Déjà Vu All Over Again?
by Andersklasen on May 20, 2009 7:17 PM CDT
in Vikings
41 comments
No, I am not going to write about Brett Fav-ruh. The mere mention of his name in my house has become a sin. Instead of discussing "You-Know-Who" I will take a brief delve back into the history of our Minnesota Vikings.
The year? 1993. The current quarterback? Sean Salisbury. The veteran new-comer? Jim McMahon.
The Minnesota Vikings of 1992 were the first coached by Denny Green. After a brief stint as the head coach of the Stanford football team the Vikings brought him to lead their team to the promised land.
The 1992 season came and went, leaving an 11-5 record behind. After earning a Wild Card slot the Vikings then lost to the Redskins (who lost to San Francisco, who lost to Dallas, who won the Super Bowl that year). Behind center for the first few games of the season was Rich Gannon, who is officially given the credit of 12 starts on the year.
Actually, a virtual nobody by the name of Sean Salisbury was accumilating a significant amount of playing time thanks to less-than-stellar play from Gannon. On November 29 Salisbury was given credit for his first start of the season when the Vikings traveled to play the Los Angeles Rams. He threw for 238 yards, one interception, and no touchdowns. (Terry Allen kept the offense on pace during that contest, scoring a total of three times; twice on the ground, once through the air on a trick play from Keith Henderson.)
Salisbury would go on to start three of the next four games, leading the Vikings to a record of 3-1 during his starts. It also can't go without notice the fact that Salisbury out-threw the great "You-Know-Who" during the last game of the regular season. Salisbury threw two touchdowns and a total of 292 yards and no interceptions. That other guy? No touchdowns, three picks, and only 187 yards.
Gannon remained on the bench for the Wild Card game the next weekend and the 29-year old Salisbury was given perhaps the biggest oppurtunity of his life. He didn't deliver. Throwing just 113 yards, Salisbury totaled two picks and no touchdowns. The Vikings lost to the Redskins 24-7. (Remind anybody of our most recent Wild Card game?)
At this point, the debate of whether the Vikings should bring another quarterback on the roster raged in Minnesota. Jim McMahon, the successful quarterback from the Chicago Bears was available. Should the Vikings splurge, or was Salisbury enough to allow the Vikings to advance deeper than the Wild Card weekend next year?
Although there are conflicting reports regarding "He-Who-Shall-Go-Unnamed," will he be a better quarterback than McMahon was? McMahon was 34 when the Vikings brought him on the roster, and started twelve games in 1993. He would later leave the Vikings for the Eagles, where he would start just one game before eventually retiring after a few years of backup status.
I'm not going to sit here on my couch and tell you whether "You-Know-Who" is going to bring a Super Bowl to Minnesota or not. I will, however, post McMahon's 1993 stats below and let you decide for yourselves.
| Year | Age | GS | QBrec | Cmp | Att | Cmp% | Yds | TD | Int | Y/A | Rate | Sk |
| 1993 | 34 | QB | 8-4 | 200 | 331 | 60.4 | 1968 | 9 | 8 | 5.9 | 76.2 | 23 |
0 recs |
41 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Im not so sure....
but last time I checked Jim McMahon wasn’t nearly the caliber of quarterback as Favre. I get your point here but I don’t think that you can compare these situations.
by noblepete on May 20, 2009 7:38 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm obviously not comparing the quality of McMahon to the quality of Favre.
I just found that 1993 situation ironic.
Viking Vigil - The 2nd greatest Vikings community on the internet!
http://www.vikingvigil.com
Twins Fix
http://www.twinsfix.com
by Andersklasen on May 20, 2009 7:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ummmm.....
Then why in the world would McMahon’s ‘93 stats have anything to do with the possibility of Favre leading Minnesota to a Super Bowl? I understand the post, I guess….. about deja vu and everything, but the last 2 paragraphs seems to insinuate that those stats actually have something to do with Favre….. and they don’t.
by Figgs on May 21, 2009 9:30 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
the situation
is eerily similar. Granted Favre and McMahon don’t really have the same mantra in Minny, but I definitely see the glaring similarities and its the first time that anybody has shown me written evidence that the two situations were, in fact, very similar. I’d expect about the same level of productivity out of BF as McMahon. Flame away.
