Obviously we start Johnson, ...

[Bob Sacamano]

or that Johnson is 40 freaking years old.

if Garrett sincerely felt that Johnson had lost a lot then we likely would have worked much harder much earlier to find another guy so that he could be ready to play.

much harder, meaning what?

who's been available?

 

[BrassCowboy]

Look folks. Here's the deal. Bollinger sucks too. We just haven't SEEN him suck in a Dallas uniform. That doesn't make him a better option.

uh.... yes it does. Anybody short of someone off the street learning a new offense WILL be better option against the Giants than Johnson hands down.

If you honestly think we have a chance in hell to beat the Giants WITH Johnson at QB, then what the hell do we bother playing regular season, lets just move on to the Superbowl now. Reserve our spot now.

Bollinger should have a halfway decent grasp of our offense by now, and he will have better options to throw to than he ever has in the past. No one is saying he is going to come in and light it up, but teams will almost give you the first 127 yards for free that johnson got against TB.

Now that we understand that it is a given that we have a "better" chance to beat the Gints with Bollinger over Johnson, why would you bother with Johnson?

 

[AbeBeta]

much harder, meaning what?

who's been available?

plenty of guys via trade. if this were a priority, then surely we would have used a late round pick in 2009 to get someone - most teams would gladly flip a 6th or 7th round pick for a chance to be competitive if their #1 went down

 

[AKATheRake]

I disagree.

The problem with starting Johnson, BEYOND his minimal physical skills is, is that it's going to be that much easier for the Giants to stop the running game because they don't have to worry about even mid range throws. It would be one thing if Johnson could at least get the ball down the field and there was the chance for him to complete a 15 yard pass. He can't.

Also, vs the Giant pass rush, Johnson is a sitting duck.

I'd start Bollinger. Not because he's necessarily a better QB but because he won't allow the Giants to concentrate purely on the running game and rushing the QB.

It's about match ups. I think Johnson probably was the better choice vs the Bucs. He's not the better choice vs the Giants.

This is the brightest and clearest explanation of why Bollinger should start. I have been trying to project this message all over the board exactly with this sentiment. But the blue ribbon goes to this gent for projecting the message more precisely and clear.

 

[BruceWayne]

What makes everybody think Bollinger can just go out there and scramble his way out of getting sacked or just because he has a strong arm he can make all the deep throws. They both stink to me but I trust BJ a little more than I do an unknown.

 

[AbeBeta]

uh.... yes it does. Anybody short of someone off the street learning a new offense WILL be better option against the Giants than Johnson hands down.

If you honestly think we have a chance in hell to beat the Giants WITH Johnson at QB, then what the hell do we bother playing regular season, lets just move on to the Superbowl now. Reserve our spot now.

Bollinger should have a halfway decent grasp of our offense by now, and he will have better options to throw to than he ever has in the past. No one is saying he is going to come in and light it up, but teams will almost give you the first 127 yards for free that johnson got against TB.

Now that we understand that it is a given that we have a "better" chance to beat the Gints with Bollinger over Johnson, why would you bother with Johnson?

Great argument -- Johnson sucks so Bollinger must be better.

All that we know about Bollinger is that we really don't know what he'll do.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

plenty of guys via trade. if this were a priority, then surely we would have used a late round pick in 2009 to get someone - most teams would gladly flip a 6th or 7th round pick for a chance to be competitive if their #1 went down

for example?

 

[links18]

Great argument -- Johnson sucks so Bollinger must be better.

All that we know about Bollinger is that we really don't know what he'll do.

Johnson, at this stage, isn't even a competent QB. He just can't throw the ball. It's as if McBriar went down, we replaced him with Crayton or something. Yeah, he can kick the ball, just not very competently. Bollinger may not be very good, but he can probably at least keep the defense somewhat honest by having the ability to throw the ball beyond 15 yards. Honestly, the fact that our back-up QBs are Johnson and Bollinger is a complete joke.....

 

[Da Hammer]

anyone who thinks Johnson would be the better option than bollinger against the Giants needs to get their head checked. Johnson is clearlly done he has nothing left in the tank. he cannot make any throws farther than 10 yards and has no type of mobility, the giants pass rush is gonna kill him. at least with bollinger he is somewhat of a threat to throw deep and he has the potential to force the giants to respect him. giants wont respect johnson because he wont make them. we will see 8 and 9 man boxes with johnson in as QB because he cannot throw worth a crap anymore. Not only is he gonna get himself killed but he is gonna get barber killed as well

 

[AKATheRake]

What makes everybody think Bollinger can just go out there and scramble his way out of getting sacked or just because he has a strong arm he can make all the deep throws. They both stink to me but I trust BJ a little more than I do an unknown.

Bollinger does stink, absolutely. But he is a better match up QB wise for this 1 specific game. Remember, 1 game. His ability to get a pass out beyond 15 yards and on the WR's stride 50% of the time at least gives him the opportunity to utilize the playbook.

No he is not going to be able to just run away from being sacked but the Giants have to attack from different angles now that they know he can move outside of the pocket. Not to mention if he does have to move around to buy himself an extra half a second to get a pass off he can. It's all about buying half a second back there my friend and getting that ball located onto different parts of the field. Johnson physically can do neither.

Now against the Bucs who completely predicate their game on being the better executed team and capitalizing on their opponents errors the Brad Johnson matchup works aslong as we can play Defense against a very conservative offense. Every teams is looking for turnovers and wants to make the least mistakes possible, dont'g get me wrong, but the Bucs do not take it to teams defensively or offensively an impose their will on you to win a game, the Giants do.

