PDA

View Full Version : Vikes are two moves away from a powerhouse offense



COJOMAY
01-14-2009, 01:24 PM
http://www.examiner.com/x-1483-Minnesota-Vikings-Examiner~y2009m1d14-The-Vikes-are-two-moves-away-from-a-powerhouse-offense


The Vikings went on a spending spree last year signing Bernard Berrian and Jared Allen, two reasons why the team made the playoffs. They will also likely be $20 million under the projected 2009 salary cap, so what if Zygi Wilf decided he wanted to add another weapon or two to the team?

Depending on if Wilf is willing to continue to spend big money, it’s not outside of the realm of possibility for the Vikes to put together a powerhouse offense for next season....

You'll have to read the article to see who the two are, but I totally agree with his remarks!

Purple Floyd
01-14-2009, 01:43 PM
I don't agree with the two choices he presented and I am not sure that players alone can turn that offense into anything resembling a powerhouse.

Vikefanman2000
01-14-2009, 01:44 PM
"biggest offensive free agent of 2009- stud wide receiver "

That description might be a bit over the top.....but I would have no problem at all with both players being in Minnesota next fall!

VikingMike
01-14-2009, 01:47 PM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


I don't agree with the two choices he presented and I am not sure that players alone can turn that offense into anything resembling a powerhouse.



Agreed...he addresses only the glamorous positions. All great O's begin with great players in the trenches, and we definitely need some help there.

Texanvike
01-14-2009, 01:48 PM
Hmm.
I definitely wouldn't complain if these two things happened.
But will they?
I doubt it.
Both the Seahawks GM and head coach have both denied that he's on the block.
And I don't really see us putting that spending that much money on our WR corp.
The bidding war for Housh will probably be out of control, considering how many teams have a weakness in this area.

PurpleTide
01-14-2009, 01:49 PM
Hasselback is a dainty little whinner, and I wouldn't want him to be the first choice of a vet QB....

COJOMAY
01-14-2009, 02:24 PM
"VikingMike" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


I don't agree with the two choices he presented and I am not sure that players alone can turn that offense into anything resembling a powerhouse.



Agreed...he addresses only the glamorous positions. All great O's begin with great players in the trenches, and we definitely need some help there.


I think the writer is assuming we will pick up those offensive line needs in the draft.

Mr Anderson
01-14-2009, 02:39 PM
I've never liked Hasselbeck. And I think Houshmandzadeh is too similar to Rice IMO. If we're bringing in a stud WR I think we need to invest in a receiver with a different style. We need a big physical receiver who can muscle corners and get clean off the line.

DeathtoDenny
01-14-2009, 03:00 PM
The two moves? Childress and Bevell out the door.

Vikeman
01-14-2009, 03:07 PM
"DeathtoDenny" wrote:


The two moves? Childress and Bevell out the door.


+1.
You could sign Joe Montana and Jerry Rice in their heydays, but if you lack coaching savvy and leadership at the top, it wouldn't make a bit of difference.

Who's your mama and Garcia would be cool, as well.

Purple Floyd
01-14-2009, 03:10 PM
"COJOMAY" wrote:


"VikingMike" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


I don't agree with the two choices he presented and I am not sure that players alone can turn that offense into anything resembling a powerhouse.



Agreed...he addresses only the glamorous positions. All great O's begin with great players in the trenches, and we definitely need some help there.


I think the writer is assuming we will pick up those offensive line needs in the draft.


We assumed that last year.

kevoncox
01-14-2009, 03:18 PM
We don't need Oline help!!! We need a Qb that will make Defensive CO. think twice about blitz us on every down. Our line can handle it's on when they send 5 men after the QB. It's when they send 6 or more blitzers that we struggle. Why is that? Because our Qb cannot spot the blitz and throw the ball on his 3rd step. If our QB had any respect in the league we will see less 6 + men coming after our QB and our oline can do it's job. There is a reason they say Championships are built with Good Qbs and DEs. We can put 15 other Qbs behind this line and they would excell. We have one of the best lines in football; Running and Passing. It's our QB situations that sucks. Could you imagine if we had a line like oaklands and houstons? We have a top 5 Oline. Get me a top 15 QB and we will excel.

COJOMAY
01-14-2009, 03:33 PM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"COJOMAY" wrote:


"VikingMike" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


I don't agree with the two choices he presented and I am not sure that players alone can turn that offense into anything resembling a powerhouse.



Agreed...he addresses only the glamorous positions. All great O's begin with great players in the trenches, and we definitely need some help there.


I think the writer is assuming we will pick up those offensive line needs in the draft.


We assumed that last year.


And didn't we, in a sense? We gave up some draft picks for a good defensive lineman. Think about it!

AngloVike
01-14-2009, 03:37 PM
"kevoncox" wrote:


We don't need Oline help!!! We need a Qb that will make Defensive CO. think twice about blitz us on every down. Our line can handle it's on when they send 5 men after the QB. It's when they send 6 or more blitzers that we struggle. Why is that? Because our Qb cannot spot the blitz and throw the ball on his 3rd step. If our QB had any respect in the league we will see less 6 + men coming after our QB and our oline can do it's job. There is a reason they say Championships are built with Good Qbs and DEs. We can put 15 other Qbs behind this line and they would excell. We have one of the best lines in football; Running and Passing. It's our QB situations that sucks. Could you imagine if we had a line like oaklands and houstons? We have a top 5 Oline. Get me a top 15 QB and we will excel.

actually we do need O Line help as the present crew is not playing at All-Pro level at ALL positions and anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves. Yes the QB position is suspect and doesn't help but the OL is not the powerhouse that some would like to think. I disagree that that 15 other QBs would excel behind this line as they would not get the time that they need.

Back to the original article - Hassleback could be a good pickup and one that we may have a better chance of making. Cassell won't be a Vike next year - the Pats will ramp up up the price for him or Brady ( as one will be going ) to make it too steep for us to go after. As for Houshmanzadeh I can't see the Bengals letting him go in FA but can see the logic in going to upgrade the WR position further.

COJOMAY
01-14-2009, 03:42 PM
"AngloVike" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


We don't need Oline help!!! We need a Qb that will make Defensive CO. think twice about blitz us on every down. Our line can handle it's on when they send 5 men after the QB. It's when they send 6 or more blitzers that we struggle. Why is that? Because our Qb cannot spot the blitz and throw the ball on his 3rd step. If our QB had any respect in the league we will see less 6 + men coming after our QB and our oline can do it's job. There is a reason they say Championships are built with Good Qbs and DEs. We can put 15 other Qbs behind this line and they would excell. We have one of the best lines in football; Running and Passing. It's our QB situations that sucks. Could you imagine if we had a line like oaklands and houstons? We have a top 5 Oline. Get me a top 15 QB and we will excel.

actually we do need O Line help as the present crew is not playing at All-Pro level at ALL positions and anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves. Yes the QB position is suspect and doesn't help but the OL is not the powerhouse that some would like to think. I disagree that that 15 other QBs would excel behind this line as they would not get the time that they need.

Back to the original article - Hassleback could be a good pickup and one that we may have a better chance of making. Cassell won't be a Vike next year - the Pats will ramp up up the price for him or Brady ( as one will be going ) to make it too steep for us to go after. As for Houshmanzadeh I can't see the Bengals letting him go in FA but can see the logic in going to upgrade the WR position further.

Thank you Angelo Vike. Another voice of reason that sees the problems from a wider viewpoint than "we just need a new QB and things will be fine."

nephilimstorm
01-14-2009, 04:08 PM
Sorry Cojo, I have to disagree with you LOL

COJOMAY
01-14-2009, 04:23 PM
"Nephilim" wrote:


Sorry Cojo, I have to disagree with you LOL


That's fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I would just like to see more reasons why people have the opinions they have rather than just saying "no."
To say we don't need O line help is just not right. No QB in the league would work well behind the Vikes O line. So we need to address that issue, possibly a QB and I think we need another receiver to stretch the field to keep people from jamming the box.

nephilimstorm
01-14-2009, 04:24 PM
Cojo, its called my vague sense of humor LOL I DO agree with you. I'd love to see a RG or RT, it seems those are the points we always miss out on.

COJOMAY
01-14-2009, 04:26 PM
"Nephilim" wrote:


Cojo, its called my vague sense of humor LOL I DO agree with you



I have to admit, you do have a weird sense of humor.
LOL By the way, I added a bit more to my post while you were writing me.

nephilimstorm
01-14-2009, 04:27 PM
Yeah, Cojo, I was editing as you were adding LOL

i_bleed_purple
01-14-2009, 04:29 PM
"kevoncox" wrote:


We don't need Oline help!!! We need a Qb that will make Defensive CO. think twice about blitz us on every down. Our line can handle it's on when they send 5 men after the QB. It's when they send 6 or more blitzers that we struggle. Why is that? Because our Qb cannot spot the blitz and throw the ball on his 3rd step. If our QB had any respect in the league we will see less 6 + men coming after our QB and our oline can do it's job. There is a reason they say Championships are built with Good Qbs and DEs. We can put 15 other Qbs behind this line and they would excell. We have one of the best lines in football; Running and Passing. It's our QB situations that sucks. Could you imagine if we had a line like oaklands and houstons? We have a top 5 Oline. Get me a top 15 QB and we will excel.


tell that to the 2000 baltimore ravens.
or the Bucs when they won their superbowl.
Neither had a particularly good qb, but still managed to win it all.
Perhaps there's a bit more to having a good team than having an all-star qb.

COJOMAY
01-14-2009, 04:33 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


We don't need Oline help!!! We need a Qb that will make Defensive CO. think twice about blitz us on every down. Our line can handle it's on when they send 5 men after the QB. It's when they send 6 or more blitzers that we struggle. Why is that? Because our Qb cannot spot the blitz and throw the ball on his 3rd step. If our QB had any respect in the league we will see less 6 + men coming after our QB and our oline can do it's job. There is a reason they say Championships are built with Good Qbs and DEs. We can put 15 other Qbs behind this line and they would excell. We have one of the best lines in football; Running and Passing. It's our QB situations that sucks. Could you imagine if we had a line like oaklands and houstons? We have a top 5 Oline. Get me a top 15 QB and we will excel.


tell that to the 2000 baltimore ravens.
or the Bucs when they won their superbowl.
Neither had a particularly good qb, but still managed to win it all.
Perhaps there's a bit more to having a good team than having an all-star qb.



...they say Championships are built with Good Qbs and DEs."
Ya, I would like to see who says that. I want a direct quote. Usually I've heard that championships are built with good defense, especially when it comes to the playoff.

mark
01-14-2009, 04:34 PM
We will have the same offence as long as our scheme is garbage and playcalling is pathetic

marstc09
01-14-2009, 04:35 PM
The Bengals will resign TJ and let Chad go.

The Seahawks will keep Hasselbeck due to the weak draft class for QBs. They will pick one up next year with a impressive QB class.

midgensa
01-14-2009, 04:43 PM
Eh ... no chance of either of these happening I think.
By the way ... how many teams aren't two moves away from a powerhouse offense? Hell, even the Lions ... add a great OT and a stud QB and their offense could be damn impressive ... two players is practically changing 1/5th of the unit ... so yes, most teams would be much better if they got two player who were much better than what they currently have on their offense.

bleedpurple
01-14-2009, 04:47 PM
"COJOMAY" wrote:


"Nephilim" wrote:


Sorry Cojo, I have to disagree with you LOL


That's fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I would just like to see more reasons why people have the opinions they have rather than just saying "no."
To say we don't need O line help is just not right. No QB in the league would work well behind the Vikes O line. So we need to address that issue, possibly a QB and I think we need another receiver to stretch the field to keep people from jamming the box.


That's not true... we need O-line help, but you act like it's abundantly attrocious.. that is not the case... even in pass blocking we're about middle of the road in the NFL..

and besides, if we were to get another receiver and a QB, ppl wouldn't be blitzing us like they are now... not even close.. which in turn will make the O-line look atlot better...

I admist we could use a RT, and that is a big priority but don't act like our O-line is one of the worst in the league...(i highlighted your comment in red)...

and whoever said TJ is another Sid Rice.. has no fucking idea what he/she's talking about... not even close..
the more i'm on here the more i realize how many people have no fucking clue what their talking about... TJ is a stud wide receiver, and has been damn near the best (top 5 for sure) receiver in the AFC over the last two years.. better than his louder counterpart Chad...

TJ is exactly the type of receiver we need in purple... he's an excellent route runner, has glue hands and can move the chains and go across the middle...

now as far as the article, i'm not so sure about Hasselbeck.. but I'm hearing rumors Jake Delhomme may be available...

either way, though, Cincy is going to franchise TJ... we will have to trade for him bc there's no way cincy let's him walk for nothing in return... he's probably their best player... a more realistic option for them would be to trade Chad...

V-Unit
01-14-2009, 04:50 PM
Adding those two might not make us an offensive powerhouse, but we'd certainly be good enough to be pretty damn good.

bleedpurple
01-14-2009, 04:57 PM
"V" wrote:


Adding those two might not make us an offensive powerhouse, but we'd certainly be good enough to be pretty gol 'darnit good.


I agree but i'm a little concerned about Hasselbeck's health...

