury of playing "maybe" for 3-5 years.

    Unlike the Jackson Project.

    Caine
    Not trying to call anyone out here. This is just a random selection which I wanted to use as an example.
    Hey- I represent that statement.:woohoo:

  7. #7
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,271

    Re: Quotes

    Quote Originally Posted by "Tad7" #1090230
    When you quote another poster I would like it more if it just quoted the one post and not the entire conversation.

    agree or disagree?
    Infidel..........is that you? :side:

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

  8. #8
    HEY's Avatar
    HEY
    HEY is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    2,201
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Quotes

    Quote Originally Posted by "singersp" #1090243
    Quote Originally Posted by "Tad7" #1090230
    When you quote another poster I would like it more if it just quoted the one post and not the entire conversation.

    agree or disagree?
    Infidel..........is that you? :side:
    LOL :lol:

Similar Threads

  1. Favre Quotes
    By Webby in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-06-2010, 02:26 PM
  2. Your favorite quotes?
    By VikesFan787 in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 01-31-2009, 01:34 AM
  3. Quotes on the 49ers
    By cogitans in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-02-2006, 12:21 PM
  4. a quotes question
    By zzbudzz in forum Help / Suggestion Box
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-21-2005, 04:04 AM
  5. Quotes
    By vikings6490 in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-13-2005, 02:37 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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