Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Contracts expiring in 2013
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Minnesota Vikings
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
PrplChilPill


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 9161
Location: SLP, MN
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Talent trumps cohesion. If one of the Alabama OGs is the best BPA, they should take him. Neither Fusco nor Johnson is anything special, let's see how they play the rest of the year.
_________________
Wins are a team stat, not a QB stat
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vikingsrule


Moderator
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 48045
Location: Land of 10,000 Lakes!
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 3:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PrplChilPill wrote:
Talent trumps cohesion. If one of the Alabama OGs is the best BPA, they should take him. Neither Fusco nor Johnson is anything special, let's see how they play the rest of the year.


With a young line with several key players locked up for multiple years (Kalil, Fusco, Loadholt and Sullivan), the team very well could have talent AND cohesion by adding a superior OG to the mix.

I think keeping Loadholt is key, he is probably the teams most valuable free agent for this reason and why contract negotiations are already underway.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kellerman


Joined: 16 May 2010
Posts: 3598
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 4:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Don't get me wrong, in an ideal world, I'd like to add a top guard prospect as well. Nothing wrong with continuous upgrading, but the draft is a zero-sum game, you can only spend your picks once. This team still has needs that far outweigh left-guard at the moment.

If you want a rookie to beat out Charlie Johnson, you had better pick one pretty high, because no 4th or 5th rounder is going to come in and win a starting position over a healthy guard with 80+ NFL starts.

Besides, guard is one of the least impactful positions in football. We have two solid starters right now, and experienced depth (Schwartz + Berger have 46 starts between them). It's probably one of the stronger positions on the team.

Frankly, picking a guard anywhere in the upper half of the draft is a complete waste in my eyes, unless he's BPA by a big margin. The weak position on this O-line is OT, not OG. We have only 2 guys on the roster that can play LT, and both are already starters. Schwartz is the only tackle on the bench. What we need is a development tackle in the later rounds, preferably one that has a shot at playing LT, to provide some depth.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vikingsrule


Moderator
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 48045
Location: Land of 10,000 Lakes!
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think LG is every bit of a need as any other position, minus WR.

You could argue that LG is a bigger need than LB (assuming Brinkley and Henderson resign) and Secondary help (assuming Winfield doesnt retire and MN sticks with Sanford/Raymond/Blanton for one starting spot).

Heck, even if Kevin Williams is resigned, DT is still a need but it doesnt have to be one where you spend a 1st or 2nd round pick on. I could very well see a scenario play out where MN takes a WR in round 1 and take a LG in round 2. In that third round, MN can then grab a DT.

This years draft seems deep at OG and I could see there being some good prospects available in rounds 2 or 3.

So yes, you are limited with what you can do with your draft picks, however, LG is still a top 4 need in my opinion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
[UMN]


Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 13303
Location: Desolation Row
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Spielman found Fusco in the 6th round and Sullivan in the 5th round. We can find an interior lineman in the later rounds. LG isn't the type of need that we must find a day-1 starter. If Johnson needs to play next year that is not really an issue. We will also be getting Love back from injury, and Schwartz can compete there as well.

On the other hand we need a WR, DT and possibly LB that can contribute from day-1 next year. If Winfield retires we need a #3/4 CB as well.
_________________
From the fool’s gold mouthpiece the hollow horn,
Plays wasted words, proves to warn,
That he not busy being born is busy dying.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kellerman


Joined: 16 May 2010
Posts: 3598
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 4:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

vikingsrule wrote:
I think LG is every bit of a need as any other position, minus WR.

You could argue that LG is a bigger need than LB (assuming Brinkley and Henderson resign) and Secondary help (assuming Winfield doesnt retire and MN sticks with Sanford/Raymond/Blanton for one starting spot).

Heck, even if Kevin Williams is resigned, DT is still a need but it doesnt have to be one where you spend a 1st or 2nd round pick on. I could very well see a scenario play out where MN takes a WR in round 1 and take a LG in round 2. In that third round, MN can then grab a DT.

This years draft seems deep at OG and I could see there being some good prospects available in rounds 2 or 3.

So yes, you are limited with what you can do with your draft picks, however, LG is still a top 4 need in my opinion.


So argue. I'm hearing no arguments beyond 'Johnson is bad, he needs to be replaced'. That's more of a conclusion than an argument.

I profess I'm not watching the O-line every snap, so I put together all the mentions Charlie Johnson in Pelissero's gametape breakdown, which I usally find pretty agreeable.

Jags
Quote:
If only LG Charlie Johnson (59) had let go of Knighton a split-second earlier, the holding penalty wouldn't have been called and another red-zone trip might have been saved. Johnson doesn't play with a guard's usual power at the point of attack but put together a clean game otherwise in his debut there.

