Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 61 to 73 of 73
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The Big Muddy
    Posts
    18,085
    Quote Originally Posted by ducky View Post
    I like Boyd as a backup candidate.

    That is what you are trying to fill when you take a QB as late as he is going to go.

    But we dont need a backup (have that covered in spades with Ponder and Cassell) so we have to shoot higher. And yeah I'm not a fan of Mettenberger as a possible QB of the future either.

    Honestly I think the mocks have a lot of these later QB's going rounds too early this time around. Last year supply and demand pushed Geno all the way to the 2nd....same thing is going to happen this year. At this point of the NFL offseason not a lot of teams need a QB so badly that they are going to be blowing a 2nd or 3rd rounder on guys they know likely wont be playing for the next two seasons.
    The bolded part, that's how I feel. We need to try and get a starter out of this draft, and I really only see 3 guys who are at least 50-50 gambles on becoming a quality starter, and others would add Carr as the 4th. IMO, this is such a big need that I would not be upset with flat out using the 8 on one if the scouts and coaches really felt strong about one. A small trade abck would be even better.

    I see these positions as needing starters, not depth (QB, ILB, OLB, S), and these as needing depth but have starters (RB, WR, DE, DT, TE, OT). CB is a tough one, as Rhoades and Munnerlyn are the set starters, but nickel is almost a starter. But I would like to see what Zimmer (who has got good things out of almost all his corners), can do with guys like Robinson and Cox and Prater (who IMO looked really good in limited time).

    That's pretty much why I want to see a LB or a QB as our first round pick. We just have 0 top level talent at those positions.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    18,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Cheeseland Vike View Post
    That's pretty much why I want to see a LB or a QB as our first round pick. We just have 0 top level talent at those positions.
    Oddly enough LB wasn't even on my radar simply because of the way they completely overlooked the position in recent years. I keep forgetting that this is a new regime despite have the same GM. Zimmer might feel a lot differently about how good a LB corp needs to be compared to Frazier. Hopefully he does.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Richfield, MN
    Posts
    19,957
    There's just no one that excites me this year - so many different opinions on prospects. I'd have thought the Bradford rumors were going to come through, but apparently they came out publicly yesterday denying it.
    If the majority distributes among itself the things of a minority, it is evident that it will destroy the city. --Aristotle
    If we did all the things we are capable of, we would literally astound ourselves. - Thomas Edison

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The Big Muddy
    Posts
    18,085
    I'm hoping the Vikes get 2 of Mosely, Shazier, Van Noy, and Borland.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    36,726
    Ponder likely won't be here next year so I wouldn't count him as a backup.

    I've got no idea what this fascination with drafting a 4-3 LB at #8 overall is. Talk about picks that do almost nothing for your team. Unless you are getting a stud MLB you should never take a 4-3 LB that high.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The Big Muddy
    Posts
    18,085
    Quote Originally Posted by PsychoViking View Post
    Ponder likely won't be here next year so I wouldn't count him as a backup.

    I've got no idea what this fascination with drafting a 4-3 LB at #8 overall is. Talk about picks that do almost nothing for your team. Unless you are getting a stud MLB you should never take a 4-3 LB that high.
    Much better to take a mid-late 1st rated CB or some other position?

    And who said take a LB at 8?

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Twin Cities
    Posts
    2,835
    Trades version:
    Round 1a (#16 overall, trade down with Dallas) LB C.J. Mosley (3-down LB decent value here plus fills a need)
    Round 1b (#29 overall, trade up with NE) QB Teddy Bridgewater (Manziel, Bortles and Carr are gone; slight overpay to move up and still get a top QB)
    Round 2a - (#40 - traded to NE)
    Round 2b - (#47, from Dallas) TE Jace Amaro (amassing weapons, skills different enough to complement Rudolph)
    Round 3a (#72, traded to NE)
    Round 3b (#96 from Seattle) RB Terrance West (another ultra productive guy, can do what Gerhart did)
    Round 4 (#108 overall) SS Brock Vereen (football smart, more versatile than Sanford)
    Round 5 (#148 overall) OG David Yankey (versatility)
    Round 6 (#184 overall) DT George Uko (penetrating DT a la Atkins)
    Round 7 (#223 overall) WR Jeff Janis (good size/speed combo)

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    36,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Cheeseland Vike View Post
    Much better to take a mid-late 1st rated CB or some other position?

    And who said take a LB at 8?
    I'd take Bortles or Manziel before that and I'd also take a guy like Dennard over a LB.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The Big Muddy
    Posts
    18,085
    Quote Originally Posted by PsychoViking View Post
    I'd take Bortles or Manziel before that and I'd also take a guy like Dennard over a LB.
    Bortles or Manziel, agree.

    Dennard, disagree. I'm not sure CB is that much more important these days than a 3 down LB, the rules don't really allow it. You can say a top level CB like Sherman is, but so is a top level LB like Keuchly. And I don't think Dennard is any better of a CB prospect than Mosely or Shazier are LB prospects.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    18,924
    I'd personally rate those guys:

    Shazier
    Dennard
    Mosley

    But none of them should go to the Vikes without a slide back.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Richfield, MN
    Posts
    19,957
    Quote Originally Posted by PsychoViking View Post
    I've got no idea what this fascination with drafting a 4-3 LB at #8 overall is. Talk about picks that do almost nothing for your team. Unless you are getting a stud MLB you should never take a 4-3 LB that high.
    Agreed on this and your next post. Take a flyer on a potential franchise QB instead of wasting a high pick on an OLB in a 4-3 defense. Unless you're drafting Urlacher or Ray Lewis (i.e. a stud MLB that can play most downs), LBs aren't worth a #8 pick.

    I'd say the same for CBs - I'm all for a stud CB at #8, but opinions seem to vastly differ on who or if there even is a stud CB this draft.
    If the majority distributes among itself the things of a minority, it is evident that it will destroy the city. --Aristotle
    If we did all the things we are capable of, we would literally astound ourselves. - Thomas Edison

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Burbank, Ca.
    Posts
    1,267
    I just did a quick run down of the entries and I think, THINK(this is not official) -20 at the Met wins by 10 points by getting Bridgewater, Yankey right in the right round, and having RB at the 2nd pick in the 3rd round. If I'm right, Congratz -20 at the Met. I'm hanging my hat on the Shamar Stephens pick and a tie for 2nd place with a few guys.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Twin Cities
    Posts
    2,835
    Sweet! Winner gets to sit in the Vikes' war room next year, right ??

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  






Part of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties.