| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
PrplChilPill
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 7831
Location: SLP, MN
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 10:45 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
Both guards could be replaced.
_________________
Wins are a team stat, not a QB stat |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
disaacs
Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 20104
Location: Brownbackistan
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 10:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| PrplChilPill wrote: | | Funny, that's exactly what they said about Jared Allen in Kc also. |
No, they didn't.
The only people down on Jared Allen were the people living outside of the KC area and Carl Peterson. I recall listening to sports radio in the KC area and the people calling in were constantly complaining about Carl not resigning Jared Allen long-term.
_________________
Thx to Uncle Buck!
Last edited by disaacs on Thu Oct 04, 2012 10:48 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vikingsrule
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 39774
Location: Land of 10,000 Lakes!
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| PrplChilPill wrote: | | Both guards could be replaced. |
Fusco isnt going anywhere, he has looked very effective and is still a first year starter. Ponder has generally had a clean pocket to step into and there have been running lanes. The Detroit game was rough, but you have to give Detroit credit there, they have some nasty interior lineman who can get after the QB.
I actually think both Guards are fine as starters, obviously Fusco has room to grow and Johnson has probably peaked. I think if you can find a replacement for Johnson, you do it, but i dont think its a necessity to improving the team. There are still bigger holes to fill. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PrplChilPill
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 7831
Location: SLP, MN
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
That is not what I have read in the tape breakdown on 1500 's website. The guards have not been good. Not terrible, but not good. If you are building a conservative, run oriented team, you need better blocking.
_________________
Wins are a team stat, not a QB stat |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vikingsrule
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 39774
Location: Land of 10,000 Lakes!
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| PrplChilPill wrote: | | That is not what I have read in the tape breakdown on 1500 's website. The guards have not been good. Not terrible, but not good. If you are building a conservative, run oriented team, you need better blocking. |
Fusco is still young, I think he is safe for that reason. I do agree, if you can replace Charlie Johnson i think you do so. I think the run blocking has been fine up front, Peterson has had some good running room. Certainly, more consistency would be ideal. I havent noticed an alarming amount of pressure coming through the middle, except for against Detroit. But again, they have some good players on that interior line.
I still classify LG as a top 5 need, but i think there are some more urgent needs that should be looked at first like WR and DT, guaranteed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PrplChilPill
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 7831
Location: SLP, MN
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I think we agree on that, actually.
_________________
Wins are a team stat, not a QB stat |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CriminalMind
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
Posts: 2987
Location: Toronto, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I would put LG as the 5th need.
(WR, DT, MLB, S/CB ahead)
I think our Guards have been average, as long as they dont drop into below average category I would prefer to have wait in the draft before addressing LG. Now if we're getting superior value in a pick in the 2nd or 3rd round, we should do it.
Ideally, I would wait till 4th/5th and groom the prospect under Charlie Johnson for a season, assuming we got good value with those other 1-4 needs in the earlier part of the draft (or Free Agency)
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vikingsrule
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 39774
Location: Land of 10,000 Lakes!
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| CriminalMind wrote: | I would put LG as the 5th need.
(WR, DT, MLB, S/CB ahead)
I think our Guards have been average, as long as they dont drop into below average category I would prefer to have wait in the draft before addressing LG. Now if we're getting superior value in a pick in the 2nd or 3rd round, we should do it.
Ideally, I would wait till 4th/5th and groom the prospect under Charlie Johnson for a season, assuming we got good value with those other 1-4 needs in the earlier part of the draft (or Free Agency) |
Agreed, LG simply isnt a position that is needed to spend an early pick on or spend a lot of free agent money on. Fourth round seems to be a good spot to grab a OG prospect. Usually that 4th round is where teams look to draft those shorter OTs who get moved inside to OG at the next level. Guys like TJ Lang, Jahri Evans, Josh Sitton to name a few recent examples. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vikingsrule
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 39774
Location: Land of 10,000 Lakes!
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| My question is, what college OT prospects who are 6-3 to 6-5 who have decent bulk and strength would be good candidates to move to OG at the next level? Preferably players likely to be taken in that 3rd to 5th round range. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Klomp
Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Posts: 3528
Location: The Home of Schwan's Ice Cream
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| vikingsrule wrote: | | I still classify LG as a top 5 need, but i think there are some more urgent needs that should be looked at first like WR and DT, guaranteed. |
I think these are clearly the top two needs for the draft. Safety will be up there as well, but not as a first round grade.
By position..
QB-Set
RB-Set
WR-Need at least 1 WR
TE-Set
OL-Not set, but not urgent. Possibly a LG upgrade, and overall depth improvement needed.