Colts (Mind you every O-lineman except for got a negative review this game)
Quote:
LG Charlie Johnson (70) missed Redding and Freeman came through untouched to strip Ponder in 3.1 seconds.

49ers
Quote:
Smith had one additional pressure against LG Charlie Johnson (79 snaps) on a seven-man rush and was credited with just three solo tackles

Lions
Quote:
he keeps getting movement with his combo blocks, sticking linebackers on draw plays and keeping the inside clean in protection. Ditto LG Charlie Johnson (58), who probably played his best game yet.

Titans
Quote:
LG Charlie Johnson (66) wasn't as good as usual in space and had his hands full at the point with Marks, who beat him for a QB hit


This pretty much corresponds with what I've been seeing. He's playing solid, if unspectacular. Good technique, moves well in space, combo-blocks, etc. When I'm reading this, and seeing how well the O-line has played against good interior pass rushers, how we've been great at running the ball down the middle, I don't see why you think guard is such a big need.

Quote:

Spielman found Fusco in the 6th round and Sullivan in the 5th round. We can find an interior lineman in the later rounds. LG isn't the type of need that we must find a day-1 starter. If Johnson needs to play next year that is not really an issue. We will also be getting Love back from injury, and Schwartz can compete there as well.

On the other hand we need a WR, DT and possibly LB that can contribute from day-1 next year. If Winfield retires we need a #3/4 CB as well.


Exactly. Picking a guard in the 2nd when you have a solid group in Johnson, Fusco, Berger and Schwartz is not using your resources optimally. WR, DT, S/CB, LB (2 starters are UFA) are all bigger needs at this point.

So that's not top 4. I'd even rank DE (2 starters over 30), OT (acute lack of depth at LT). I'd maybe rank OG at #8, in front of HB and TE.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vikingsrule


Moderator
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 48045
Location: Land of 10,000 Lakes!
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[UMN] wrote:
Spielman found Fusco in the 6th round and Sullivan in the 5th round. We can find an interior lineman in the later rounds. LG isn't the type of need that we must find a day-1 starter. If Johnson needs to play next year that is not really an issue. We will also be getting Love back from injury, and Schwartz can compete there as well.

On the other hand we need a WR, DT and possibly LB that can contribute from day-1 next year. If Winfield retires we need a #3/4 CB as well.


Agreed, if Winfield retires then CB is obviously a bigger need. However, Winfield is under contract and I guess I am more inclined to assume that he will keep playing since he actually has played well in the slot.

LB is still a potential concern, but I expect MN to keep at least one of Henderson or Brinkley and that player will likely be a 3 down LB. Free agency is another option to fill that LB void and Marvin Mitchell has stepped in well for Erin Henderson as a 2 down LB. Basically, i see little value in adding a LB if Brinkley or Henderson are brought back on a long-term contract. Linebacker is simply not a valuable position for me to feel obligated to spend an early pick. But I guess that seems to be the same argument used for adding a LG too.

I just like some of the potential quality at OGs in rounds 2 and 3.

I think we can all agree that WR and DT are clearly the most urgent needs to addressed, after that, there are just so many variables to consider as to what will be needed the most between LG, CB, LB and possibly Safety (though MN has good depth for one spot in Sanford/Raymond/Blanton).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vikingsrule


Moderator
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 48045
Location: Land of 10,000 Lakes!
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 5:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have never once said that Charlie Johnson has been a bad player, where has that been implied? I have said that he is solid, unspectacular, and serviceable. However, he is not a good starter relative to his peers and is certainly someone that could be replaced if the opportunity was presented.

I contend that LG is a top 5 need. What 5 positions are a bigger need?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kellerman


Joined: 16 May 2010
Posts: 3598
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

vikingsrule wrote:
I have never once said that Charlie Johnson has been a bad player, where has that been implied? I have said that he is solid, unspectacular, and serviceable. However, he is not a good starter relative to his peers and is certainly someone that could be replaced if the opportunity was presented.

I contend that LG is a top 5 need. What 5 positions are a bigger need?


If you want to pick a player in the 2nd round to come in and start at a position, you must not think much of Charlie Johnson as a good (or acceptable) starter, at least that's what using a 2nd on that position seems to imply to me.

