Tarvaris Jackson: Plan "E"?
by Danny Kelly on May 10, 2011 11:56 AM PDT
Email
Print
John Schneider has stated on several occasions recently that the Hawks have a Plan A, a Plan B, a Plan C and a Plan D when it comes to the QBOTF (quarterback of the future). I think everyone assumes that those 4 options are Matt Hasselbeck, Charlie Whitehurst, Kevin Kolb, and Carson Palmer, in whatever order you please. Two quotes have stood out to me in the last few day that pertain to Minnesota's Tavaris Jackson and make me wonder if there's a Plan E involved. The first one is from a guy that is pretty damn respected and accurate when it comes to NFL news and that's Adam Schefter. He said:
"Seattle fans probably won't like this and Minnesota might be amused by it, but I wouldn't discount Minnesota Vikings free-agent quarterback Tarvaris Jackson; he worked with the Seahawks' new offensive coordinator Darrell Bevell and could pick up Seattle's new offense quickly after this lockout ends, whenever it ends. But Seattle will have to come up with someone, because Whitehurst alone will put the Seahawks at a disadvantage."
I respect Schefter a lot as a journalist because he tends to stay out of the headline grabbing stuff that never ends up coming true. Though I love rumors as much as the next guy, I'd say more often than not, Schefter holds off reporting on them until he has real reason to believe they're true.
Now, on the other hand, there's Trent Dilfer. I'm not a Dilfer hater; the things he has said lately really annoy me but he seems like a genuinely nice guy and he was a pretty good NFL quarterback so I won't just discount his opinion entirely. Here's what he said anyway:
(Darrell) Bevell, now in Seattle, always had an affinity for Tarvaris Jackson. And believe it or not, I think that might be the play here for the Seattle Seahawks -- I think it might be trying to get Tarvaris Jackson from Minnesota. They've always liked him, they liked his starter potential. (Bevell) tried to make it happen for him in Minnesota and that might be the direction they're trying to go. I don't like that plan, but if that's their plan and that's what they're trying to do, then more power to them.
When I was a player, ... I always kind of started seeing how teams really believe that they could make something out of a guy, that they fall in love with him early on, a coach falls in love with him early on, and regardless of public opinion you're going to make it happen. As I've done the research the last 24 hours, I've made some calls, I've wrapped my brain around it, I think that's something that might be in their plans.
Dilfer claims this is not just his suspicion but that rather he has some inside information on it so it's worth noting. At this point I haven't watched Tarvaris Jackson play enough to make a real judgement on him but his resume is pretty underwhelming. In 2007 he started 12 games and passed for 1,911 yards with a 58% completion rate; 9 touchdowns to 12 interceptions and a rating of 70.8. In 2008 he started 5 games and played in 9 - passing for 1,056 yards/59% comp/9 TDs and 2 interceptions with a rating of 95.4. Since then he's started only one game and played in 11 - with pretty mediocre numbers. Overall career numbers that make it pretty hard to get excited about but there's also a good chance the Hawks bring him in as a quality backup that will be given the chance to "compete" for the job. As a Mind of No Mind put it recently in a commentary discussion on the QB position, "I think they'll bring in Tavaris Jackson to compete with Whitehurst for the job, with the idea that Whitehurst will win, but Jackson will give us a backup QB with starting experience in the offense. Then if Charlie does well, we have our QB of the future, if not, then we'll have the draft pick to get that QB." Though I'm not sure he's right, it does seem to be pretty logical.
If the plan that goes into action is the one that pegs Whitehurst as the Hawks' starter in 2011 it does make a whole hell of a lot of sense to have a quality backup QB that knows Darrell Bevell, can run the offense as a veteran, and legitimately push Whitehurst for the job. If the Hawks do what John Schneider indicated they would in a recent interview, they'll sign a UDFA QB as a developmental project. However, it's unlikely they rely on him an their 2nd QB. Tarvaris Jackson will be cheap, won't cost us a draft pick, and is versatile enough to provide quality depth. All bets are off if they're bringing him in as the presumptive starter, but the scenario I painted above wouldn't be the worst thing ever.
131 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
"but the scenario I painted above wouldn't be the worst thing ever. "
No, but it would be pretty close.
by rossco17 on May 10, 2011 12:01 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I LOVE this.
A) it isn’t Hasselbeck.
B) it gives Whitehurst actual opportunity.
We can also sign a project UDFA for 3rd QB and take our chances with the true youth movement at the position we’ve been needing for years. And at the end of the year if we see no improvements from that group, hey, guess what? Now we’ve got the high pick to actually address our long term needs for a QB.
WIN WIN WIN scenario.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 10, 2011 12:01 PM PDT reply actions
Also, there's no loss of resource in trading for an unproven or a potentially over the hill vet like Kolb or Palmer.
Both of whom are assumed to be an improvement but there is a distinct possibility neither would be, but they’ll cost us in draft picks AND higher salary at the QB position.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 10, 2011 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
The problem with this is pretty clear to me.
Two mediocre quarterbacks will probably take the entirety of snaps away from whatever developmental guy that is brought in, both in terms of practice and starting actual football games.
Charlie is a real albatross at this point. No one in the organization appears to think he’s the future, and yet he’s basically worth nothing in trade value. Nice job, FO.
I guess you're right.
But typically it’s a case where there’s an established starter and a career backup-type. If we end up with another mediocre QB it’s a different scenario entirely.
Uhm, what UDFA development guy has ever come in right away and taken real snaps.
Well…. aside from Max Hall and the amazing success he had last year?
You have defined Charlie as an albatross at this point. I do not hold that opinion, and I’m hopeful the front office does not either.
I want this to be the “give Charlie a chance” year. If it works, great. If not, well, we get to take our lumps, develop the OL for the season, and draft a franchise QB early in the 1st next year. How is that a bad thing?
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 10, 2011 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Couple of things going on here.
1) the development guy doesn’t get real snaps, but when there’s no established starter and backup ahead of him it’s more than likely he won’t get any quality snaps at practice. If you’ve got a Billy Zolek at #2, you can afford to give your #3 a few snaps… with Jackson there the focus will be on him instead.
2) I realize that others are not as down on Charlie as I am, but the very fact that this FO itself, a year after spending a fair amount on Charlie, seriously entertained spending resources on various quarterbacks in this draft. That’s pretty damning, in my opinion. If Clipboard Jesus ever becomes an established NFL starter for the Seahawks, I’ll be happy as hell, but it would really, really surprise me. He hasn’t shown anything at all.
I see that you want to give this year to Charlie to see what he’s got. That makes some sense to me, but it doesn’t work if you bring in another mediocre QB like Jackson. Jackson will probably look about the same, if not better, than Charlie, and you’ll end up with a QB controversy that likely goes nowhere, leaving the Hawks in another QB carousel. If you’re really interested in Charlie, run with him and bring in a couple of developmental guys.
Seriously entertained spending resources?
The rumor is if Gabbert fell to them at 25 they would take him. Thats a player ranked as the #1 QB by some. No other QB was on their radar until late in the 2nd.
It does not look to me like they planed on spending resources on a QB.
They had Dalton rated quite highly.
I’m pretty sure they would have seriously considered him with a higher pick.
not as high as carpenter apparently...
as far as overall grading.
by Seahawks4life on May 10, 2011 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions
I still don't believe this... I simply think they had him rated high on their QB list, not on a working draft board.
Regardless, it isn’t damning to draft a QB, even high, with a 28 or 29 year old QB. I just read an article somewhere in the last day or two reflecting on teams fully expecting to need a backup who can come in and play, due to the league cracking down on concussion recovery times.
And I’m still not sold that we spent all that much on Charlie. We spent a 3rd round pick. If we spent a 3rd round pick on a rookie QB this year and next year we had the 1st overall pick, would you hesitate to take Luck? Probably not. 3rd rounders are not guaranteed to make teams nor to be significant contributors. But a 3rd rounder for a guy who can come in and start, and give you a veteran presence? Not a terrible idea.
So what if he made 5m last year. That’s not uncommon given his position, age, fact that he needed a contract extension and we gave a draft pick for him. It isn’t sunk cost and it isn’t an extraordinarily high price to pay.
As for “giving a development QB snaps” during the season— in a rookie season WHO CARES. Particularly for an UDFA. I think if you are looking at an UDFA seriously, you’ve got to be honest that he should be on at least a 2 year plan before you even consider actual game experience for him.
Year one is welcome to the NFL, learn the team system and run the scout team.
Year two you start getting some snaps, start understanding the game better, and actually become a person the starter/2nd team QB can look to for some analysis as opposed to being a deer in the headlights whose sole role in team meetings is to fetch coffee.
And as for your fear of a QB controversy— if the team has a controversy between Charlie and Tavaris, the probability is we are drafting high the following year, and then we have a top10 type pick that turns into a QB…. and no more controversy.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 10, 2011 4:02 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Not a surprise
As soon as Bev was hired I thought this was a possibility. They had a quick look at Nate Davis and it was obvious that TJax is way ahead of him. He can be acquired for very little money and if the fall back plan is CW competing against TJax for the starting job the Hawks could be in a lot worse shape. I agree that building the OL should be the Hawk’s first priority. 2012 will give the Hawks a chance at a good young QB. Hopefully by then the OL will be a strength of the team.
Whitehurst is 29 (or damn close to it)
Hey May give you a couple of good years, but he’s pretty old to not know if he’s going to make it or not.
