Could the Pack want T-Jack?

Posted by Mike Florio on July 14, 2009 11:42 AM

Last night, Michael Lombardi of NFL Network said he's hearing that Jackson will ask to be traded once the Vikes blow the horn for Brett Favre. We said that we think Jackson should sit tight, in large part because it's too late in the offseason for him to get ensconced with a new team.

One of the impediments would be the task of learning a new offense without the benefit of participating in the offseason program, during which much of the playbook is installed. So Jackson's best chance for getting up to speed based only on training camp and the preseason would come on a team that runs a similar if not identical offense.

And there happens to be one such team, in the same division as the Vikings.

The Green Bay Packers use essentially the same offense as the Vikes, which is one of the reasons why Brett Favre would (will) be such a good fit in Minnesota. Also, the Packers have two unproven backups to Aaron Rodgers -- Matt Flynn and Brian Brohm.

Thus, the Packers could end up being interested in Jackson. And Jackson could end up being interested in the Packers.

This potential dynamic, however, is all the more reason for the Vikings to decline any trade request from Jackson. His potential appeal to the Packers also gives the Vikings all the justification they need to refrain from cutting him, even if he fails to beat out Sage Rosenfels for the No. 2 spot on the depth chart.

---

I do not see this happening... At all. But it is interesting food for thought.

---

I think Tavaris wants to go somewhere he can compete for the job. He won't be able to do that in Green Bay.

---

yeah, but I don't think the Vikings can trade him to a USFL team. Oh!!!!

---

In addition to being a very good fit, the whole soap-opera aspect of it is more than a little intriguing.

Brohm for TJack, straight up.

Brohm gets to "learn from a legend" for what that might be worth.

TJack gets to "stick it to" the Vikings for trading for Brett.

We get an experienced quarterback that (I personally believe) is just as likely on the verge of being very good as he is to continue to be shaky.

Ted can get out from underneath that pick of Brohm with little criticism from many of the haters.

I have NOT given up on Brohm, and will lose zero sleep if this didn't happen, excepting the part about going into another high risk season regarding the experience factor.

Put aside purple hatred for a moment.

Rodgers goes down.

Flynn has the flu or something.

Brohm or Jackson ?

If you said Brohm, you forgot to put down the purple hatred, lol.

This would be so much FUN to contemplate...No one sees that?

I'd take him. I think that kid's got a world of talent, and it bugs me that nobody's recognizing that he did a great job @ the end of last season when he got back in the starter's role.

And I still think he's a better answer @ QB in Minnesota than Favre, seeing as how having him, Harvin and AD on the field could make predicting where the ball might go a nightmare. Problem is, Childress is totally unqualified to run an offense like that.

---

Also based upon MM's track record of getting better play out of QB's Rich Gannaon Delhomme A Brooks and yes Brett Farve benefitted from MM. If you gave the Ickes Brohm and a 7th for T-Jak you get a better option to push flynn and a better trade possib ility down the line.

---

It's just hard for me to even THINK T-Jack.
I'm getting sick to my stomach..............

---

I'll give 'em Brohm for T-Jack and THEIR 7th.

I never said I stopped hating, lol

My pitch is that Rodgers sucked as a rook, but we unscrewed him. We feel like we have Brohm unscrewed, but are willing to take on your miserable failure of a QB because unlike you (Brad/Chilly/Maj. Dad/Col. Klink...we have actually been developing Brohm, but like the fact that because you used him too early he has experience at your expense, not ours...you know...I'd say that in a friendly way :thumbleft:

No deal. I have faith that Brohm will develop nicely, and then his trade value is far in excess of Tavaris Jackson.

Stick with what we have, and if the team decides to add a vet, it should be someone with a proven track record as a game manager...what you want out of a back up.... and not the erratic mediocrity of T-Jack.

Personally, I think Flynn and Brohm will be fine in their second year if they need to fill a few games...beyond that, hit the wire for an unsigned vet.

---

I think at this point in time, signing a veteran scrub just for the sake of doing it, isnt really smart. If rodgers does end up going down for the season, THEN you go out and sign a veteran guy, you'll be looking at virtually the exact same list for available veteran QBs as you are now anyway, so why take up a roster spot that could be devoted to a young, promising QB? This to me is the folly of this whole "Oh no, there is no veteran backup!" idea.

---