V-I-K-I-N-G-S! Skol Vikings, Let's Go!!
by TheViking83 on May 20, 2009 8:06 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Favre has the best chance to give us a title. I’d rather take an experienced future Hall of Famer over a more inexperience young quarterback. What is more likely? Favre wearing two rings after this season, or Tarvaris Rosencopter wearing one ring.
I can outrun a mule deer.
by Gonzo2 on May 20, 2009 8:14 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Actually
If Favre was the starting QB who won the Super Bowl, wouldn’t “Tarvaris Rosencopter” still get a ring too?
Favre is a better QB than McMahon, this is true. It is also true that Favre is 5 years (going on 6) older than McMahon when he joined the Vikings. I think those two facts could balance each other out.
No QB over 38 has started and won a Super Bowl in the history of the league. There is a reason for it.
by Cobra312004 on May 21, 2009 3:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And no black HC had ever won a SB before the 2007 SB. And no franchise had ever won 6 SBs before this last one. Brady was the youngest QB to win a SB. Those kind of “records” get broken all the time. It’s not a huge stretch of the imagination for Favre to win a SB if he plays well. Even though he’s going to be 40. We should contantly be in the games with our defense and run game, so we aren’t asking him to shoulder the offense on his shoulders. He just has to make smart, accurate throws, which he CAN do when his shoulder is healthy.
by Frost on May 21, 2009 6:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You have a good take on the situation. My main problems are:
if he plays well
There is no guarantee that that…
He just has to make smart, accurate throws, which he CAN do when his shoulder is healthy.
or that will happen.
We can debate all day whether he’ll play well, because we really have no idea if he will or not until he actually plays (if that were to happen for some reason. He is retired after all.).
But will he actually accept a reduced role and settle for playing second fiddle for an entire season? I’m not so sure about that.
In AP I trust
Just say no to Favre.
by FarvaForTheVikings on May 21, 2009 7:13 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you trying to say...
That TJax will end up as an ESPN sports analyst soon, and play a role in the sequel to Bench Warmers? and that Sage will go to the Raiders, replacing Jeff Garcia and take them to a SB win, before going to TB, then returning to the Vikings again?
Dude, that is all so Deja-Vu! in a futuristic sense!
+1 on the post btw…I love situational stats that show how history can repeat itself…as it often does.
by Lofoten on May 20, 2009 8:47 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I concede that Favre in his prime was better than McMahon. But he is not the answer. All he’ll be is a disruption to the team chemistry, and not as good as he used to be.
I bet he’s fine in the locker room if he decides to leave his personal office, or if he decides to attend OTAs with the team, but every reporter, every analyst, every network, every commentator will grill every player not about their performance or the team’s performance, but about how Brett Favre is wiping his ass that day.
TJ or Rosencopter, in my opinion, give us the better chance to go to the show.
GO VIKES!
by JasonAve6413 on May 20, 2009 8:53 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
+1,0000
TJ or Rosencopter, in my opinion, give us the better chance to go to the show.
What up?
by snakethejake on May 20, 2009 10:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
-9,999
for the ridiculous amount of points awarded!
by PurplePeopleEaters09 on May 21, 2009 4:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I really wish that people would get over there dislike for a guy who played for our rivals for 16 years. Favre is the BEST option we have this year for a championship PERIOD!!! There is no reason to argue about TJ or Sage because neither one can hold a candle to Favre. Sage and TJ are not dangerous enough of QB’s to push that 8th or 9th man out of the box, but Favre with Harvin, Rice, and Berrian out there will make teams play us honest. It’s not about what Favre is going to be able to put up stat wise, but rather what Favre will do to open up our offense by making defenses play honest. Unlike in New York last year, we are not going to be asking Favre to win any games, but rather to just manage the game and keep defenses on their toes. ANY PERSON WHO SAYS THAT SAGE OR TJ GIVE US A BETTER CHANCE AT A CHAMPIONSHIP KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT THIS GAME!!! We only have a small window with Peterson and our defense and we can’t afford another “decent” year with a quick departure from the playoffs. WE NEED TO WIN NOW!!
by Ron H on May 20, 2009 10:08 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
While Favre has experience, and after he did wonders the last two years after everyone had written him off, I think that Sage or TJ could guide us to a SB as well. It isn’t just about the QB, otherwise Brad Johnson wouldn’t have won with the Bucs, Rich Gannon wouldn’t have won with the Raiders, so forth and so on.
