If Bryant McKinnie doesn't get suspended (in criticisms of Brad Childress's conservative playcalling, few point out that the Vikes are without their starting left tackle--would they take more risks in the passing game if they could rely on their pass protection?), if Madieu Williams doesn't get injured (the Vikings lost two close games in which they gave up some key long passes over the middle; does that happen if they aren't starting a rookie safety?), if Heath Farwell doesn't get injured (he is a special teams captain and a good cover man on kick returns; did his absence play any role in Green Bay's punt return for a touchdown?), is this happening? Regardless of whether or not Tarvaris Jackson is capable of starting at quarterback right now (and I'm now in the "he's not" camp), there are other facts outside of Jackson's control that result in the team being 0-2 right now.
"Vikes Won't Go Anywhere With Jackson at QB" (Ross Tucker).
"Jackson's Failure Shakes Childress" (Kevin Seifert).
"Vikes had Jackson's back, then stabbed him in it" (Cold, Hard Football Facts).
I've been thinking a lot about this the last couple weeks. There are just too many factors to put the blame solely on the shoulders of TJack. Sure he's made a few poor throws, but its not like his throws have been overly bad, heck, he's made some plays that I believe most quarterbacks couldn't make with his feet. At the end of the day, I think it comes down to...just kidding! But honestly the vikings have outplayed their opponents for the majority of both games, and the difference has been big plays. What if the vikings had recovered that fumble against the packers which resulted in a GB first down? Or had Will Blackmon not returned a punt uncontested? Or had Visanthe caught that one in the endzone, or the vikings get some help with at least one PI call? We've lost by a total of 7 points this year against two very good football teams, give the guy a break.ReplyDelete
While I recognize the factors besides Jackson that have cost the Vikes wins, I also think Jackson's weakness illustrates the problem for the Vikes. In pro football, you can outplay an opponent for most of the game, but if your opponent has a good passing game, the opponent can come back and beat you with a small number of big plays.ReplyDelete
In Sunday's case, the Vikings lacked a passing game, so when they dominated the game for 40+ minutes, they could only build a 15-0 lead; because the Colts do have a potent passing game, they were able to come back and win largely from two big plays in the passing game.
If the Vikes don't build a passing game, whenever they play a competent opponent, they'll find themselves in a close game like that. Some they'll win and some they'll lose. But if they can develop a passing game, they can control the game and beat opponents by 7+. That's where they need to go, and I don't see Jackson getting them there.
Is Jackson done forever in Minnesota? Do you think we'll hang onto him - and if he"ll ever start again?ReplyDelete
McKinney being gone is a hug factor in Jackson missing receivers. Throwing behind them, McKinney's fault. Throwing at their feet, McKinney's fault. Throwing to the inside when they make a cut and turn to the outside, McKinney's fault.ReplyDelete
If they just cut McKinney they could win the rest of the games, it is all his fault.
Any thought to why Jackson was not a major college football player? (Yes, I know some small college players have made it big in the pro's. I don't think he will be one of them)
This one is on Jackson and the man who said he was ready. Childress made a huge mistake on this and is trying to get away from it.