Childress downplays Holcomb rumors
Last week, Philadelphia veteran backup quarterback Kelly Holcomb told Fox that the prospect of joining the Vikings "makes sense," citing the similarity of the offenses and Childress' tenure with the Eagles.
"We keep that whole thing wide open, in terms of who we think is going to be waived at the defensive back position, or the offensive line. There's always people of interest," Childress said. "But I wouldn't single out Kelly Holcomb as someone who has been singled out. Obviously, the similarities that he mentioned are apparent.
"He's a good player, and a good player for a long time," Childress said. "But I haven't studied him that much lately."
Childress said he is pleased with the amount of work Bollinger and Jackson invested at Winter Park this offseason, and he reiterated that they are, in fact, competing.
"When you evaluate quarterbacks, you have to make sure you see them with the same talent," Childress said. "I don't think it's fair that you evaluate a third quarterback behind a third- or fourth-string line, and throwing to third-string receivers.
"But there are a limited number of reps. But you will see both of those (with the first team)."
As for Adrian Peterson, Childress indicated the rookie is set to go -- if he signs his contract on time."I don't think there's much else he has to do to satisfy us that he's ready," Childress said.
Asked if it would hurt Peterson to show up late to training camp, Childress said, "I don't think you can underestimate the value of practice reps and reps in a system that is new to you.
"So my encouragement to everyone is to get in here on time, and get the turns you need. I think you have a better chance of getting on the field faster if you understand what's going on with the system. You're not thinking about it. You're letting your God-given athletic abilities come into play."
posted by Sean Jensen at 1:34 PM
12 Comments:
Does this guy actually think that repetitions in Training Camp can be comparable to the experience that a veteran QB can bring to the team? I say the more mentors you can have, the better the team can be. I just don't want to hear that once the season begins, and both of our options for QB either stumble or get hurt, the could've, would've and should've. No excuse. Leave your pride at the door and realize you are building a team.
Good point. But who is out there? Would you really feel better with Kelly Holcomb? I think that ship has sailed.
Sean, didn't Holcomb lead the Browns to the playoffs?
The guy that we should have had is the guy that started the season last year: Brad Johnson. Childress' offense and playcalling were awful.
I would feel better with someone on the roster that has started more than 5 games, but I think that you are right. It won't happen this year, and unless the D turns into the 2000 Ravens (Pat Williams runs roughshod in a K year and E-James bounces back with 12 sacks) we're looking down the barrel at 4-12.
Geez, Andrew. 4-12? Ouch. I'm not saying they're Super Bowl bound. But 4 stinking wins?
Brad Johnson and Brad Childress just weren't going to make it together. Clash of personalities.
Wouldn't that mean that Childress wasn't able to coexist with two different QBs during one season? Is that why we don't have a wet on the team, because BC can pistol-whip QBs that aren't established? Were I BJ, I'd be mightly irked that BC wouldn't let me audible. (Ten years from now I will be lamenting that we didn't audible out of the trap play/fumble in the Bears game.)
There are glaring problems at QB and WR. It could be that people step up, but it's a lot to expect to get early production from a young QB or young WR, much less from both in the same season. The rest of the team should be formidable. We need a legitimate pass rusher and improved play from Hicks/Coohnson, but there is great talent everywhere else. BC recognized that talent when he called it the 'plum job' and he promptly lost three more games than the year before.
If we catch a few breaks, we could flirt with .500. I've been convinced for a while, though, that we have the equivalent of the Browns Belichick; a newbie who is out of his depth and compensates by controlling far too much.
Looking at the sked, there aren't any locks. I like our D, but can we expect them to hold the Lions under 17? Unless we rush for 3K yards, it's going to be uphill.
Who do you see the wins coming against?
The other main problem with the available QBs out there is that their ego gets in the way. Brad Johnson thought he could still play....oops... no he can't; and he would rather be a backup to Romo than Jackson. Why can't these veterans understand that they can be a much more valuable asset in a mentoring role rather than starting in a position after 35? I would love to see a veteran come in and WANT to relay his experience and insight and leave their ego at the door.
I have some faith in Jackson. I won't bad mouth him till he gives me a reason. Play. Win. That’s what you have to do to earn the Viking loyals' respect. Just because he has limited experience doesn't mean he isn't the man for the job. Put it this way, he may have limited experience in winning, but he also has limited experience in loosing. He obviously showed something to people that are experts at what they do. All I expect from Jackson is to be a PROFESSIONAL. Be a leader. Realize the responsibility he has been given and do your best not to let people tell you what your are or are not. Everything has a beginning and I feel that most Vikings fans have been waiting for a long time for out time to come. Not only does he have pressure from the defensive linemen he will face, he also has pressure from the stands and from all the living rooms around the state. I hope he can handle both pressures. In the end, he is a PRO.
Tony, the jury is absolutely out on T-Jax. He could light the world on fire. However, it is imprudent to not have a viable plan B given T-Jax' inexperience.
Brad Johnson was fine as a back-up. I don't see any reason to criticize his behaviour at all. I mean, he's a 15 year vet whose rookie head coach, and rookie play caller, won't let him audible at the line? Had that been me, I would have started my own blog pointing out the idiocy therein.
The same team went 7-2 in '05 under Johnson. What changed from '05 to '06? The fault lies with Childress. The Vikes had a vanilla sked last year (check out the month of November, when the team went 1-3). BJ isn't a top 10 qb, but BC should have gotten much more out of last year's team. If the blame doens't fall on BC, what exactly is he being paid for?
Andrew,
It's T-Jack, not T-Jax. You can't blame that one on the international spelling courtesy.
Will T-Jack have a better first "full season" as starter than Rex Grossman did last year? I say T-Jack will have better QB stats but won't win as many games as Rex did. If BC gets his play calling in order...T-Jack should be able to protect himself with a sound running game and much improved O-Line pass blocking this season. Hopefully we won't have to rely on our no-name receivers winning games for us?
Sean:
I prefer the 'X', since he is an unknown at this point. If he starts playing reasonably well, I'm willing to adhere to the heard and use 'ck'.
You didn't answer my question, though, Sean. Where do you see the Vikes getting their wins?
Breaking the games into three categories:
1. COULD WIN, BUT WOULDN'T BET ON IT:
OAK, GB, DET, WAS, ATL, @ DET
UNLIKELY TO WIN:
CHI, @ GB, @ CHI, @ NYG
HIDE THE CHILDREN:
SD, PHI (Reid works Chili like a speedbag), @ SF, @ DEN, @ KC, @ DAL
We could win 10 of those, but I think that it's damned unlikely. I'm also afraid of the Raiders game (could well be a 2-nil final, as could both Bears games) and we can't keep sweeping De-troit forever. If I'm betting the mortage on over under, I'd take the under (presently at 7, I believe).
Ask me again in a few weeks, after I've been at training camp for a while.
Post a Comment
<< Home