Plus, he’s the only QB left standing for a reason, I’m just not sure what the reason is yet
Rather than it being damning
it only means Charlie’s not a for sure thing. He’d have to be at least a young Hasselbeck or a Flacco or a Jay Cutler, otherwise NOT spending resources on the position would be very unwise.
Recently engaged! Best. Off-season. Ever.
A mind meld? Fascinating.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 10, 2011 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Meh, TJack is a poor man's Cholly Whitehurst.
He’d be competing for the 3rd string, and I’d rather see that spot used for a UDFA.
Unless they are going to start Cholly, and then I say fuck it, sign him.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Wurd
Between “Cholly” and TJack: I’d honestly take TJack.
He has meaningful experience starting (including a playoff game?). He also has the added benefit of knowing Bevell’s offense.
by jubelthebear on May 10, 2011 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions
Carefull what you with for.
The Vikings would probably rather have another year of Favre than play TJack. He’s that bad.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
I always thought
that was the sentiment of Zygi Wilf more than the team. Childress seemed forced into the Favre marriage. Maybe he knew it would be his undoing in the end.
As far as Jackson & Whitehurst, Though they both might not be better than backups, between the two: TJack would really be the better candidate for starter in Seattle… jeez that sucks to say…
by jubelthebear on May 10, 2011 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions
I just don't see them going that direction.
Last year they could have picked up Jason Campbell for a carton of smokes-he’s light years better than TJack. They passed.
They passed on every QB in the draft—and Ponder would start before TJack. McNabb will be a free agent after he gets cut, they’ll probably pass there too.
Vince Young.
Hell, Bulger is probably still better.
They are straight up passing on better options than him, so I just don’t see it. They’ve got to have something else lined up.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
by hazbro24 on May 10, 2011 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Lets not forget
Before Favre, T-Jack took the Vikes to the playoffs
A bird in the hand is worth about 10.99 at KFC and makes me lick my chops
Yummy!!!!!
Good point
T-Jack carried that team behind Hutch, on Adrian Peterson’s legs and Jared Allen’s shoulders.
by SmartAssCoug on May 10, 2011 5:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Yup, just like Hass carried the Hawks behind Big Walt, Hutch, on Alexanders legs and Holmgrens plan.
Ohhhh, good reference.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 10, 2011 6:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh no, I didn't think that.
I just thought it was nice to see another side of it, and yes, a lot worked out for Hass and almost couldn’t, sort of the reverse of the initial momentum of Tavaris’ career.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 10, 2011 6:37 PM PDT up reply actions
(didn't-- not couldn't)
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 10, 2011 6:37 PM PDT up reply actions
It's not a perfect analogy, though.
The Hawks did not have a premier pass rusher OR the best running back in the league, and Hass was an established and productive starter leading up to those playoffs (during years in which he did not have those great pieces around him just yet).
Recently engaged! Best. Off-season. Ever.
Last season Hass led the Seahawks to the playoffs.
See how that works.
Even though we made the playoffs despite him.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
TJack watched the rest of the team make it to the playoffs.
As AP torched the league.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
The Darrell Bevell connection
People always assume these kinds of connections are buddy buddy, but perhaps Bevell thinks Jackson’s not all that good of a QB? He does know him well, but is that necessarily a positive for Jackson?
I can easily see this as their plan E however
As someone who comes in to compete and be a backup for Whitehurst. Hopefully plans B, C, and D don’t fall through.
by B.B.Finnegan on May 10, 2011 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions
The way Ive heard it...
Is that TJax was Bevell’s boy but was originally thought of as a project type but was forced to play early and suffered. My understanding is that ownership wanted to make a splash and thought the team was better than they were so they went looking for that “win now” guy in Favre to try and make a SB. I think he was in a bad spot where he didnt get the development time he was originally expected to get and spent his entire tenure there with the owner never wanting him and constantly trying to replace him. I dont know if TJax could ever be an elite QB but his skills seem to be at least above average across the board. He’s kind of the good at everything great at nothing type but in the right situation he could be successful. He wouldn’t be high on my list of QB options for the Hawks but I also think just dismissing him as a mediocre QB could be unfair.
by CMoney87 on May 11, 2011 1:55 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Decent depth.
Not much more exciting than bringing in J.P. Losman I’d say.
Recently engaged! Best. Off-season. Ever.
Why do I get the feeling that we could end up with three mediocre-to-lousy quarterbacks at season's end?
And thus suffer yet another “enh, we don’t REALLY need a quarterback” offseason?
I didn't see this as an "ehh, we don't REALLY need a quarterback" offseason.
I see it as a “we didn’t have a shot at anybody in the draft we REALLY liked” start to an offseason. But yeah, I can definitely see us finishing the year wit a couple below average QB’s without much upside.
We've been doing it for something like four years.
I was talking about multiple FO’s there.
And now that we've finally moved past Hasselbeck, we can actually move forward.
One year transition with a new line in place to protect the QB of the future. And again, if Charlie works out, great. We got a starter for cheap. If it doesn’t, then we move forward with a young long term QB drafted in the early 1st next year.
WIN WIN.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 10, 2011 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions
The problem I see is this:
The new line gels, making Charlie look better than he really is… maybe a mediocre starter who gets the team to 8-8 under a tough schedule. His performance doesn’t warrant a long-term contract, but the FO is pretty much forced to go in his direction, and the Seahawks are mired (heh) in mediocrity at QB for years.
You could also see the same scenario with Hass (as Brian noted a while ago).
Charlie's contract is up at the end of the season.
I don’t see how the FO would be forced to go with him after only one mediocre year.
Not really forced, but would have to make a longer-term decision.
Charlie could easily play himself into a long-term contract with one year of decent play.
So if Charlie does good its the lines fault.
I suppose you are one of the ones who blame the line for Hasselbecks crappyness. Not his noodle arm and bad decisions.
Er, no.
Not sure where that conclusion comes from.
It looks like you have already determined that Charlie has no chance to be a good QB
The new line gels, making Charlie look better than he really is… maybe a mediocre starter who gets the team to 8-8 under a tough schedule. His performance doesn’t warrant a long-term contract.
This statement says that if Charlie does good its the lines fault
To me, this is just short of the dream scenario.
Obviously the dream is to have Charlie turn into a true franchise QB. But if the team can go 8-8 with this tough schedule, and are only being held back by the quality of their QB, then the franchise is in position to do what other teams in this position do, and trade up in the draft to get the guy they need to put them over the top.
In this scenario we have not traded away any 2012 draft picks, so we can move up the same way the 9-7 Jets moved up for Sanchez, or the 8-8 Jaguars moved up for Gabbert, or even the way the 13-3 Falcons traded up for Jones.
Normally a bad team has too many holes to fill to be able to pull off a big draft day trade to move up, but in the situation you’re painting, I think a trade to move into the top 10 for a QB would totally be justified.
by Mind of no mind on May 10, 2011 3:12 PM PDT up reply actions
If he goes 8-8 under a tough schedule...
he’ll still be better than Hasselbeck the past 3 years— and he’ll have potential to get better.
That does happen with experience.
Not sure what the problem there is.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 10, 2011 4:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Makes sense.
I wasn’t thinking big picture enough. If you were making an argument concerning the way we drafted this year, then I’d disagree, but I see where you’re coming from.
Over multiple FOs Hasselbeck has been the factor keeping us from really needing a QB
It’s different to move away from a good-to-great QB who becomes mediocre to a guy you picked up that never showed he was anything but mediocre, like Tarvaris or Whitehurst might well be by year’s end. We’ll see.
by Thomas Beekers on May 10, 2011 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions
This is the best case scenario in my mind
other than picking up Palmer for a mid round draft pick. Or maybe getting Vince Young for nothing. I hate, hate, hate the idea of trading high draft picks for a “potential” star QB like Kolb. Philadelphia has been hyping that guy up for a trade, what, going on three years now? That just doesn’t sit well with me. I’m hoping our front office is smart enough to look at the other formulas for success in the league, teams like the Pats, Ravens, and Eagles. Accumulate draft picks, find your talent there, and only trade picks away when it’s an absolute steal, like Palmer (hopefully)
Good points but at the very least they're starting to put together the pieces we need to make that happen.
If Lynch doesn’t perform next season we could be seeing a top pick used on a RB in the draft and I already think next year’s draft will be used primarily to address the D-line.
Plan F
as in fail.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
by hazbro24 on May 10, 2011 1:15 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Pretty meh
Tarvaris is as old as Whitehurst and I’m not sure he brings more to the table. People are overselling the Bevell angle, I think Whitehurst’s experience with the Hawks last year counts for more than Tarvaris’ experience with the Vikes last year.
But eh.
by Thomas Beekers on May 10, 2011 1:24 PM PDT reply actions 3 recs
Bevell did call and talk to Hasselbeck during the time on Friday when the lockout was lifted
according to Schefter.
Come on Pete, time to quit Hasselbeck cold turkey.
Seriously though, if he’s brought back I’m going to be pretty disappointed. If he’s brought back on anything more than a one year deal I’m going to be annoyed.
The only upside to bringing Matt back is that it'd be like watching Favre last year.
The suspense every time he rolls out. Will he survive this play?
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Agreed.
And if he is brought back, I want an actual competition at QB, just like all the other positions. Matt was the only guy on the team allowed to struggle but not benched for performance.
I think if it was really looked at as an even race instead of “Matt is the incumbent” then Charlie wins the job outright.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 10, 2011 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Well...
There was the Oakland game.. and the Atlanta game.. and one could argue the St. Louis game
by SmartAssCoug on May 10, 2011 5:24 PM PDT up reply actions
A head-in-a-jar like on Futurama.
Where’s our resident photoshop king?
Source
Here.
It makes sense to want a veteran QB familiar with the system really. Especially with a shortened camp. Not too excited about it tho. I don’t see what advantage Hasselbeck has over Charlie at this point.
by Thomas Beekers on May 10, 2011 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions
The only advantage I can see in bringing Hasselbeck back for a one year is that it means we're out of the Kolb "sweepstakes."
That in and of itself is a win.
Money as opposed to future draft picks. SOLD!
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 10, 2011 4:14 PM PDT up reply actions
Besides, Matt's got around 6-8 starts max left in him.
We paid Housh not to play. If it keeps our 2012 draft pick, I’m in.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
I just watched tape on Kolb
he’s so mediocre on a team with amazing receivers and a dynamic running back.
Recently engaged! Best. Off-season. Ever.
let me just say for the record as someone who has watched him play ALOT
Tarvaris Jackson is a HORRIBLE Qb, with ZERO starting capability.
I live in Fargo ND (Vikings territory) and have seen pretty close to every snap he’s taken as a pro. Now that JaMarcus Russel is no longer in the NFL, T Jackson is once again THE WORST Qb in the NFL hands down.
He’s actually, progressively gotten WORSE each year he’s been in the league. (Not numbers wise necessarily, but in decision making and accuracy).
He will never ever, EVER, be a starting calibre QB, not ever.
If this is the route we end up going, even if he’s just a backup and nothing more, then I’ll have completely lost what little faith I have left in the current front office.
I cannot imagine a single more disatrous move the Seahawks could realistically make than to bring him here, especially if (as it sounds) they are even entertaining the notion that he could ever become a starting Qb for this team.
I’d rather see them overpay Hasselebck to bring him back for two more years.
If you think I’m coming on too strong, let me assure you, I’m not coming on anywhere NEAR as strongly as I feel about him. He’s just plain horrible in every possible way. Bad arm strength, bad accuracy, horrible decision making both passing and running, and a complete lack of understanding of how to read defenses or efficiently run an offense, are the NICEST things I can say about him.
by fargomonkey on May 10, 2011 1:50 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
That's coming on pretty strong.
My girlfriend is getting jealous.
I am definitely a minority, but I would love this signing
To quote your analysis of his starting experience:
“In 2007 he started 12 games and passed for 1,911 yards with a 58% completion rate; 9 touchdowns to 12 interceptions and a rating of 70.8. In 2008 he started 5 games and played in 9 – passing for 1,056 yards/59% comp/9 TDs and 2 interceptions with a rating of 95.4. Since then he’s started only one game and played in 11 – with pretty mediocre numbers.”
To me, all that says is that he performed near average in his first season starting but was then replaced and didnt get another REAL chance to prove himself. The next season he showed a lot of improvement. I think Jackson has all the potential to be a Michael Vick type of player. He has the athleticism that Caroll likes in QBs and can make all the throws from what I’ve seen. His decision making needs to improve but that has gotten better in time. Bevell is a very good offensive coordinator and GREAT qb coach. If he thinks Jackson has the potential to be a solid starter in the NFL i agree, especially based on what i’ve seen from him during his time in the league. What opportunity has he had to prove himself considering after being drafted the team as a whole struggled and then they brought in Favre?
Agreed
Jackson put up good numbers for a second year QB, is rated more highly than CW by scouts inc et al, has the mobility Carrol likes, Beval knows and presumably likes him, wouldn’t cost any draft picks, and would leave an opening to draft franchise QB next year…
Sunk cost. What you paid doesn't matter one lick.
If you bought a pound of ground beef, grilled up a hamburger, but burned the living shit out of it, would you eat it just because you spent the time and money on the ground beef and the grilling/prep time?
Of course not. You’d throw it in the garbage and eat something else.
Simplistic metaphor, sure. The point is, the effort/resources you spent mean nothing – the end product is all that matters.
"Pass rushers enter the world of Okung but never leave." - JM
by Nick Andron on May 10, 2011 3:06 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
Rec'd for the awesome metaphor
because that is what this F.O has done thus far. Lo’Jack and Housh epitomize that. Housh eat lots of money and Lo’Jack was just recently a first rd. pick. Their value was gone so they were cast aside.
This isthe reason why i hope curry produces this year, otherwise we might be looking for his replacement in KJ….
Well, keeping Charlie around is akin to eating that hamburger.
Or, at least, eating enough of the hamburger to not taste the rest of the food sitting on the table.
That's only if Charlie is burnt burger.
I think he’s simply uncooked burger.
No reason to throw the burger out without giving it a chance to cook first.
Nasty to eat right out of the fridge, but if you let him cook a little, you could have a tasty little morsel on your hands.
Mmmm. Medium rare burger.
I think I know what’s for dinner tonight.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 10, 2011 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions
This sounds like one of those tricky questions where you have to pay careful attention to all the facts.
My answer is: “I throw away the charred burger and then cook the other half pound of ground beef.”
by busplunger on May 10, 2011 6:52 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
schefter regurgitates as much as the next guy...
dilfer said that on the radio monday after the draft….
Dilfer is a grade-A moron
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on May 10, 2011 5:11 PM PDT up reply actions
Bit harsh
He just shouts very opinionated opinions harshly. It’s good television and makes for good ratings. Doesn’t mean he’s got bad inside info or is wrong in what he states.
by Thomas Beekers on May 10, 2011 5:14 PM PDT up reply actions
He guaranteed the Hawks would take Dalton before the draft...
He’s got bad info or is wrong in what he states.
Yeah, I think a huge part of why he ripped the Hawks is that they made him look bad.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it was JS himself who gave him the Dalton “scoop”.
by Johnny Slick on May 10, 2011 7:45 PM PDT up reply actions
"...I think a huge part of why he ripped the Hawks is that they made him look bad."
Agree completely.
I definitely believe that 90% of his motivation to rant post-draft was due to this.
Well, pre-draft info by its nature is less reliable than trade/sign info
But both are full of misleading tidbits. I don’t trust any of these rumors or tidbits except from proven sources, and dilfer is not one of them. He’s no worse than most though.
The Dalton thing was too funny though.
by Thomas Beekers on May 10, 2011 7:56 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm a big fan of bringing Jackson in for several reasons
-He’s easily above average by backup standards.
-He’d be cheap.
-He fits the system very well.
-He’s not terribly old and could be a part of this team for more than just a couple years.
-He might have flexibility elsewhere on the team ala Seneca Wallace.
-He probably won’t be good enough to have Seattle back into the playoffs again.
…Which means if you want Seattle to draft a decent QB in the next couple years, banking on Jackson is a good bet without having to put up with the tiny and boring playbook Charlie Whitehurst would make us suffer through. He’s good enough to keep the team “competitive” and fun to watch, but not good enough to screw us out of a 1st round QB.
Taking him as a starter would indeed be “plan E,” but even if Seattle could acquire Palmer or Kolb, they should still make a run at Jackson, who won’t be getting many, if any, starting offers. He’s best as a backup, and he won’t cost much.
What system does he fit?
He fit Chilly’s system with the Vikings to some extent. From every public comment we’ve seen we want to run a pretty different system with different demands on QBs here.
by Thomas Beekers on May 10, 2011 5:39 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't know why we'd have a "boring playbook" if Charlie is QB.
I rather like a run moving offense with fireworks on long play action passes. I miss seeing a Seahawk receiver go deep and get hit in mid stride with a laserbeam.
Dink and dunk is far more boring in my eyes. Unless you count dreading the next Hasseltoss interception as exciting and non-boring.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 10, 2011 6:04 PM PDT up reply actions
Go back and watch Charlie last year
Only ran a handful of plays, all scripted and very vanilla.
I’m not saying Whitehurst is a stupid person, but most people can’t handle the complexities of an NFL offense and so far (6 years) Whitehurst is one of those guys. If Seattle sticks with Whitehurst, its going to be very similar in results to Rick Mirer in 1994- another guy who couldn’t grasp more than 10-15 plays in the playbook. Defenses figured it out, and he got killed.
by Kip Earlywine on May 10, 2011 10:19 PM PDT up reply actions
I just think that's unfair.
Take a look at his scripted and vanilla plays? It was his 1st and 2nd starts, and only one of which was a playbook designed for him. And he looked significantly better the 2nd game from the first.
Almost makes you wonder if things like opportunity and preparation with the proper tools given to him could… I don’t know… improve his performance?
Rick Mirer was a running QB from Notre Dame and a 2nd overall pick based on the shiny gold helmet… in a different era of the NFL. It’s just unreasonable to compare the two. Charlie has stuck around several years on his potential and some bench development, and deserves at least the same chance Mirer got before we pass that kind of a judgement.
And as far as “complexities of an NFL offense”… well… when you keep 8-9 players around to block, you are going to have a lack of complexity. The rebuilding of an offensive line could go a long way toward allowing us to actually see what Charlie can do, and what he can process. I think he’s smarter than “10-15 plays in the playbook.”
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 11, 2011 12:48 AM PDT up reply actions
Fuck that.
I don’t want to see any TJack Cat formations.
At least Cholly can chuck the ball down the field.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
I have a feeling this whole thing is as silly as the Prince Fielder signs with Seattle in the offseason idea.
Jack Zduriencik drafted Fielder, so he’s going to sign him when he hits free agency this offseason.
Tavaris Jackson was a QB under Bevell, so he’s going to sign with Seattle this offseason.
Strikes me as lazy reporting by guys like Dilfer.
Makes more sense in football.
Plus Carroll has brought in a ton of USC guys so it’s not like it doesn’t happen.
Carroll has brought in over 200 people
Its a given there will be USC ulumni brought in. The best thing is if they did not cut it they were quickly sent packing.
Yeah... see Ron Dayne.
I’m still a little surprised Seattle didn’t at least take a look at Matt Leinart last year. They could still acquire him this year I guess.
by Johnny Slick on May 10, 2011 7:47 PM PDT up reply actions
Except that it makes sense in baseball in this case too.
Guy is going to need to move to DH, guy is a LH power hitter on a team that needs just that, and said team is freeing up some money and will have some to actually spend.
I’m not in favor of it, I just see where it makes a fair amount of sense.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 10, 2011 8:28 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't really see it as lazy reporting
Just people finding stuff to talk about in a dead offseason.
by Kip Earlywine on May 10, 2011 10:21 PM PDT up reply actions
I think Hitler said it best...
NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN
No, I think that was Mickey Mantle in a drunken fit of jealousy.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 10, 2011 8:29 PM PDT up reply actions
No it was Cookie Monster.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on May 10, 2011 11:02 PM PDT up reply actions
I really, really, really like Joe Webb
Any chance the Vikings trade him and stick with Ponder?
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul - Invictus
You might want to label Jackson as Plan "F"
Because if you sign him, you’ll be using that letter a lot, normally in the following contexts:
“What the F is he doing?”
“Where the F was he throwing that ball?”
“Why the F did we sign this guy when anyone else with a pulse was available?”
SBNation Minnesota - For the greatest sports fans in the world.
The Daily Norseman - The greatest Vikings' site on the Internet!
by Christopher Gates on May 10, 2011 8:51 PM PDT reply actions
Plan "G" involves signing Master P to play QB.
He was such a great point guard….
by Johnny Slick on May 10, 2011 8:54 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm surprised there's so little venom in this thread
TJackson just seemed like a lost cause to me. He’s at least as done as Alex Smith.
Recently engaged! Best. Off-season. Ever.
Me too. I wouldn't mind having him fight for a roster spot/role.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 11, 2011 12:52 AM PDT up reply actions
It isn't like we're saying, "Get Tavaris to lead us."
We’re saying, “Hmm… Could be a serviceable backup if nothing else pops.”
Personally, I love the idea of bringing in Leinhart and seeing what happens. Worst case scenario, we cut him like JP. Best case, we’ve found our new QB on the cheap.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 11, 2011 12:51 AM PDT up reply actions
I don't agree with this
Why would we want QBs with pretty much no potential to be good? Jackson and Leinart have proven themselves to suck. It would be like choosing between a tofu dog and a tofu burger – both have no shot at being tasty.
I think CW needs mentorship and those 2 guys certainly don’t provide that. Palmer would and he still has something left in the tank. Hass can provide mentorship, but I just feel it’s time for him to go away now. He just can’t perform at a good-enough level anymore.
Palmer is a NY strip steak – sometimes it’s amazing and other times it’s overdone, chewy, and terrible. But it has a chance at being great.
I’m on board with Palmer for 2 years and drafting a QB in 2012. Let the NY strip compete with Charlie, the unknown new sandwich that has all the right ingredients.
CW needs mentorship!?
From who? The “kid” is 29. I am not saying he has no chance or anything but IMO he needs to be pushed more than he needs yet another veteran QB around him to “show him the ropes”. At this point if he doesn’t know the ropes, he is never going to learn the intricracies of… ropes. This metaphor is failing.
I wouldn’t mind Carson Palmer but because he’d be a decent piece of competition with Clipboard Jesus, not because he’s going to be a “mentor” to a guy who will turn 30 next year.
by Johnny Slick on May 11, 2011 9:13 AM PDT up reply actions
one more thing I feel is necessary to add here
Some of you guys are looking at his numbers and saying to yourselves, “he looks at least average, he’s young, has upside, and it would be cheap, so where’s the harm?”
Here’s the problem, you’re looking at the numbers out of context.
For example, we all know that play action passes are the highest percentage pass in football (read, safe passes with high completion rates).
Tarvaris Jackson, behind a terrific offensive line, with THE most dangerous Running Back in the game, was only asked to throw high percentage passes (mostly play action) and yet, he still ended up with a terrible completion percentage, for someone with Adrian Peterson, a great line, and only throwing high percentage passes.
In other words, surrounded by talent, and being asked to only make the simplest of reads and passes, and he STILL was awful!
Now you guys suggest putting him behind a young (up till now) horrible line, with the worst rush game in the league?
Let me say this again, as someone who has actually watched him play, he hasn’t improved at ALL, over the last few years, so the idea he has “upside because he’s young”, has no actual evidence to support it.
There is no upside to Tarvaris Jackson.
