Do we really need another starting QB?

by nadrojchingy808 on Jan 11, 2009 10:52 PM CST Comment 5 comments

I know all you guys are ready to kick T-Jack out the door but c'mon. He didn't get a fair shot this year, and when he came back he showed vast improvement. We lost to the Eagles, who just put the Giants and Cowboys through their worst offensive performance, so it's understandable to see Tarvaris struggle that game. Bottom line, the locker room has his back, he has incredible physical intangibles, plenty knowledge of the play book and some up side. Let's be real, the draft will not save us at this position and Matt Cassel hasn't shown the league that he can perform in another offensive system. If we can't take the division next year with T-Jack at the helm then yes, we should make this a priority, but for now, I believe that Tarvaris Jackson is the answer. I'm not saying that we don't need another veteran back there just in case like Sage Rosenfels, but as of now, we have a starting QB on our Roster.

This FanPost was created by a registered user of The Daily Norseman, and does not necessarily reflect the views of the staff of the site. However, since this is a community, that view is no less important.

0 recs | Comment 5 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

i agree...........................

but in the mean time see: QB options post .

MDK

by PAtxMADDENKING on Jan 11, 2009 11:16 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

LMAO

you have to be kidding right. the daid part is we could have won the Eagles game. Had he learn to read defense. And it will be us and Arizona

by vikefansd on Jan 12, 2009 4:15 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Yes, We Do

Gus is probably done, and TJack made it clear that he’s NOT READY to be depended on.

by DCPurple on Jan 12, 2009 9:47 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Current starting QBs on the roster: 0.

As I’ve maintained all season, the Vikings have two very nice backup quarterbacks. Both Jackson and Frerotte are able to fill in here and there, but neither can be depended on to carry a team for an entire season. They’ve both had their chance and they’ve both had solid games, but ultimately they’ve been our weak point far too often. If we keep either of these guys as the starter going into 2009, I’m afraid 10-6 and a first round exit is our ceiling.

by ericj69 on Jan 12, 2009 10:03 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Quarterbacks have to show some ability to take a team on their backs and lead them to victory. Jackson is fine in limited situations when he has a lead, but he has never taken a game over, even in his so-called breakout game in Arizona. It’s obvious at this point that the Cardinals had a bad game and we had a good one. Both out of character.

And despite what some people think, everything else doesn’t have to be perfect for a QB to succeed. You don’t have to have a great offensive line, great receivers, and great offensive philosophy (okay, that one is pretty necessary) to be an obviously good QB. It’s well documented that Tom Brady won two Super Bowls with average talent at WR. He had a pretty good line and a HOF coach to help out. No championships yet, but the same can be said for McNabb, although Andy Reid’s offensive philosophy isn’t as brilliant as Bellichick’s.

But it’s a sliding scale: the better the oline and or WRs, the better a QB will look. And vice versa. I guess we could go ahead and strengthen our Oline by adding a player or two and then add another high priced receiver, but wouldn’t it be easier to just fix a single position first? And the coach needs fixed too but let’s discuss things that can actually be done.

by Bodysuit Man on Jan 13, 2009 8:13 PM CST reply actions 0 recs