Sorry if you think that I know nothing about this game….or perhaps I see more than just one dimension of SUPERBOWL QB OR BUST!
by Lofoten on May 21, 2009 6:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Look, I like Jackson as much as the next guy, Sage too, but neither one of them can do what Favre does. If I had to make a pick between which QB was more likely to take us to a SB, it would have to be Favre. There’s just no logic behind not picking him if he’s healthy.
by Frost on May 21, 2009 6:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No Pardon!
Go straight to jail, do not pass Go, do not collection $200. :)
The painful irony is that once Gannon and Johnson left, they became great QBs for someone else. The question that should be asked isn’t, “Should we have kept them”, it’s to ask what really changed for those QBs other than the scenery and the uniforms? I think there’s a whole gestalt thing going on, the QB is a critical position but not just any QB will do. You need to have one who can wrap his mind around the system and execute it like it’s second nature. If the QB is actually permitted to lead the team, it’s not as much of an issue because he’ll lead the team in a way that he understands. It’s mostly when the coaches are imposing their own scheme on the QB that you end up with mis-matches and situations where an otherwise great QB with great talent, can’t bring home the bacon.
by DCPurple on May 21, 2009 7:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where was I when Gannon won a superbowl with the raiders?
I could swear Tampa kicked their ass in the superbowl that year.
I thought I was crazy, because there heave been a couple posts saying Gannon won a superbowl.
Lurking since 2006
by boyonthedock on May 21, 2009 5:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gannon and the Super Bowl
No, Gannon didn’t win…
But Tampa Bay was helped out a lot by the fact that Gruden was their coach and Gruden had just come from the Raiders; knew the Raiders playbook, even knew their audibles, most of which were unchanged in the Super Bowl.
The Raiders were screwed, and it was their own fault for not changing the scheme after Gruden left, but Tampa’s win was tainted. I’m not willing to say they were a better team than the Raiders that year.
by DCPurple on May 26, 2009 6:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chance at a championship?
If you think we are winning a championship next year with Favre, then you are dreaming. We could bring in a vet QB, but that vet would need to be a conservative, ball-control type that DOESN’T turn it over. I would much rather give Tavaris one more year to prove himself(his last chance, no exceptions) with the off chance that things finally click than sell our souls for one year of Brett only to have him suck down the stretch yet again.
by BacksThePack on May 20, 2009 10:12 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I whole-heartedly agree. I know it seems like every year we’re saying it’s Tarvaris’ last chance, but I would definitely prefer a year with him or Sage at the helm.
In AP I trust
Just say no to Favre.
by FarvaForTheVikings on May 20, 2009 10:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He’s a gunslinger, always has been, always will be. But he digs deep and finds a way to win games. “You play to win the game,” thanks Herm. Turnovers are part of the it, AP showed us that plenty last year with the fumbles. He only through 5 more picks than Gus and Tjack last year, and if he plays in Minnesota there’s a chance he won’t be throwing the ball near as much as he did in New York. If he can’t stay healthy for a full season then we still have Tjack backing him. I’m sorry, but I can’t see where this would be a bad thing for the Vikes. Sure it will be a complete circus, but the publicity is something the Vikings need to get them on the national stage and secure their future in Minnesota.
by jbviking on May 21, 2009 11:11 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cowboy..... Cowboy.... (said to the electronically dulcet tones of Kid Rock)
I’m partial to gunslingers, myself.
