Vikings testing waters with Tarvaris Jackson

[WVUFootball29]

It's not that Jackson is that good is the reason we should pick him up - it's that the Bills QBs are that ungifted - Trent Edwards makes Lee Evans worthless, one of them should go. Jackson could be this years Pennington- the QB that Favre replaces who plays better than Favre.

 

Hard to be the comeback player of the year when your career never really got going...Ever since TJ played at ASU I could never understand this infatuation with him. He's not that fast, doesn't have a super strong arm, and has never been a dominate QB. He couldn't even beat Matt Jones out for PT while at Arkansas. He completed 54.5% of his college passing attempts and most schools who recruited him wanted him to play DB. He's a project QB just like JP and probably will never develop unless in the right system. What has the coaching staff in Buffalo shown that could help Jackson become a star, but not Edwards or Fitzpatrick?

[Heels20X6]

Hard to be the comeback player of the year when your career never really got going...Ever since TJ played at ASU I could never understand this infatuation with him. He's not that fast, doesn't have a super strong arm, and has never been a dominate QB. He couldn't even beat Matt Jones out for PT while at Arkansas. He completed 54.5% of his college passing attempts and most schools who recruited him wanted him to play DB. He's a project QB just like JP and probably will never develop unless in the right system. What has the coaching staff in Buffalo shown that could help Jackson become a star, but not Edwards or Fitzpatrick?

 

And that my friend...NAILS IT. You put a QB like Edwards or JP under a qualified system like Fisher's or Dungy's and voila, a suitable starting QB.

 

Under Fairchild/Schonert/Jauron, young, aspiring QBs are DOOMED. DOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!!

[Fan in Chicago]

Hard to be the comeback player of the year when your career never really got going...Ever since TJ played at ASU I could never understand this infatuation with him. He's not that fast, doesn't have a super strong arm, and has never been a dominate QB. He couldn't even beat Matt Jones out for PT while at Arkansas. He completed 54.5% of his college passing attempts and most schools who recruited him wanted him to play DB. He's a project QB just like JP and probably will never develop unless in the right system. What has the coaching staff in Buffalo shown that could help Jackson become a star, but not Edwards or Fitzpatrick?

 

Thats all I need to know. Get him, Russ.

 

Signed,

DJ

[PDaDdy]

The thread was about which QB was a better backup, Fitzpatrick or Jackson. But nice try.

 

 

Did you even read the content of the thread? Nice try indeed buddy!! Also nice try to change the subject. If you don't feel Jackson is worthy of being a backup based on a great 4 games, show me 4 games or an entire season for that matter that makes Trent worthy of being a starter?

[seq004]

Is he a better backup than Fitz? I think so, especially when you consider our offensive line and his ability to run. I would be OK with giving them a 5th for Jackson.

[Sisyphean Bills]

The other poster never mentioned Jackson making the playoffs, but the Vikings. The point was about Vikings offense and the question still stands, outside Peterson, how exactly is Vikings offense better? Specifically how in the world are Vikings' receiving corps better than Bills'?

I'd take the Vikings OL and DL over the Bills.

[iinii]

I'd REALLY like to hear that argument, especially since they DIDN'T make the playoffs.

 

We are talking 2008, right? They won the division and lost to Philly in the playoffs. Maybe you should check your facts.

[Big Turk]

Is he better than Hamdan ? Probably yes as Tarvaris has starter experience. If it is a cheap deal (i.e. low draft pick), I would get him and let the coaches decide who among Fitz & Jackson is the # 2.

 

Its like arguing about whether you should take a bath in dog urine or cat urine...

 

they both suck...

[billsfan89]

Who would give up anything of value for Tarvaris Jackson? He just isn't that good (My dad is a Vikings fan and he says he is a terrible QB and I saw him miss a pass to a guy who was wide open 7 yards away from with absolutely no pressure in his face honestly I think I could have completed that pass).

 

I was watching Around the Horn today and Woody Paige actually said that the 49ers would give up a 1st round pick for him he is a likable guy but just isn't quite a knowledgeable sports journalist (Ugg that show has gone down hill since Max Kellerman left). The Vikings should just keep him and develop him once number 4 is gone he showed improvement at the end of last season.

 

I don't like Jackson as a QB but he has no trade value (I would be shocked if they get a 5th round pick) so just keep him on the bench and have him as plan B in case number 4 breaks down towards the end of the season.

[ans4e64]

Does it always come down to this with you, Ans?

 

Honestly. Just b/c people don't agree with your opinion doesn't make them moronic, and I don't recall anyone saying that Jackson was "unstoppable". All I said was that I felt he could challenge Trent for the starting job, and I don't see any argument (especially from you) that makes me think any different.

 

And I'm curious, if Jackson is so lousy, why did numerous outlets (Adam Schefter of ESPN, Jason La Canfora of NFL Network,and the Vikings' own head coach, Brad Childress ) report that there's a faction of the Vikings locker room that prefers Jackson over Favre?

 

I love good discussion and different points of view, that's why I come on here. I like hearing valid arguments that don't agree with mine. What I don't like is people having an opinion without anything substantial behind it. I don't care if you like Jackson or not. If you do, tell me you think he hasn't had a fair shake in Minnesota, or tell me that you think the 4 game stretch is the start of something, or tell me that he is progressing each time he's on the field. But don't tell me that the time he's already been on the field warrants him being a starter over Trent. Obviously the Vikings (who drafted him and hope he works out more than anybody, for their own jobs) have been trying to replace him for quite some time, and feel that starting 40 year old QB's for two seasons in a row are better options for the team. Don't tell me that a 3rd stringer somewhere is going to come in and start over Trent based on his production so far.

 

You want to say that you think Jackson can start over Trent in the future, fine. Or even that you think his long term potential is greater than Trent's, fine. Or even that given the chance, or maybe a change of scenery, he could really do well, sure. But don't try to argue that what he's done so far is enough, because it isn't. It isn't enough for the Vikings, and it isn't enough for a team to even give up a 5th rounder for.

[PDaDdy]

But don't tell me that the time he's already been on the field warrants him being a starter over Trent.

 

This was sort of my point yesterday. Are you really saying that Trent's "time on the field" warrants HIM being the starter? This was the comparison I was asking you to make. Show me a 4 game stint or an entire season for Edwards that proves he is better than Travaris and worthy of being the starter.

 

Obviously the Vikings (who drafted him and hope he works out more than anybody, for their own jobs) have been trying to replace him for quite some time,

 

Just because the Vikings have the good sense to try to improve their team by getting perhaps the best QB to ever play the game to help take them deeper in the playoffs doesn't make Travaris bad. Just because the Bills don't have the good sense to do the same doesn't make Trent good!