Thread: Scratch One Potential Quarterback Option For Vikes

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1093013

Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1093002

Originally Posted by "V4L" #1092971

Because, at this point.. Prior to his latest injury.. I woulda took him over Patrick Ramsey and Rhett Bohmar any frickin day :sick:

Good point. Just moved you up a notch in my database

BTW he is killing it in my Madden franchise as the Vikes QB. Super accurate, and hasnt been hurt yet. Whats funny is that even on Madden I can't find an eligible suitor for TJ.......

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1092965

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1092942

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1092876

Better than who we have. As a backup, I wouldn't mind him, but definitely not a guy to rely on going forward.

Never did understand why there are a few who feel that way. As PF said, lots of issues, mostly related to his arm and injuries.

But he's one of the more accurate guys in the league and can read defenses. Having him as a pure veteran backup role, and let him play about as much as Sage was used could be beneficial to a young guy we bring in.

He's not going to go out there and win games for us, but I think he could be an excellent player-coach for the QB's.

Coaches coach, players play.

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093094

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1092965

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1092942

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1092876

Better than who we have. As a backup, I wouldn't mind him, but definitely not a guy to rely on going forward.

Never did understand why there are a few who feel that way. As PF said, lots of issues, mostly related to his arm and injuries.

But he's one of the more accurate guys in the league and can read defenses. Having him as a pure veteran backup role, and let him play about as much as Sage was used could be beneficial to a young guy we bring in.

He's not going to go out there and win games for us, but I think he could be an excellent player-coach for the QB's.

Coaches coach, players play.

Then why have a Vet backup at all? Why not 3 rookies?

Fact is, how you claim it works is not how it works.

All teams with young QB's seem to have veteran leaders as backups. Reason? To help guide the young player through struggles they have already encountered. In the middle of the game, the coaches are very busy, but the backup, not so much.

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1093104

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093094

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1092965

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1092942

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1092876

Better than who we have. As a backup, I wouldn't mind him, but definitely not a guy to rely on going forward.

Never did understand why there are a few who feel that way. As PF said, lots of issues, mostly related to his arm and injuries.

But he's one of the more accurate guys in the league and can read defenses. Having him as a pure veteran backup role, and let him play about as much as Sage was used could be beneficial to a young guy we bring in.

He's not going to go out there and win games for us, but I think he could be an excellent player-coach for the QB's.

Coaches coach, players play.

Then why have a Vet backup at all? Why not 3 rookies?

Fact is, how you claim it works is not how it works.

All teams with young QB's seem to have veteran leaders as backups. Reason? To help guide the young player through struggles they have already encountered. In the middle of the game, the coaches are very busy, but the backup, not so much.

So why have coaches?

The reason you have a Vet behind a rook is so that if he can't get it done, you can turn to the Vet. Will he win you alot of games? No, thats why he's a backup but he sure the heck isn't there to teach the young QB. Thats the coaches job.

What the Vet does help in is things like "Film Study, Practice, Weights etc" that help him get ready for the coaching. Doesn't mean they are out there coaching my friend regardless of what ESPN drivel you believe. :P

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093109

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1093104

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093094

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1092965

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1092942

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1092876

Better than who we have. As a backup, I wouldn't mind him, but definitely not a guy to rely on going forward.

Never did understand why there are a few who feel that way. As PF said, lots of issues, mostly related to his arm and injuries.

But he's one of the more accurate guys in the league and can read defenses. Having him as a pure veteran backup role, and let him play about as much as Sage was used could be beneficial to a young guy we bring in.

He's not going to go out there and win games for us, but I think he could be an excellent player-coach for the QB's.

Coaches coach, players play.

Then why have a Vet backup at all? Why not 3 rookies?

Fact is, how you claim it works is not how it works.

All teams with young QB's seem to have veteran leaders as backups. Reason? To help guide the young player through struggles they have already encountered. In the middle of the game, the coaches are very busy, but the backup, not so much.

So why have coaches?

The reason you have a Vet behind a rook is so that if he can't get it done, you can turn to the Vet. Will he win you alot of games? No, thats why he's a backup but he sure the heck isn't there to teach the young QB. Thats the coaches job.

What the Vet does help in is things like "Film Study, Practice, Weights etc" that help him get ready for the coaching. Doesn't mean they are out there coaching my friend regardless of what ESPN drivel you believe. :P

Yet you seem to be the only one following that train of thought.

Turn on any NFL program, and when they're talking about young QB's, rookies, or FA's, they almost always talk about how x team would be great as they have a veteran leader they can sit and LEARN behind.

Or they talk about bringing in a veteran leader to help back up a young guy and help him learn.

You almost never see young guys backing up young guys.

Even Dallas, they have Romo, who's a pretty good young QB, and they still bring in backups like Brad Johnson and Jon Kitna as veteran leaders, as Romo still isn't all there.

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1093114

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093109

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1093104

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093094

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1092965

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1092942

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1092876

Better than who we have. As a backup, I wouldn't mind him, but definitely not a guy to rely on going forward.

Never did understand why there are a few who feel that way. As PF said, lots of issues, mostly related to his arm and injuries.

But he's one of the more accurate guys in the league and can read defenses. Having him as a pure veteran backup role, and let him play about as much as Sage was used could be beneficial to a young guy we bring in.

He's not going to go out there and win games for us, but I think he could be an excellent player-coach for the QB's.

Coaches coach, players play.

Then why have a Vet backup at all? Why not 3 rookies?

Fact is, how you claim it works is not how it works.

All teams with young QB's seem to have veteran leaders as backups. Reason? To help guide the young player through struggles they have already encountered. In the middle of the game, the coaches are very busy, but the backup, not so much.

So why have coaches?

The reason you have a Vet behind a rook is so that if he can't get it done, you can turn to the Vet. Will he win you alot of games? No, thats why he's a backup but he sure the heck isn't there to teach the young QB. Thats the coaches job.

What the Vet does help in is things like "Film Study, Practice, Weights etc" that help him get ready for the coaching. Doesn't mean they are out there coaching my friend regardless of what ESPN drivel you believe. :P

Yet you seem to be the only one following that train of thought.

Turn on any NFL program, and when they're talking about young QB's, rookies, or FA's, they almost always talk about how x team would be great as they have a veteran leader they can sit and LEARN behind.

Or they talk about bringing in a veteran leader to help back up a young guy and help him learn.

You almost never see young guys backing up young guys.

Even Dallas, they have Romo, who's a pretty good young QB, and they still bring in backups like Brad Johnson and Jon Kitna as veteran leaders, as Romo still isn't all there.

Not every show my friend. Maybe every show on ESPN.

You turn on NFLN or listen to the guys on the NFL channel on Sirius and you will hear them talking about things I just said.

Again, I ask, why have coaches if your Vets are there to teach the rooks the scheme? Get them coffee during the meetings and film sessions?

Another quick question, if the Vets knows so much and is there to teach the rook, why in the hell do they spend so much time during the games looking at the pics of the plays with the coaching staff?

Couldn't they just look at it themselves and say, "hey bonehead. I see what happened there", and fix it themselves.

Truth of the matter is, and what is vastly different than what the chuckleheads at Disney spew forth is that all the players (even the Vets) rely on the coaches to coach them up.

Vets, like I said, help the rooks understand how best to prepare themselves for the coaching that is to come.

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093116

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1093114

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093109

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1093104

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093094

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1092965

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1092942

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1092876

Better than who we have. As a backup, I wouldn't mind him, but definitely not a guy to rely on going forward.

Never did understand why there are a few who feel that way. As PF said, lots of issues, mostly related to his arm and injuries.

But he's one of the more accurate guys in the league and can read defenses. Having him as a pure veteran backup role, and let him play about as much as Sage was used could be beneficial to a young guy we bring in.

He's not going to go out there and win games for us, but I think he could be an excellent player-coach for the QB's.

Coaches coach, players play.

Then why have a Vet backup at all? Why not 3 rookies?

Fact is, how you claim it works is not how it works.

All teams with young QB's seem to have veteran leaders as backups. Reason? To help guide the young player through struggles they have already encountered. In the middle of the game, the coaches are very busy, but the backup, not so much.

So why have coaches?

The reason you have a Vet behind a rook is so that if he can't get it done, you can turn to the Vet. Will he win you alot of games? No, thats why he's a backup but he sure the heck isn't there to teach the young QB. Thats the coaches job.

What the Vet does help in is things like "Film Study, Practice, Weights etc" that help him get ready for the coaching. Doesn't mean they are out there coaching my friend regardless of what ESPN drivel you believe. :P

Yet you seem to be the only one following that train of thought.

Turn on any NFL program, and when they're talking about young QB's, rookies, or FA's, they almost always talk about how x team would be great as they have a veteran leader they can sit and LEARN behind.

Or they talk about bringing in a veteran leader to help back up a young guy and help him learn.

You almost never see young guys backing up young guys.

Even Dallas, they have Romo, who's a pretty good young QB, and they still bring in backups like Brad Johnson and Jon Kitna as veteran leaders, as Romo still isn't all there.

Not every show my friend. Maybe every show on ESPN.

You realize of course, I live in Canada, therefore do not watch ESPN

You turn on NFLN or listen to the guys on the NFL channel on Sirius and you will hear them talking about things I just said.

