tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5475357521701869265.post7583977874030444072..comments2023-04-29T06:23:15.959-04:00Comments on Defensive Indifference: A case of one-game-itisJasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09834181305584355651noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5475357521701869265.post-62993544095118091642009-01-08T11:43:00.000-05:002009-01-08T11:43:00.000-05:00I did a little searching, but couldn't find any of...I did a little searching, but couldn't find any of the comments I had read about "TJack is fine" after the 07 season...probably on other people's blogs or on SN stories. I'll accept maybe I was overexaggerating a little, and maybe I'm overprojecting all the claptrap I read from Vikings management about TJack in the offseason, but there were still a significant number of fans who thought he would be fine.<BR/><BR/>(Here's a <A HREF="http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=503508" REL="nofollow">recent post</A>, though, with such insightful comments as "how is it that you go with Jackson who went 1-2 as a starter with his only win over the Giants JV team. Meanwhile all Ferrotte did was go 9-4 as the starter" and "Starting Jackson was a curious decision, especially given Frerrote's late season success." And a couple weeks ago, it seemed like everyone and their brother <A HREF="http://www.dailynorseman.com/2008/12/22/699504/what-the-heck-is-john-clay" REL="nofollow">came out of the woodwork</A> to defend TJack from John Clayton.) <BR/><BR/>The question is, who is the "real" Tarvaris Jackson? The one who looked lost for his first 16 games (and his last one) or the one who looked great for a four-game stretch this December? True, four good games shouldn't nullify 17 poor ones (counting the playoff game), but I think it's at least possible he spent those three months on the bench learning and improving himself and remaking himself into a better QB -- who occasionally does have a lousy game against a very good defense, as many QBs do.<BR/><BR/>As for his play the last four games of the regular season, I'd call a passer rating of 115.4 (to go with a 64% completion percentage) "excellent." I know, it's passer rating, and you can question the quality of defenses he went up against, but still, he looked poised and confident, finding the open man more often than not and making good decisions throughout. That gave me hope.<BR/><BR/>Now, by no means do I think this means he should be outright handed the reins to the team next year. I'd still like to see the team bring in another QB to at least compete with him for the starting job, while grooming Booty or another drafted QB in case Jackson or the new guy flame out. But I'm also open to the possibility (or maybe I've just succumbed to the inevitability) that TJack will be the starter in 2009.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09834181305584355651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5475357521701869265.post-4914468067220273792009-01-07T19:00:00.000-05:002009-01-07T19:00:00.000-05:00What PV said.What PV said.Darren Campbellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280352819585972328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5475357521701869265.post-23059538464684736732009-01-07T16:21:00.000-05:002009-01-07T16:21:00.000-05:00I don't think this is one-game-itis. The problem ...I don't think this is one-game-itis. The problem isn't that Jackson played poorly in the playoff game; it's that Jackson' poor performance in the playoff game was reminiscent of many of his previous poor games.<BR/><BR/>If Jackson had often been exceptional, then had a bad playoff game and fans turned on him, that would be one-game-itis. But there's a larger context here--throughout his career as starter, he usually hasn't been that good. His biggest flaws are inaccuracy, poor pocket presence, and decision making. These are flaws that many people (including me) have been able to point out going back to early last season. And then in the playoff game, he struggled because of inaccuracy, poor pocket presence, and decision making. The performance in the playoff game would not be an indictment if it was not poor for the same reason many of his other games have been poor.<BR/><BR/>I think, too, you're generally misrepresenting Viking fans' attitude toward Jackson.<BR/><BR/>Last off-season, I sensed much less optimism from Viking fans regarding Jackson than you apparently did (based on your first two paragraphs). I sensed some hope, but primarily skepticism and worry. Everywhere I turned, I heard about how quarterback was the biggest question mark on the team, and everything else was set, and Jackson would make or break the season. It's why last off-season I said it was fine if the Vikes wanted to roll with Jackson as starter again, but they absolutely had to bring in a quality backup in case he sucked, and that they didn't. <BR/><BR/>People also didn't turn on Jackson after the first two games just because of two games--it was that those two games highlighted the same problems as last year. If Jackson had Tony Romo's numbers last year, he wouldn't have been benched after two games. He came into the season needing to prove he was good BECAUSE HE HADN'T YET, and in two games he didn't do that.<BR/><BR/>I'd also disagree that Jackson "showed a very brief spurt of excellence near the end that led people to believe he was good and to trust in him." He showed a very brief spurt of quality play (but not excellence), but that doesn't mean that many Viking fans had "trust in him." I hoped he was good more than believed he was good, and I heard very few Viking fans claiming they trusted Jackson for the playoff game. I think most fans thought the Vikes had a chance because of the defense and running game, not because they believed Jackson was good or trusted him.<BR/><BR/>So I'd say, yes, forget those few good games Jackson played at the end of the year, unless you're also going to remember all the bad games he played, including the horrendous playoff game. Keeping him as starter because of a couple of good games would be as stupid as replacing him for one bad game. Replace him not for the one bad game, but because after three seasons, he hasn't shown that he is an accurate or consistent passer, and he hasn't shown signs that he'll develop into an accurate or consistent passer.<BR/><BR/>I'm not shifting my view just for one playoff game. I had hope (I always talk myself into some form of hope, and that's my flaw, not turning on Jackson now), and that hope was proven wrong. When I try to look objectively at Jackson's tenure as starter, I see a bad quarterback--unfortunately, I also don't see a quarterback showing signs he will become a good quarterback.Pacifist Vikinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16630996018868040440noreply@blogger.com