Trading or releasing T-Jack by Friday?

[Steve Foss]

Originally Posted By: fishin58

Glad you are coming around wad, Bert must have borrowed his smelling salts to ya

http://blogs.usatoday.com/thehuddle/

Simms: Vikings would win as many with T-Jack as with Brett Favre

NEW YORK -- Former NFL QB Phil Simms said Tuesday that the Vikings' long offseason pursuit of Brett Favre may turn out to be fruitless.

"I think the Vikings would have had just as good a record with Tarvaris Jackson at quarterback as they will with Brett Favre," Simms, now a CBS analyst, said at the network's preseason media briefing.

"A lot of people underplay Jackson," Simms said. "He played very well down the end of the season last year." Jackson, ousted as Vikings starter after an 0-2 start last year, returned to the role and led the team to a 2-2 finish (while throwing just one interception) that clinched the NFL North title.

Simms said he thinks the drama of adding a three-time MVP in Favre enticed the Vikings as it did the Jets last year. But he argued it wasn't necessarily the smartest move for either franchise.

"I kind of thought the same thing last year," he said. "You bring in a Brett Favre to the Jets because you're looking to win the playoff game. But when you look at the regular season, if the Jets (who finished 9-7) would have kept Chad Pennington I believe they would have won 10 games. But what good would that have done? Nothing. The people in New York and the press will never get over the hump unless we get another quarterback.

"But I just think Minnesota is a very talented team. And with the running back, Adrian Peterson, I believe Tarvaris Jackson was the quarterback who fits perfectly with that. Dynamic arm. Can run around and showed -- he's a young guy, that he was progressing at the end of last year."

I guess the HOF'er needs to study more film.

For every 1 Phil Simms there are how many former players who feel just the opposite? Chris Carter, as mad as he was about how it went down, agreed that Favre most definately gives the purple a better shot at the big prize. This is the sentiment of most people by far. I mean, that magic combo of Jacksons dynamic arm and athleticism sure lent itself well in the playoffs last year. Progressing? Sure, but this isnt a 6-10 team that has time to wait around to see if he can finally be a decent QB. He may be progressing, but that doesnt mean he'll ever get there. He is not ready to lead a team into a deep playoff run, plain and simple.

Simms is a bit jealous of Favre, is what I get out of that. I've seen some former talented NFL QBs turned TV analysts that were very unbiased in their assessments of current QBs, but Simms never has struck me as being one of them.

Whether the drama and media microscope associated with Favre wherever he goes distracts the team and makes it more difficult for them to win than it would have been with TJ could be an interesting point, but it's already a moot one. You Vikes fans are going to have a strange brew of a season ahead of you.

[LMITOUT]

I read this today and had to repost:

T-Jack Faction? Easy Chili fix. Pop in Eagles DVD, qtrs 2, 3, most of 4: 7-24, 85 yrds, 1 INT (for TD), 1 FUM.

[FISHINGURU]

don't forget about his whooping 117.2 yards per game last season ( 137.7) Y/G for his career despite having the luxary of having single coverage and 8 in the box most plays.

[fishin58]

Lets boil it down to 1 play. Because it is really this simple. I have said this many times, our offense is designed to run first then get a PA pass or a rollout pass. Take last weeks game, Shiancoe drops that ball on third and eight. The Vikes kick a FG. Sound Familiar, remember the Indy game.

What happens from there, knee jerk reaction from the dumb fans, to boo YOUR QB at home. Knee jerk reaction from the top to bench YOUR QB to please the fans. TJ is man for this offense.

You can say what you want about our team but you have to know that is what our offense has been designed to do. Ball control on offense and defense. In the past 15 years how many teams have won the Suberbowl with this philosophy?

Sorry, if its not the 98 vikes or the late 90's Rams, but how did all that offense work out for us that year? Then even look at the perfect patriots, what happened to them?

[FISHINGURU]

it boils down to not being able to step up, not being able to make a pass when teams know your gonna pass...with junkson we can't even pass when teams think we are gonna run lol.

you set up play action so you can hit some deep bombs or get single coverage on the outside, which we get anyway when they have 8 in the box...but what does it matter when you set up the PA and the bootleg when you just throw it to your check down 90% of the time?

if the first and only player isn't open that junkson is lookin for it goes straight to the check down...we need someone that can scan the field and check all options....its hard to rack up any sort of passing yards when you throw it 3 yards everytime.

[AWH]

I see a lot of comments that continue to say, all you have to do is look at one game to know that T-Jack can't do the job. Luckily for most professional athletes, their careers aren't defined by just one game.