COJOMAY
01-14-2009, 05:01 PM
"bleedpurple" wrote:


"COJOMAY" wrote:


"Nephilim" wrote:


Sorry Cojo, I have to disagree with you LOL


That's fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I would just like to see more reasons why people have the opinions they have rather than just saying "no."
To say we don't need O line help is just not right. No QB in the league would work well behind the Vikes O line. So we need to address that issue, possibly a QB and I think we need another receiver to stretch the field to keep people from jamming the box.


That's not true... we need O-line help, but you act like it's abundantly attrocious.. that is not the case... even in pass blocking we're about middle of the road in the NFL..

and besides, if we were to get another receiver and a QB, ppl wouldn't be blitzing us like they are now... not even close.. which in turn will make the O-line look atlot better...

I admist we could use a RT, and that is a big priority but don't act like our O-line is one of the worst in the league...(i highlighted your comment in red)...

and whoever said TJ is another Sid Rice.. has no fucking idea what he/she's talking about... not even close..
the more i'm on here the more i realize how many people have no fucking clue what their talking about... TJ is a stud wide receiver, and has been damn near the best (top 5 for sure) receiver in the AFC over the last two years.. better than his louder counterpart Chad...

TJ is exactly the type of receiver we need in purple... he's an excellent route runner, has glue hands and can move the chains and go across the middle...

now as far as the article, i'm not so sure about Hasselbeck.. but I'm hearing rumors Jake Delhomme may be available...

either way, though, Cincy is going to franchise TJ... we will have to trade for him bc there's no way cincy let's him walk for nothing in return... he's probably their best player... a more realistic option for them would be to trade Chad...




Sorry if I gave the impression our O line stinks. You're right, that's certainly not true. But you and I both know we need at least a RT, maybe a center, and some backups.

bleedpurple
01-14-2009, 05:09 PM
"COJOMAY" wrote:


"bleedpurple" wrote:


"COJOMAY" wrote:


"Nephilim" wrote:


Sorry Cojo, I have to disagree with you LOL


That's fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I would just like to see more reasons why people have the opinions they have rather than just saying "no."
To say we don't need O line help is just not right. No QB in the league would work well behind the Vikes O line. So we need to address that issue, possibly a QB and I think we need another receiver to stretch the field to keep people from jamming the box.


That's not true... we need O-line help, but you act like it's abundantly attrocious.. that is not the case... even in pass blocking we're about middle of the road in the NFL..

and besides, if we were to get another receiver and a QB, ppl wouldn't be blitzing us like they are now... not even close.. which in turn will make the O-line look atlot better...

I admist we could use a RT, and that is a big priority but don't act like our O-line is one of the worst in the league...(i highlighted your comment in red)...

and whoever said TJ is another Sid Rice.. has no fricken idea what he/she's talking about... not even close..
the more i'm on here the more i realize how many people have no fricken clue what their talking about... TJ is a stud wide receiver, and has been gol 'darnit near the best (top 5 for sure) receiver in the AFC over the last two years.. better than his louder counterpart Chad...

TJ is exactly the type of receiver we need in purple... he's an excellent route runner, has glue hands and can move the chains and go across the middle...

now as far as the article, i'm not so sure about Hasselbeck.. but I'm hearing rumors Jake Delhomme may be available...

either way, though, Cincy is going to franchise TJ... we will have to trade for him bc there's no way cincy let's him walk for nothing in return... he's probably their best player... a more realistic option for them would be to trade Chad...




Sorry if I gave the impression our O line stinks. You're right, that's certainly not true. But you and I both know we need at least a RT, maybe a center, and some backups.


i def. agree... RT for sure.. but in all honesty, if we could get a legit QB, and a receiver like Housh, in lieu of a RT, then i'd be for it.. remember we still have some decent guys on the p.squad and artis hicks will come back.. he's better than Cook for sure... could maybe even move cook back to Center... either him or sulivan..

what i'm concerned about is our development on O-lineman.. it just flat out sucks.. we haven't been able to get guys, like Cook or Marcus Johnson to develop and they were both pretty high picks... just a flat out shame!!

Purple Floyd
01-14-2009, 05:09 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


We don't need Oline help!!! We need a Qb that will make Defensive CO. think twice about blitz us on every down. Our line can handle it's on when they send 5 men after the QB. It's when they send 6 or more blitzers that we struggle. Why is that? Because our Qb cannot spot the blitz and throw the ball on his 3rd step. If our QB had any respect in the league we will see less 6 + men coming after our QB and our oline can do it's job. There is a reason they say Championships are built with Good Qbs and DEs. We can put 15 other Qbs behind this line and they would excell. We have one of the best lines in football; Running and Passing. It's our QB situations that sucks. Could you imagine if we had a line like oaklands and houstons? We have a top 5 Oline. Get me a top 15 QB and we will excel.


tell that to the 2000 baltimore ravens.
or the Bucs when they won their superbowl.
Neither had a particularly good qb, but still managed to win it all.
Perhaps there's a bit more to having a good team than having an all-star qb.


I think that is true, but if you look at teams that contend every year over a period of time, they will almost always have stability and high level play at the QB position. The Redskins of the 80's and early 90's are the only team I can think of that went to multiple SB victories with different QB's while having the same coaching staff and system. The NY Giants did it in the same time period with 2 also.

But really, how many teams can claim to have an average QB and still be strong enough to contend for a title on a consistent basis? That is what I would like to see the Vikings do and what they say they are trying to do.

bleedpurple
01-14-2009, 05:19 PM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


We don't need Oline help!!! We need a Qb that will make Defensive CO. think twice about blitz us on every down. Our line can handle it's on when they send 5 men after the QB. It's when they send 6 or more blitzers that we struggle. Why is that? Because our Qb cannot spot the blitz and throw the ball on his 3rd step. If our QB had any respect in the league we will see less 6 + men coming after our QB and our oline can do it's job. There is a reason they say Championships are built with Good Qbs and DEs. We can put 15 other Qbs behind this line and they would excell. We have one of the best lines in football; Running and Passing. It's our QB situations that sucks. Could you imagine if we had a line like oaklands and houstons? We have a top 5 Oline. Get me a top 15 QB and we will excel.


tell that to the 2000 baltimore ravens.
or the Bucs when they won their superbowl.
Neither had a particularly good qb, but still managed to win it all.
Perhaps there's a bit more to having a good team than having an all-star qb.


I think that is true, but if you look at teams that contend every year over a period of time, they will almost always have stability and high level play at the QB position. The Redskins of the 80's and early 90's are the only team I can think of that went to multiple SB victories with different QB's while having the same coaching staff and system. The NY Giants did it in the same time period with 2 also.

But really, how many teams can claim to have an average QB and still be strong enough to contend for a title on a consistent basis? That is what I would like to see the Vikings do and what they say they are trying to do.


you can arguably say the Giants... Eli is far from Elite!!.. I know ppl are going to get on me about this, and i'm not taking anything away from him, but Ben Rothlesberger... I dont' think he does anything special.. he plays with consistently the #1 defense in the league, and just doesn't make mistakes and has a strong running game... he was 24th in the league in passer rating and has 17tds to 15 int's... I'm not saying he's not good.. but i dont' have him as an elite QB... he's just on a really good team and is smart enough to make plays when necessary but a the same time doesn't make critical mistakes... but that's just my opinion...

those are just two that i can think of... but another angle at your comment is that with the parity in the league, there's
only a few teams that actually compete at a high level year in and year out that would even fall into your category...

Purplemania
01-14-2009, 05:22 PM
I'd be happy if we got Hassleback. He's solid and I think if given time and weapons he actually can still be a top tier QB. However, I am not willing to shell out a second round for him. If anything, 3rd should be enough and even then I'd hesistate.

If we bring in Matt, there's no need to sign Houch. I actually think a QB like Matt Hassleback will do wonders for Sidney Rice.

My other option if Matt isn't available is Marc Bulger. I know he'll be a very unpopular choice but with time to throw he'd be very effective.

bleedpurple
01-14-2009, 05:24 PM
"Purplemania" wrote:


I'd be happy if we got Hassleback. He's solid and I think if given time and weapons he actually can still be a top tier QB. However, I am not willing to shell out a second round for him. If anything, 3rd should be enough and even then I'd hesistate.

If we bring in Matt, there's no need to sign Houch. I actually think a QB like Matt Hassleback will do wonders for Sidney Rice.

My other option if Matt isn't available is Marc Bulger. I know he'll be a very unpopular choice but with time to throw he'd be very effective.


i can pretty much agree with that... Delhomme may also be available... before that stinker against the cards, he had the 3rd highest QB rating in post season history... behind montana and someone else...

Purple Floyd
01-14-2009, 06:00 PM
"bleedpurple" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


We don't need Oline help!!! We need a Qb that will make Defensive CO. think twice about blitz us on every down. Our line can handle it's on when they send 5 men after the QB. It's when they send 6 or more blitzers that we struggle. Why is that? Because our Qb cannot spot the blitz and throw the ball on his 3rd step. If our QB had any respect in the league we will see less 6 + men coming after our QB and our oline can do it's job. There is a reason they say Championships are built with Good Qbs and DEs. We can put 15 other Qbs behind this line and they would excell. We have one of the best lines in football; Running and Passing. It's our QB situations that sucks. Could you imagine if we had a line like oaklands and houstons? We have a top 5 Oline. Get me a top 15 QB and we will excel.


tell that to the 2000 baltimore ravens.
or the Bucs when they won their superbowl.
Neither had a particularly good qb, but still managed to win it all.
Perhaps there's a bit more to having a good team than having an all-star qb.


I think that is true, but if you look at teams that contend every year over a period of time, they will almost always have stability and high level play at the QB position. The Redskins of the 80's and early 90's are the only team I can think of that went to multiple SB victories with different QB's while having the same coaching staff and system. The NY Giants did it in the same time period with 2 also.

But really, how many teams can claim to have an average QB and still be strong enough to contend for a title on a consistent basis? That is what I would like to see the Vikings do and what they say they are trying to do.


you can arguably say the Giants... Eli is far from Elite!!.. I know ppl are going to get on me about this, and i'm not taking anything away from him, but Ben Rothlesberger... I dont' think he does anything special.. he plays with consistently the #1 defense in the league, and just doesn't make mistakes and has a strong running game... he was 24th in the league in passer rating and has 17tds to 15 int's... I'm not saying he's not good.. but i dont' have him as an elite QB... he's just on a really good team and is smart enough to make plays when necessary but a the same time doesn't make critical mistakes... but that's just my opinion...

those are just two that i can think of... but another angle at your comment is that with the parity in the league, there's
only a few teams that actually compete at a high level year in and year out that would even fall into your category...


I am not going to argue that, but it does really support my point. In this league of parity, the QB position is the one thing that can make a team competitive over a period of time. Look at the current teams who have been successful over the past decade on a consistent basis:

NE
Indy
GB
Detroit
Pittsburgh
Philly

They all have stability at the QB position.

Garland Greene
01-14-2009, 06:11 PM
Housh Hell yes.
Hasslebeck. Hmm I am not so sure about him. He would be a good option but I am not sure if he os a right option, but he is WAY BETTER than what we have now.

But A WR corp of Housh Berrian, Wade and Hopefully Rice will turn it around then add in one or 2 of the young guys we have as a 5th and possibly 6th WR would be nice. Especially if we can get one of them to be a full time KR/PR would be a good set to have.

jessejames09
01-14-2009, 06:12 PM
A GM and a Head Coach.

Purple Floyd
01-14-2009, 06:13 PM
"jessejames09" wrote:


A GM and a Head Coach.


+1

Mr-holland
01-14-2009, 06:24 PM
I'd give my 2nd and 4th for Hassleback anytime

midgensa
01-14-2009, 06:41 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


We don't need Oline help!!! We need a Qb that will make Defensive CO. think twice about blitz us on every down. Our line can handle it's on when they send 5 men after the QB. It's when they send 6 or more blitzers that we struggle. Why is that? Because our Qb cannot spot the blitz and throw the ball on his 3rd step. If our QB had any respect in the league we will see less 6 + men coming after our QB and our oline can do it's job. There is a reason they say Championships are built with Good Qbs and DEs. We can put 15 other Qbs behind this line and they would excell. We have one of the best lines in football; Running and Passing. It's our QB situations that sucks. Could you imagine if we had a line like oaklands and houstons? We have a top 5 Oline. Get me a top 15 QB and we will excel.


tell that to the 2000 baltimore ravens.
or the Bucs when they won their superbowl.
Neither had a particularly good qb, but still managed to win it all.
Perhaps there's a bit more to having a good team than having an all-star qb.

There is a little bit more to it ... but it definitely helps. QB is the most important position in the game.
Out of 43 Super Bowls (unless the Ravens win this year) only the 1980 & 1983 Raiders and the 1987 Redskins won Super Bowls without Pro Bowl QBs. That means that 40 of 43 champions have had Pro Bowl QBs at the helm. That is a pretty strong sample size. QB matters a lot.

CCthebest
01-14-2009, 06:49 PM
"DeathtoDenny" wrote:


The two moves? Childress and Bevell out the door.

AMEN brother, but that wont happen anythime soon

T.J. Houshmanzadeh would be a great pickup,and an even better QB if we have a real vet QB. I dont think it will be Matt though

i_bleed_purple
01-14-2009, 06:52 PM
"CCthebest" wrote:


"DeathtoDenny" wrote:


The two moves? Childress and Bevell out the door.

AMEN brother, but that wont happen anythime soon

T.J. Houshmanzadeh would be a great pickup,and an even better QB if we have a real vet QB. I dont think it will be Matt though


just think we could have 3 TJ's on our team.. imagine the confusion!