We need a more proactive approach from the QB position as error free as possible for this game. Currently with Brad back there the Giants know what we are about offensively and we are less than 1 dimensional back there. We can't throw or run with the QB and in turn can't run the ball with Barber.

With Brooks:

- We need to prove we can throw the ball and then prove we can throw it past coverage.

- We should throw the ball right away, they will be lining up 8 in the box right off the bat to force us to prove we can throw. I want 3 wide sets with 1 TE, yup to spread that defense out. Loosen them up. Quick outs at first to the Wide outs. I say go hurry up like the Pats, right off the bat. Take it to em. They won't expect it

- Once we complete some passes go right back to 2 TE sets, Curtis only stays into block, donot pass to him, too fumble prone. We continue to throw and we take shots deep with jump balls to T.O and RW to keep them honest. We start running out of this set now because they have to stay honest, they don't we keep throwing, audible if we have to. Make it known we're prepared to throw th ball and that we don't have to be forced.

- Once we get some runing game going from loosening up the box keep gashing themwith it. They come up in the box we can now play action.

- As soon as we get a first down run for 5 yards or more the next play should be a trick play. Put Crayton on the reverse and have him go deep and up just in case his accuracy isn't dead on our WR's can outjump the man covering them.


We need at least 21 points and that's with our defense playing stellar and not having to be on the field all game. We cannot let NY bruise us up with Brandon Jacobs, we have to get to him before his wheels start, we need penetration from our front 3. We need something special to happen for us on ST's. With this plan against the G-Men only Brooks can make it possible. We are not able to win if we don't gamble and win gambles in this game. We need to play like we're 0 -15 and this is the last game of the season. Take it to them, not let them take it to us. We win this and we're 6-3 with the load of the roster coming back. We get that bye and we go into Washington with them not knowing squat about us and us knowing everything about them.

 

[AbeBeta]

for example?

McCown would be one. He's not great but much much better than either of our backups. Not that I'm a huge fan but there's one for example.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

McCown would be one. He's not great but much much better than either of our backups. Not that I'm a huge fan but there's one for example.

lol, he's been a loser too

he's just Bollinger w/ a bigger arm

 

[AbeBeta]

lol, he's been a loser too

he's just Bollinger w/ a bigger arm

He had a job the first week of the season. Bollinger didn't. That tells you what the league's personnel thought of him vs. Brooks.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

He had a job the first week of the season. Bollinger didn't. That tells you what the league's personnel thought of him vs. Brooks.

ok, he doesn't have one now

and did you see him in Oakland?

 

[AbeBeta]

ok, he doesn't have one now

and did you see him in Oakland?

I did see him in Oakland -- he was mediocre at best but far better then Bollinger ever played.

Teams were interested in him despite the fact that being on the roster day 1 meant he was owed 2 million for the year. Bollinger on the other hand wasn't judged to be worth even the minimum salary guaranteed for the year.

That tells you all you need to know about what experts in the league think about Josh vs. Brooks

and unless Josh was cut today, he still does have a job.

 

[jobberone]

I disagree.

The problem with starting Johnson, BEYOND his minimal physical skills is, is that it's going to be that much easier for the Giants to stop the running game because they don't have to worry about even mid range throws. It would be one thing if Johnson could at least get the ball down the field and there was the chance for him to complete a 15 yard pass. He can't.

Also, vs the Giant pass rush, Johnson is a sitting duck.

I'd start Bollinger. Not because he's necessarily a better QB but because he won't allow the Giants to concentrate purely on the running game and rushing the QB.

It's about match ups. I think Johnson probably was the better choice vs the Bucs. He's not the better choice vs the Giants.

Excellent points and thank you for some actual football talk.

My only concern here is Bollinger being put under so much stress and then turning the ball over say like a pick 6. If that happens early and we get too far behind then the game will be over. Johnson doesn't appear capable of producing quick points.

Johnson is much less likely to turn the ball over IMO. However, I do agree that Bollinger is also more likely to be able to beat the Giants. If the OL can give him time and he can create more time moving around and at the same time make some throws without INTs then he gives us a better chance.

My feeling is they will start with Johnson. Johnson may get beat up enough to not make it thru the entire game and this debate will then be academic.

I have a question. Early in TC I was not in favor of allowing Johnson to continue as the backup. After seeing him perform in some preseason games I grew comfortable with him. He was making the throws necessary of an NFL QB. He was throwing outs on a line accurately and timely. Now he can't throw them.

What's up with that? Injury? Arm tired? Or is he afraid to pull the trigger?

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I did see him in Oakland -- he was mediocre at best but far better then Bollinger ever played.

Teams were interested in him despite the fact that being on the roster day 1 meant he was owed 2 million for the year. Bollinger on the other hand wasn't judged to be worth even the minimum salary guaranteed for the year.

That tells you all you need to know about what experts in the league think about Josh vs. Brooks

and unless Josh was cut today, he still does have a job.

dude, seriously...

both Josh and Brooks have been mediocre starters, and probably always will be, both are mobile, can throw the ball around, and make mistakes

 

[AbeBeta]

dude, seriously...

both Josh and Brooks have been mediocre starters, and probably always will be, both are mobile, can throw the ball around, and make mistakes

Again. The league's personnel actions speak volumes.

McCown signed a 2 year - 6.25 mill contract was was traded and kept on a roster day 1, thereby guaranteeing his nearly 2 million a year salary for 2008.

Bollinger was cut and signed week 2 to a minimum money deal.

Clearly the league's personnel men value McCown far more than Bollinger.