"Purplexing" wrote:
"bigbadragz" wrote:
"Purplexing" wrote:
"cajunvike" wrote:
"Desertvikingfan" wrote:
[quote author=bigbadragz link=topic=33543.msg570672#msg570672 date=1177708616]
[quote author=Purplexing link=topic=33543.msg570555#msg570555 date=1177695184]
[quote author=Nephilim link=topic=33543.msg570515#msg570515 date=1177690242]
[quote author=cajunvike link=topic=33543.msg569541#msg569541 date=1177533826]
[quote author=Suick link=topic=33543.msg569537#msg569537 date=1177533183]
Childress appears to be hitching his star to Travaris Jackson, the Vikings’ third second-round pick last year.

That still seems to be a big stretch.

Amen to that
Hey...who knows?
Belichick hitched HIS star to a SIXTH-ROUNDER...and look at what happened.
OF COURSE, everyone KNOWS that the Patsy DEFENSE really won those games. (And what do you know...we have a pretty good defense too...hmmmm...maybe there's hope after all?)
;D

I would rather get TJack some weapons to throw to and give him a shot at stepping up into the starter's role.
Worst case scenario...we suck next season and draft Brian Brohm next season...who is a MUCH BETTER QB than Quinn will ever be!
All you Quinn bastards can bite me...here's to the team that drafts him...Go Quinn!!
Oooooh!
Now you've done it!
You're gonna get a lot of hateful PMs from TJackson lovers.

I'm perplexed about Brian Brohm.
"MUCH BETTER QB than Quinn will ever be"?
??? : Wait until TJackson busts to draft Brohm, but 'we need someone to make an immediate impact, so draft Landry, not Quinn, etc.'

???

The above 'comments' sequence seems to indicate some fans want to give TJ a chance to succeed, or bust.
If he busts, the next step is to draft a replacement next year.
The replacement QB, Brohm,... if the Vikings were 'lucky enough' to be in a position to draft him,... wouldn't develop until 2009.
But, at the same time, many of the same fans are pushing to draft Landry, who 'should make an immediate impact'.
I don't understand the need for an 'immediate impact' player in the 2007 draft when it isn't a certainty that Jackson will develop in 2007.


well i think the thought process is, if we we're a rebuilding team as you say, and we invested what we already have in tjack and then draft quinn, what was the point of using 3 picks to take tjack.
that's an awful lot for a backup qb.
i mean if it's a matter of value and you have to draft him fine, cuz then maybe you can get something in return somewhere down the line.
but if not, and you draft quinn, doesn't the job basically have to be his?
when you have other problems and you use a top 10 pick on qb, doesn't that mean that tjack is bascially done before he even plays?
we can all talk about a competition. but the bottom line is tjack would have to be phenominal otherwise we have to go with the guy we invested the number 7 pick on. i just dont see the point, i think it'd be a setback more than a step forward.
We gave up two third round picks and got one late 2nd in return,it wasn't that huge of a trade. We didn't invest a first and aren't paying him big money to be a Vike. If BC developed Tjack and we traded him later ala the Falcons and Shaub I don't think anyone would see the pick as wasted. If Quinn is better and he's there, you take him. You can't have too many good QB's
[/quote]

Good luck setting up THAT deal...the more probable scenario is that we end up cutting him if he sucks..and we get NOTHING in return.
Even if Quinn would end up starting, he would have no one to throw to...by drafting some offensive weapons (besides QB) we set it up for SOME QB to succeed...either TJack...or Brohm next season.
[/quote]

Someone already mentioned the NE Pats passing game success without superstar WRs, so I'll take a different tack...

" ....Quinn.... would have no one to throw to..."

I could easily turn that around...

If the Vikings draft a WR with their 2007 1st round pick, they might still need a QB to throw him the ball.....

.... i.e. Jackson isn't a proven QB.
And, Bollinger might do ok, but he doesn't seem to have as much upside potential as Quinn; i.e. top 10 in 2007, per the consensus of HUNDREDS of the same scouts who last year pegged TJackson as a 3rd-6th round talent QB.

Improving an NFL team requires upgrading at the most critical, pivotal positions first, then 'backfilling' the support roles.

[/quote]
i would buy all that if it wasn't for the vikings moves so far.
in 2 successive seasons we are gonna have basically reworked the entire qb corp twice.
so you could hitch your wagons to quinn and say he's the man, but what the hell did you just do the last 2 offseasons that have improved the offense besides bring in 6 different qbs.
if this was such a priority it should have been addressed last year, and i thought it was with tjack.
you address again this year and it negates what you've done so far, so it's basically pointing out you've screwed up before tjack really steps on the field.
the vikes wanted him, it's his time now, and everybody is ready to ditch him before he starts.
i'm just not following.
[/quote]

Viking moves 'so far' aren't binding the Vikings with regard to future moves.
Why would the Vikings be bound to only develop TJ if he hasn't quickly developed into anything good thus far?

Football is a for-profit business, not a charity or similar
type of venture.

Taking TJ last year may have been a 'desperation' or 'insurance' move by the Vikings, seeing that they never expected to be 6-10 in 2006, and in position to draft Quinn at #7.
Recall that the Vikings thought Brad Johnson would last 2 MORE years BEYOND 2006.
TJ may have been drafted as insurance against Johnson being injured before the Vikings could draft a long-term replacement for him in 2007 or 2008.
IIRC, Bollinger was obtained after TJ because O'Sullivan and McMahon didn't inspire any confidence in being able to step in if Johnson was injured.
That also implies a lack of confidence in TJ at that time.


TJ hasn't proven much thus far, so there is no reason to be loyal to him, or Bollinger, IF there is a better option available.
The NFL is a business organization.
Loyalties don't count for much when the bottom line is considered.
[/quote]
first off perplex, we all know you have man love for quinn so no need making up jibberish for us to draft him.


if you recall correctly, tjack had a knee injury that i believe sidelined him for 6 weeks.
and he even came out and said he was not even 100 percent in his 2 only starts of last year.
so with your theory, based on that small glimpse of a season, teams will be drafting qb's every year with their top picks.


i guess the raiders will be selecting a qb with their 1st or 2nd pick next year if they take jamarcus russel, or the bengals and titans should have drafted another top qb when palmer and mcnair didn't play in their first season or 2.


unless the jury is out on tavaris already, what would be the point.
the vikes could have chased brees, moved up to get cutler, pursued garcia, carr, t.green, matt schaub.
they didn't.
but now we are gonna draft quinn?
and that makes sense to you?
we had options, that were less of a question mark and still left our picks to address other areas.
we didn't pursue them, so if we take quinn to me it's another bad personel decision.
you invested in tjack, so let him develop, if he's not ready, bring in a car, or a green, or just give up 2 2nd rounders for shcaub.
but instead you wanna just add another question mark with our most important pick.