Eli Manning was never going to live up to his name just a couple years ago. Many people were writing him off as a bust. Lucky for him, he was given the opportunity to develop and improve. T-Jack has played in 25 games in his career. Compare what he did to Eli Manning in his first 25 games. Manning looked and played worse than T-Jack. People say that T-Jack can't hit a target. Manning was a 48% passer in his first year and a 52% passer in his second year. 25 games...the same number that T-Jack has played. Good thing for him and the Giants that they didn't write him off as a guy that would never be able to get it done. He had many of those "all you have to do is look at one game" moments. QBs take time to develop. They also need to be put in a position to succeed. Put them in a position to fail by not allowing them to make on the field decisions, what's going to happen?

Like I said in an earlier post. I sure hope Childress lets Favre make decisions on the field and not handicap him like he's done with T-Jack and most of the other QBs under his watch.

Aaron

[TR21]

Aaron,

You nailed right on the head. It was apparent, even with Ferottes experience, Childress kept too tight a reign on him and you could see with T Jack that Childress had no confidence in him what so ever.The result was a boring offense at best. Hopefully Chili will let Favre air it out a few times. In these days of 3 yard passes, aka the "west coast offense" and quarterbacks "managing games" aka play not to lose, maybe thats just what this team needs and it will provide a much more entertaining game to watch.

[PierBridge]

AWH, TR21 and Fish58 that makes to much sense and WE all must be mistaken on this....just ask Fishguru and Jim they'll tell ya!..

Go Sage let's what you got when the pressure is on for your potential back-up roll!...

[S.D. Ice Angular]

Dump T-Jack

[james_walleye]

We saw what Jackson did in the 1st preseason game when the pressure was on. Pretty tight wasnt it...??

[fishin58]

Spot on AWH, and if anybody has some time, look up the Tony Romo experiment. I have posted on this before(about Romo). I bet the Cboys are happy they didnt have to cut him!

[FISHINGURU]

i'm just waiting for these guys like fishin58 and pier to up and say this was all an april fools joke that snowballed out of control...cause you can't be serious!

[james_walleye]

I'm kind of waiting for that to. Like i said, that friend of mine called me the other night and told me flat out there is no way these guys are serious, that they have to just be playing devils advocate.

If your looking for a QB who can't throw against 8 and 9 man fronts, who can only read 1/3 of the field, and who hesitates on half of his throws because he doesnt see anything clearly, than Jackson is your man. Certainly someone i would want to lead a playoff caliber team....

[zepman]

The Cowboys were in the Cutler talks as well...Romo almost didn't make it through this past off-season a Cowboy. Reason: NO LEADERSHIP SKILLS.

[fishin58]

So what part of the field was your precious Sage looking at when he threw 10 interceptions to only 6 tds....I'll hang up and listen, because this ought to be good.

Maybe he should have watched more film....ahahahahahahahaahaha

[FISHINGURU]

he was probably looking to the side of the field that had competition with real defenses, had no running game or defense that had his back, took shots downfield to try and win games on a junk team.

it would be a pretty safe bet almost any qb in the league could throw a good td to int ratio if they only threw the balls an average of 3 yards lol...then the one in a million chance they take downfield isn't an issue because not only can't the WRs catch it either can the DBs because its so ugly...i'd love to see what junkson could string together if we had to throw it up and down the field at will.

hey look at me mom...i throw more tds then ints because i have no nads and only throw to the open guy 3 yards downfield even though they played 8 in the box and i really had 2 guys wide open!!! i'm such a game manager but don't expect me to step up when i need to or grow a pair and start slingin....signed junkson!!

[james_walleye]

Exactly. Hey Fishin, 4 times in last couple years Sage brought the texans back from 21 points or more. He threw the ball well against teams that threw he was going to throw the ball. That is something that Jackson can't do. So go ahead, keep throwing out stats Mr. Statboy. Its obvious you can't think for youself without a stat sheet in front of you. Not being able to throw the ball against teams who know your going to run? Or being able to throw the bal against a defense who knows your going to pass? Its not rocket science, but i know you don't get it, because its not on a statsheet. Imagine Sage with the luxury of being able to throw against a defense who thinks he's going to hand the ball off? Again, its not on a statsheet fishin so i don't expect you to be able to answer that....

[AWH]

Would Sage be as "great" if he had Childress to tie one arm behind his back? I guess there's only one way to find out, and that's to have Sage run the show for the Purple. But with Favre here, that debate can keep going on for another year.

I find it funny how people fail to realize and/or admit that many of T-Jacks problems can be put squarely on the shoulders of Brad Childress. Certainly not all of them. But to act like T-Jack is completely at fault in his struggles is laughable. And no mention by those same people that he has only played in 25 games since coming out of Division 2 football.

There's a huge difference in the level of play from major college football to the pros, let alone what he dealt with at Alabama State. Look no further than Heisman trophy winning QBs and how many have failed to make it in the pros. It's a different game. Even at the college level, the best QBs take time to develop. It's a very rare exception when one comes in as a freshman and stars. Are we expecting that to be different at the professional level when the level of competition is exponentially superior?

Aaron

[FISHINGURU]

YAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWNNNNNNS

NEWS FLASH! for you people that come up with all the excuses for junkson with this that and the other thing.

do you realize we run a west coast offense? that means 3 step drop boom get rid of the ball...sometimes its a 5 step drop boom get rid of the ball...its no ones fault but junksons that he can't make quick decisions or read defenses.

you could already see how sage and soon you'll see how favre just drop back and get rid of the ball....you guys think junkson is so great and can keep a play alive when it's his fault from the snap that he can't hit the couple open wr's on a 3 or 5 step drop....even when junkson finally does hit a guy it's already been a few seconds to late.

they said the same thing about vick maybe he couldn't be the passing qb he needed to be because of the west coast offense...maybe its best for junkson and his fans to be in another system lol.

[james_walleye]

Would Sage be as "great" if he had Childress to tie one arm behind his back? I guess there's only one way to find out, and that's to have Sage run the show for the Purple. But with Favre here, that debate can keep going on for another year.

I find it funny how people fail to realize and/or admit that many of T-Jacks problems can be put squarely on the shoulders of Brad Childress. Certainly not all of them. But to act like T-Jack is completely at fault in his struggles is laughable. And no mention by those same people that he has only played in 25 games since coming out of Division 2 football.

There's a huge difference in the level of play from major college football to the pros, let alone what he dealt with at Alabama State. Look no further than Heisman trophy winning QBs and how many have failed to make it in the pros. It's a different game. Even at the college level, the best QBs take time to develop. It's a very rare exception when one comes in as a freshman and stars. Are we expecting that to be different at the professional level when the level of competition is exponentially superior?

Aaron

You ever think the reason Childress calls the plays he does for Jackson is that Jackson can't handle anymore than that?

We arent talking about a 2nd year QB here. There is a big difference between a 2nd year and 4th year QB. Enough excuses, the guy doesnt get it. He can't throw the ball against 8 and 9 man fronts. Hes lucky he hasnt been playing on a team with an average RB and facing 7 man fronts. That would be ugly. A 4th year QB should be showing more than he does, give me a break. Talk to fans of other NFL teams, they are disappointed that Jackson isnt going to be the QB. They think hes a joke and a guarantee for the vikings to go nowhere in the playoffs.

[AWH]

its no ones fault but junksons that he can't make quick decisions or read defenses.

Is it also Jackson's fault that he hasn't been ALLOWED to make decisions or read defenses? As stated earlier, there are former Vikings QBs that have gone on record to state that Childress would rarely allow them to audible. Why are we so quick to blow this off as irrelevant? This means he takes the decision making out of their hands. This is called a recipe for failure. Again, does this mean T-Jack isn't partly to blame? Absolutely not.

I haven't seen any comments on here from people saying that Jackson is a great QB. But I do see some reasonable comments that suggest it's too early to give up on the guy. The backup QB or the guy that isn't seeing the field is always the most popular guy in town unless you have a guy like Tom Brady from 2 years ago at the helm. One bad game and it's time to bench or get rid of the guy. That's simply how fans react. 90% of fans are very quick to judge without looking at or understanding the big picture. The grass is always greener on the other side for them.

For many people right now, T-Jack could go out and throw for 300 yards, 4 TDs and no picks for 6 straight weeks and you'd still want to run the guy out of town. It's beyond the point of being able to accept that maybe the guy has a future in the league.

Aaron

[AWH]

You ever think the reason Childress calls the plays he does for Jackson is that Jackson can't handle anymore than that?

I would say that there's some truth to this, absolutely. But this isn't isolated to Jackson. Childress has been this way with every QB that the Vikings have put out there.

To counteract this question of yours - do you ever think that Childress coaches this way because he's trying to protect his job? When he does this with every QB, don't you have to wonder why? It sure makes it look that way to me. He could take the chance of reaping bigger rewards by allowing his QBs to make decisions. Or he could play it safe (in his mind) and minimize potential mistakes.