Purple Floyd
01-14-2009, 06:58 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"CCthebest" wrote:


"DeathtoDenny" wrote:


The two moves? Childress and Bevell out the door.

AMEN brother, but that wont happen anythime soon

T.J. Houshmanzadeh would be a great pickup,and an even better QB if we have a real vet QB. I dont think it will be Matt though


just think we could have 3 TJ's on our team.. imagine the confusion!


For the defense or Childress? ;D

Purplemania
01-14-2009, 09:13 PM
"bleedpurple" wrote:


"Purplemania" wrote:


I'd be happy if we got Hassleback. He's solid and I think if given time and weapons he actually can still be a top tier QB. However, I am not willing to shell out a second round for him. If anything, 3rd should be enough and even then I'd hesistate.

If we bring in Matt, there's no need to sign Houch. I actually think a QB like Matt Hassleback will do wonders for Sidney Rice.

My other option if Matt isn't available is Marc Bulger. I know he'll be a very unpopular choice but with time to throw he'd be very effective.


i can pretty much agree with that... Delhomme may also be available... before that stinker against the cards, he had the 3rd highest QB rating in post season history... behind montana and someone else...


You know I don't know why but I'm just not a big fan of Delhomme. I think he's okay....and wow that stat of having the 3rd highest QB rating in history surprised me and is very....unbelievable? Besides that, last year he had the benefit having the best duo Rb and an explosive WR in SSmith and yet only had a mediocre season. I don't know...I'm not sure I'd want Delhome. Definitely wouldn't trade for him.

marshallvike
01-14-2009, 09:41 PM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"CCthebest" wrote:


"DeathtoDenny" wrote:


The two moves? Childress and Bevell out the door.

AMEN brother, but that wont happen anythime soon

T.J. Houshmanzadeh would be a great pickup,and an even better QB if we have a real vet QB. I dont think it will be Matt though


just think we could have 3 TJ's on our team.. imagine the confusion!


For the defense or Childress? ;D


this is getting hilarious

Vikes_King
01-15-2009, 01:01 AM
"marshallvike" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"CCthebest" wrote:


"DeathtoDenny" wrote:


The two moves? Childress and Bevell out the door.

AMEN brother, but that wont happen anythime soon

T.J. Houshmanzadeh would be a great pickup,and an even better QB if we have a real vet QB. I dont think it will be Matt though


just think we could have 3 TJ's on our team.. imagine the confusion!


For the defense or Childress? ;D


this is getting hilarious


maybe even a little sad
:-

kevoncox
01-15-2009, 08:28 AM
"COJOMAY" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


We don't need Oline help!!! We need a Qb that will make Defensive CO. think twice about blitz us on every down. Our line can handle it's on when they send 5 men after the QB. It's when they send 6 or more blitzers that we struggle. Why is that? Because our Qb cannot spot the blitz and throw the ball on his 3rd step. If our QB had any respect in the league we will see less 6 + men coming after our QB and our oline can do it's job. There is a reason they say Championships are built with Good Qbs and DEs. We can put 15 other Qbs behind this line and they would excell. We have one of the best lines in football; Running and Passing. It's our QB situations that sucks. Could you imagine if we had a line like oaklands and houstons? We have a top 5 Oline. Get me a top 15 QB and we will excel.


tell that to the 2000 baltimore ravens.
or the Bucs when they won their superbowl.
Neither had a particularly good qb, but still managed to win it all.
Perhaps there's a bit more to having a good team than having an all-star qb.



...they say Championships are built with Good Qbs and DEs."
Ya, I would like to see who says that. I want a direct quote. Usually I've heard that championships are built with good defense, especially when it comes to the playoff.


The quote is from George Young. The former GM of the NY Giants. I belief his statment is true as we got weaker on Defense this year but added Allen and our defense jumped up about 13 spots.
I magine what a Qb would do for our offense.

We are the only team in the league that seems happy to try to contend for a title with bottom dwellers at QB. The only team. TJ can complete 13 of 16 passes and have a huge Qb rating but what happenes when he is asked to throw more than 25 passes?

Marrdro
01-15-2009, 08:44 AM
"kevoncox" wrote:


We don't need Oline help!!! We need a Qb that will make Defensive CO. think twice about blitz us on every down. Our line can handle it's on when they send 5 men after the QB. It's when they send 6 or more blitzers that we struggle. Why is that? Because our Qb cannot spot the blitz and throw the ball on his 3rd step. If our QB had any respect in the league we will see less 6 + men coming after our QB and our oline can do it's job. There is a reason they say Championships are built with Good Qbs and DEs. We can put 15 other Qbs behind this line and they would excell. We have one of the best lines in football; Running and Passing. It's our QB situations that sucks. Could you imagine if we had a line like oaklands and houstons? We have a top 5 Oline. Get me a top 15 QB and we will excel.

So your saying that the Giants Defense didn't respect Brady's abilities to recognize a blitz and that is why they basically rushed 6 at him almost every down in the SB?
:o

Comeon my friend.
QB play is important for negating a rush but if the Ol can't pick it up then they will continue to do it regardless of who is behind center.

To be effective against the complex blitz packages and schemes "EVERBODY", not just the QB needs to do thier job.

singersp
01-15-2009, 08:51 AM
"kevoncox" wrote:


We don't need Oline help!!! We need a Qb that will make Defensive CO. think twice about blitz us on every down. Our line can handle it's on when they send 5 men after the QB. It's when they send 6 or more blitzers that we struggle. Why is that? Because our Qb cannot spot the blitz and throw the ball on his 3rd step. If our QB had any respect in the league we will see less 6 + men coming after our QB and our oline can do it's job. There is a reason they say Championships are built with Good Qbs and DEs. We can put 15 other Qbs behind this line and they would excell. We have one of the best lines in football; Running and Passing. It's our QB situations that sucks. Could you imagine if we had a line like oaklands and houstons? We have a top 5 Oline. Get me a top 15 QB and we will excel.


I stopped right there & didn't bother reading any further.

Obviously, Kevon blames the QB for not being able to deal with the inefficiencies of the line play. He has no clue what solid play would do for TJ, Frerotte or any other QB we put in there.

The only way he will change his mind is when the QB he prefers is behind center & has the same problems our current QB's do. Then he will not blame the QB, but the o-line for it.

kevoncox
01-15-2009, 09:02 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


We don't need Oline help!!! We need a Qb that will make Defensive CO. think twice about blitz us on every down. Our line can handle it's on when they send 5 men after the QB. It's when they send 6 or more blitzers that we struggle. Why is that? Because our Qb cannot spot the blitz and throw the ball on his 3rd step. If our QB had any respect in the league we will see less 6 + men coming after our QB and our oline can do it's job. There is a reason they say Championships are built with Good Qbs and DEs. We can put 15 other Qbs behind this line and they would excell. We have one of the best lines in football; Running and Passing. It's our QB situations that sucks. Could you imagine if we had a line like oaklands and houstons? We have a top 5 Oline. Get me a top 15 QB and we will excel.

So your saying that the Giants Defense didn't respect Brady's abilities to recognize a blitz and that is why they basically rushed 6 at him almost every down in the SB?

:o

Comeon My Sexy Little Pixie.

QB play is important for negating a rush but if the Ol can't pick it up then they will continue to do it regardless of who is behind center.

To be effective against the complex blitz packages and schemes "EVERBODY", not just the QB needs to do thier job.


Wrong. The giants didnt bring 6 on every play marr. They attacked with 4 and added a timely blitz. That is why they were able to get to him because everything was covered in the secondary. Brady normally eats 6 man rushes with ease. They were able to apply unbelieveable pressure with just their front four!

Marrdro
01-15-2009, 09:18 AM
"kevoncox" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


We don't need Oline help!!! We need a Qb that will make Defensive CO. think twice about blitz us on every down. Our line can handle it's on when they send 5 men after the QB. It's when they send 6 or more blitzers that we struggle. Why is that? Because our Qb cannot spot the blitz and throw the ball on his 3rd step. If our QB had any respect in the league we will see less 6 + men coming after our QB and our oline can do it's job. There is a reason they say Championships are built with Good Qbs and DEs. We can put 15 other Qbs behind this line and they would excell. We have one of the best lines in football; Running and Passing. It's our QB situations that sucks. Could you imagine if we had a line like oaklands and houstons? We have a top 5 Oline. Get me a top 15 QB and we will excel.

So your saying that the Giants Defense didn't respect Brady's abilities to recognize a blitz and that is why they basically rushed 6 at him almost every down in the SB?

:o

Comeon My Sexy Little Pixie.

QB play is important for negating a rush but if the Ol can't pick it up then they will continue to do it regardless of who is behind center.

To be effective against the complex blitz packages and schemes "EVERBODY", not just the QB needs to do thier job.


Wrong. The giants didnt bring 6 on every play marr. They attacked with 4 and added a timely blitz. That is why they were able to get to him because everything was covered in the secondary. Brady normally eats 6 man rushes with ease. They were able to apply unbelieveable pressure with just their front four!

You know what I mean.........

kevoncox
01-15-2009, 09:21 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


We don't need Oline help!!! We need a Qb that will make Defensive CO. think twice about blitz us on every down. Our line can handle it's on when they send 5 men after the QB. It's when they send 6 or more blitzers that we struggle. Why is that? Because our Qb cannot spot the blitz and throw the ball on his 3rd step. If our QB had any respect in the league we will see less 6 + men coming after our QB and our oline can do it's job. There is a reason they say Championships are built with Good Qbs and DEs. We can put 15 other Qbs behind this line and they would excell. We have one of the best lines in football; Running and Passing. It's our QB situations that sucks. Could you imagine if we had a line like oaklands and houstons? We have a top 5 Oline. Get me a top 15 QB and we will excel.


I stopped right there & didn't bother reading any further.

Obviously, Kevon blames the QB for not being able to deal with the inefficiencies of the line play. He has no clue what solid play would do for TJ, Frerotte or any other QB we put in there.

The only way he will change his mind is when the QB he prefers is behind center & has the same problems our current QB's do. Then he will not blame the QB, but the o-line for it.


I'm glad that you did because you probably would have missed the point anyway. On a Championship run we are going to face elite defenses that are going to get pressure no matter who we have on the OLINE. What you need to counter this is a SMART NFL QB. We do not have one, so anytime we run into an elite defense is game over.
Our QB is sub par our Oline is Above par. Why fix the Oline and Ignore the QB?
Our Oline performance this season was a B. Our Qb play this season was a D. Fix the QB play! Patch the line!

We have a line that most teams would gladly exchance for ours. Look at AZ's line...do you think they wouldn't exchange their's for ours in a heart beat. Look at Pittsburg, a run heavy team like ours, but with a worst Oline. However, the difference between these teams and our team is QB play. With the running game we have, our Oline will always be under heavy pressure, more so than most teams in the league.

Can you tell me how many teams have:
A 1st round pick LT,
who is playing at a near pro bowl level
A Top 3 Pro Bowl LG
A Former Pro Bowl C, who is very smart and a student of the game
A Solid RG, who plays bettwer than the Average RT
A Below average RT, Who plays the run well but is prone to the random penalty or blown assignment.

Most GMs would sell their left nut for this lineup because the RT problem is easily fixed by DRAFTING A RT not A CENTER!!!!

Why do you guy sbeleive that everybody, all the media hacks, most of the players, and all of the commentators say we have a question mark at QB? Everyone says that we need to fix this to take the next step. Why is that? besides blind TJ crotch sniffing, what makes you believe that switching the Oline will make our team better. Again, I go back to the Eagles game and the pick. No pressure, and he made not just a bad throw but a Horrible throw. Did that cost us the game?
No but I am showing you that even when he has time he is prone to throwing a terrible ball. He is not composed in big games. I would not put the 3 regular season games as big games. He was good in DET, Good in AZ, Solid in ATL ( great and poor in different ways) Poor in the giants game and Stinky in the Eagles game. 2 of those games he was playing with house money can you tell me which ones?

NordicNed
01-15-2009, 09:22 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


We don't need Oline help!!! We need a Qb that will make Defensive CO. think twice about blitz us on every down. Our line can handle it's on when they send 5 men after the QB. It's when they send 6 or more blitzers that we struggle. Why is that? Because our Qb cannot spot the blitz and throw the ball on his 3rd step. If our QB had any respect in the league we will see less 6 + men coming after our QB and our oline can do it's job. There is a reason they say Championships are built with Good Qbs and DEs. We can put 15 other Qbs behind this line and they would excell. We have one of the best lines in football; Running and Passing. It's our QB situations that sucks. Could you imagine if we had a line like oaklands and houstons? We have a top 5 Oline. Get me a top 15 QB and we will excel.


I stopped right there & didn't bother reading any further.

Obviously, Kevon blames the QB for not being able to deal with the inefficiencies of the line play. He has no clue what solid play would do for TJ, Frerotte or any other QB we put in there.

The only way he will change his mind is when the QB he prefers is behind center & has the same problems our current QB's do. Then he will not blame the QB, but the o-line for it.









I somewhat agree Singer, BUT,
TJ himself is still a big problem with how the O goes and also how he makes our recievers look.













I agree, the O-line is our weakest link, and I'll also say it's almost 90% due to the RT play.








TJ, is still playing like a Div II colege player.
He can't read a D and he surely has trouble looking away from his hot read and picking up those 2nd 3rd and even 4th choices.