Anyway, our needs as I'd rank them:

1. WR: Only one starting calibre outside WR on the roster. No big match-up threat
2. DT: Kevin Williams is getting older and is a UFA, Ballard and Evans are rotational/back-up players at best. Guion is a decent starter.
3. CB: We have two legit starting corners going forward (Cook/Robinson), but we all know how much nickel we run at the moment. Winfield is still a baller, but will be 36 going into next season and he's missed 17 games since 09. Jefferson seems to be the next man up, but he is totally unproven as of now.
4. S: Suffice to say I'm not sold on Raymond yet. Him being injured sucks, because he needs to get playing time to see if he's starting material. We saw what Smith did for this defense. Getting a good safety duo (Earl Thomas/Chancellor) can do wonders for your team.
5. LB: Two starters are UFA's next year (Henderson, Brinkley). Greenway is a solid player, and will anchor the group. Mitchell is on his 6th year, and it seems unlikely at this point that he'll ever develop beyond a back-up. Cole has some potential, but is unproven as well.
tie 6. DE: Good starters and back-ups, but age is a problem. Allen is already showing signs of slowing down, Robison and he will be 30+ next season. Griffin is a potential starter, Reed is still a project at this point. If he can't get on the field after 2 years I'd be inclined to bring in another young DE to groom.
tie 7. OT: Good starters. Lack of depth. There is no LT riding the bench, if Love can't make the step up we need a developmental left-tackle. Added bonus is that it's easier for a LT to slide inside than the other way 'round.
tie 7. OG/OC: Solid starters, solid depth. Maybe ditch Asper for a player with more upside.
9. HB: Maybe trade in Asiate for a shiftier back to complement the power game of AP and Gerhart.
10. TE: If Ellison becomes the #2 and Carlson is cut we could use an athletic project at #3.

My list is also weighted on the relative impact of each position. I'd only ever rank OG as a top 3 need if we had a really dire situation there.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Freakout


Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 2975
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 5:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

vikingsrule wrote:
PrplChilPill wrote:
Talent trumps cohesion. If one of the Alabama OGs is the best BPA, they should take him. Neither Fusco nor Johnson is anything special, let's see how they play the rest of the year.


With a young line with several key players locked up for multiple years (Kalil, Fusco, Loadholt and Sullivan), the team very well could have talent AND cohesion by adding a superior OG to the mix.

I think keeping Loadholt is key, he is probably the teams most valuable free agent for this reason and why contract negotiations are already underway.


Yup. You take talent ahead of need unless you get lucky and the talent is a need like with Kalil.

I still expect us to be in the 16-20 range and a OG very well could be the BPA. Whether Charlie Johnson has been average or not shouldn't even matter. Just as it did not matter that we had Shiancoe and Kleinsasser when we took Rudolph.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vikingsrule


Moderator
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 48045
Location: Land of 10,000 Lakes!
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 6:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would personally rank the needs as follows:

1. WR (Harvin is a beast, Simpson has solid #3 potential/deep threat potential and is a UFA; not much in the way of true #1 WR potential in either)
2. DT (need a pass rusher)
3. LB (assuming MN keeps 1 of Brinkley or Henderson; could resign Marvin Mitchell)
4. LG (Johnson isnt bad, but he has little upside and is a free agent in 2014)
5. CB (assuming Winfield returns for 2013 and AJ Jefferson receives RFA tender)
6. Safety
7. OT depth
8. DE depth

I like MN's Safety situation more than I do the OG situation. You could argue that MNs OG depth is just as bad as its OT depth since Berger and Schwartz are both UFAs with no starting upside.

As for the Safetys, this year has shown me that the Vikings have three adequate starting Safetys in addition to Harrison Smith. I would only consider taking a Safety early if I felt they were clearly BPa and are impact players who could compete day one. Basically I like Raymonds, Blantons or Sanfords upside more than I do Johnsons (at LG).

My problem with taking a CB early or signing one is that they are likely going to be the 5th or 6th CB at best in 2013. Therefore, if your going to have a player that buried on the depth chart, why spend an early pick on one? If winfield retires, than yes, CB does jump the list of needs. Wont deny that.

To me its more about upside than settling for mediocre players. In Johnson's case as a near 30 year old OG who hasnt shown to be a particularly good player (nor bad), that is the type of position you try and improve if you reasonably can. Though you dont have to spend an early pick on a LG and you very well could develop a mid round player to eventually fill that role. But you could argue the same for any other need after the top 3.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kellerman


Joined: 16 May 2010
Posts: 3598
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 6:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

vikingsrule wrote:
I would personally rank the needs as follows:

1. WR (Harvin is a beast, Simpson has solid #3 potential/deep threat potential and is a UFA; not much in the way of true #1 WR potential in either)
2. DT (need a pass rusher)
3. LB (assuming MN keeps 1 of Brinkley or Henderson; could resign Marvin Mitchell)
4. LG (Johnson isnt bad, but he has little upside and is a free agent in 2014)
5. CB (assuming Winfield returns for 2013 and AJ Jefferson receives RFA tender)
6. Safety
7. OT depth
8. DE depth

I like MN's Safety situation more than I do the OG situation. You could argue that MNs OG depth is just as bad as its OT depth since Berger and Schwartz are both UFAs with no starting upside.