DL-Need a DT replacement for KW soon. Add depth (1 DE, 1 or 2 DT)
LB-Possibly a 3rd starter needed, and more depth. Not urgent.
CB-Depth would be nice, but not urgent. Possible nickel or dime CB.
S-Need 1 S. Not a first round grade.
_________________
2013 Adopt-a-Viking: FB Jerome Felton - |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Klomp
Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Posts: 3528
Location: The Home of Schwan's Ice Cream
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| CriminalMind wrote: | I would put LG as the 5th need.
(WR, DT, MLB, S/CB ahead)
I think our Guards have been average, as long as they dont drop into below average category I would prefer to have wait in the draft before addressing LG. Now if we're getting superior value in a pick in the 2nd or 3rd round, we should do it.
Ideally, I would wait till 4th/5th and groom the prospect under Charlie Johnson for a season, assuming we got good value with those other 1-4 needs in the earlier part of the draft (or Free Agency) |
I'm not sure MLB is a need. I like what Brinkley has given us. Ultimately, I think we only keep one of Brinkley or Henderson, and wouldn't be surprised if its Brinkley.
_________________
2013 Adopt-a-Viking: FB Jerome Felton - |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CriminalMind
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
Posts: 2987
Location: Toronto, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Klomp wrote: | | CriminalMind wrote: | I would put LG as the 5th need.
(WR, DT, MLB, S/CB ahead)
I think our Guards have been average, as long as they dont drop into below average category I would prefer to have wait in the draft before addressing LG. Now if we're getting superior value in a pick in the 2nd or 3rd round, we should do it.
Ideally, I would wait till 4th/5th and groom the prospect under Charlie Johnson for a season, assuming we got good value with those other 1-4 needs in the earlier part of the draft (or Free Agency) |
I'm not sure MLB is a need. I like what Brinkley has given us. Ultimately, I think we only keep one of Brinkley or Henderson, and wouldn't be surprised if its Brinkley. |
I dont think its an urgent need, but still should be on the list.
If I had to "order" the needs in importance (current roster/future needs) I'd go with:
1)WR 2)S/CB 3)DT ........ 4)MLB 5)LG
WR - ideally we can get that burner to spread the field
S/CB is ranked high for me if Winfield retires + the uncertainty with one S position
DT - Letroys played well thus far, however, K-Will future is uncertain or possibly closing with us, and its a vital position in 4-3.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lja99
Joined: 08 Feb 2009
Posts: 325
Location: Minnesota
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| vikingsrule wrote: | | My question is, what college OT prospects who are 6-3 to 6-5 who have decent bulk and strength would be good candidates to move to OG at the next level? Preferably players likely to be taken in that 3rd to 5th round range. |
Mark Jackson from Glenville State is a guy that I feel projects really well to the LG position in the NFL. Matt Summers-Gavin from Cal is another name that comes to mind.
_________________
props to Daboyle on the sig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Freakout
Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 1788
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I would actually rank a new linebacker ahead of CB. Whether it is a MLB or WLB we need a guy that can play coverage and be out there with Greenway on the nickle packages. One of our biggest problems is getting off the field in 3rd and long. Linebacker play is big part of that. Plus you can find nickle CB's later in the draft pretty easily. Robinson and Cook look perfectly capable on the outside.
WR / UT - Both are equally important. One is easier to find than the other. I like Kevin Williams but he is not disruptive like he once was.
LB - With so much nickle being ran you absolutely have to be able to cover. Neither Henderson or Brinkley can.
FS/SS - I do not want to make Harrison have to always play deep because Sanford cannot cover and I don't want him always in the box because Raymond cannot tackle. Having interchangeable Safeties is hell on a Quarterback, never knowing which is blitzing or dropping back.
OG - I put this ahead of CB because it affects Ponder's performance. When he gets happy feet and starts rolling out or running for his life he is cutting off half the field. Even with a new WR that is just going to kill his percentages.
CB - As I said above, I have this last simply because I don't see the value of drafting a nickle corner high in the draft.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
perrynoid
Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Posts: 3819
Location: Bismarck, Norse Dakota
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Given our most pressing needs (WR/S/DT/LB/OG) and the likelyhood of our drafting in the middle of the first round next draft, I wouldn't mind dropping down several spots and just picking BPA from the above list. Especially now, since I have much more confidence in our FO's ability to acquire quality players in the draft: by dropping down (depending on how far of course) we could pick up a quality starter with the added pick.
_________________
"No one can disguise mediocrity better than Bill Belichick." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