Our WR's aren't nearly as bad as some what to think,
TJ just makes them look bad.









Fix the Right Side of the O line, Get a QB who can read D's and knows who to go thru his check list,
and our Offense could be a very good Offense.

kevoncox
01-15-2009, 09:28 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


We don't need Oline help!!! We need a Qb that will make Defensive CO. think twice about blitz us on every down. Our line can handle it's on when they send 5 men after the QB. It's when they send 6 or more blitzers that we struggle. Why is that? Because our Qb cannot spot the blitz and throw the ball on his 3rd step. If our QB had any respect in the league we will see less 6 + men coming after our QB and our oline can do it's job. There is a reason they say Championships are built with Good Qbs and DEs. We can put 15 other Qbs behind this line and they would excell. We have one of the best lines in football; Running and Passing. It's our QB situations that sucks. Could you imagine if we had a line like oaklands and houstons? We have a top 5 Oline. Get me a top 15 QB and we will excel.

So your saying that the Giants Defense didn't respect Brady's abilities to recognize a blitz and that is why they basically rushed 6 at him almost every down in the SB?

:o

Comeon My Sexy Little Pixie.

QB play is important for negating a rush but if the Ol can't pick it up then they will continue to do it regardless of who is behind center.

To be effective against the complex blitz packages and schemes "EVERBODY", not just the QB needs to do thier job.


Wrong. The giants didnt bring 6 on every play marr. They attacked with 4 and added a timely blitz. That is why they were able to get to him because everything was covered in the secondary. Brady normally eats 6 man rushes with ease. They were able to apply unbelieveable pressure with just their front four!

You know what I mean.........


Do I Marr?
Brady is a special case. Him and Peyton is a damned if you do, damned if you don't. You don't blitz them, they will eat you alive. The best thing to do is to get to roll the dice and hope to get to them.

He is my reason and train of thought. During film, teams Key on what the Qbs do and create a gameplan to stop him. You gameplan to beat the Qb not the Oline why? because most olines are very similar to each other, the differences are the specialty players, primarly the QB. When facing a poor Qb, teams dial up the blitz to get him rattled. Look at ATL, basically the same line from last season. The difference with them is that their young Qb is great at making reads and getting rid of the ball quickly. Qb play elevated them to another level and made their pass blocking easiser because when a defense gets burned by the blitz enough times they call it off. I am telling you, fix our QB situation and our Oline will be able to play at a much higher level.

NordicNed
01-15-2009, 09:30 AM
Just a note,
another thing I'de like to see us do.....Bring back TR and start him at FB.......Let Tapeh sit behind him, or just let Tapeh go.

kevoncox
01-15-2009, 09:36 AM
"NordicNed" wrote:


Just a note,
another thing I'de like to see us do.....Bring back TR and start him at FB.......Let Tapeh sit behind him, or just let Tapeh go.



I thought we cut him?

NordicNed
01-15-2009, 09:40 AM
"kevoncox" wrote:


"NordicNed" wrote:


Just a note,
another thing I'de like to see us do.....Bring back TR and start him at FB.......Let Tapeh sit behind him, or just let Tapeh go.



I thought we cut him?
Cut who?

kevoncox
01-15-2009, 09:42 AM
"NordicNed" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"NordicNed" wrote:


Just a note,
another thing I'de like to see us do.....Bring back TR and start him at FB.......Let Tapeh sit behind him, or just let Tapeh go.



I thought we cut him?
Cut who?



Tapeh

bleedpurple
01-15-2009, 10:06 AM
"kevoncox" wrote:


"NordicNed" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"NordicNed" wrote:


Just a note,
another thing I'de like to see us do.....Bring back TR and start him at FB.......Let Tapeh sit behind him, or just let Tapeh go.



I thought we cut him?
Cut who?



Tapeh


he's probably talkin about Tahi... but hey!.. tapeh, tahi... who gives a rat's ass.. they both suck!!!

jessejames09
01-15-2009, 10:10 AM
RT, QB, C, WR, OC, HC, GM.

Pick 2, chances are the other 5 will come back to bite us in the ass.

SamOchoCinco
01-15-2009, 10:38 AM
"kevoncox" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


We don't need Oline help!!! We need a Qb that will make Defensive CO. think twice about blitz us on every down. Our line can handle it's on when they send 5 men after the QB. It's when they send 6 or more blitzers that we struggle. Why is that? Because our Qb cannot spot the blitz and throw the ball on his 3rd step. If our QB had any respect in the league we will see less 6 + men coming after our QB and our oline can do it's job. There is a reason they say Championships are built with Good Qbs and DEs. We can put 15 other Qbs behind this line and they would excell. We have one of the best lines in football; Running and Passing. It's our QB situations that sucks. Could you imagine if we had a line like oaklands and houstons? We have a top 5 Oline. Get me a top 15 QB and we will excel.

So your saying that the Giants Defense didn't respect Brady's abilities to recognize a blitz and that is why they basically rushed 6 at him almost every down in the SB?

:o

Comeon My Sexy Little Pixie.

QB play is important for negating a rush but if the Ol can't pick it up then they will continue to do it regardless of who is behind center.

To be effective against the complex blitz packages and schemes "EVERBODY", not just the QB needs to do thier job.


Wrong. The giants didnt bring 6 on every play marr. They attacked with 4 and added a timely blitz. That is why they were able to get to him because everything was covered in the secondary. Brady normally eats 6 man rushes with ease. They were able to apply unbelieveable pressure with just their front four!

You know what I mean.........


Do I Marr?
Brady is a special case. Him and Peyton is a damned if you do, damned if you don't. You don't blitz them, they will eat you alive. The best thing to do is to get to roll the dice and hope to get to them.

He is my reason and train of thought. During film, teams Key on what the Qbs do and create a gameplan to stop him. You gameplan to beat the Qb not the Oline why? because most olines are very similar to each other, the differences are the specialty players, primarly the QB. When facing a poor Qb, teams dial up the blitz to get him rattled. Look at ATL, basically the same line from last season. The difference with them is that their young Qb is great at making reads and getting rid of the ball quickly. Qb play elevated them to another level and made their pass blocking easiser because when a defense gets burned by the blitz enough times they call it off. I am telling you, fix our QB situation and our Oline will be able to play at a much higher level.



i go with marrdro.

if our o-line could block better. then
our quarterbacks would get more time to pass and do a better job of passing.

from what i watched of the eagles vs vikes game. T-jack was under alot of pressure. and how do you expect to throw the ball when your constantly being rushed?

you both bring up really good points. but i believe marr. is right.

AS the saying goes. everything starts up front. so if the line cant block. no quarterback will be able to do anything he wants to do

Prophet
01-15-2009, 10:39 AM
"COJOMAY" wrote:


http://www.examiner.com/x-1483-Minnesota-Vikings-Examiner~y2009m1d14-The-Vikes-are-two-moves-away-from-a-powerhouse-offense


The Vikings went on a spending spree last year signing Bernard Berrian and Jared Allen, two reasons why the team made the playoffs. They will also likely be $20 million under the projected 2009 salary cap, so what if Zygi Wilf decided he wanted to add another weapon or two to the team?

Depending on if Wilf is willing to continue to spend big money, it’s not outside of the realm of possibility for the Vikes to put together a powerhouse offense for next season....

You'll have to read the article to see who the two are, but I totally agree with his remarks!


Yeah, two guys on a 53 man roster are enough to do it all.
Articles like that drive me crazier than I already am.
Although the QB situation has been suspect for way too long and with consistent play it would easily be worth a couple more wins/year.

SamOchoCinco
01-15-2009, 10:42 AM
try to give the seahawks gus, JDB, and a 3rd round pick for hasselbeck!

and try to sign a reciever or two. like TJ H. and greg C. from the dolphins

kevoncox
01-15-2009, 10:46 AM
"SamOchoCinco" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:




We don't need Oline help!!! We need a Qb that will make Defensive CO. think twice about blitz us on every down. Our line can handle it's on when they send 5 men after the QB. It's when they send 6 or more blitzers that we struggle. Why is that? Because our Qb cannot spot the blitz and throw the ball on his 3rd step. If our QB had any respect in the league we will see less 6 + men coming after our QB and our oline can do it's job. There is a reason they say Championships are built with Good Qbs and DEs. We can put 15 other Qbs behind this line and they would excell. We have one of the best lines in football; Running and Passing. It's our QB situations that sucks. Could you imagine if we had a line like oaklands and houstons? We have a top 5 Oline. Get me a top 15 QB and we will excel.

So your saying that the Giants Defense didn't respect Brady's abilities to recognize a blitz and that is why they basically rushed 6 at him almost every down in the SB?

:o

Comeon My Sexy Little Pixie.

QB play is important for negating a rush but if the Ol can't pick it up then they will continue to do it regardless of who is behind center.

To be effective against the complex blitz packages and schemes "EVERBODY", not just the QB needs to do thier job.


Wrong. The giants didnt bring 6 on every play marr. They attacked with 4 and added a timely blitz. That is why they were able to get to him because everything was covered in the secondary. Brady normally eats 6 man rushes with ease. They were able to apply unbelieveable pressure with just their front four!

You know what I mean.........


Do I Marr?
Brady is a special case. Him and Peyton is a damned if you do, damned if you don't. You don't blitz them, they will eat you alive. The best thing to do is to get to roll the dice and hope to get to them.

He is my reason and train of thought. During film, teams Key on what the Qbs do and create a gameplan to stop him. You gameplan to beat the Qb not the Oline why? because most olines are very similar to each other, the differences are the specialty players, primarly the QB. When facing a poor Qb, teams dial up the blitz to get him rattled. Look at ATL, basically the same line from last season. The difference with them is that their young Qb is great at making reads and getting rid of the ball quickly. Qb play elevated them to another level and made their pass blocking easiser because when a defense gets burned by the blitz enough times they call it off. I am telling you, fix our QB situation and our Oline will be able to play at a much higher level.



i go with marrdro.

if our o-line could block better. then
our quarterbacks would get more time to pass and do a better job of passing.

from what i watched of the eagles vs vikes game. T-jack was under alot of pressure. and how do you expect to throw the ball when your constantly being rushed?

you both bring up really good points. but i believe marr. is right.

AS the saying goes. everything starts up front. so if the line cant block. no quarterback will be able to do anything he wants to do


Nice advatar!
I don't think Marr is far off but i think if we want to win a Superbowl we will have to face a team that is able to get pressure. That's what good teams do. The Ravens, Eagles, Pitts, Cowboys, Giants, and a host of good teams get pressure on Qbs week in and week out. Your oline will not provide you with a perfecct pocket on every play. Go back thru this season and you can pinpoint a crap load of games where an improved QB would have won us a game inpiste of our "crappy"
oline. The weak point is QB.

Again, we have a supbar Qb situation and an Above par Oline. Why are we focusing on the oline?
We want to replace a great player becaus ehe played good but we want to keep a bad player that played average?
Think about it for a second? We as a team and fans are always worried about turning off the stove when the house is on fire!

Purple Floyd
01-15-2009, 10:48 AM
"Prophet" wrote:




Articles like that drive me crazier than I already am.



It's a conspiracy.

We are all plotting together to see how much you can take before you flip out and end up in a straight jacket.

Oh wait, was I supposed to tell him that?

Prophet
01-15-2009, 10:52 AM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:




Articles like that drive me crazier than I already am.



It's a conspiracy.

We are all plotting together to see how much you can take before you flip out and end up in a straight jacket.

Oh wait, was I supposed to tell him that?


I'm already so far over the edge that no psychologist or psychiatrist has the capabilities to analyze my situation and help me.
So it won't matter.

Purple Floyd
01-15-2009, 10:55 AM
"Prophet" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:




Articles like that drive me crazier than I already am.



It's a conspiracy.

We are all plotting together to see how much you can take before you flip out and end up in a straight jacket.

Oh wait, was I supposed to tell him that?


I'm already so far over the edge that no psychologist or psychiatrist has the capabilities to analyze my situation and help me.
So it won't matter.


Actually we were thinking more along the lines of Carnies. Much cheaper.

Prophet
01-15-2009, 10:58 AM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:




Articles like that drive me crazier than I already am.



It's a conspiracy.

We are all plotting together to see how much you can take before you flip out and end up in a straight jacket.

Oh wait, was I supposed to tell him that?


I'm already so far over the edge that no psychologist or psychiatrist has the capabilities to analyze my situation and help me.
So it won't matter.


Actually we were thinking more along the lines of Carnies. Much cheaper.


Carnies would be more fitting, I'm sure they could help me delve into a deeper transe with the help of Dr. Leary's theories, a semi-trained monkey and a fat bearded lady.

kspurplepride
01-15-2009, 11:01 AM
Wow, honestly our biggest problem is not our QB or our OL its our Head Coach and Offensive Coordinator. This system is not a quarterback friendly quarterback, we have yet to have a qb perform even remotely well over a consistant basis. After watching the Eagles game I am committed to the issue with this team being Childress. For those of you that watch the games, watch the play calling and how it affects Jackson. He plays above average to steller when the coaches trust him (first half of the eagles game he was matching McNabb stride for stride), but the moment that Chiller and Bevell try and play conservatively and close the playbook our offense stalls, and Jackson's numbers go with it. Our offense will not crack the top 10 with Childress here. Bevell and Childress called the first half of the first GB game and most of the colts game very conservatively and Jackson struggled. Given a full playbook to work with and peterson getting shut down in the second half of the GB game, Jackson was nothing less than steller. This kid is looking better with each season. The coaching staff needs to go

In terms of players, we need a right tackle. Big Mac does very well on the back side. Look at the difference from week one and week two, to when he actually came back. We need a good RT to compliment the left side of our line, and i hope and pray we spend our first round pick on one.

C Mac D
01-15-2009, 11:05 AM
"kspurplepride" wrote:


Wow, honestly our biggest problem is not our QB or our OL its our Head Coach and Offensive Coordinator. This system is not a quarterback friendly quarterback, we have yet to have a qb perform even remotely well over a consistant basis. After watching the Eagles game I am committed to the issue with this team being Childress. For those of you that watch the games, watch the play calling and how it affects Jackson. He plays above average to steller when the coaches trust him (first half of the eagles game he was matching McNabb stride for stride), but the moment that Chiller and Bevell try and play conservatively and close the playbook our offense stalls, and Jackson's numbers go with it. Our offense will not crack the top 10 with Childress here. Bevell and Childress called the first half of the first GB game and most of the colts game very conservatively and Jackson struggled. Given a full playbook to work with and peterson getting shut down in the second half of the GB game, Jackson was nothing less than steller. This kid is looking better with each season. The coaching staff needs to go

In terms of players, we need a right tackle. Big Mac does very well on the back side. Look at the difference from week one and week two, to when he actually came back. We need a good RT to compliment the left side of our line, and i hope and pray we spend our first round pick on one.


+1

My favorite post of the day

Marrdro
01-15-2009, 11:13 AM
"kspurplepride" wrote:


Wow, honestly our biggest problem is not our QB or our OL its our Head Coach and Offensive Coordinator. This system is not a quarterback friendly quarterback, we have yet to have a qb perform even remotely well over a consistant basis. After watching the Eagles game I am committed to the issue with this team being Childress. For those of you that watch the games, watch the play calling and how it affects Jackson. He plays above average to steller when the coaches trust him (first half of the eagles game he was matching McNabb stride for stride), but the moment that Chiller and Bevell try and play conservatively and close the playbook our offense stalls, and Jackson's numbers go with it. Our offense will not crack the top 10 with Childress here. Bevell and Childress called the first half of the first GB game and most of the colts game very conservatively and Jackson struggled. Given a full playbook to work with and peterson getting shut down in the second half of the GB game, Jackson was nothing less than steller. This kid is looking better with each season. The coaching staff needs to go

In terms of players, we need a right tackle. Big Mac does very well on the back side. Look at the difference from week one and week two, to when he actually came back. We need a good RT to compliment the left side of our line, and i hope and pray we spend our first round pick on one.

What makes you think they started to restrict the play calling in the second half?

What I saw was a opposing defense that shut down our running attack and basically shut down our passing attack.
They continually pushed the WR's off thier timed routes, as well as kept our QB under pressure.

Again, not sure how that equates to the coaching staff getting conservative/restricting the offense with respect to playcalling.

Marrdro
01-15-2009, 11:14 AM
"C" wrote:


"kspurplepride" wrote:


Wow, honestly our biggest problem is not our QB or our OL its our Head Coach and Offensive Coordinator. This system is not a quarterback friendly quarterback, we have yet to have a qb perform even remotely well over a consistant basis. After watching the Eagles game I am committed to the issue with this team being Childress. For those of you that watch the games, watch the play calling and how it affects Jackson. He plays above average to steller when the coaches trust him (first half of the eagles game he was matching McNabb stride for stride), but the moment that Chiller and Bevell try and play conservatively and close the playbook our offense stalls, and Jackson's numbers go with it. Our offense will not crack the top 10 with Childress here. Bevell and Childress called the first half of the first GB game and most of the colts game very conservatively and Jackson struggled. Given a full playbook to work with and peterson getting shut down in the second half of the GB game, Jackson was nothing less than steller. This kid is looking better with each season. The coaching staff needs to go

In terms of players, we need a right tackle. Big Mac does very well on the back side. Look at the difference from week one and week two, to when he actually came back. We need a good RT to compliment the left side of our line, and i hope and pray we spend our first round pick on one.


+1

My favorite post of the day

Why, cause he laid all the blame at the HC's and Ocoords feet?

Purple Floyd
01-15-2009, 11:19 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"kspurplepride" wrote:


Wow, honestly our biggest problem is not our QB or our OL its our Head Coach and Offensive Coordinator. This system is not a quarterback friendly quarterback, we have yet to have a qb perform even remotely well over a consistant basis. After watching the Eagles game I am committed to the issue with this team being Childress. For those of you that watch the games, watch the play calling and how it affects Jackson. He plays above average to steller when the coaches trust him (first half of the eagles game he was matching McNabb stride for stride), but the moment that Chiller and Bevell try and play conservatively and close the playbook our offense stalls, and Jackson's numbers go with it. Our offense will not crack the top 10 with Childress here. Bevell and Childress called the first half of the first GB game and most of the colts game very conservatively and Jackson struggled. Given a full playbook to work with and peterson getting shut down in the second half of the GB game, Jackson was nothing less than steller. This kid is looking better with each season. The coaching staff needs to go

In terms of players, we need a right tackle. Big Mac does very well on the back side. Look at the difference from week one and week two, to when he actually came back. We need a good RT to compliment the left side of our line, and i hope and pray we spend our first round pick on one.

What makes you think they started to restrict the play calling in the second half?

What I saw was a opposing defense that shut down our running attack and basically shut down our passing attack.
They continually pushed the WR's off thier timed routes, as well as kept our QB under pressure.

Again, not sure how that equates to the coaching staff getting conservative/restricting the offense with respect to playcalling.



http://min.scout.com/a.z?s=63&p=2&c=828149&ssf=1&RequestedURL=http%3a%2f%2fmin.scout.com%2f2%2f828149.html




Bobby Wade led the Minnesota Vikings in receptions, but he didn’t leave the season behind feeling like the coaches always had enough confidence in the players.

C Mac D
01-15-2009, 11:20 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"kspurplepride" wrote:


Wow, honestly our biggest problem is not our QB or our OL its our Head Coach and Offensive Coordinator. This system is not a quarterback friendly quarterback, we have yet to have a qb perform even remotely well over a consistant basis. After watching the Eagles game I am committed to the issue with this team being Childress. For those of you that watch the games, watch the play calling and how it affects Jackson. He plays above average to steller when the coaches trust him (first half of the eagles game he was matching McNabb stride for stride), but the moment that Chiller and Bevell try and play conservatively and close the playbook our offense stalls, and Jackson's numbers go with it. Our offense will not crack the top 10 with Childress here. Bevell and Childress called the first half of the first GB game and most of the colts game very conservatively and Jackson struggled. Given a full playbook to work with and peterson getting shut down in the second half of the GB game, Jackson was nothing less than steller. This kid is looking better with each season. The coaching staff needs to go

In terms of players, we need a right tackle. Big Mac does very well on the back side. Look at the difference from week one and week two, to when he actually came back. We need a good RT to compliment the left side of our line, and i hope and pray we spend our first round pick on one.


+1

My favorite post of the day

Why, cause he laid all the blame at the HC's and Ocoords feet?


Because I watched the games and agreed with his assessment.

BBQ Platypus
01-15-2009, 12:44 PM
Write this down, because I am standing by this statement:

A better quarterback would make Childress look a hell of a lot smarter.

Purple Floyd
01-15-2009, 12:48 PM
"BBQ" wrote:


Write this down, because I am standing by this statement:

A better quarterback would make Childress look a hell of a lot smarter.


So would a better scheme and better coaches but at some point you are what you are.

mountainviking
01-15-2009, 01:15 PM
Nice Wish List, but quite unrealistic.
I'm going to guess that Housh expects to make around 10 mill/year.
Combine that with Hasselbeck's salary and we might be coming close to just enough for rookies...meaning, no resigning of Kleiny, Birk, Sharper, Farwell etc!
18 total UFA and RFA...we need to sign some of them.


And, Hasselbeck didn't play very much ball this year, and was somewhat inconsistent when he did.
I've had back problems, and they can be devastating...I'd be pretty concerned about the state of that injury before investing a 2nd and salary!
Besides, Seachickens don't like Vikings
;)

How about this:
Instead of paying Birk 5 or 6 mill/year, we try and sign Jason Brown of BAL.
He's bigger, younger, and likely stronger...started the past two years at C and they seem to be doing pretty good on offense.
4 year player who fits our FO mold of past signings, ie. players coming off of their first contract who still have potential to improve, and experience playing, to long term (5 or 6 year) contracts.

AND draft a RT first round or early in the 2nd to compete with Hicks for starting.
Maybe Cook can be a multi backup.
Sullivan can probably use another year to simmer anyway, maybe he can compete for RG...?

I like Harvin but it seems we already have 3 decent, under developed WRs with speed and return skills/experience.
I'm leaning toward a vet WR too, just not such a big money guy...one more speedy threat with the experience needed for reliable route running and hands.
Maybe,
an older guy would be good, just to add some overall experience there, and help set up his future replacement(s)...Toomer could be an option...could he be our Cris Carter type?
Guessing our FO fit?
More likely, a Nate Washington, Devery Henderson, Lance Moore level guy.

Yup, more depth at QB needed.
But, once again, I think you're barking up the wrong tree if you think a high priced QB like Cassell or Warner or McNabb are the total solution.
We've got other spots to worry about filling too.
There are a lot of other names out there who could potentially be better depth/competitiion for much more reasonable salaries.
(perhaps, with bonus for games started worked into the contract...we've got TJack signed for at least 1 more?)


Doesn't our running game seem kind of QB friendly?
;)
But, I agree that at least at times, the offensive plan/plays seem lacking.
There are ways to beat an all out blitz attack...Westbrook's 70 yard TD is a perfect example.
Slants, hooks, quick outs, putting the QB in motion, playaction fakes, spread offense etc etc.
IMHO we saw too little too late in the 2nd half of the Eagles loss.
Even Joe Montana or Elway can't beat anybody if they're not given a chance to throw downfield!


kind of a cool site/list

http://www.sportscity.com/NFL/Minnesota-Vikings-Salaries

Marrdro
01-15-2009, 01:49 PM
"mountainviking" wrote:


Nice Wish List, but quite unrealistic.
I'm going to guess that Housh expects to make around 10 mill/year.
Combine that with Hasselbeck's salary and we might be coming close to just enough for rookies...meaning, no resigning of Kleiny, Birk, Sharper, Farwell etc!
18 total UFA and RFA...we need to sign some of them.


And, Hasselbeck didn't play very much ball this year, and was somewhat inconsistent when he did.
I've had back problems, and they can be devastating...I'd be pretty concerned about the state of that injury before investing a 2nd and salary!
Besides, Seachickens don't like Vikings
;)

How about this:
Instead of paying Birk 5 or 6 mill/year, we try and sign Jason Brown of BAL.
He's bigger, younger, and likely stronger...started the past two years at C and they seem to be doing pretty good on offense.
4 year player who fits our FO mold of past signings, ie. players coming off of their first contract who still have potential to improve, and experience playing, to long term (5 or 6 year) contracts.

AND draft a RT first round or early in the 2nd to compete with Hicks for starting.
Maybe Cook can be a multi backup.
Sullivan can probably use another year to simmer anyway, maybe he can compete for RG...?

I like Harvin but it seems we already have 3 decent, under developed WRs with speed and return skills/experience.
I'm leaning toward a vet WR too, just not such a big money guy...one more speedy threat with the experience needed for reliable route running and hands.
Maybe,
an older guy would be good, just to add some overall experience there, and help set up his future replacement(s)...Toomer could be an option...could he be our Cris Carter type?
Guessing our FO fit?
More likely, a Nate Washington, Devery Henderson, Lance Moore level guy.

Yup, more depth at QB needed.
But, once again, I think you're barking up the wrong tree if you think a high priced QB like Cassell or Warner or McNabb are the total solution.
We've got other spots to worry about filling too.
There are a lot of other names out there who could potentially be better depth/competitiion for much more reasonable salaries.
(perhaps, with bonus for games started worked into the contract...we've got TJack signed for at least 1 more?)


Doesn't our running game seem kind of QB friendly?
;)
But, I agree that at least at times, the offensive plan/plays seem lacking.
There are ways to beat an all out blitz attack...Westbrook's 70 yard TD is a perfect example.
Slants, hooks, quick outs, putting the QB in motion, playaction fakes, spread offense etc etc.
IMHO we saw too little too late in the 2nd half of the Eagles loss.
Even Joe Montana or Elway can't beat anybody if they're not given a chance to throw downfield!


kind of a cool site/list

http://www.sportscity.com/NFL/Minnesota-Vikings-Salaries

I need to get you in touch with our FO.
Sure wish some of the chuckleheads on here wouldn't have scared away the "Marketing" guy.

We could use him as a in road to get you in.
JK

Excellent (as always) post my friend.

Purple Floyd
01-15-2009, 02:00 PM
At least the premise of the article wasn't

1) Change the ownership
2) Move to L.A

seaniemck7
01-15-2009, 02:14 PM
"kspurplepride" wrote:


Wow, honestly our biggest problem is not our QB or our OL its our Head Coach and Offensive Coordinator. This system is not a quarterback friendly quarterback, we have yet to have a qb perform even remotely well over a consistant basis. After watching the Eagles game I am committed to the issue with this team being Childress. For those of you that watch the games, watch the play calling and how it affects Jackson. He plays above average to steller when the coaches trust him (first half of the eagles game he was matching McNabb stride for stride), but the moment that Chiller and Bevell try and play conservatively and close the playbook our offense stalls, and Jackson's numbers go with it. Our offense will not crack the top 10 with Childress here. Bevell and Childress called the first half of the first GB game and most of the colts game very conservatively and Jackson struggled. Given a full playbook to work with and peterson getting shut down in the second half of the GB game, Jackson was nothing less than steller. This kid is looking better with each season. The coaching staff needs to go

In terms of players, we need a right tackle. Big Mac does very well on the back side. Look at the difference from week one and week two, to when he actually came back. We need a good RT to compliment the left side of our line, and i hope and pray we spend our first round pick on one.


This is the only reason why I would like Brett Favre to come the Vikings.
I hate him, but I guaran-damn-ty you that he would play the conservative game for about 1.5 series.
At that point, he would draw up a play on Herrera's back and tell bernard to run to the corner of the endzone.
Seriously, he has the balls to tell chilly and bevell when they are sucking the life out of the offense.


Sure, Favre can be reckless with the ball, but its not like Frerotte was turnoverless.
Moreover, Favre has more feel for the tempo of a game and clock management skills than all of our coaches put together.

bleedpurple
01-15-2009, 02:25 PM
"seaniemck7" wrote:


"kspurplepride" wrote:


Wow, honestly our biggest problem is not our QB or our OL its our Head Coach and Offensive Coordinator. This system is not a quarterback friendly quarterback, we have yet to have a qb perform even remotely well over a consistant basis. After watching the Eagles game I am committed to the issue with this team being Childress. For those of you that watch the games, watch the play calling and how it affects Jackson. He plays above average to steller when the coaches trust him (first half of the eagles game he was matching McNabb stride for stride), but the moment that Chiller and Bevell try and play conservatively and close the playbook our offense stalls, and Jackson's numbers go with it. Our offense will not crack the top 10 with Childress here. Bevell and Childress called the first half of the first GB game and most of the colts game very conservatively and Jackson struggled. Given a full playbook to work with and peterson getting shut down in the second half of the GB game, Jackson was nothing less than steller. This kid is looking better with each season. The coaching staff needs to go

In terms of players, we need a right tackle. Big Mac does very well on the back side. Look at the difference from week one and week two, to when he actually came back. We need a good RT to compliment the left side of our line, and i hope and pray we spend our first round pick on one.


This is the only reason why I would like Brett Favre to come the Vikings.
I hate him, but I guaran-gol 'darnit-ty you that he would play the conservative game for about 1.5 series.
At that point, he would draw up a play on Herrera's back and tell bernard to run to the corner of the endzone.
Seriously, he has the balls to tell chilly and bevell when they are sucking the life out of the offense.


Sure, Favre can be reckless with the ball, but its not like Frerotte was turnoverless.
Moreover, Favre has more feel for the tempo of a game and clock management skills than all of our coaches put together.





AMEN!!! aint that the truth!!!

Marrdro
01-15-2009, 02:35 PM
"seaniemck7" wrote:


"kspurplepride" wrote:


Wow, honestly our biggest problem is not our QB or our OL its our Head Coach and Offensive Coordinator. This system is not a quarterback friendly quarterback, we have yet to have a qb perform even remotely well over a consistant basis. After watching the Eagles game I am committed to the issue with this team being Childress. For those of you that watch the games, watch the play calling and how it affects Jackson. He plays above average to steller when the coaches trust him (first half of the eagles game he was matching McNabb stride for stride), but the moment that Chiller and Bevell try and play conservatively and close the playbook our offense stalls, and Jackson's numbers go with it. Our offense will not crack the top 10 with Childress here. Bevell and Childress called the first half of the first GB game and most of the colts game very conservatively and Jackson struggled. Given a full playbook to work with and peterson getting shut down in the second half of the GB game, Jackson was nothing less than steller. This kid is looking better with each season. The coaching staff needs to go

In terms of players, we need a right tackle. Big Mac does very well on the back side. Look at the difference from week one and week two, to when he actually came back. We need a good RT to compliment the left side of our line, and i hope and pray we spend our first round pick on one.


This is the only reason why I would like Brett Favre to come the Vikings.
I hate him, but I guaran-gol 'darnit-ty you that he would play the conservative game for about 1.5 series.
At that point, he would draw up a play on Herrera's back and tell bernard to run to the corner of the endzone.
Seriously, he has the balls to tell chilly and bevell when they are sucking the life out of the offense.


Sure, Favre can be reckless with the ball, but its not like Frerotte was turnoverless.
Moreover, Favre has more feel for the tempo of a game and clock management skills than all of our coaches put together.




He didn't with McCarthy.
Ole Mac kept him in check pretty much all of the 2007 season.
To bad for the Pukers he drew one up on the last play of the Giants/PUKER game and he threw it deep to the guy triple covered instead of the other guys short (conservative throw) that were open and that would have kept the drive going......

;D(Sorry my friend, couldn't resist) ;D

Ranger
01-15-2009, 03:17 PM
"PurpleTide" wrote:



Hasselback is a dainty little whinner, and I wouldn't want him to be the first choice of a vet QB....


He's none of those things.
He's a stud quarterback who carries his nutsatchel in a wheel barrow.

COJOMAY
01-15-2009, 03:33 PM
Let's face it, Hasselbeck has a bad shoulder and he's 34 years old. How much is he REALLY worth? I kinda like him and I've been mentioning him, but I've come to the conclusion that I don't think the Vikings are that desperate to give up a second round draft pick and big money for him.

seaniemck7
01-15-2009, 07:45 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"seaniemck7" wrote:


"kspurplepride" wrote:


Wow, honestly our biggest problem is not our QB or our OL its our Head Coach and Offensive Coordinator. This system is not a quarterback friendly quarterback, we have yet to have a qb perform even remotely well over a consistant basis. After watching the Eagles game I am committed to the issue with this team being Childress. For those of you that watch the games, watch the play calling and how it affects Jackson. He plays above average to steller when the coaches trust him (first half of the eagles game he was matching McNabb stride for stride), but the moment that Chiller and Bevell try and play conservatively and close the playbook our offense stalls, and Jackson's numbers go with it. Our offense will not crack the top 10 with Childress here. Bevell and Childress called the first half of the first GB game and most of the colts game very conservatively and Jackson struggled. Given a full playbook to work with and peterson getting shut down in the second half of the GB game, Jackson was nothing less than steller. This kid is looking better with each season. The coaching staff needs to go

In terms of players, we need a right tackle. Big Mac does very well on the back side. Look at the difference from week one and week two, to when he actually came back. We need a good RT to compliment the left side of our line, and i hope and pray we spend our first round pick on one.


This is the only reason why I would like Brett Favre to come the Vikings.
I hate him, but I guaran-gol 'darnit-ty you that he would play the conservative game for about 1.5 series.
At that point, he would draw up a play on Herrera's back and tell bernard to run to the corner of the endzone.
Seriously, he has the balls to tell chilly and bevell when they are sucking the life out of the offense.


Sure, Favre can be reckless with the ball, but its not like Frerotte was turnoverless.
Moreover, Favre has more feel for the tempo of a game and clock management skills than all of our coaches put together.




He didn't with McCarthy.
Ole Mac kept him in check pretty much all of the 2007 season.
To bad for the Pukers he drew one up on the last play of the Giants/PUKER game and he threw it deep to the guy triple covered instead of the other guys short (conservative throw) that were open and that would have kept the drive going......

;D(Sorry My Sexy Little Pixie, couldn't resist) ;D


I knew I would draw your ire with that post. However Caine has preached it in a number of posts.
No one in this organization checks Chilly's KAO at the door.
Bevell is a glorified QB coach in a role in which he would never question his HC and his offense.


Besides Mayor McCheese keeping him in check was puffed up by the media.
Favre threw all over the place that year.
;) How do you consider it "keeping him in check" when they had 9 games where they had at least 1 catch over 40 yards?
Is that because of he ONLY had 15 INTs in 15.5 games?
No, he looked like he was in check because of a young O-Line that could pass block its ass off and the emergence of a guy named Greg Jennings.
;D ;D ;D

mountainviking
01-16-2009, 01:39 PM
Back to the spending at hand...I started thinking about our cap space vs. FAs, and decided to do some quick math guesstimates.

So, word is, we've got about 20 million in cap room...but we've also got like 18 total Restricted or not Free Agents.
That is a lot of spots on the 53 man roster!!
Wow, 34%
I think we may be more limited than we'd like to think.
Basically, if we sign one BIG FA, we've lookin at just enough to sign rookies and resign some of our own guys.


There are several I'd like back; Kleiny (guessing 2.5 mill/year) Farwell (maybe 2/yr) Fred Evens (3/yr?) Charles Gordon (1.5/yr?)
Not sure if we need to add Udeze to this list too, I thought that he had accepted another year contract when they decided to pay him for this one...?
I'll guess he'll play for 1/year to prove his health, for a total of 10 mill spent already!


But, I really, Really like the idea of Kenechi coming back strong and adding quality depth to the entire DL.
He apparently played DT in high school, then lost a bunch of weight, gained speed and played mainly DE in college, setting a record for sacks at USC.
Perhaps, he could be our Tuck, lining up DT on passing downs and taking some reps at DE too and just keeping everybody fresher for late in the game with overall quality rotation...
:)

Others I'd be fine with giving another shot too...Jimmy Kenedy DT, Tahi FB, Boulware, Sapp?
Vet minimum is getting close to 1mill/year...?
Now we're at 14 fricken million spent and we haven't even started yet!
Kind of makes it hard to keep Birk and Sharper, those guys likely both want 5/year plus bonus!

AND, we have some big FAs coming up next year that we may want to consider resigning mid season!
Chester Taylor, Griffin and Winfield topping the list...but TJack would be there too, although he might be RFA the first year...?
Personally, I liked how TJack played vs. NYG and PHI.
Tough matchups, against really good defenses with full on pressure on to win.
Not great, but not F'd like how we ended last season.
He's got tons of skill, but is lacking in confidence and experience...only one way to get that (I guess sitting on the bench helps some, but...)
He could use better blocking by the OL, and one more WR who can get open.
Or, a coach who doesn't tend to hide his head in the sand when he should be calling something that actually gives us a chance of winning...there is a time for conservative, and a time for guts...and anytime you're down 2 scores late in the third, you should consider leaning toward taking a shot.


Guys like Houshmanzedeh and I think, Cassell (if he gets franchised, its the avg of the top 5 salaries) are going to want around 10 mill/year...I don't think that is even an option.

Then there is the more likely 5 mill/year range...maybe, Garcia, Warner, the C I like in BAL-J.Brown, one of the young S I like to replace Sharper-Otogwe, Philips, or S.Jones?

Lower, say 3 to 5 range???
K.Collins?
Leftwich?
That extra vet WR I'd like to sign...Lance Moore, N.Washington, D.Henderson.
Somebody who can help on returns, with enough experience to run a solid route and regularly catch the ball.
I like Rice, Allison, and Reynaud, but they are all so young, a bit more experience at WR might help...or do you think we'd be better off with a Toomer?

At the moment, I really like the idea of upgrading the C position with the big guy from BAL, but I'm worried about Tyrell's experience, and Madieu's injury history.
And, I do really like the idea of trying to add a Eddie Royal or DeSean Jackson type of fast, shifty KR/WR!
But, only looks like we've got cash for one.
D'oh!
SO, I guess, we need to ascertain, which of our young groups is most likely to step up:
The 3 or 4 young WRs?
Sullivan or Cook at C?
MW and TJ at S???
Where, do we need the depth the most?

IN the draft, I like RT, CB, DT...although, I totally think that Harvin kid could add a dimension to our offense that might just put it over the top!
I've been touting the idea of trading back, out of the first, with SEA or CLE, who are totally rebuilding (I could totally see SEA go with Crabtree and want an OL too.)
Our first is worth their 2nd and 3rd combined, which would be 4th of one round and 5th of the other (they sucked equally;)
We could possibly, trade our two thirds for a 3rd second round pick, and then land top notch talent at all 3 spots!
OR, maybe, what we're going to see, is a lot of our FAs leaving, and replaced by lots of younger, cheaper draft picks...?

What do ya'all think?
How's my math/salary guesswork?

Marrdro
01-16-2009, 01:42 PM
"seaniemck7" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"seaniemck7" wrote:


"kspurplepride" wrote:


Wow, honestly our biggest problem is not our QB or our OL its our Head Coach and Offensive Coordinator. This system is not a quarterback friendly quarterback, we have yet to have a qb perform even remotely well over a consistant basis. After watching the Eagles game I am committed to the issue with this team being Childress. For those of you that watch the games, watch the play calling and how it affects Jackson. He plays above average to steller when the coaches trust him (first half of the eagles game he was matching McNabb stride for stride), but the moment that Chiller and Bevell try and play conservatively and close the playbook our offense stalls, and Jackson's numbers go with it. Our offense will not crack the top 10 with Childress here. Bevell and Childress called the first half of the first GB game and most of the colts game very conservatively and Jackson struggled. Given a full playbook to work with and peterson getting shut down in the second half of the GB game, Jackson was nothing less than steller. This kid is looking better with each season. The coaching staff needs to go

In terms of players, we need a right tackle. Big Mac does very well on the back side. Look at the difference from week one and week two, to when he actually came back. We need a good RT to compliment the left side of our line, and i hope and pray we spend our first round pick on one.