As for the Safetys, this year has shown me that the Vikings have three adequate starting Safetys in addition to Harrison Smith. I would only consider taking a Safety early if I felt they were clearly BPa and are impact players who could compete day one. Basically I like Raymonds, Blantons or Sanfords upside more than I do Johnsons (at LG).

My problem with taking a CB early or signing one is that they are likely going to be the 5th or 6th CB at best in 2013. Therefore, if your going to have a player that buried on the depth chart, why spend an early pick on one? If winfield retires, than yes, CB does jump the list of needs. Wont deny that.

To me its more about upside than settling for mediocre players. In Johnson's case as a near 30 year old OG who hasnt shown to be a particularly good player (nor bad), that is the type of position you try and improve if you reasonably can. Though you dont have to spend an early pick on a LG and you very well could develop a mid round player to eventually fill that role. But you could argue the same for any other need after the top 3.


I wouldn't expect my back-ups to be starting calibre players, that's why they're back-ups. I think in a position like OG, having veteran guys (Berger and Schwartz have years of experience and 46 starts between them) is the way to go. An OG doesn't need to play out on an island and be amazing. They need to be smart players that understand the scheme, and be good with combo blocks.

As for the CB's, I don't see that at all. Winfield is the #3 at the moment, let's assume he plays in 2013. We have Jefferson, who hasn't done anything to convice he's the starter going forward. Behind that, nothing. Sherels is a PR, not a CB. I don't think Burton is the answer either. I think we need at least 4 good CB's on the roster, and Winfield is going to retire sooner or later. Compared to the OG situation, a guy like Charlie Johnson could hold down the fort for 3+ years if need be.

I'm not against spending a mid or late round pick on a (interior) lineman. In fact, for my money we should try to add at least one lineman each for the offense and defense every year. Keep investing in those building blocks. I don't feel the argument works as well for the other needs, because positions like DT and WR are positions with a much bigger impact, that garner more attention in the top of the draft. Guards are usually available all throughout the draft, capitalize on that, and use lower picks to keep adding a steady stream of talent.

(I know I was heavily in favor of drafting Kalil last year, and I do think that you can afford to make a splash on the O-line every now and then, but I don't see the need for that given how our current line is performing and developing.)
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PrplChilPill


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 9161
Location: SLP, MN
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 7:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My issues with WR is that I doubt that a WR taken 14-20 is a legit starter in the next year, maybe 2. With Peterson and Allen not getting younger, I'd want an impact starter in round 1. To me, that is DT or OF or S, maybe CB at that point.

If you are going to be a conservative, run first team on O, you need better run blocking than they are getting now, imo. And, there are some great OG in the first round.

IF they could get a legit starting WR at that point, I'd take him. But I have my doubts on that.
_________________
Wins are a team stat, not a QB stat
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Freakout


Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 2975
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 7:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kellerman wrote:
vikingsrule wrote:
I would personally rank the needs as follows:

1. WR (Harvin is a beast, Simpson has solid #3 potential/deep threat potential and is a UFA; not much in the way of true #1 WR potential in either)
2. DT (need a pass rusher)
3. LB (assuming MN keeps 1 of Brinkley or Henderson; could resign Marvin Mitchell)
4. LG (Johnson isnt bad, but he has little upside and is a free agent in 2014)
5. CB (assuming Winfield returns for 2013 and AJ Jefferson receives RFA tender)
6. Safety
7. OT depth
8. DE depth

I like MN's Safety situation more than I do the OG situation. You could argue that MNs OG depth is just as bad as its OT depth since Berger and Schwartz are both UFAs with no starting upside.

As for the Safetys, this year has shown me that the Vikings have three adequate starting Safetys in addition to Harrison Smith. I would only consider taking a Safety early if I felt they were clearly BPa and are impact players who could compete day one. Basically I like Raymonds, Blantons or Sanfords upside more than I do Johnsons (at LG).

My problem with taking a CB early or signing one is that they are likely going to be the 5th or 6th CB at best in 2013. Therefore, if your going to have a player that buried on the depth chart, why spend an early pick on one? If winfield retires, than yes, CB does jump the list of needs. Wont deny that.

