Vikings bench Jackson, turn to Frerotte at QB

Yowza.

Bud Grant wept.

 

I said almost.

 

I can guarantee you that Childress would be more liberal with his playcalling if he trusted Jackson to make plays. It's not as if he's purposely trying to avoid the end zone. I've watched the same thing with the Bears for years. Yes, the playcalling makes you want to pull your hair out, but the coaches are afraid that if they let a Jackson or Grossman or Orton or any of the 17 QBs that played for the Chiefs last week try and make plays, it will result in turnovers that a team with a one-dimensional offense can't overcome. They've been proven right by bad QBs too much in the past to let themslves open up the offense.

 

Pallister, with all due respect, Childress is the one who forced Culpepper from the Vikings and has been touting Jackson as the second coming of Tarkenton.

He needs to go.

 

Well, he was wrong on Jackson. Now he's trying to save his job, having realized wha everyone else knew: Jackson is not an NFL starter. And Culpepper had more bad seasons than good ones in Minnesota. He was consistently terrible after the knee injury. But, as a Bears fan, I'd be more than happy to see Culpepper return.

 

I'm not saying I want Culpepper back - I think it's a pretty good bet he's been unable to return from his injury. And quite frankly, I think it was Moss and Culpepper together which made both of them great. It's not like Randy Moss has been as scary-good since he left the Vikings.

 

He did set the NFL record for TD receptions last year. But he is dependent upon at least a decent QB, which was proven during his lost years in Oakland.

 

He's had two years to teach the kid some plays.

It falls on Childress.

 

I'm not defending Childress, just saying that talent, or lack thereof, often dictates playcalling. I would guess he's out after this year, given the high expectations that will not be met. Then again, I don't know the owner at all.

 

now what does that mean? i read moronic things on here every day, but come on

forget the dogs for a minute

Mike Vick was 38-28-1 in his career, a .575 winning percentage

three-time Pro Bowl pick

2-2 in the playoffs, including a win at lambeau

since 2002, brett favre is 2-4 in the playoffs

vick wasn't a conventional quarterback and wasn't a pure passer and was by no means a great quarterback. but he was a successful QB quarterback and a winning QB.

 

Vick piled up the bulk of those wins early, when he had the league's best running game and before defenses adjusted to him and he failed to adjust. He was anything but a winner his last two seasons, and he never got any better after 2004; in fact, he regressed. Those Pro Bowl picks have more to do with his peers watching his highlight clips on ESPN than they did with his talent. Once the NFL figured out Vick, he was doomed to mediocrity.

 

wouldn't say the bulk of the wins were early ... 12-8-1 first half of his career, 26-20 second half of career ... so 69 percent of his wins were in the second half of his NFL career

2001 ... 1-1
2002 ... 8-6-1
2003 ... 3-1
2004 ... 11-4
2005 ... 8-7
2006 ... 7-9

and i would say that going 8-7 in 2005 and 7-9 in 2006 with zero talent around him is actually a positive and not a negative

again, not saying he was great, but he was a servicable NFL quarterback

to me, it's about wins. not stats. he won.