Minnesota 23, Pauluscuse 20 (OT)

Just wondering if anyone else caught the game between the University of Minnesota and the Pauluscuse Pauluses, which were quarterbacked by Greg Paulus, who used to go to Paulus University to play Paulusball but transferred to where he Paulused up as a kid and Paulused his high school Paulusball team to the Paulus championship when he was just a wee Paulus?

Wait, Minnesota won the game? I wonder if they snuck that information in while they were Paulusing Greg Paulus. And by "Paulusing" I mean *expletive deleted*ing his *expletive deleted*.

UPDATE: And it looks like John David Booty, as well as several others, is now unemployed, which looks to me to be the right move. Thanks to Vikings Gab for the heads-up.

The quarterback conundrum

Four quarterbacks and (probably) only three spots to keep them. What's a team to do?

It's not news that the Vikings are asking teams about a potential trade for Tarvaris Jackson before the Saturday cuts. If the return is what we're hearing -- at best, a second-day, probably 5th round or later pick -- then that limits their options greatly. If the team can't work out a trade for Jackson, one of the other QBs has to go, and Brett Favre won't be one of them. And because Sage Rosenfels is on the hook for $9 million over the next two years, he probably won't go either. That leaves Jackson and John David Booty as the odd men out.

(By the way, can I just take a minute to say how much I hate Yahoo's new team page layout? Let's see, no schedule, no pulldown list so I can easily float to other teams' pages...good job taking useful features away just so I could be sure to know that Taylor Melhaff has been cut!)

No matter what happens this year, there is basically zero chance of Tarvaris Jackson being a Viking in 2010. He's in the last year of his rookie contract and, really, if you'd been treated the way he had -- being cast aside not once but twice this offseason -- wouldn't you like to get a fresh start somewhere else? This is probably also the limiting factor in trade talks. Any team that acquires Jackson will only have his services, probably as a backup QB, for 2009, with no guarantee that he'll stick around past that, or even that you'll want him to stick around. That doesn't give the Vikings a lot of leverage.

But the Vikings are a team that's thinking of winning the Super Bowl this year. Teams don't often go to their third-string quarterbacks, but if something happens to Favre and if Rosenfels can't get it done, who would you want leading the team in December? Say what you will about Jackson, but I think we'd all have more confidence in him right now than in Booty.

So could Booty survive a trip to the practice squad? Memories are fresh of the Vikings trying to sneak Tyler Thigpen there a few years ago, only to have the Chiefs snatch him up on waivers. At this point, Thigpen looks like at least a decent backup QB/spot starter -- not bad for a seventh-round pick, but not exactly someone we're regretting losing. Booty's name recognition as a former USC quarterback probably would make it even tougher for us to stash him away on the practice squad, but would there really be any harm done in losing him? As I pointed out just after he was drafted, fifth-round QBs rarely develop into anything resembling a quality player, so his loss would probable have minimal impact. And he's not going to be the starter next year either, not with Favre and Rosenfels around, so do we keep him sitting around for a total of three years collecting dust and then hope he can turn into something useful?

I say no. Unless he shows something amazing in tonight's final preseason game, I think the Vikings' best option is to try and stick Booty on the practice squad and hope he gets through. If he doesn't, it's not a big deal -- we can replace him easily enough with a second-day QB pick in next year's draft. Whoever that is will have a year of tutelage under Favre and Rosenfels and then might be ready to contribute in 2011. Otherwise, quite frankly, John David Booty is just wasting a roster spot for the next two years.

Slipping off the Gus Bus?

Gus Frerotte isn't going anywhere, at least not for the rest of the season and while the Vikings are in contention for a playoff spot. However, following my initial optimism regarding good ol' Gus, he's been the author of several lackluster passing efforts and is the proud owner of a 75.0 passer rating, with more interceptions (12) than touchdown passes (11) in nine starts. And, after being knocked out of the game three times Sunday, Frerotte was replaced for one handoff by Tarvaris Jackson. What would happen if Frerotte were permanently replaced, either by coaching decision or injury? Would there really be that much more of a dropoff with Jackson or even John David Booty in the lineup?

