Dear Patrick Reusse, Star Tribune Floating Head:
Your logic is simply not on point. Listen, if Tarvaris Jackson is not a viable option at quarterback because we lost to the Eagles, he wasn't a viable option the week before or the week before that. If you watch every play, and you know anything about football (and I know enough about journalism to know that you have this job because you worked your ass off as a reporter and writer for years, NOT because you are an expert on football), you would understand a few things: Tarvaris Jackson gave the Vikings a better chance to win that game than Gus Frerotte. Check your buddy Kevin Seifert out. He threw out some interesting stats about the two quarterbacks' success against the blitz. Frerotte was a lot worse than Jackson. Also, there is not a single quarterback in the NFL who "beats" effective blitz or effective pressure. For reference, go watch Tom Brady in last year's Super Bowl, or for something more local, Peyton Manning in the first half against the Vikings this year. Actually, that is a great example. You know why Manning picked us apart in the second half? We stopped getting to him. Simple. There were Eagles running free on most passing plays, and Philadelphia didn't even blitz as much as expected. No, I repeat, NO, quarterback would have succeed against the pressure.
That said, Jackson was inaccurate all day. You know his only problem? He is too willing to try to throw passes when he is being hit. Almost every bad play he has ever made has come when he isn't able to step into a throw.
"You can only do what the quarterback can handle, and once he was blitzed, sacked and fumbled to end the opening possession of the second half, Jackson couldn't handle the basics."
You can also only do what the coaches give you a chance to do. Brad Childress, in Weeks 1 and 2 and in the second half against Philadelphia, clammed up. His play calling gave away the fact that he had no confidence in Jackson. Don't blame Jackson for Childress not giving him a chance to fail or succeed. Next time you talk to ol' Brad, ask him what happened to the seam routes to Shiancoe and the deep ins to Wade. If you can only do what the quarterback can handle, and he is struggling, why do you keep calling the same plays?
The only smart thing Childress did? Accept that holding penalty. Remember when the Giants converted a 3rd and 21 in Vikings territory? Or when David Akers made a 51-yarder about 15 minutes after that first field goal? Oops. Go watch any football game on any Sunday. On 3rd and 15 or more, teams gain yards. Almost always. The likelihood of that ending up being a 53-yard isn't even worth talking about. And the argument that maybe the defense would have come up with a huge play? They could come up with a huge play every single down, in theory. Why not just leave them on the field for 60 minutes?
And the last line, about Detroit? What a crock of shit. Seriously? How could you possibly manage that? How did you even come up with that comparison? If you aren't OK with 10-6 and the playoffs, go buy a fucking Yankees hat.
Yours always,
Brad Tucker
No comments:
Post a Comment