If he couldn’t look even halfways decent surrounded by talent, being asked to throw easy safe passes, with the leagues most dangerous weapon to play action to, and defenses constantly stuffing 8-9 and sometimes even 10 in the box to stop the run; well…he has NO chance of being anything but much worse here! And that’s saying something since he was awful in Minn.
He cost two coaches their jobs, one of them our new OC, (a bad hire BTW), and now we want to recreate that mistake?
I shudder at the thought, truly.
by fargomonkey on May 11, 2011 6:36 AM PDT via mobile reply actions 1 recs
Fargomonkey has it completely right
As a Vike fan who lived in Seattle I’ll chip in although it’s a bit late I know. Tarvaris Jackson is a terrible QB. I’ve watched him for a long time and if it weren’t for Bevell and Childress’s oddly gay love for the man he would have never lasted on any other team as long as he did on the Vikings.
He is a terrible passer, he actually jumps when he throws the ball. He is terrified of interceptions so he throws the ball low. Really low like at peoples feet.. He played on a offense were people regularly stacked the box and still couldn’t find receivers.
lastly he is unable to read a defense at all. Period. Watching him try to figure out what the defense was doing was brutal. Watching as he gorked out completely when they blitzed him was even worse. He has no composure so your two minute drills will be worthless. Oh yeah he gets injured often, and fumbles hand offs and snaps.
but he does have terrific teeth.
Thinking this through a bit more you guy should pick him up and make sure we don’t decide to use him anymore ever.
It's a lot easier to love the Vikings when they win...
Only if you pick up Hasselbeck to return the favor...
Please, Seattle. Can we rebuild the right way for once...That means without a faded hero leading a charge towards mediocrity.... And if you haven't figured it out yet, that means no more Hasselbeck.
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 12, 2011 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions
I have to say I was in Seattle when they picked him up in the first place and really didn't understand
Other than Holmgren felt the need to take some of Green Bay with him.. Only good thing that came out of all that was the new stadium. The King dome was painful.
Childress gone, TJack gone, new stadium on the way: it's like that Christmas when Santa brought prostitutes!
Circa 2007
These guys must be locked in a time warp because Tarvaris hasn’t performed like this since his first full year in the league … and that was 4 years ago. As he logged more playing time, he went through the progressions of finding a receiver and if nothing developed, he’d toss the ball out of bounds to live to see another play. It’s what a good QB should do. The jump pass thing is such a bunch of overblown mularkey it’s almost comical. And the few times it did happen was early in his career. For the guy talking about high-percentage passes, just go back to 2008 where he had a 95+ QB rating. He spread the ball around the field, oftentimes stringing out a play with his legs before finding the open receiver for a 20-plus yard completion. This wasn’t throwing the ball through a tire from 3 feet away, it was a bit more complex than that. And if you want a factoid which illustrates his ability to be a reliable backup, just go back to the Vikings/Patriots game this year where a “cold” Tarvaris came off the bench when Favre was hurt and immediately put 8 points on the board to give the Vikings a fighting chance in the fourth quarter. His 2-point conversion toss was placed in a spot where only Percy Harvin could snatch it. Unfortunately, the Vikings defense couldn’t stop the Patriots next drive and they won by 10. I see a few of these Tarvaris haters on various Vikings boards and just don’t understand their motivation … other than the obvious.
by Eeg-way-beeg-way on May 13, 2011 11:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Another Vikings fan perspective
As a Vikings fan who tries to remain objective, I think you’d be happy if you acquired Tarvaris Jackson.
Just think of it — The Vikings invested all this money and time in him and because they’re not patient, you reap the benefits. All for a fairly economical value.
Look, as was stated, Tarvaris was thrown into the fire way too early when he should have been learning on the sidelines. The last time he logged considerable playing time was 2008 and he came on at the end of the season and got the Vikings into the playoffs by winning 3 of the final 4 games. He also won NFC Player of the Week honors for a big win over Arizona. He would up with 9 TDs to 2 picks down the stretch.
Then Favre came in since the owner, Zygi Wilf, wanted a knight on a white horse to sell his new stadium idea to the state and Tarvaris was relegated to back-up duties.
By as a backup, he was able to learn under Favre and 2 years later he’s really an enigma as to what he can deliver. It would be a fairly low-risk gamble for the Hawks and if it pays off, you’ve found yourself a nice QB at a good value.
I wouldn’t write off the idea by any means. Of course if you get Matty back it’s probably a moot point, but I certainly wouldn’t mind seeing a Tarvaris/Bevell reunion.
by Eeg-way-beeg-way on May 13, 2011 10:54 PM PDT reply actions
Thanks for the input, Eeg-way.
Please, Seattle. Can we rebuild the right way for once...That means without a faded hero leading a charge towards mediocrity.... And if you haven't figured it out yet, that means no more Hasselbeck.
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 14, 2011 8:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Field Gulls
Related FanShots on Field Gulls
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
