I've thought I'd feel mild relief if I found out that Brett Favre won't be joining the Vikings. But just this morning, I suddenly got cold: what if I'm wrong about Sage Rosenfels? My belief is that he's at worst mediocre, which would be fine for one year (last year the Vikes won 10 games with a Tarvaris Jackson/Gus Frerotte combo against a tougher schedule), but that he might be better (good enough for a solid 3-5 year run as starter on a contender that is defense and running game heavy), and we should find out which it is in 2009, not later.
But I could be all wrong. Instead of at worst mediocre, Rosenfels might be at worst horseshit. Then what? If Favre (whom we can be more sure would be at worst mediocre) doesn't join the team, then what? Another year like 2008, then find a long-term starter in 2010? Or find another bad one-year fix in 2010? Then what?
I hope I'm right about Rosenfels, and that we get to find out. But if I'm way, way wrong, and the Vikings don't get Favre, it could be a frustrating season (which it can only be if the Tarvaris Experience continues).
i think the vikes will win the superbowl anyway
ReplyDeleteYeah, but last year the QB combo was pretty close to horseshit, and they still won 10 games.
ReplyDeleteSo there's a pretty good shot at a title with Rosenfels, and I won't have to sign up for heavy therapy to get over 15 years of hating Brett Favre.
Sage Rosenfels had one of the best wide recievers in the game today. He played just as many games as Tarvaris (Tarvaris technically "played" in nine games, but three of them he only took like one snap in) Rosenfels even started one more game than Jackson. Yet he turned the ball over more, and threw less touchdowns, than Tarvaris...even with weapons like Andre Johnson and Steve Slaton (which, Slaton is no AD, but Andre Johnson is head and shoulders above any sort of recieving threat we have) I really really don't understand why people think Sage would even be an upgrade over Tarvaris. Tarvaris isn't the long-term answer at QB, but the pile of trash and incompetence that is Rosenfels isn't either.
ReplyDeleteOther than a few good games against poor pass defenses, Tarvaris Jackson has been a very inaccurate passer. The reason I think Rosenfels will be a major upgrade is accuracy: Rosenfels is a career 62.5% passer (65.5% in the last three seasons), while Jackson is a 58.4% passer (and he's frequently wildly inaccurate). Rosenfels also has a higher TD% than Jackson (5.3 to 3.8), and higher yards per attempts than Jackson (7.4 to 6.6). Yes, he has had more turnovers: a serious concern. But when you look at the statistics, there is good reason to believe that Rosenfels is an upgrade over Jackson.
ReplyDeleteJackson has also been that inaccurate playing in one of the most basic pass offenses in the NFL. He's rarely been asked to throw the ball beyond 10 yards and rarely thrown more than quick slants to Bobby Wade and screen passes to Chester Taylor.
ReplyDeleteYou could argue he was rushed into starting duty too soon and that he will improve. But Jackson appears to be a guy who, at best, can beat the Detroits some of the time but can't beat the Pittsburghs anytime. Remember how confused and ineffective he looked against the Eagles in the second half (and most of the first half)? Did he look like a guy you could count on to make big plays in pressure situations and win games for the Vikings?
Perhaps Rosenfels is no different. But I'd at least like to find out because I know what we've got in Jackson.
Strangely, I haven't had any strong opinions about the Vikings' qb situation, because I don't have any belief in any three of the possibilities, yet I still think the Vikings will win the division. If the Williams tackles beat the rap and the roster has good health.
ReplyDeleteHow would you feel if the vikes signed Vick? Huh, Mr. Humane Treatment of Animals?
ReplyDeleteI do not want the Vikings to sign Vick for football reasons: he hasn't played in two years, and I'm not sure he's a legitimate passer (53.8% career passer) that this team needs.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the treatment of animals, I've always said there's something psychologically strange that in a society that regularly uses/abuses animals for its own purposes, that regularly kills animals for human pleasure, Vick's particular crimes have been treated with such vehement outrage. I also feel that he's served more than enough penalty, and should be allowed to continue his life and football career.
Is the theme connected with your professional position or is it more about your leisure and kinds of spending your free time?
ReplyDelete