Again, I ask, why have coaches if your Vets are there to teach the rooks the scheme? Get them coffee during the meetings and film sessions?

They're not there to take over for the coaches. They do help with some terminology, scheme, etc. They HELP, not teach the whole offense.

Question for you, why is it that young guys always say "Playing behind X has helped me alot, he really helped me get a grasp on hte offense"

Heck, ask AD who helped make the biggest impact on his game. His answer? Tony Richardson. Taught him about reading the D and finding the holes, etc. Last I checked he's not a coach.

Another quick question, if the Vets knows so much and is there to teach the rook, why in the hell do they spend so much time during the games looking at the pics of the plays with the coaching staff?

Why in the hell do they spend so much time explaining to their backup what got screwed up during a play?

Couldn't they just look at it themselves and say, "hey bonehead. I see what happened there", and fix it themselves.

Two sets of eyes are better than one

Truth of the matter is, and what is vastly different than what the chuckleheads at Disney spew forth is that all the players (even the Vets) rely on the coaches to coach them up.

Vets, like I said, help the rooks understand how best to prepare themselves for the coaching that is to come.

Again, I know you have some vendetta against ESPN, but once more for you... I DON"T WATCH ESPN.

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1093119

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093116

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1093114

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093109

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1093104

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093094

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1092965

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1092942

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1092876

Better than who we have. As a backup, I wouldn't mind him, but definitely not a guy to rely on going forward.

Never did understand why there are a few who feel that way. As PF said, lots of issues, mostly related to his arm and injuries.

But he's one of the more accurate guys in the league and can read defenses. Having him as a pure veteran backup role, and let him play about as much as Sage was used could be beneficial to a young guy we bring in.

He's not going to go out there and win games for us, but I think he could be an excellent player-coach for the QB's.

Coaches coach, players play.

Then why have a Vet backup at all? Why not 3 rookies?

Fact is, how you claim it works is not how it works.

All teams with young QB's seem to have veteran leaders as backups. Reason? To help guide the young player through struggles they have already encountered. In the middle of the game, the coaches are very busy, but the backup, not so much.

So why have coaches?

The reason you have a Vet behind a rook is so that if he can't get it done, you can turn to the Vet. Will he win you alot of games? No, thats why he's a backup but he sure the heck isn't there to teach the young QB. Thats the coaches job.

What the Vet does help in is things like "Film Study, Practice, Weights etc" that help him get ready for the coaching. Doesn't mean they are out there coaching my friend regardless of what ESPN drivel you believe. :P

Yet you seem to be the only one following that train of thought.

Turn on any NFL program, and when they're talking about young QB's, rookies, or FA's, they almost always talk about how x team would be great as they have a veteran leader they can sit and LEARN behind.

Or they talk about bringing in a veteran leader to help back up a young guy and help him learn.

You almost never see young guys backing up young guys.

Even Dallas, they have Romo, who's a pretty good young QB, and they still bring in backups like Brad Johnson and Jon Kitna as veteran leaders, as Romo still isn't all there.

Not every show my friend. Maybe every show on ESPN.

You realize of course, I live in Canada, therefore do not watch ESPN

You turn on NFLN or listen to the guys on the NFL channel on Sirius and you will hear them talking about things I just said.

Again, I ask, why have coaches if your Vets are there to teach the rooks the scheme? Get them coffee during the meetings and film sessions?

They're not there to take over for the coaches. They do help with some terminology, scheme, etc. They HELP, not teach the whole offense.

Question for you, why is it that young guys always say "Playing behind X has helped me alot, he really helped me get a grasp on hte offense"

Heck, ask AD who helped make the biggest impact on his game. His answer? Tony Richardson. Taught him about reading the D and finding the holes, etc. Last I checked he's not a coach.

Another quick question, if the Vets knows so much and is there to teach the rook, why in the hell do they spend so much time during the games looking at the pics of the plays with the coaching staff?

Why in the hell do they spend so much time explaining to their backup what got screwed up during a play?

Couldn't they just look at it themselves and say, "hey bonehead. I see what happened there", and fix it themselves.

Two sets of eyes are better than one

Truth of the matter is, and what is vastly different than what the chuckleheads at Disney spew forth is that all the players (even the Vets) rely on the coaches to coach them up.

Vets, like I said, help the rooks understand how best to prepare themselves for the coaching that is to come.

Again, I know you have some vendetta against ESPN, but once more for you... I DON"T WATCH ESPN.

I don't have a vendetta against ESPN, I just think they provide a pretty watered down version of what reality is.

And yes, Vets do help. I am not disputing that. Thats why Rook Y says he enjoyed learning behind Vet X. I'm just saying that help isn't quite to the degree that you seem to think it is.

Quick question, do you think Rodgers was young when he took over for the Noodle? Who was his backups? Lots of articles out there about how the PUKERS were messing up for getting rid of the Noodle and leaving Rodgers, untested, with no vet backup to take over if he failed.

Nothing about a vet being needed to do the coaching. Only if he failed.

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093121

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1093119

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093116

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1093114

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093109

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1093104

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1093094

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1092965

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1092942

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1092876

Better than who we have. As a backup, I wouldn't mind him, but definitely not a guy to rely on going forward.

Never did understand why there are a few who feel that way. As PF said, lots of issues, mostly related to his arm and injuries.

But he's one of the more accurate guys in the league and can read defenses. Having him as a pure veteran backup role, and let him play about as much as Sage was used could be beneficial to a young guy we bring in.

He's not going to go out there and win games for us, but I think he could be an excellent player-coach for the QB's.

Coaches coach, players play.

Then why have a Vet backup at all? Why not 3 rookies?

Fact is, how you claim it works is not how it works.

All teams with young QB's seem to have veteran leaders as backups. Reason? To help guide the young player through struggles they have already encountered. In the middle of the game, the coaches are very busy, but the backup, not so much.

So why have coaches?

The reason you have a Vet behind a rook is so that if he can't get it done, you can turn to the Vet. Will he win you alot of games? No, thats why he's a backup but he sure the heck isn't there to teach the young QB. Thats the coaches job.

What the Vet does help in is things like "Film Study, Practice, Weights etc" that help him get ready for the coaching. Doesn't mean they are out there coaching my friend regardless of what ESPN drivel you believe. :P

Yet you seem to be the only one following that train of thought.

Turn on any NFL program, and when they're talking about young QB's, rookies, or FA's, they almost always talk about how x team would be great as they have a veteran leader they can sit and LEARN behind.

Or they talk about bringing in a veteran leader to help back up a young guy and help him learn.

You almost never see young guys backing up young guys.

Even Dallas, they have Romo, who's a pretty good young QB, and they still bring in backups like Brad Johnson and Jon Kitna as veteran leaders, as Romo still isn't all there.

Not every show my friend. Maybe every show on ESPN.

You realize of course, I live in Canada, therefore do not watch ESPN

You turn on NFLN or listen to the guys on the NFL channel on Sirius and you will hear them talking about things I just said.

Again, I ask, why have coaches if your Vets are there to teach the rooks the scheme? Get them coffee during the meetings and film sessions?

They're not there to take over for the coaches. They do help with some terminology, scheme, etc. They HELP, not teach the whole offense.

Question for you, why is it that young guys always say "Playing behind X has helped me alot, he really helped me get a grasp on hte offense"

Heck, ask AD who helped make the biggest impact on his game. His answer? Tony Richardson. Taught him about reading the D and finding the holes, etc. Last I checked he's not a coach.

Another quick question, if the Vets knows so much and is there to teach the rook, why in the hell do they spend so much time during the games looking at the pics of the plays with the coaching staff?

Why in the hell do they spend so much time explaining to their backup what got screwed up during a play?

Couldn't they just look at it themselves and say, "hey bonehead. I see what happened there", and fix it themselves.

Two sets of eyes are better than one

Truth of the matter is, and what is vastly different than what the chuckleheads at Disney spew forth is that all the players (even the Vets) rely on the coaches to coach them up.

Vets, like I said, help the rooks understand how best to prepare themselves for the coaching that is to come.

Again, I know you have some vendetta against ESPN, but once more for you... I DON"T WATCH ESPN.

I don't have a vendetta against ESPN, I just think they provide a pretty watered down version of what reality is.

And yes, Vets do help. I am not disputing that. Thats why Rook Y says he enjoyed learning behind Vet X. I'm just saying that help isn't quite to the degree that you seem to think it is.

Quick question, do you think Rodgers was young when he took over for the Noodle? Who was his backups? Lots of articles out there about how the PUKERS were messing up for getting rid of the Noodle and leaving Rodgers, untested, with no vet backup to take over if he failed.

Nothing about a vet being needed to do the coaching. Only if he failed.

And the Ravens proved that you don't always NEED a great, or even good QB to win a superbowl, but it sure does help.

Point is, yes, there's exceptions to every rule. But Rodgers sat and learned from Favre, (despite what you claim) then took over when the whole Favre/TT fiasco went down.

Packers took a risk, but it sure did pay off.

They thought they knew what they had with Rodgers, and felt they didn't need a vet backup. They were right.

Unfortunately, we don't have the luxury of having a great young QB to put all our eggs in his basket.

[/quote]
Unfortunately, we don't have the luxury of having a great young QB to put all our eggs in his basket.[/quote]

So much double entendre here I had to repost. HA!:laugh: