Rich Gannon : Vikes favorite to win NFC North

[Tarlam!]

I think the argument is that Jackson hasn't shown anything that makes anybody think he'll be a good QB.

Rich Gannon and Brad childress would appear to disagree. Harv, I am not hot or cold on Jackson. I wouldn't know he was so bad, except the good posters here tell me he sucks.

In all honesty, I don't find him to be that bad any more.

[mngolf19]

Good. Let's hope Gannon takes his boring ass monotone master of the obvious routine over to the Vike's preseason broadcast booth this year.

Actually it was posted in the same newspaper that he is doing the Packer preseason games this year with Harlan.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Rich Gannon and Brad childress would appear to disagree. Harv, I am not hot or cold on Jackson. I wouldn't know he was so bad, except the good posters here tell me he sucks.

In all honesty, I don't find him to be that bad any more.

What is Childress going to say? If Jackson doesn't pan out, he's gone. Gannon appears to have gotten his opinion after talking to Childress.

It's possible Jackson becomes a good QB. I'd be surprised, but I wouldn't be shocked. I just think the chances of Rodgers being a good QB are greater. The one question about Rodgers (durability) is also a knock on Jackson. I think he's gotten injured 3 times in his 1 1/4 years of starting.

[Tarlam!]

'kay Harv. I will bow to your knowledge here.

[mngolf19]

My take on Jackson would also be that, why couldn't he improve? There's obviously room for him to improve and we all agree that players tend to improve each year over their first 2-3 if they are granted a starting positions. It's talked about here as far as Packers are concerned. Now if he does improve. Watch out!

[HarveyWallbangers]

My take on Jackson would also be that, why couldn't he improve? There's obviously room for him to improve and we all agree that players tend to improve each year over their first 2-3 if they are granted a starting positions. It's talked about here as far as Packers are concerned. Now if he does improve. Watch out!

Because I have seen things with him that QBs don't typically improve at once they get to the pros. I think he's inaccurate on throws over 15 yards. He doesn't display a natural feel for the game. He could possibly learn that, but the Vikings want to win now. I'm not sure he'll get the time to improve that. If he doesn't improve this year, Childress could be gone and he may not be the starter next year.

His athletic ability is virtually the same as Rodgers (according to combine numbers). Both have good escapability. His arm strength is about the same as Rodgers (maybe slightly less arm strength). Both have enough arm strength on most throws. They aren't elite, but good enough. From what I've watched of Rodgers (mostly preseason), he seems much more accurate than Jackson. That might be the least valued and most important aspect of a QBs game. Also, Jackson isn't dumb, but Rodgers is top notch in the intelligence department. ARod's learning curve wasn't as large as Jackson's learning curve (Rodgers coming from Cal and Jackson from Alabama State), and he's had an extra year in the offense to learn (since he was drafted the year before Jackson). Both have durability concerns.

[HarveyWallbangers]

If I had to guess how the season will play out for both teams, I'd guess both teams disappoint slightly. I think the two teams are similarly talented. I think the Packers are deeper and more balanced. I think the Vikings have more star power. I think Rodgers will show he's capable of being a good NFL QB, but he'll get nicked up and the Packers will lose some games because of it. I think we're destined to have an injury prone QB after having Favre. I see the Packers going a tad above .500. I see about the same for Minnesota, and more than anything I think it will be their QB and coaching holding them back. I think it's quite possible that all four teams end up within a few games of each other, and the division winner has an 8-8 or 9-7 record.

Unlike what bulldog says, I think the Packers are deeper and could handle injuries better than Minnesota. If the Packers lose their best OL (Clifton? Tauscher?), they could get by. The Vikings would have a very hard time replacing Hutchinson. If the Packers lost their best WR (Driver? Jennings?), they could get by. The Vikings would have a harder time replacing Berrian. Although I like Chester Taylor, I think the Vikings offense will need Peterson to be an elite RB to approach the top 10 in offense. The Packers would have a tough time replacing Grant, but they have the ability to change their game plan and still get by. Losing a top DL would hurt the Packers, but they showed last year that they could get by without a starter or two. I think the Vikings would really suffer if they lost either of their top 3 DL. I think it's more important for Minnesota's top players to stay healthy.

[mngolf19]

My take on Jackson would also be that, why couldn't he improve? There's obviously room for him to improve and we all agree that players tend to improve each year over their first 2-3 if they are granted a starting positions. It's talked about here as far as Packers are concerned. Now if he does improve. Watch out!

Because I have seen things with him that QBs don't typically improve at once they get to the pros. I think he's inaccurate on throws over 15 yards. He doesn't display a natural feel for the game. He could possibly learn that, but the Vikings want to win now. I'm not sure he'll get the time to improve that. If he doesn't improve this year, Childress could be gone and he may not be the starter next year.