Otherwise, hire another RB.
by DCPurple on May 26, 2009 6:47 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
All of you people are saying that because you have been brainwashed into hating Favre from all your years of rooting against him when he was at Green Bay. How can you honestly thing that TJ or Sage are a better option then a future hall of fame QB? It makes no sense. Favre will not be asked to do the same things he did in Green Bay or New York. The coaches call the plays and if the tell him to hand it off then Favre will hand it off. Its that simple, and if by some odd freakish chance he falls off and starts to blow it then we can always go to Sage or TJ then. We would be right back where we started and all it would cost us is a little cash for this years cap (which we have plenty of).
by Ron H on May 20, 2009 10:34 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Brainwashed? Dont thinks so.....
While I cant stand either one of them, and not because they playedn rival teams, but because they had ego’s to float and used the Vikings, or want to, to better themselves, “He Who Shall Not Be Named” is by far alot better then McMahon could have hoped to be. McMahon profited by a great supporting cast, Payton, Fridge, Singletary and so on. Yeah, they may have been bitter rivals, but bet your ass I was rooting for them in ‘85 and again in ’06. Besides, after the North Stars, will never find myself rooting for a relocated team, such as Indy or Baltimore. After being traded to Philly, then being shuffled around the league, everyone knew the caliber of McMahon, average player on a great team that inflated stat’s to make himself look better. Yeah, he suffered a needless injury during a Packers game, but even before and after that, proved himself average or slightly above average at best.
But when it comes down to it, we should have held onto Gannon then McMahon and dont think “He Who Shall Not Be Named” is not worth the investment of half a season at best given his prognoses of needed surgery. I would rather give T.J. one more chance, though doubtful of his or Chilly’s ability to prove themselves steller at QB or QB play calling. Sage, perhaps, Booty, perhaps, draft or free againt, more then likely.
"If you're gonna shoot, shoot, don't talk"
by VikesFaninNM on May 20, 2009 10:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If this B.S. had been 10 years ago, I would have been all over “He Who Shall Not Be Named”, but with his drama the last 3, 4 years, not worth it unless you want or have stocked up on Tums.
"If you're gonna shoot, shoot, don't talk"
by VikesFaninNM on May 20, 2009 10:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We should have kept Rich Gannon, and now we need to keep T-Jack
Imagine how many Super Bowls we would have won if we had just kept Rich Gannon. We drafted him in 1987. It took him a long time to develop. Younger Vikings fans might not have seen Gannon play for the Vikings in the early 90s. He looked bad—really bad. He looked like he didn’t know how to play quarterback. He played ugly. Before the 1993 season, Dennis Green cut Rich Gannon in favor of a revolving door of aging stars and also-rans. Out of all the QBs we went through in the 90s, only Randall Cunningham played very well, and that was for about one season. Gannon stuck in the NFL and improved. He went on to quarterback greatness with the Raiders and Chiefs. He won the MVP award one year. His team likely would have won the Super Bowl if not for the tuck rule and other flukes that occurred.
My point is that we need to learn from history. If we are developing a quarterback, we need to hold on to him if there are signs he is getting better.
We need to hold on to Tarvaris Jackson.
Throughout Super Bowl history, free agent quarterbacks have rarely proven to be the victor, and never has a free agent quarterback led a team to a Super Bowl championship during his first year with the team.
Super Bowl championships are won by home-grown teams that have built through the draft. That’s what we need to do.
by The Fire in Odin's Eyes on May 20, 2009 10:42 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Not sure of all the Superbowls, but I was always against the letting go of Gannon. Thn came the QB carasell of the 90’s and lackluster 200’s at QB. Sorrey folks, while Culpepper gave us acouple of years of up and down performance, unless he has miracle recovery with the Lions, he wont be joining the Hall of Fame ever.
"If you're gonna shoot, shoot, don't talk"
by VikesFaninNM on May 20, 2009 10:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gannon
The issue with him isn’t just that he got better (which he obviously did), but also that he went to places where he was a better fit, than what he was with the Vikes.