In order for a QB to develop, he has to make mistakes. There's no way around it. I have yet to see Childress give T-Jack the opportunity to really show what he can do.

Lastly, Jackson has not had 4 years in the league. This is the start of his 4th year. Meaning he has 3 years of experience, and essentially one year of on the field experience, considering the amount of snaps he has taken. It would be one thing to throw in the towel if he had looked like Gino Toretta all this time. But he has shown steady improvement from day one. Yes, there have been bumps in the road, and some ugly ones. But if you look at his picture of work as a whole (objectively), I beg you to show how he has not continued to improve.

And if there's continued improvement, why should we give up on the guy? Wouldn't it be worth letting him sit on the sidelines for a year to see what he might be able to learn from a guy like Brett Favre? And maybe Childress can even see what happens when he loosens up the reigns a bit.

Bottom line - Favre is the starting QB for 2009. What would the point be to get rid of Jackson right now? How would the Vikings benefit?

Aaron

[james_walleye]

Bottom line...if Favre isnt around, do you want Jackson leading this team? A team with this kind of talent....do you want a guy who at best if a "work in progress" leading this team? There is no way you can say yes....

Someone brought this question up on Sirius NFL radio about Chilly when i was listening and also heard the question brought up on FOX national radio. The guys all said that was bunk and listed sited several situations in the game that had just been played where Jackson was given the chance and failed miserably. So enough of this angle....its a poor excuse. The guy can't read the field, plain and simple. HE DOESNT GET IT. Childress has had nothing but 2nd stringers starting for this team, hes had nothing to work with. You can blame him for that if you want to, neglecting to bring in legit QB's...but enough of the Childress being the problem with Jackson angle, its bunk. Blame Jackson for being the problem with Jackson.

[AWH]

Talk to fans of other NFL teams, they are disappointed that Jackson isnt going to be the QB. They think hes a joke and a guarantee for the vikings to go nowhere in the playoffs.

Why should we care what fans of other teams think? I think I touched on how fans react earlier. I don't look to fans as the voice of reason.

That being said, if the playoffs were starting today, I'm not convinced that Jackson has what it takes today to take us very far either. But we aren't talking about today....I hope!

It's a different sport. But Chauncey Billups didn't have what it took either. Talk to fans about him in his early days. Good thing fans didn't determine his fate and he was given a chance!

Someone mentioned earlier that the T-Jack supporters must just be playing devil's advocate. I am not about to speak for anyone else. But I will say that a very small part of my arguments are in fact being devil's advocate because I don't know what T-Jack's full potential is and there's no way anyone can know this. I just happen to believe in giving people opportunities. And I love it when guy's succeed that the vast majority of people had written off as someone that will never make it. There are a ton of examples of situations like that in sports. However, I fully believe that someone with an objective eye can see the talent and potential of T-Jack. Will he ever reach his potential? Who knows. I just hope he gets the chance.

Aaron

[AWH]

Bottom line...if Favre isnt around, do you want Jackson leading this team? A team with this kind of talent....do you want a guy who at best if a "work in progress" leading this team? There is no way you can say yes....

If it were between Sage and T-Jack? I would want to see what both guys show on the field in pre-season, running the Vikings offense, with both being given the opportunity to run with the first team. I wouldn't rush to judgement about either one because I think running with either one as your starter in 2009 isn't a recipe for getting you to the Super Bowl, which should be the ultimate goal.

If Favre wasn't here and I was forced to make a decision today without giving them both the chance to win the job in pre-season, I would abslutely give the nod to Jackson. I've seen Sage play and I'm not impressed. He has shown flashes. And he has also shown that he should be nothing more than a backup in the league. A good backup at that. I would be happy to have him on my team in that role, no matter who my starter was. But T-Jack has shown steady improvement in his career from day one. If you say otherwise, you're kidding yourself. And with the evidence of his continued improvement, why would we not believe he can continue that trend if he were to start in 2009? There has been no plateau in his career or a decline in his results on the field. The only thing we can logically conclude is an up trend in his performance.

But this entire thread was not about whether he should start or not over Sage. Read the title. It's about whether he should have a spot on the roster or not.

Nowhere in my argument have I said he should be the starter this year. Favre is on the roster. I'd be completely happy if he were the third string behind Sage. My entire point is that it would be a mistake to cut ties with him at this stage. With Favre as the starter, your backup isn't likely to see the field very much. But when Favre is gone next year, do we want Sage and Booty as our top two guys?

Aaron