His athletic ability is virtually the same as Rodgers (according to combine numbers). Both have good escapability. His arm strength is about the same as Rodgers (maybe slightly less arm strength). Both have enough arm strength on most throws. They aren't elite, but good enough. From what I've watched of Rodgers (mostly preseason), he seems much more accurate than Jackson. That might be the least valued and most important aspect of a QBs game. Also, Jackson isn't dumb, but Rodgers is top notch in the intelligence department. ARod's learning curve wasn't as large as Jackson's learning curve (Rodgers coming from Cal and Jackson from Alabama State), and he's had an extra year in the offense to learn (since he was drafted the year before Jackson). Both have durability concerns.

Harv that last part is why I think he can. If using Rodger's extra year of experience in the offense helps him, same should go for Jackson. (key being should) I'll also add this note, I would put the backups this year(Frerotte and Booty) above what they had last year if Jackson fails or gets injured. And like you said, they want to win now so Jackson's leash this year may be short.

[Fritz]

I just don't get why you are so dismissive, Fritz. Have you studied film?

Simple. As I said, every year since Denny Green arrived, it seems like the "experts" pick the Queens to go all the way. And every year - with one exception, when the heavily favored Queens got beat by the Falcons, I believe, in the NFC Championship - there's a roar about Minnesota being the cream of the crop, their offseason moves, etc. And we all know how the season ends up, most of the time. It may be the Bears, but it ain't the Queens.

So I am dismissive of Minnesota's annual off-season championship.

[motife]

McCarthy's coaching got Favre playing some of the best football of his entire career.

I will be SHOCKED if Aaron Rodgers is not a more than adequate starter. Drafting Brohm and Flynn should keep Rodgers practicing at his best.

If Brohm shows talent, Rodgers has to play at his best also.

My impression of Rodgers is that he will play within the offense, which is very well coached and designed. His mobility is outstanding and should convert a LOT of third down plays.

Tavaris Jackson doesn't show anything resembling great potential. He's inaccurate, doesn't seem to have field grasp, and Childress appears to me to be a lackluster coach NOT respected by the team.

The Vikings btw had the best run defense in the NFL last year. It's their pass defense which is highly suspect. If they go another year with Sharper starting it's not going to improve.

I think Jared Allen is very over-rated. I wouldn't consider trading Aaron Kampman for him in a million years. Allen's character is questionable, which when mixed with HUGE signing bonuses could potentially mean a big dropoff.

p.s Rice is a good WR, scarier to me than Wade, but the Vikes 2nd leading WR last year was.. Robert Ferguson... Their starting WR's combined for 8 TD's last year.

Jackson threw 9 TD's with 12 interceptions. That's horrible.

[b bulldog]

One of the biggest reasons why the Vikes Pass D was suspect was the lack of a legit passrusher. They solved that problem with maybe the best DE in the game. In reegards to the depth question, the Packers would be done if they lost Grant, they have nobody behind him. The Packers would also struggle at the WR position iof they lost Jennings imo. The games he is hurt or knicked up, the O seems to struggle. The Packers have no depth at corner or at DE. This is called salary cap football, plain and simple. The BVikes biggest question is their QB but with their D and the beast they have at RB, I'll make them my favorite. AP is the best player in the North and might be the best player in the NFC at years end.

[RashanGary]

You have to expect some drop off from the Packers.

The bad
1. We lost what is supposed to be the greatest player ever.
2. The schedule is harder than last years
3. We didn't have many injuries last year

The good
1. The Packers have a lot of continuity
2. They have a lot of improving young players. We should see improvement from within


Overall, I think the Packers should gel into a more well rounded, complete team but of all of the 10's of thousands of players that have played football in the NFL, what is the chance we replace the greatest of thousands with one chance? Odds are pretty slim. If you believe Favre is the greatest of greats and that he carried this team on his back, the Packers are absolutely screwed. We'll find out. I'm not as optimistic as I was last year. Right now I"d have to guess about 9 wins, but I'll up it if Rodgers looks great early.

[Lurker64]

I think that Allen is far from the best DE in the game. He's certainly one of the more productive sack artists, but that's largely because he will give up contain in order to gamble for sacks. This pays off (with sacks) sometimes, but a savvy offensive mind can scheme around it. He's decent against the run, but Allen's discipline leaves much to be desired IMO.

[HarveyWallbangers]

In reegards to the depth question, the Packers would be done if they lost Grant, they have nobody behind him. The Packers would also struggle at the WR position iof they lost Jennings imo.

Not really, we were like 6-1 before Grant got meaningful carries last year. Do you really think that we aren't much better equipped to handle the loss of Jennings than the Vikings would be to lose Berrian? We still have Driver, Jones, Nelson, and Lee. The Vikings would have Rice, Wade, Ferguson, and Shiancoe.

Our depth is better than the Vikings on the DL. Minnesota would love to have a guy like KGB as their third pass rusher. In fact, some Viking fan friends of mine, jokingly ask me when Green Bay is going to cut KGB, so the Vikes can pick him up. Corner is a sore spot for both teams. I'd still take Patrick Lee, Tramon Williams, Will Blackmon, and Jarrett Bush over Charles Gordon, Marcus McCauley, Benny Sapp, and something called Dee McCann.

[Iron Mike]

I think that Allen is far from the best DE in the game. He's certainly one of the more productive sack artists.

OK, how many of those sacks were accrued against some of those shitty teams in the AFC West???