Do we really need another starting QB?

but in the mean time see: QB options post .

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

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

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.

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.