To me, that’s more an argument in favor of building the team based on the reality of the player’s capabilities rather than on the coach’s grand vision of how things should be. Unfortunately, it’s usually done based on the coach, which is why Cutler was let loose from the Broncs.
by DCPurple on May 21, 2009 7:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not saying we need to cut TJ, but he is not at a NFL starter caliber yet. At least he wasn’t as of the end of last year. He is nothing more then a solid back up QB as of right now. Keep him around and if he improves then by all means utilize him, but dont discount what Favre could do to help our team win this year because your scared that it might affect the psyche of Sage or TJ. They will still get there chance and if they are TRULY better QB’s then Favre then let them beat him in an open competition. If Favre starts to choke down the road then put in the best QB that we have just like we did last year when TJ sucked it up after the first couple games.
by Ron H on May 20, 2009 11:03 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Jackson
T-Jack won 3 out of 4 of the final 4 games of last season. If he can do that consistently, that’s 75%, which is a 12-4 record across an entire season. He did so under tremendous pressure, every game was a ‘do-or-die’ situation, the Vikes had to win them all, and he only blew it against the Eagles in his first playoff game. You don’t think that’s NFL starter quality?
I think the only questions are consistency, and experience.
by DCPurple on May 21, 2009 7:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
-1
Are you kidding me?? Yes, TJ won 3 of his last 4 games that he played and below I am going to post those NFL starting QB #’s that he produced.
14 12/07 @ DET W 20-16 1 0 8 10 80.0 105 10.5 1 0 1 0 143.8 3 1 -0.3 0 1 0
15 12/14 @ ARI W 35-14 1 1 11 17 64.7 163 9.6 4 0 3 6 135.5 3 3 1.0 0 -- —
16 12/21 ATL L 17-24 1 1 22 36 61.1 233 6.5 2 0 3 38 98.5 8 82 10.3 0 3 2
17 12/28 NYG W 20-19 1 1 16 26 61.5 239 9.2 1 1 2 21 88.5 1 -4 -4.0 0 -
Week 14’s game was f’ing Detroit and he only threw the ball 10 times so that great QB rating that he had is kind of a little misleading. He also did not start the Detroit game. Arizona he had a phenominal game and there is no doubt about that. Atlanta he had a ok passer rating, but it resulted in a loss and prolly because he fumbled the ball 3 times!! New York was resting most of their team for the playoffs and TJ still only managed 88.5 QB rating. These are not the #’s I want in my QB. He has alot to learn and consistancy is key in the NFL.
by Ron H on May 24, 2009 10:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Growth
You know… I’ve been a Viking fan for more decades now than I like to think about, and one thing that’s always been consistent, every year, is that the Vikes have a nasty habit of playing down to the opponent. We win games that everyone says we had no chance to win, but the games that everyone puts the Vikes at 14+ point favorites… watch out! Because those are the ones that are going to tend to be the close games, or the Vikes will just blow. If the Vikings have a real curse, that would be it.
So yeah… beating Detroit last year, twice, is meaningful to me.
Under today’s QB rating system, an average QB is 66. 88.5 against a high caliber NYG team, even against their 2nd stringers, is nothing to dismiss either.
Not trying to say that T-Jack has arrived, that he’s perfect, or that we can’t do better. Only that he’s not a scrub, and there’s at least 7 other teams out there that would love to have him, more than that who would pick him up as a back up. I think this is T-Jack’s year to show some shine, give him a break for growing pains.
by DCPurple on May 26, 2009 6:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think a better parallel...
is 1998.
A coach on the hot seat that was considered by many to be inept coming into the season(Green / Chili). An aging vet at QB looking to re-vitalize his career (Cunningham / Favre). Drafting a talented, but character-challenged WR in the 1st round (Moss / Harvin).
Not saying we’re going 15-1, and taking a knee in the NFC Championship game, but the similarities are striking. The talent is clearly there like it was in ’98. Time for Brad to finally earn his money and prove me wrong…
"I'm gonna make you cry...I'm gonna make you cry and dip my cookie in your tears!!!"
by mutleyil on May 21, 2009 12:07 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Talent is opposite what it was in ’98. Then we had a meh Defense and running game and a fabulous WR corps. Now we have a fabulous defense and running game and a meh WR corps.
by Frost on May 21, 2009 7:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
WR corps just got a significant upgrade :)
by DCPurple on May 26, 2009 6:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Daily Norseman
Related FanShots on Daily Norseman
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
