With the draft over, I had designs of slipping into a leisurely routine – posting once or twice a week for the next three months. But Brett Favre and Brad Childress won't let me do it.
Here are a couple of perspectives on the Favre situation from ESPN's Kevin Seifert and Scouts Inc.'s Matt Williamson.
Both Seifert and Williamson make some good points. But here is what I'd like Williamson to explain to me. He says the Vikings don't need a gunslinger like Favre. He says the team needs to ride its defence, its offensive line and Adrian Peterson to the Super Bowl. The quarterback? All he has to do is not make mistakes, not screw it up.
But isn't this the same story we've heard for three seasons now? And where has that got the Vikings, exactly? It's gotten them a .500 record, one divisional title and one playoff game. The Vikings need more than a caretaker at quarterback. And Williamson doesn't like Favre, and he doesn't like Sage Rosenfels, so is he saying Tarvaris Jackson is the answer? Did he see Jackson play in the playoff loss to Philadelphia, where Jackson not only made mistakes but also didn't make any big plays. Everybody seems to know who isn't right to quarterback the Vikings. But they don't seem to know who is right.
But I think I know. The only problem is he's now playing in Chicago.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I don't know if Cutler would've been a quick answer either. He definitely would've made the team better overall during the next decade, but this year? meh.
I'd like to see a comparison of teams who've gone from a similar situation the Vikings found themselves in after last year's playoff loss to victory, and what the difference at QB was. In other words, do teams find success when a learning Eli Manning finally catches on (remember the playoff shutout against Carolina a few years back?) or when the team brings in a new player at the position as the missing piece?
And how often does either response result in a step back?
Peter:
I'm surprised to read that you don't think Cutler would have made an immediate impact on the Vikings fortunes. Cutler wouldn't have Brandon Marshall to throw to but couple a young All-Pro QB, with Berrian, Peterson and Taylor, plus the contributions of Shiancoe, Wade and Rice (can't include Harvin in there, the Vikes would have had to trade their #1 pick this year to get Cutler) and I think that's worth an offence that's worth an extra win or two, a first round bye and maybe home field advantage throughout the playoffs.
You're other comment would make a great subject for a future post and I was thinking about something similar yesterday. But it would take a lot of research on my part.
Cutler stood behind the best pass protecting O-line in the league last year. Minnesota's was slightly above average at best. Great run-blockers, but they give up sacks. That would've hurt Cutler.
Also, playing from behind because of a crappy defense inflates Cutler's numbers. Granted he wouldn't need to have huge numbers to win in Minnesota, but still, it's worth mentioning.
Lastly, he'd have to learn the system. He'd brand new to the team (like Rosey or Favre) but unlike them, he's young enough that the learning curve would prove more difficult to him than to veterans like I mentioned. That's my guess anyhow.
Don't get me wrong, I wish Cutler were on the team, but I don't think he made the Vikings an automatic SB contender this year.
As far as the article idea, I started thinking about the research it would take and decided to leave the question unanswered. Unless someone else has written about it, I don't have the time to find all the necessary data.
Post a Comment