Any chance jackson comes back as a backup

The Essential Online Seahawks Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. RATING: PG-13
  • Uffda wrote:Jackson is a 50% win/lose Qb.

    Would rather trade Flynn and draft a low round overlooked Qb with that pick and take a chance.


    How many back ups are capable of winning 50%?
    User avatar
    CALIHAWK1
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 9301
    Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:00 pm
    Location: Is Everything


  • I wouldn't want him as the #2 unless the off-season improvements that we are hoping for on D become reality. Presently the D is not stout enough to consistently win with a 'game manager.' Jackson will never be more than that. I see this team on the ultimate mission next year. For that reason, I hope they hang onto Flynn somehow.
    "I cannot believe this............ I am stunned right now. This is now a rebuilding year for us. Our offense is crap now"

    Blitzer88 regarding trading Percy to the Jets
    User avatar
    HawKnPeppa
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2734
    Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 8:01 pm


  • I doubt he would want to come back as a backup. He felt he could trust the coaching staff but was shown the door. He would have to be out of options to want to come back here is my thinking. Seattle will need to find a solid backup in the draft if they decide to move on from Flynn.
    Image
    Leon Washington 2010-2012 Red Bryant 2008-2013 Chris Clemons 2010-2013 Golden Tate 2010-2013
    Brandon Browner 2011-2013 Breno Giacomini 2011-2013 - Gone but not forgotten.
    R.I.P Les "PithyRadish" Norton 9/13/2014
    User avatar
    drdiags
    * The Doc *
    * The Doc *
     
    Posts: 9362
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:33 am
    Location: Covington, Washington


  • Good God, I'm glad Tjack feels butthurt by the coaches here. He wasn't given a fair shot in Minny, he wasn't given a fair shot here, gee whiz I see a pattern developing, guy is a suck master and coaches cannot wait to push him aside as soon as anything with a heartbeat becomes available (unless the heartbeat belongs to Whitehurst who competes valiantly in the suck a thon).

    LMAO at Tjack having mobility. Physically it *seems* like he should have mobility, but his negative pocket presence meant that most of the time he moved, he moved himself right into a sack. His mobility actually becomes negative for him. We've seen with Russell, a large part of what makes mobility dangerous is a sense of when to take off, when to spin around and elude a sack, but of course that requires good decision making and we're back to Tjack's area of negative competence.

    I can't stand what his supporters do to the board as well, and that's the final nail in the coffin for me.

    I think that the way Pete and JS find hidden gems, they can do better than TJ for a backup if we end up dealing Flynn.
    hawk45
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 5307
    Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 1:08 pm


  • CALIHAWK1 wrote:
    Uffda wrote:Jackson is a 50% win/lose Qb.

    Would rather trade Flynn and draft a low round overlooked Qb with that pick and take a chance.


    How many back ups are capable of winning 50%?



    Cousins ? Kaepernick ?
    User avatar
    Uffda
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 717
    Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2011 7:13 am
    Location: Ballard


  • Jackson is not a 500 QB in any other environment than one that can win inspite of him and that requires a very soft schedule to boot. Those that believe he is a 500 QB should go back and see the games we won when he was the starter and stop giving him credit for the Giants game that Whitehurst came in trailing and gave us our only come from behind win that year.

    The Seahawks went 7-9 with him as the starter but one win and one loss goes to Charlie leaving Jackson at 6-8 and not 500. Would Jackson have won that Cleveland game? I doubt it. Lynch was (mysteriousy) pulled for that game ad Mike Carrey was officiating it. There were multiple drive killing calls in that game and a fantom block in theback that took away Washingtons return for TD. Jackson never showed any reasn to believe h was any better than Whiteurst orany reason to think he could hve done a better job against Cleveland without Lynch. He had one of the worst third down conversion rates in the league and benefitted heavily from field position compliments of our defense and many back up QB's we faced that year. If he were starting for us this year with the schedule we had, we would have been lucky to win 5 games and none of those would have been because of his performance but rather inspite of it.

    If Jackson were anywhere near what some here want to believe, he wouldn't be a FA this offseason but he is not and that is why he couldn't get activated for a single game last year and why the Bills will surely let him walk in FA.

    I'd take Seneca Wallace over Jackson in a heart beat. Plenty of Veteren experience and has the mobility and pocket presence to run our offense. He's not the best QB but for a back up he might be perfect for us. He's also a good team mate that won't distract the lockr room and is fine with bing a backup. He is someone we could feasably bring in and keep him in that role for near league minimum for many years.
    The Lion has no interest in the opinion of the sheep.
    RichNhansom
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3026
    Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 7:26 am


  • Basis4day wrote:You want your backup QB to be able to go .500 if your starter is out. No problem with Tjack coming in as a backup. Dude has a strong arm and enough mobility to play our offense if Wilson is hurt.

    If it were NOT a problem for Jackson to be able to run the Wilson Offense, then WHY would Schneider go and get Flynn?, and WHY couldn't Jackson beat out FLYNN, and WHY even go after Wilson IF Jackson could run the Offense?
    Hell of a nice guy, but, If running the Wilson system is the question?, Jackson isn't now nor ever has been, the answer.
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3659
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm


  • hawk45 wrote:Good God, I'm glad Tjack feels butthurt by the coaches here. He wasn't given a fair shot in Minny, he wasn't given a fair shot here, gee whiz I see a pattern developing, guy is a suck master and coaches cannot wait to push him aside as soon as anything with a heartbeat becomes available (unless the heartbeat belongs to Whitehurst who competes valiantly in the suck a thon).

    LMAO at Tjack having mobility. Physically it *seems* like he should have mobility, but his negative pocket presence meant that most of the time he moved, he moved himself right into a sack. His mobility actually becomes negative for him. We've seen with Russell, a large part of what makes mobility dangerous is a sense of when to take off, when to spin around and elude a sack, but of course that requires good decision making and we're back to Tjack's area of negative competence.

    I can't stand what his supporters do to the board as well, and that's the final nail in the coffin for me.

    I think that the way Pete and JS find hidden gems, they can do better than TJ for a backup if we end up dealing Flynn.

    THIS times 2.
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3659
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm


  • scutterhawk wrote:
    Basis4day wrote:You want your backup QB to be able to go .500 if your starter is out. No problem with Tjack coming in as a backup. Dude has a strong arm and enough mobility to play our offense if Wilson is hurt.

    If it were NOT a problem for Jackson to be able to run the Wilson Offense, then WHY would Schneider go and get Flynn?, and WHY couldn't Jackson beat out FLYNN, and WHY even go after Wilson IF Jackson could run the Offense?
    Hell of a nice guy, but, If running the Wilson system is the question?, Jackson isn't now nor ever has been, the answer.


    Recall that we did not yet have Wilson when we got Flynn. Recall that Wilson had not even started a regular season game when we traded TJack. Last March when we got Flynn, i think most Seahawks were fine with Flynn at starter and TJack as a backup.

    What i call the Wilson offense now is not what we were running or knew we would be capable off when Wilson was starting out. This is not about TJack running the offense better or even as good as Wilson. That's why he would be the back-up. No one is saying he's the answer for our offense. What i am saying is he's a great option as a back-up QB in our offense.

    Knowing what we know now about Wilson, i am absolutely comfortable with TJack as a backup to Wilson because i do think we can get some value in dealing Flynn if we choose too.
    Give me some damn skittles...
    User avatar
    Basis4day
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3389
    Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:57 am


Previous


It is currently Fri Oct 31, 2014 10:04 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information