There were several factors that contributed to the 26-14 playoff loss the Vikings absorbed Sunday at the hands of the Philadelphia Eagles. But you saw the game, so let’s not rehash all of that right now.
Instead, let’s look to 2009 and identify the number one issue for the Minnesota Vikings, which has really been their number one issue since 2006.
What does the team do at quarterback?
It would be unfair to write that Tarvaris Jackson is not a better quarterback now than the one we saw go 0-2 in his first two starts of 2008. But has he improved enough and, more importantly, can he continue to improve to the point where he’s playing at a level that allows him to take this team deep into the playoffs?
Based on what Vikings fans saw today against a very, very, very good Philadelphia defence and on a sober analysis of the strengths and weaknesses Jackson’s showed during his three seasons in the league, the answer to that question should be no.
Minnesota is a playoff team. It’s got an excellent defence and it’s got some very good pieces on the offensive side of the ball (you know who they are) that could make this a dominant team. What it doesn’t have is a good quarterback. And until it gets one it will continue to stumble in games like this one.
But what the Vikings do this offseason at quarterback depends on two things.
1. Who will be available?
2. What does Brad Childress think?
First, a few words about question number one.
We have to understand that franchise quarterbacks are hard to acquire. No one just gives them away.
When Andy Reid benched Donovan McNabb in Baltimore over a month ago, it seemed like his days in Philly were numbered and the Vikings looked like a logical landing spot. But with every Eagles win and every solid performance by McNabb in those wins, the chance of that happening seems more remote every day – especially if Reid remains as the head coach in Philly.
So if McNabb isn’t on the trading block for a reasonable price (which I’d say would be a first or second round draft pick in ’09), what other good-to-very good QBs might be available in a trade?
I can’t think of any.
And don’t look to free agency or the draft for a quick fix at quarterback. The top-rated college QBs will be gone by the time the Vikings pick in the first round. And no one is sure who will be available when free agency kicks off – although the top options right now would be Kurt Warner (who’s probably staying in Arizona), Jeff Garcia (who’s possibly staying in Tampa) and Rex Grossman (who’s really not an upgrade anyway, right?).
Now onto what Childress might think about his quarterback situation.
Let’s assume for the moment, he’s back as the Vikings head coach next season. If he is, remember this is the guy who drafted Jackson with the intent of molding him from a piece of clay (his words) into a starting quarterback. He’s got some personal capital invested in seeing Jackson succeed.
With that in mind, it’s not hard to predict Childress looking at Jackson’s improved play and numbers over the past five weeks and saying to himself, “You know, Tarvaris just had a bad half against a great Philly defence. He’s our guy. We don’t need to change a thing around here.”
So while I expect many Vikings fans will think the team needs to do something bold at the quarterback position – like what management did to address the lack of a pass rushing defensive end last season – Childress’s personal stake in Jackson and the lack of other options available at quarterback may make it tough to pull off.
But I think the Vikings still have to try. Who knows, maybe Brett Favre will be available?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I've never had a problem with Childress rolling the dice with an unpolished QB such as Jackson. However, I do have a problem with him not providing respectable backups should his gamble go awry - and this has happened for the last two seasons.
Frerotte, Holcomb, and Bollinger should not be the second string QB on ANY team that has an unproven starter such as Jackson. These are stop-gap guys to be used for injury replacement - even though Frerotte produced better than Jackson in terms of wins - how pathetic.
Jackson is an experiment at best, and a football team that has a solid roster at every other position should not be experimenting with QBs.
Travis:
Can't disagree with you in your comments and I've written similar words (as have plenty of others) for two seasons now.
I am having trouble figuring out what good veteran QB would be available to challenge Jackson though.
I wouldn't mind seeing them kick some tires in Cincy and Jacksonville to see if either Carson Palmer or David Garrard – two QBs coming off disappointing seasons with disappointing teams – would be available.
I agree with Travis. If Childress believed Jackson was a potential star when they drafted him, then fine. I'm no expert. Jackson doesn't have the tools and it would be madness to not explore every option next year(and I think you're take on Childress is correct).
That said, I think it's too easy to say franchise QB is all it would take. Bernard Berrian is decent, Chester Taylor is a really nice option but the other options in the passing game are poor. And that includes the playcalling and gameplan.
I really pin the blame on Childress. Either he is a poor evaluator of talent, unbelievably arrogant about his system, or simply a bad coach. If it's any of the three I think he needs to go.
Love the site, it's one of the few purple blogs I read.
Mike:
Thanks for stopping by. It is too easy to say a franchise quarterback would solve all our problems on the offensive side of the ball. But I also think it's easy because it's so true.
I think Berrian is a better than decent, Wade is solid (but in a #3 role, not the #2 he's playing with the Vikings) and Shiancoe made some strides this year – although he made no impact against the Eagles.
Look at the Eagles. They don't have any superstar wideouts. But the passing game works most of the time and it works, I think, largely because of Donovan McNabb.
A better quarterback would make this offence better. I also think Childress has to take a hard look at his offensive philosophy and Darrell Bevell's role in it and consider making a change at OC to a more creative, more experienced guy.
I think.
I'm frustrated with Jackson too, but I think it's too easy to lay the loss all on him. I think the absense of EJ Henderson hurt the Vikings in this game. I saw too many 8-13 yard passes completed to receivers in the middle of the field. I also wasn't thrilled with the offensive play calling either, but that's something I've been harping on all year.
Really though, the game was played very well. Greenway and others contained Westbrook nicely until the screen play (which was bound to happen SOMEtime). McNabb got lots of pressure, the kept settling for field goals, and the special teams unit only gave up one whopper. Looking at almost the stats other than completions/attempts, the Vikings played a great game. If only they had hosted Arizona or Atlanta or even Carolina. They had a chance to hsot the Bears, which would've been beautiful. Instead, they got the stinkin' Eagles. Oh well.
Bottom line: I fear Jackson's post-Minnesota success more than his continued so-so play in Purple.
Peter:
Yes, you can't lay all the blame for the loss on Jackson and the game was pretty well played – especially in the first half. Still, a lot of the blame must be put on Jackson.
Anybody can have a poor game. McNabb's had a handful this year himself. But I think we've seen enough over three seasons with Jackson that it's too big of a gamble to allow him to come back as the Vikings starting quarterback. This team is set in too many other areas to risk it.
Post a Comment