The answer is, "Probably, yes." But it might not be that much.

When I first lauded Frerotte's performances, he looked collected, calm, and accurate in the pocket. But after seeing him throw behind or at receivers' feet for the last few weeks, and that awful interception on a rollout in Sunday's game, I wonder if Frerotte only looked that good compared to Jackson's ridiculously bad numbers. In 2008, Frerotte's completed 58.3% of his passes to Jackson's 51.7%, but Jackson's numbers were only in 60 attempts. For his career, T-Jack's a 57.2% passer and, if Troy Williamson didn't completely suck and Visanthe Shiancoe looked the first two weeks of the season like he's looked the last month, he'd probably push 58%. So that's practically a push -- an ugly push (league average is 61.3%), but a push nonetheless.

Passer rating is similarly close. Gus has a 75.0 this year, right around his 74.4 career average, while T-Jack was 65.7 (68.6 career). But, especially when comparing Tarvaris Jackson and Gus Frerotte, the ability to run must be taken into account. Frerotte's TYA this season is 3.83, while Jackson's is 3.74. (Yes, that's different than what's in the linked post; I realized an error I'd made in the spreadsheet and fixed it.) That's virtually no difference; Frerotte's slightly better passing numbers are nullified by his greater preponderance for taking sacks (on 8.9% of dropbacks, as compared to Jackson's 7.7%) and lack of running ability (18 carries for 6 yards, compared to Jackson's 11 for 65).

Oh, and Frerotte's 6-3 as a starter this year, but you should know how I feel about bringing that up.

Am I saying that Frerotte should be benched in favor of Jackson? Absolutely not? But I no longer fear the idea that he could get hurt and the Vikings' fate could be in the hands of Tarvaris Jackson. Because, really, Frerotte hasn't played much better than Jackson for the last month or so (nine interceptions in his last five games), so it really couldn't be much of a drop-off. And, shockingly, Frerotte's pass attempts the last four games have been 18, 28, 20, and 20, after starts of 28, 43, 36, 33, and 40, so the passing game isn't figuring too heavily into the Vikings' game plan, which is as it should be.

(It's sort of like dating an ugly girl, hating it, and then moving on to a slightly more attractive girl, kinda liking it, realizing that ugly girls aren't so bad, and being open to the idea of dating the original ugly girl. She's still ugly, but dating the "mostly ugly" girl hasn't killed you, so maybe this wouldn't be so bad. Of course, this analogy makes Drew Brees roughly equivalent to Marisa Miller, so maybe I should stop here.)

Make no mistake, with Gus Frerotte being 37 years old and getting whacked like he did Sunday at Jacksonville, the time will still come this season that the Vikings will have to rely on Tarvaris Jackson to do something more than just hand off a couple of times to Adrian Peterson. And really, now that I've realized what we've truly got in Gus Frerotte, I'm OK with that. My tolerance for suck goes up every week I watch the Vikings' quarterback play.

The Red Sea parts

Things I didn't think I'd see in the first two weeks of the 2008 NFL season:

1) Tom Brady is lost for the year due to injury.

2) Brett Favre is seen in a non-Green Bay Packers uniform.

3) The undefeated Arizona Cardinals.

4) Brad Childress loses confidence in Tarvaris Jackson.

Next thing you know, Ed Hochuli will blow a call. Oh wait...

Yes, the unthinkable finally happened. After two years of unremitting man-love for his undertalented, overdrafted Division I-AA quarterback, Brad Childress finally pulled the plug on T-Jack, announcing today that Gus Frerotte would take over the quarterbacking duties for the Vikings, starting with this week's home game against Carolina.

Jackson was off to a mediocre start this season with the team, completing just over half of his passes, with one touchdown and one interception, for a 64.8 passer rating. Unfortunately, he displayed his usual "deer in headlights" look most of the time, and the Vikings stalled repeatedly on third downs, especially in the Colts game, where they were forced to settle for five field goals. Despite the luxury of having the fourth-best rushing attack in the league, Jackson led the team to just two touchdowns on 22 drives so far in 2008.

Not all the blame for an offense can go on a quarterback, of course. The receiving corps looks as bad as ever and the offensive playcalling has been atrocious. But there was little reason to assume Jackson would improve following a lackluster 2008 season (wait -- he did go 8-4 as a starter in 2007 -- that must mean he's good!), despite the fondest wishes of some misguided fans. Regardless of playcalling and receiver talent, when you miss open receivers, throw to guys' feet, and make one bad decision after another, you're not a very good quarterback. And after watching Jackson make 16 lackluster starts and only look good in a handful of them, the coaching staff apparently decided enough is enough.

Which leaves us with Gus Frerotte. I pointed out that, if you could remove his one stinker of a start against Baltimore in 2007, his overall numbers aren't that bad, and in his last full season as a starter (2004, with Miami), he threw for 2,996 yards, 18 touchdowns, and 13 interceptions, numbers that would probably be just fine for the 2008 Vikings. Granted, that was four years ago -- Daunte Culpepper was pretty good in 2004, and look how that turned out.

All that said, I wasn't calling for Jackson's ousting just yet. Last year, I secretly rooted for Kelly Holcomb to take over the quarterbacking reins, and when Jackson was hurt in week two and Brooks Bollinger fumbled away the ball in an eventual overtime loss, Holcomb got his shot -- and promptly stunk up the joint, getting sacked 12 times in just 95 dropbacks. Sacks probably won't be a huge issue with Frerotte; he's got a career 6.0% sack percentage, close to the league average, and even in his last three seasons, at ages 34 to 36, he's only been dropped 5.3% of the time. At the very least, it's hard to imagine him playing worse than Jackson, and John David Booty clearly isn't ready for the job yet, given his performance in preseason, so I can't really argue with the call. Most likely, Gus will provide a temporary spark for his first few weeks in the lineup and I wouldn't be surprised for the team to rally behind him and win its next few games. Long-term, though, he's not the answer, and the team could find itself completely reworking it's quarterback depth chart at the end of the season -- if not sooner.

Also, if Frerotte gets injured -- a very real possibility -- the team will most likely turn back to Jackson over Booty. Given the apparent china-doll nature of T-Jack's ego these last few years, and with Brad Childress refusing to be even remotely critical of his young quarterback, a benching like this could destroy what little confidence -- and value -- he has left. Indeed, according to the article I linked to above, "Jackson was unavailable for comment during the time the locker room was open to reporters." He's upset, understandably, but he's also a 25-yard-old man. If he can't take this setback in stride and use it to improve in the event that he is called on again, what little value he has left as an NFL player will be completely gone.

And then it might just be time for the Booty call.

Preseason wrap-up

Perhaps overlooked in the titanic struggle of the third-string quarterbacks in last night's preseason finale was another piece of news slightly more important to Vikings fans. Team owner Zygi Wilf has apparently rejected a plan from a Los Angeles business developer to move the team out west.

Now, if we can just get a new stadium built (indoor or outdoor) -- hey, I live in North Carolina, won't be my tax dollars funding it!

As for the game itself, John David Booty performed well enough to beat out Brooks Bollinger for the #3 QB spot. He would probably have needed to throw about five interceptions to lose out (or Bollinger to throw five touchdowns), but nothing's guaranteed until cuts come on Saturday. Expect Bollinger to be among those released.

Other than that, there were battles for a number of backup positions during the game. Like the Vikings, the Cowboys rested most of their starters, and, for the first time, the running game showed signs of life. Running back Albert Young, whose 42 carries in the preseason are 18 more than the next-highest total, managed 4.9 yards per attempt on 14 carries, but he's still a question mark to make the team considering their impressive depth at the position. Martin Nance and Aundrae Allison had nine and eight catches, respectively, in the preseason, and were the only Viking receivers to top 100 yards; they'll probably be the #4 and #5 receivers, putting Robert Ferguson's job in jeopardy.

On the defensive side, coaches were impressed with linemen Brian Robison and Otis Grigsby, who can provide valuable depth on defensive front; rookie defensive tackle Letroy Guion also had a sack. Benny Sapp, with eight tackles last night, probably will stick as a dime back. And how can you not love Chris Kluwe, booming it all night to the tune of a 44.9 yard average on nine punts?

Then there's Tarvaris Jackson. He missed his second straight game with his MCL injury, but was apparently "putting tension and weight on that knee" during warmups and showed no signs of a limp. Clearly, Vikings fans (not to mention Brad Childress) were hoping he'd get more time in the preseason to sharpen his skills, but, even for a young and relatively inexperienced QB like Jackson, any improvement he might have gained in preseason would likely have been minimal. He would have sat out last night's game, along with the rest of the starters. So, in effect, he missed about 2 1/2 quarters of action in the Pittsburgh game. Weigh that against the 12 games he started in 2007 and I think the impact of missing that action, against whatever experience he gained in 2007, is very slight. It's more important that he's healthy when the Vikings travel to Green Bay on the first Monday night of the season.

Tomorrow or Sunday, I'll look at the cuts, both for the Vikings and around the league, to see if there are any interesting stories. Next week, I'll do my annual (hey, I did it last year!) 2008 Season Predictions (ugh, how did that get all bolded?) and Vikings Outlook, as well as another little thing I'll be doing called "Prediction Accountability." And this year, I promise not to make (too much) fun of Jason Cole.

Do you smell that? It's football, and it's almost here!

Booty vs. Bollinger

I could have come up with some witty subhead for "Booty vs. Bollinger," like "The Epic Struggle" or "This Time It's Personal" or "Who's Number Three?" In the end, though, the real subhead should probably be "Let's Just Hope Neither of Them Actually Plays Any Serious Role in '08."

Brad Childress will be resting all his starters, as well as backup QB Gus Frerotte and starter Tarvaris Jackson, for the preseason finale against Dallas. In their place, both Brooks Bollinger and John David Booty will be getting about a half of action in Friday's preseason finale, and it's a safe bet to say that the "loser" of this particular contest won't be wearing purple at this time next week.

I've said pretty much nothing good about Bollinger since he came to the Vikings. His one start came against the Packers in that 34-0 shellacking last year and, while it's true he didn't play very well in that game, he wasn't awful either, going 16-26 for 176 yards and one interception. His career 75.2 passer rating is OK for a backup, and he runs well, so it might seem that he's not as bad as I've made him out to be.

Bollinger's big weakness is his awful propensity to take a sack. For a player with his mobility, his sack % is absolutely hideous. Bollinger's been sacked on 11.8% of his dropbacks as a pro, including one in six dropbacks since joining the Vikings. Non-Bollinger QBs have been sacked on 7.3% of their dropbacks during that span. That's also worse than the league average (about 6.4% over the last two years), but when you look at the Vikings' QBs the last two years, from the old and immoble (Brad Johnson and Kelly Holcomb) to the young and inexperienced (Tarvaris Jackson), it's not quite as bad as it could be.

All that being said, there's little doubt that Bollinger has outplayed rookie John David Booty so far this preseason. While both men's raw passing numbers -- 8-17 for 71 yards for Bollinger against 14-26 for 110 yards for Booty -- are unimpressive, it's the ancillary numbers that give Bollinger an edge. He hasn't been intercepted and has been sacked only once, while Booty has thrown two picks and been dumped for a loss five times. It's a small sample size, and Booty is a rookie, but there's probably a reason why he lasted until the fifth round.

Given the Vikings' shaky QB situation, a lot of people, myself included, were hopeful that Booty would stick with the team out of camp and might even, if Tarvaris Jackson and Gus Frerotte were injured/ineffective, be able to step in and, at the very least, keep the Viking ship afloat. Not that you could have expected much from a rookie fifth-round pick, but there was some thought that, if Jackson didn't work out after this year, that Booty might be the long-term answer for the position. Now it's looking like he'll have to fight just for a roster spot.

The ultimate nightmare? In my mind, it's that Jackson flames out, Booty never makes anything of himself and Gus Frerotte and Brooks Bollinger continue being Gus Frerotte and Brooks Bollinger. Then, over in Green Bay, Aaron Rodgers can't get it done and the Packers turn to Brian Brohm -- whom the Vikings could have drafted with their second-round pick this April -- who leads them to multiple division titles and wins over the Vikings. Maybe it's a little -- OK, maybe it's a lot pessimistic -- but until we solidify our QB situation for the long term, it'll always be gnawing away at my brain. In the meantime, let's hope JDB can turn in a solid performance this week and avoid the waiver wire.

After all, our team used to have a Moon (Warren) and a Johnson (Brad) at quarterback...why not some Booty?

What's the backup plan?

So it looks like Tarvaris Jackson's sprained MCL won't be serious enough to make him miss any regular-season time, and he's even considering playing this week against Pittsburgh. I'd be against it, personally and let him rest up and, if needed, tune up in the final preseason game. Few starting quarterbacks need the practice more than Jackson, and missing the "best" preseason game would be a setback, but I'd rather see him fully healthy and ready to go for the regular season.

If Jackson can't go, it'll be up to Gus Frerotte to lead the team into Pittsburgh, and, while I've been harsh on Gus in the past, he's looked decent in the preseason. Take away his one hideous game from last year, a five-interception disaster against the Ravens, and his overall 2007 numbers aren't too awful. Plus, in his last full season with the starters, with the Dolphins in 2005, he passed for just shy of 3,000 yards (2,996) and 18 touchdowns against 13 interceptions.

But Frerotte is 37 years old, and the other two QBs are a rookie fifth-rounder (John David Booty) and an unimpressive journeyman (Brooks Bollinger). Jackson hasn't shown great durability; he missed four starts and parts of two other games in 2007 with injuries, and if he really is 6'2", 232 pounds, then Pat Williams is 317 pounds. In short, even if Jackson turns out to be a good quarterback, it would be unwise to expect him to be especially durable, making the question of who's going to back him up paramount to the team.

The short- and long-term answers to the backup question are probably Frerotte (who, at 37, is probably not that durable himself) and Booty. But when rosters are trimmed down following the third preseason games, the Vikings would be wise to scan the list of cut players to see if there's a quarterback out there who might fit their needs or work a trade involving a low-round draft pick. Perhaps Tampa Bay will part with Chris Simms or, when Charlie Batch returns to the Steelers, Byron Leftwich might be available (and desirable, if he performs well). The three-headed quarterback monster in San Francisco consists of a former #1 pick (Alex Smith) and two former Vikings (J.T. O'Sullivan and Shaun Hill), none of which I'd want as my long-term starter, but any of which would be decent fill-ins.

Whatever the case, I fear that, even if his MCL heals, Tarvaris Jackson won't start 16 games this year. His lean body and running play style probably don't bode well for his long-term health. The Vikings have two starting-caliber running backs, but they'd be wise to have to starting-caliber quarterbacks, too.

Vikings win, but Jackson nicked

OK, so it's not exactly the same as Tom Brady missing a game tonight with a foot injury or Peyton Manning's knee surgery. But Tarvaris Jackson going down with a knee injury in the first quarter of last night's 23-15 win over Baltimore still isn't good news, especially when the depth chart behind him consists of Gus Frerotte, Brooks Bollinger, and John David Booty. Fortunately, it doesn't look like the injury is anything serious and coach Brad Childress said that Jackson probably could have stayed in the game if it had been important.

Now, it comes as no surprise that I'm no huge Tarvaris Jackson fan. But over the last few weeks, I've been mildly impressed by his performance in the preseason and, given the alternatives at the quarterback position, admit that he's the best option under center for the Vikings in 2008. Can he quarterback the team to a Super Bowl, as some (like Dr. Z) are saying? That still remains to be seen, but I'd still feel a whole lot better with him out there than a 37-year-old quarterback who threw 12 interceptions in 167 attempts last year.

(In fact, I've become so enamored, so to speak, with Jackson's performance that I'm not sure how to vote in the poll I've put up on the right side. I could see arguments to vote for all three men.)

If you missed the game, like me, you can see video highlights of it at NFL.com. Jackson's injury comes at about the 1:40 mark. It's not particularly gruesome and definitely looks like a relatively minor incident, but you never know how these things turn out. At most, it might keep him out of the next preseason game, and, by the looks of it, he's the Vikings QB who needs the least amount of tune-up work. Here are the numbers for Vikings QBs through the first two preseason games:

	Comp	Att	Yds	TD	Int.	Sacks
Jackson	15	22	200	2	0	0
Frerotte	8	16	129	1	0	1
Bollinger	8	17	71	0	0	1
Booty	10	21	91	0	2	4

Jackson's passer rating through two games is an impressive 127.1, and while passer rating through two preseason games doesn't count for much, I'd rather have 127.1 than 27.1. Booty's definitely picking up the rear (ha!), and had a bad interception in last night's game that went the other way for six, but I'd still bet on him taking the #3 job away from Bollinger.

The defense also performed significantly better this week as compared to last, giving up 182 fewer yards (419 to 237) and notching five sacks and two interceptions, after scoring zero in both categories against Seattle. Jared Allen had two of the five Viking sacks, a nice sign even if it did come against the less-than-stellar Baltimore offense.

A cause for some concern, though, apart from Jackson's injury, is the relatively poor play of the running game. The Vikings "big two" of Adrian Peterson and Chester Taylor have managed just 60 yards on 18 carries through two games (a 3.3 average). I do worry that last year's great running game was fueled by a near-flukish performance by the offensive line and that the team could be in for a bit of a disappointment in that category this year. It won't get any easier next week against the typically tough Pittsburgh Steelers defense, but at least the game will be nationally televised on CBS, giving me (and the rest of you) no excuse not to watch.

Still, the regular season can't get here soon enough....

Start the rookie QB!

With John David Booty under the Vikings' control (and, also of interest to Vikings fans, with Brian Brohm wearing a Packer uniform in 2008) the call will likely go out at some point during the season that the team put in the rookie QB to inject some life into the offense. Just as quickly, sports pundits will decry the team's use of the rookie QB, saying instead that rookie QBs should be brought along slowly, perhaps not even starting a game until their second season, at least.

It seems to me that the whole idea of not starting a rookie QB right out of the gate began when Steve McNair was drafted #3 overall by the then-Houston Oilers in 1995. Despite his high draft status, he played sparingly his first two seasons -- a seeming aberration at the time -- sitting behind Chris Chandler on the Oilers' depth chart. McNair experienced great success, once he finally got the chance to start, and is always cited as Exhibit A for why rookie quarterbacks shouldn't see playing time their first year. The late starts to the careers of Tom Brady and Brett Favre, and the disastrous careers of Ryan Leaf and Tim Couch, each of whom started several games as rookies, is Exhibit A1.

But what about Peyton Manning, who's started every game of his NFL career? And where does someone like Drew Bledsoe fit in? Is giving a quarterback lots of playing time as a rookie just setting him up to fail later in his career? Or is that just a bunch of hogwash perpetuated by sporadic evidence?

To answer this, I went to the Historical Data Dominator on footballguys.com (which, for whatever reason, seems to be working for free now; I thought it required a subscription fee). I searched for all QBs from 1978 to 2002 who had at least 240 passes in their rookie season. I chose 1978 as my starting point because that was the year the NFL went to a 16-game schedule, allowing me to use 15 passes a game (times 16 games = 240) as my definition of a QB who saw "significant" action. Cutting the search off at 2002 gives me a nice, tidy 25 years of data while also letting me properly evaluate players who were drafted more than five years ago, providing a reasonable snapshot of their careers.

That search, shown here and sorted by yards, yields 30 quarterbacks. Three of them threw for more than 3,000 yards, and all (Manning, Warren Moon, and Jim Kelly) are Hall-of-Fame talents. The bottom of the list is occupied by Ryan Leaf, Steve Fuller, and Chad Hutchinson, and in-between are quarterbacks good and bad and awful. I've divided the quarterbacks -- somewhat arbitrarily, but hey, it's my blog -- into three categories.

Category A includes the great quarterbacks, the Hall-of-Fame-caliber players or very nearly.
Category B includes players who fall short of greatness, but still had (or are having) solid careers.
Category C includes everyone else, the abject failures.

Here's how they fall out:

Category A: Manning, Kelly, Moon, Marino, Aikman, P. Simms(?), Elway
Category B: Collins, Garcia, Bledsoe, Plummer, Batch(?), George, O'Donnell, Kosar, Deberg
Category C: Weinke, Mirer, Brock(?), Carr(?), Banks, Couch, Harrington(?), Komlo, Trudeau, Shuler, Hutchinson, Fuller, Leaf

Phil Simms is the only member of the A group not to be in (or destined for) the Hall of Fame, but I thought his two Super Bowl rings should count for something. Charlie Batch wavers between B and C. He was lousy with the Lions, but has carved out a second career as a solid backup with the Steelers, and if anything happens to Ben Roethlisberger, the team would probably do well. Similarly, David Carr and Joey Harrington each seemed destined for C-land but are young enough that they might turn their careers around. As for Dieter Brock, he posted decent numbers as a rookie for the Rams in 1985 (2,600 yards, 16 TD, 13 Int.). I don't know why he never threw another pass in the NFL -- maybe a Rams fan can enlighten me?

(Of course, as with Ichiro Suzuki, "rookie" can be a relative term. Brock, Moon, and Jeff Garcia all played in the CFL before coming to the NFL, and Jim Kelly starred in the USFL. And Chris Weinke was 29 his rookie season.)

In any case, the breakdown is 7 "A" quarterbacks, 9 "B" quarterbacks, and 14 "C" quarterbacks. That qualifies better than 50% (16/30) of rookie quarterbacks who threw 240 or more passes their first season as at least "decent" throughout their careers. In any case, the careers of those 16 weren't "ruined" by their getting starts as rookies. In fact, 7 of the 30 went on to exceptional careers. Of course, all seven of those players, save Moon, were first-round draft picks, and three (Elway, Manning, and Aikman) were first overall. This means that, in all likelihood, they were a) good; and b) going to get the chance to start as rookies. I'm not going to grade out every quarterback on the above list by round; suffice to say there are high (Leaf, Carr, Collins) and mid-low (Batch, O'Donnell, Deberg) picks sprinkled throughout the B and C levels.

At the very least, when the inevitable talk of, say, putting Booty, Brohm, or especially first-round picks Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco in the starting lineups for their respective teams this year pops up, don't jump immediately onto the "Starting a rookie QB is bad for him" bandwagon. About half the time, that may be true (and the C-level quarterbacks might have been bad no matter when they first saw significant action); but you have just as good a chance of getting a solid player, or even a star, for years to come.

Booty call

I figured I'd get an early start on what promises to be a plethora of puns on the name of the newest Vikings quarterback, John David Booty. When Tarvaris Jackson struggles, the press will wonder if the Vikings should "call on Booty." If he has a good game, they'll label him "Booty-licious." If the Vikings are selected to play overseas and the game is in Germany, and Booty gets the start, the headline will read "Das Booty." Feel free to leave your own in the comments section.

Anyhoo, once you get past his piratical name, it's tempting to see Booty as the great savior of the Vikings' shaky quarterback situation. For the first time since his arrival in Minnesota, Tarvaris Jackson may finally be skating on thin ice, and, despite Brad Childress' reassurance that (paraphrasing from his interview right after the selection) "Tarvaris is still our quarterback, but we realize that every NFL team needs more than one quarterback," it seems likely that, barring a tremendous season from Jackson, Booty will get his chance to start, either in 2008 or shortly thereafter.

Booty's college fame certainly contributes to the hype. While not as famous up to the expectations of his predecessors at USC, Carson Palmer and Matt Leinart, who were drafted first and 10th overall in their draft classes, Booty's pedigree and success (18-3 as a starter in 2006 and 2007) can't be completely ignored. His overall numbers are lesser than Palmer's and Leinart's largely because he enjoyed only two seasons as the starting QB (and missed three games to injury in 2008). If you compute all three passers' rating (using the NFL system -- college uses a different system that I have yet to comprehend), you get 110.7 for Leinart, 96.6 for Booty, and 85.9 for Palmer. That's not a spectacular endorsement, since Palmer has clearly had the better NFL career than Leinart thus far, but it might show that Booty isn't as far off when compared to the other two as you might think. And Booty's strong 2007 season (2,361 yards, 23 TDs, and 10 Ints. in 10 games) comes after losing top targets Steve Smith and Keary Colbert to the 2007 NFL Draft.

All that being said, as much as we like to criticize NFL execs (Matt Millen in particular) for making idiotic moves in the draft and free agency, they probably know more than we do. The fact that all 32 teams (they can't all be run by idiots), the Vikings included, passed on Booty multiple times probably speaks some to his actual talent level, or at least perceived talent level. Football's Future says that Booty has "mobility," "a very good arm," and "all the physical talent to be a quality quarterback in the NFL." On the flip side, he "has a tendency to lock onto receivers," "had an issue having his passes tipped at the line of scrimmage," and "will panic at times, believing the rush is closer than it really is." If I read those six snippets of text without any other context, I would wonder which Vikings QB they were describing: Booty or Tarvaris Jackson.

And yes, we hear ad infinitum that Tom Brady and Matt Hasselbeck were 6th-round picks or that Kurt Warner was an undrafted free agent, but the reality is that star players, at any position, are rarely found in the fifth round or later. Here is a list of all quarterbacks drafted in the fifth round or later since the merger in 1970. 19 of them managed to throw for at least 10,000 yards, but the list only contains a few truly good players, while also being populated with the likes of Jeff Blake, Steve Grogan, and our own Gus Frerotte. If there's any silver lining, it could be that the Vikings have gone this route before and come up with multi-year starters Brad Johnson and Wade Wilson. Still, the list goes on for 361 names, meaning that, all things being equal, Booty has about a (19/361) = 5.2% chance of lasting long enough to throw for 10,000 yards in the NFL. Not exactly odds I'd be willing to bet on in Vegas.

John David Booty may or may not be the answer in Minnesota. (One thing is certain: He won't take his #10 jersey from college to the pros.) Then again, if Plan A is another year of Tarvaris Jackson, it's not a bad idea to have a Plan B (preferably one that doesn't include Brooks Bollinger). At the very least, having him on the team will make things interesting this season, though the first time Jackson struggles, he can rest assured that the Metrodome fans won't "boo" him.

They'll be chanting "Booooooooooooooooty."