To me its more about upside than settling for mediocre players. In Johnson's case as a near 30 year old OG who hasnt shown to be a particularly good player (nor bad), that is the type of position you try and improve if you reasonably can. Though you dont have to spend an early pick on a LG and you very well could develop a mid round player to eventually fill that role. But you could argue the same for any other need after the top 3.


I wouldn't expect my back-ups to be starting calibre players, that's why they're back-ups.


Shouldn't that be the goal? That way when a player hits free agency or retirement you have another guy capable of being a starter and stepping in.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vikingsrule


Moderator
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 48045
Location: Land of 10,000 Lakes!
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 7:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

^^

Quote:
I wouldn't expect my back-ups to be starting calibre players, that's why they're back-ups. I think in a position like OG, having veteran guys (Berger and Schwartz have years of experience and 46 starts between them) is the way to go. An OG doesn't need to play out on an island and be amazing. They need to be smart players that understand the scheme, and be good with combo blocks.


I think each of Sanford, Raymond and Blanton have shown glimpses of being potential starting caliber players. I think either one could adequately start for this team and each have given an opportunity. I actually am a big fan of Blanton and I would like to see him given more chances, in addition to Raymond too. Sanford is playing quite good too, but I think he is more destined to be a backup. I do agree that if the right Safety were available, I would gladly take that player. I am fairly sold on the current three Safety platoon and I think one player will emerge as the starter.

Quote:
As for the CB's, I don't see that at all. Winfield is the #3 at the moment, let's assume he plays in 2013. We have Jefferson, who hasn't done anything to convice he's the starter going forward. Behind that, nothing. Sherels is a PR, not a CB. I don't think Burton is the answer either. I think we need at least 4 good CB's on the roster, and Winfield is going to retire sooner or later. Compared to the OG situation, a guy like Charlie Johnson could hold down the fort for 3+ years if need be.


Jefferosn doesnt need to be a starter going forward, he would remain the dime CB assuming Winfield returns in 2013. I dont like Burton much either and Sherels is a PR. I am not counting on those guys, but I think with that group of 4, MN is fine. Depth could surely be added, but as you are arguing with the Oline, you dont need to spend an early pick on CB depth. If Winfield retires, sure, grab a CB early. I like Jefferson's upside as a future nickel CB. He hasnt had much opportunities, but he has played well in his opportunities. We wont know more about Jefferson until someone gets hurt, unfortunately.

Quote:
I'm not against spending a mid or late round pick on a (interior) lineman. In fact, for my money we should try to add at least one lineman each for the offense and defense every year. Keep investing in those building blocks. I don't feel the argument works as well for the other needs, because positions like DT and WR are positions with a much bigger impact, that garner more attention in the top of the draft. Guards are usually available all throughout the draft, capitalize on that, and use lower picks to keep adding a steady stream of talent.


There are a lot of positions available throughout the draft. OG, DT, OLB, CB all of these positions could be argued as positions that you can find talent everywhere in the draft. you've got to use an early pick and I can envision a scenario where OG is BPA in round 2 and MN taking one. Long-term, Johnson may not be in the Vikes plans at OG. He is signed through 2013, and will be 30 when he hits free agency. If I can get a player with more upside who has more potential to be a better player, I pull the trigger. If its the 2nd round or 4th round, I am not bothered if that OG prospect is truly a good looking prospect relative to some of the other prospects available.

There have actually been a lot of really good DTs taken in round 4 and there have also been a lot of first round bust DTs over the years. DT is probably one of the more ideal positions that fit the theory in finding talent anywhere. Terrence Knighton, Henry Melton and Geno Atkins come to mind. DT is truly a hard position to scout for the next level, which can often lead to more mid round gems selected. As mentioned, I do agree that DT is a need I would like to fill asap, but value has to be an important factor. No reason to reach for for a DT if there is a better OG prospect (or another position).

Quote:
(I know I was heavily in favor of drafting Kalil last year, and I do think that you can afford to make a splash on the O-line every now and then, but I don't see the need for that given how our current line is performing and developing.)


I would hardly call spending a 2nd or 3rd round pick as making a splash along the Oline. If Johnson is still a solid player, a 2nd or 3rd round pick does not have to start right away, especially for a more established team. If that player has to sit a year while Johnson holds down the fort, that isnt the end of the world to me. That same player is one snap away from getting starting reps.

Or perhaps that player would beat out Brandon Fusco. Now I like Fusco and I think he has upside, but I do like competition as well. To me, LB, OG and Secondary depth are needs that I have really no preference in terms of what is selected first. I am more concerned about value in the prospect above all.


Last edited by vikingsrule on Sat Oct 13, 2012 7:46 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Minnesota Vikings All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 5 of 9

 
Jump to:  
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