This is the only reason why I would like Brett Favre to come the Vikings.
I hate him, but I guaran-gol 'darnit-ty you that he would play the conservative game for about 1.5 series.
At that point, he would draw up a play on Herrera's back and tell bernard to run to the corner of the endzone.
Seriously, he has the balls to tell chilly and bevell when they are sucking the life out of the offense.


Sure, Favre can be reckless with the ball, but its not like Frerotte was turnoverless.
Moreover, Favre has more feel for the tempo of a game and clock management skills than all of our coaches put together.




He didn't with McCarthy.
Ole Mac kept him in check pretty much all of the 2007 season.
To bad for the Pukers he drew one up on the last play of the Giants/PUKER game and he threw it deep to the guy triple covered instead of the other guys short (conservative throw) that were open and that would have kept the drive going......

;D(Sorry My Sexy Little Pixie, couldn't resist) ;D


I knew I would draw your ire with that post. However Caine has preached it in a number of posts.
No one in this organization checks Chilly's KAO at the door.
Bevell is a glorified QB coach in a role in which he would never question his HC and his offense.


Besides Mayor McCheese keeping him in check was puffed up by the media.
Favre threw all over the place that year.
;) How do you consider it "keeping him in check" when they had 9 games where they had at least 1 catch over 40 yards?
Is that because of he ONLY had 15 INTs in 15.5 games?
No, he looked like he was in check because of a young O-Line that could pass block its jiggly butt off and the emergence of a guy named Greg Jennings.

;D ;D ;D

But how many of those plays over 40 yards were actually thrown 40 yards and how many were actually just a dump off that the cat got serious YAC out of?

One of the talking heads put up a stat towards the end of the season wich stated that Lord Dickhead didn't have any passes completed during thier losing streak of over 20 yards.

That is a bad stat.

bleedpurple
01-16-2009, 02:15 PM
"seaniemck7" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"seaniemck7" wrote:


"kspurplepride" wrote:


Wow, honestly our biggest problem is not our QB or our OL its our Head Coach and Offensive Coordinator. This system is not a quarterback friendly quarterback, we have yet to have a qb perform even remotely well over a consistant basis. After watching the Eagles game I am committed to the issue with this team being Childress. For those of you that watch the games, watch the play calling and how it affects Jackson. He plays above average to steller when the coaches trust him (first half of the eagles game he was matching McNabb stride for stride), but the moment that Chiller and Bevell try and play conservatively and close the playbook our offense stalls, and Jackson's numbers go with it. Our offense will not crack the top 10 with Childress here. Bevell and Childress called the first half of the first GB game and most of the colts game very conservatively and Jackson struggled. Given a full playbook to work with and peterson getting shut down in the second half of the GB game, Jackson was nothing less than steller. This kid is looking better with each season. The coaching staff needs to go

In terms of players, we need a right tackle. Big Mac does very well on the back side. Look at the difference from week one and week two, to when he actually came back. We need a good RT to compliment the left side of our line, and i hope and pray we spend our first round pick on one.


This is the only reason why I would like Brett Favre to come the Vikings.
I hate him, but I guaran-gol 'darnit-ty you that he would play the conservative game for about 1.5 series.
At that point, he would draw up a play on Herrera's back and tell bernard to run to the corner of the endzone.
Seriously, he has the balls to tell chilly and bevell when they are sucking the life out of the offense.


Sure, Favre can be reckless with the ball, but its not like Frerotte was turnoverless.
Moreover, Favre has more feel for the tempo of a game and clock management skills than all of our coaches put together.




He didn't with McCarthy.
Ole Mac kept him in check pretty much all of the 2007 season.
To bad for the Pukers he drew one up on the last play of the Giants/PUKER game and he threw it deep to the guy triple covered instead of the other guys short (conservative throw) that were open and that would have kept the drive going......

;D(Sorry My Sexy Little Pixie, couldn't resist) ;D


I knew I would draw your ire with that post. However Caine has preached it in a number of posts.
No one in this organization checks Chilly's KAO at the door.
Bevell is a glorified QB coach in a role in which he would never question his HC and his offense.


Besides Mayor McCheese keeping him in check was puffed up by the media.
Favre threw all over the place that year.
;) How do you consider it "keeping him in check" when they had 9 games where they had at least 1 catch over 40 yards?
Is that because of he ONLY had 15 INTs in 15.5 games?
No, he looked like he was in check because of a young O-Line that could pass block its jiggly butt off and the emergence of a guy named Greg Jennings.

;D ;D ;D


THANKYOU!!!... i said the same thing when he was hired... under bevell favre had his worst years as a QB in his career... and then chilly bring him in as OC... imo, he's in waaay over his head..!!!
even now!!!

please get someone with a brain...

Marrdro
01-16-2009, 02:29 PM
"mountainviking" wrote:


Back to the spending at hand...I started thinking about our cap space vs. FAs, and decided to do some quick math guesstimates.

So, word is, we've got about 20 million in cap room...but we've also got like 18 total Restricted or not Free Agents.
That is a lot of spots on the 53 man roster!!
Wow, 34%
I think we may be more limited than we'd like to think.
Basically, if we sign one BIG FA, we've lookin at just enough to sign rookies and resign some of our own guys.


There are several I'd like back; Kleiny (guessing 2.5 mill/year) Farwell (maybe 2/yr) Fred Evens (3/yr?) Charles Gordon (1.5/yr?)
Not sure if we need to add Udeze to this list too, I thought that he had accepted another year contract when they decided to pay him for this one...?
I'll guess he'll play for 1/year to prove his health, for a total of 10 mill spent already!


But, I really, Really like the idea of Kenechi coming back strong and adding quality depth to the entire DL.
He apparently played DT in high school, then lost a bunch of weight, gained speed and played mainly DE in college, setting a record for sacks at USC.
Perhaps, he could be our Tuck, lining up DT on passing downs and taking some reps at DE too and just keeping everybody fresher for late in the game with overall quality rotation...
:)

Others I'd be fine with giving another shot too...Jimmy Kenedy DT, Tahi FB, Boulware, Sapp?

Vet minimum is getting close to 1mill/year...?
Now we're at 14 fricken million spent and we haven't even started yet!
Kind of makes it hard to keep Birk and Sharper, those guys likely both want 5/year plus bonus!

AND, we have some big FAs coming up next year that we may want to consider resigning mid season!
Chester Taylor, Griffin and Winfield topping the list...but TJack would be there too, although he might be RFA the first year...?
Personally, I liked how TJack played vs. NYG and PHI.
Tough matchups, against really good defenses with full on pressure on to win.
Not great, but not F'd like how we ended last season.
He's got tons of skill, but is lacking in confidence and experience...only one way to get that (I guess sitting on the bench helps some, but...)

He could use better blocking by the OL, and one more WR who can get open.
Or, a coach who doesn't tend to hide his head in the sand when he should be calling something that actually gives us a chance of winning...there is a time for conservative, and a time for guts...and anytime you're down 2 scores late in the third, you should consider leaning toward taking a shot.


Guys like Houshmanzedeh and I think, Cassell (if he gets franchised, its the avg of the top 5 salaries) are going to want around 10 mill/year...I don't think that is even an option.

Then there is the more likely 5 mill/year range...maybe, Garcia, Warner, the C I like in BAL-J.Brown, one of the young S I like to replace Sharper-Otogwe, Philips, or S.Jones?

Lower, say 3 to 5 range???
K.Collins?
Leftwich?
That extra vet WR I'd like to sign...Lance Moore, N.Washington, D.Henderson.
Somebody who can help on returns, with enough experience to run a solid route and regularly catch the ball.
I like Rice, Allison, and Reynaud, but they are all so young, a bit more experience at WR might help...or do you think we'd be better off with a Toomer?

At the moment, I really like the idea of upgrading the C position with the big guy from BAL, but I'm worried about Tyrell's experience, and Madieu's injury history.
And, I do really like the idea of trying to add a Eddie Royal or DeSean Jackson type of fast, shifty KR/WR!
But, only looks like we've got cash for one.
D'oh!
SO, I guess, we need to ascertain, which of our young groups is most likely to step up:
The 3 or 4 young WRs?
Sullivan or Cook at C?
MW and TJ at S???
Where, do we need the depth the most?

IN the draft, I like RT, CB, DT...although, I totally think that Harvin kid could add a dimension to our offense that might just put it over the top!
I've been touting the idea of trading back, out of the first, with SEA or CLE, who are totally rebuilding (I could totally see SEA go with Crabtree and want an OL too.)
Our first is worth their 2nd and 3rd combined, which would be 4th of one round and 5th of the other (they sucked equally;)
We could possibly, trade our two thirds for a 3rd second round pick, and then land top notch talent at all 3 spots!
OR, maybe, what we're going to see, is a lot of our FAs leaving, and replaced by lots of younger, cheaper draft picks...?

What do ya'all think?
How's my math/salary guesswork?

How in the hell do you come up with a great analysis like this so soon?

Hell I still haven't cut and pasted the players into a spread sheet to start tracking stuff like this.......

Excellent post, pending my own analysis.
;D

bleedpurple
01-16-2009, 02:41 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"mountainviking" wrote:


Back to the spending at hand...I started thinking about our cap space vs. FAs, and decided to do some quick math guesstimates.

So, word is, we've got about 20 million in cap room...but we've also got like 18 total Restricted or not Free Agents.
That is a lot of spots on the 53 man roster!!
Wow, 34%
I think we may be more limited than we'd like to think.
Basically, if we sign one BIG FA, we've lookin at just enough to sign rookies and resign some of our own guys.


There are several I'd like back; Kleiny (guessing 2.5 mill/year) Farwell (maybe 2/yr) Fred Evens (3/yr?) Charles Gordon (1.5/yr?)
Not sure if we need to add Udeze to this list too, I thought that he had accepted another year contract when they decided to pay him for this one...?
I'll guess he'll play for 1/year to prove his health, for a total of 10 mill spent already!


But, I really, Really like the idea of Kenechi coming back strong and adding quality depth to the entire DL.
He apparently played DT in high school, then lost a bunch of weight, gained speed and played mainly DE in college, setting a record for sacks at USC.
Perhaps, he could be our Tuck, lining up DT on passing downs and taking some reps at DE too and just keeping everybody fresher for late in the game with overall quality rotation...
:)

Others I'd be fine with giving another shot too...Jimmy Kenedy DT, Tahi FB, Boulware, Sapp?

Vet minimum is getting close to 1mill/year...?
Now we're at 14 fricken million spent and we haven't even started yet!
Kind of makes it hard to keep Birk and Sharper, those guys likely both want 5/year plus bonus!

AND, we have some big FAs coming up next year that we may want to consider resigning mid season!
Chester Taylor, Griffin and Winfield topping the list...but TJack would be there too, although he might be RFA the first year...?
Personally, I liked how TJack played vs. NYG and PHI.
Tough matchups, against really good defenses with full on pressure on to win.
Not great, but not F'd like how we ended last season.
He's got tons of skill, but is lacking in confidence and experience...only one way to get that (I guess sitting on the bench helps some, but...)

He could use better blocking by the OL, and one more WR who can get open.
Or, a coach who doesn't tend to hide his head in the sand when he should be calling something that actually gives us a chance of winning...there is a time for conservative, and a time for guts...and anytime you're down 2 scores late in the third, you should consider leaning toward taking a shot.


Guys like Houshmanzedeh and I think, Cassell (if he gets franchised, its the avg of the top 5 salaries) are going to want around 10 mill/year...I don't think that is even an option.

Then there is the more likely 5 mill/year range...maybe, Garcia, Warner, the C I like in BAL-J.Brown, one of the young S I like to replace Sharper-Otogwe, Philips, or S.Jones?

Lower, say 3 to 5 range???
K.Collins?
Leftwich?
That extra vet WR I'd like to sign...Lance Moore, N.Washington, D.Henderson.
Somebody who can help on returns, with enough experience to run a solid route and regularly catch the ball.
I like Rice, Allison, and Reynaud, but they are all so young, a bit more experience at WR might help...or do you think we'd be better off with a Toomer?

At the moment, I really like the idea of upgrading the C position with the big guy from BAL, but I'm worried about Tyrell's experience, and Madieu's injury history.
And, I do really like the idea of trying to add a Eddie Royal or DeSean Jackson type of fast, shifty KR/WR!
But, only looks like we've got cash for one.
D'oh!
SO, I guess, we need to ascertain, which of our young groups is most likely to step up:
The 3 or 4 young WRs?
Sullivan or Cook at C?
MW and TJ at S???
Where, do we need the depth the most?

IN the draft, I like RT, CB, DT...although, I totally think that Harvin kid could add a dimension to our offense that might just put it over the top!
I've been touting the idea of trading back, out of the first, with SEA or CLE, who are totally rebuilding (I could totally see SEA go with Crabtree and want an OL too.)
Our first is worth their 2nd and 3rd combined, which would be 4th of one round and 5th of the other (they sucked equally;)
We could possibly, trade our two thirds for a 3rd second round pick, and then land top notch talent at all 3 spots!
OR, maybe, what we're going to see, is a lot of our FAs leaving, and replaced by lots of younger, cheaper draft picks...?

What do ya'all think?
How's my math/salary guesswork?

How in the hell do you come up with a great analysis like this so soon?

Hell I still haven't cut and pasted the players into a spread sheet to start tracking stuff like this.......

Excellent post, pending my own analysis.

;D


good post MV... one thing your not taking into consideration as I completely agree with everything you said.. is that we have Likely to be earned incentives that were not actually met this past year that will be added back to our cap.. .so in essence, we will be more like in the 26-30 mill range once free agency starts back up!!!...

for some odd reason, i am really thinking we're gonna go corner with one of our top picks to replace winny and i think chester as much as i hate to say it could be trade bait for either a high draft pick or a Qb as i don't think we will be able to sign him again...

and as far as safety... i'm totally in co-houts with you... mw injury history and tjohnson being young back there.. i saw a pretty decent sized drop off with TJ back there instead of sharper.. it was almost awkard to watch...

the secondary didn't seem as smooth and cohesive without him back there...

V4L
01-16-2009, 03:07 PM
We had like 30 mill last year and added people like Berrian and Allen and signed some players and a couple rookies and that only took 10 mill

WE are just fine and CAN add a big name player

mountainviking
01-16-2009, 03:09 PM
I did consider the incentives room a bit, but I'm afraid most of our guys might have actually earned their incentives...probowl is one way to earn a bonus, keeping the top spot in rush defense might help, JA probably got enough sacks, Peterson led the nfl in yards etc etc.
I'd like to think we have that extra 5 or 10 million, but I'm not too sure it will be that much...?

tomer629
01-16-2009, 03:11 PM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"bleedpurple" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


We don't need Oline help!!! We need a Qb that will make Defensive CO. think twice about blitz us on every down. Our line can handle it's on when they send 5 men after the QB. It's when they send 6 or more blitzers that we struggle. Why is that? Because our Qb cannot spot the blitz and throw the ball on his 3rd step. If our QB had any respect in the league we will see less 6 + men coming after our QB and our oline can do it's job. There is a reason they say Championships are built with Good Qbs and DEs. We can put 15 other Qbs behind this line and they would excell. We have one of the best lines in football; Running and Passing. It's our QB situations that sucks. Could you imagine if we had a line like oaklands and houstons? We have a top 5 Oline. Get me a top 15 QB and we will excel.


tell that to the 2000 baltimore ravens.
or the Bucs when they won their superbowl.
Neither had a particularly good qb, but still managed to win it all.
Perhaps there's a bit more to having a good team than having an all-star qb.


I think that is true, but if you look at teams that contend every year over a period of time, they will almost always have stability and high level play at the QB position. The Redskins of the 80's and early 90's are the only team I can think of that went to multiple SB victories with different QB's while having the same coaching staff and system. The NY Giants did it in the same time period with 2 also.

But really, how many teams can claim to have an average QB and still be strong enough to contend for a title on a consistent basis? That is what I would like to see the Vikings do and what they say they are trying to do.


you can arguably say the Giants... Eli is far from Elite!!.. I know ppl are going to get on me about this, and i'm not taking anything away from him, but Ben Rothlesberger... I dont' think he does anything special.. he plays with consistently the #1 defense in the league, and just doesn't make mistakes and has a strong running game... he was 24th in the league in passer rating and has 17tds to 15 int's... I'm not saying he's not good.. but i dont' have him as an elite QB... he's just on a really good team and is smart enough to make plays when necessary but a the same time doesn't make critical mistakes... but that's just my opinion...

those are just two that i can think of... but another angle at your comment is that with the parity in the league, there's
only a few teams that actually compete at a high level year in and year out that would even fall into your category...


I am not going to argue that, but it does really support my point. In this league of parity, the QB position is the one thing that can make a team competitive over a period of time. Look at the current teams who have been successful over the past decade on a consistent basis:

NE
Indy
GB
Detroit
Pittsburgh
Philly

They all have stability at the QB position.



detriot??? huh??? they have not been any good in the last 20+ years and they have never had stability at the QB position.

Purple Floyd
01-16-2009, 05:15 PM
"tomer629" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"bleedpurple" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:




We don't need Oline help!!! We need a Qb that will make Defensive CO. think twice about blitz us on every down. Our line can handle it's on when they send 5 men after the QB. It's when they send 6 or more blitzers that we struggle. Why is that? Because our Qb cannot spot the blitz and throw the ball on his 3rd step. If our QB had any respect in the league we will see less 6 + men coming after our QB and our oline can do it's job. There is a reason they say Championships are built with Good Qbs and DEs. We can put 15 other Qbs behind this line and they would excell. We have one of the best lines in football; Running and Passing. It's our QB situations that sucks. Could you imagine if we had a line like oaklands and houstons? We have a top 5 Oline. Get me a top 15 QB and we will excel.


tell that to the 2000 baltimore ravens.
or the Bucs when they won their superbowl.
Neither had a particularly good qb, but still managed to win it all.
Perhaps there's a bit more to having a good team than having an all-star qb.


I think that is true, but if you look at teams that contend every year over a period of time, they will almost always have stability and high level play at the QB position. The Redskins of the 80's and early 90's are the only team I can think of that went to multiple SB victories with different QB's while having the same coaching staff and system. The NY Giants did it in the same time period with 2 also.

But really, how many teams can claim to have an average QB and still be strong enough to contend for a title on a consistent basis? That is what I would like to see the Vikings do and what they say they are trying to do.


you can arguably say the Giants... Eli is far from Elite!!.. I know ppl are going to get on me about this, and i'm not taking anything away from him, but Ben Rothlesberger... I dont' think he does anything special.. he plays with consistently the #1 defense in the league, and just doesn't make mistakes and has a strong running game... he was 24th in the league in passer rating and has 17tds to 15 int's... I'm not saying he's not good.. but i dont' have him as an elite QB... he's just on a really good team and is smart enough to make plays when necessary but a the same time doesn't make critical mistakes... but that's just my opinion...

those are just two that i can think of... but another angle at your comment is that with the parity in the league, there's
only a few teams that actually compete at a high level year in and year out that would even fall into your category...


I am not going to argue that, but it does really support my point. In this league of parity, the QB position is the one thing that can make a team competitive over a period of time. Look at the current teams who have been successful over the past decade on a consistent basis:

NE
Indy
GB
Detroit
Pittsburgh
Philly

They all have stability at the QB position.



detriot??? huh??? they have not been any good in the last 20+ years and they have never had stability at the QB position.


I threw that one in there to see if anybody was paying attention.

Cangrats, you are the winner. Proceed to the free beer forum and introduce yourself.

Mr-holland
01-16-2009, 05:45 PM
"V4L" wrote:


We had like 30 mill last year and added people like Berrian and Allen and signed some players and a couple rookies and that only took 10 mill

WE are just fine and CAN add a big name player

You can't think now now now constantly. We sign a big name, he takes a low salary which is good for our cap numbers, but the money we save this year we'll have to spend over the other 4/5 years. As we did the same with JA and BB, we won't have much cap space in upcoming years if we keep signing big name players to big name contracts

jessejames09
01-16-2009, 05:49 PM
"tomer629" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"bleedpurple" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:




We don't need Oline help!!! We need a Qb that will make Defensive CO. think twice about blitz us on every down. Our line can handle it's on when they send 5 men after the QB. It's when they send 6 or more blitzers that we struggle. Why is that? Because our Qb cannot spot the blitz and throw the ball on his 3rd step. If our QB had any respect in the league we will see less 6 + men coming after our QB and our oline can do it's job. There is a reason they say Championships are built with Good Qbs and DEs. We can put 15 other Qbs behind this line and they would excell. We have one of the best lines in football; Running and Passing. It's our QB situations that sucks. Could you imagine if we had a line like oaklands and houstons? We have a top 5 Oline. Get me a top 15 QB and we will excel.


tell that to the 2000 baltimore ravens.
or the Bucs when they won their superbowl.
Neither had a particularly good qb, but still managed to win it all.
Perhaps there's a bit more to having a good team than having an all-star qb.


I think that is true, but if you look at teams that contend every year over a period of time, they will almost always have stability and high level play at the QB position. The Redskins of the 80's and early 90's are the only team I can think of that went to multiple SB victories with different QB's while having the same coaching staff and system. The NY Giants did it in the same time period with 2 also.

But really, how many teams can claim to have an average QB and still be strong enough to contend for a title on a consistent basis? That is what I would like to see the Vikings do and what they say they are trying to do.


you can arguably say the Giants... Eli is far from Elite!!.. I know ppl are going to get on me about this, and i'm not taking anything away from him, but Ben Rothlesberger... I dont' think he does anything special.. he plays with consistently the #1 defense in the league, and just doesn't make mistakes and has a strong running game... he was 24th in the league in passer rating and has 17tds to 15 int's... I'm not saying he's not good.. but i dont' have him as an elite QB... he's just on a really good team and is smart enough to make plays when necessary but a the same time doesn't make critical mistakes... but that's just my opinion...

those are just two that i can think of... but another angle at your comment is that with the parity in the league, there's
only a few teams that actually compete at a high level year in and year out that would even fall into your category...


I am not going to argue that, but it does really support my point. In this league of parity, the QB position is the one thing that can make a team competitive over a period of time. Look at the current teams who have been successful over the past decade on a consistent basis:

NE
Indy
GB
Detroit
Pittsburgh
Philly

They all have stability at the QB position.



detriot??? huh??? they have not been any good in the last 20+ years and they have never had stability at the QB position.


Sadly Kitna is better than any QB that has donned Viking Purple since Daunte lit his Inferno (which he then extinguished very quickly.)

Vikes
01-16-2009, 05:49 PM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"tomer629" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"bleedpurple" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:






We don't need Oline help!!! We need a Qb that will make Defensive CO. think twice about blitz us on every down. Our line can handle it's on when they send 5 men after the QB. It's when they send 6 or more blitzers that we struggle. Why is that? Because our Qb cannot spot the blitz and throw the ball on his 3rd step. If our QB had any respect in the league we will see less 6 + men coming after our QB and our oline can do it's job. There is a reason they say Championships are built with Good Qbs and DEs. We can put 15 other Qbs behind this line and they would excell. We have one of the best lines in football; Running and Passing. It's our QB situations that sucks. Could you imagine if we had a line like oaklands and houstons? We have a top 5 Oline. Get me a top 15 QB and we will excel.


tell that to the 2000 baltimore ravens.
or the Bucs when they won their superbowl.
Neither had a particularly good qb, but still managed to win it all.
Perhaps there's a bit more to having a good team than having an all-star qb.


I think that is true, but if you look at teams that contend every year over a period of time, they will almost always have stability and high level play at the QB position. The Redskins of the 80's and early 90's are the only team I can think of that went to multiple SB victories with different QB's while having the same coaching staff and system. The NY Giants did it in the same time period with 2 also.

But really, how many teams can claim to have an average QB and still be strong enough to contend for a title on a consistent basis? That is what I would like to see the Vikings do and what they say they are trying to do.


you can arguably say the Giants... Eli is far from Elite!!.. I know ppl are going to get on me about this, and i'm not taking anything away from him, but Ben Rothlesberger... I dont' think he does anything special.. he plays with consistently the #1 defense in the league, and just doesn't make mistakes and has a strong running game... he was 24th in the league in passer rating and has 17tds to 15 int's... I'm not saying he's not good.. but i dont' have him as an elite QB... he's just on a really good team and is smart enough to make plays when necessary but a the same time doesn't make critical mistakes... but that's just my opinion...

those are just two that i can think of... but another angle at your comment is that with the parity in the league, there's
only a few teams that actually compete at a high level year in and year out that would even fall into your category...


I am not going to argue that, but it does really support my point. In this league of parity, the QB position is the one thing that can make a team competitive over a period of time. Look at the current teams who have been successful over the past decade on a consistent basis:

NE
Indy
GB
Detroit
Pittsburgh
Philly

They all have stability at the QB position.



detriot??? huh??? they have not been any good in the last 20+ years and they have never had stability at the QB position.


I threw that one in there to see if anybody was paying attention.

Cangrats, you are the winner. Proceed to the free beer forum and introduce yourself.


That was good.

jessejames09
01-16-2009, 05:52 PM
Re:
Vikes are two moves away from a powerhouse offense

1. Get a pillow and blanket

2. Take a nap


That's the only time you have a chance of seeing a powerhouse offense under this regime.

grpape
01-16-2009, 06:48 PM
"kevoncox" wrote:


We don't need Oline help!!! We need a Qb that will make Defensive CO. think twice about blitz us on every down. Our line can handle it's on when they send 5 men after the QB. It's when they send 6 or more blitzers that we struggle. Why is that? Because our Qb cannot spot the blitz and throw the ball on his 3rd step. If our QB had any respect in the league we will see less 6 + men coming after our QB and our oline can do it's job. There is a reason they say Championships are built with Good Qbs and DEs. We can put 15 other Qbs behind this line and they would excell. We have one of the best lines in football; Running and Passing. It's our QB situations that sucks. Could you imagine if we had a line like oaklands and houstons? We have a top 5 Oline. Get me a top 15 QB and we will excel.


Did you watch the end of the Eagles game? They were getting pressure rushing three or four linemen.

kevoncox
01-17-2009, 09:38 AM
"grpape" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


We don't need Oline help!!! We need a Qb that will make Defensive CO. think twice about blitz us on every down. Our line can handle it's on when they send 5 men after the QB. It's when they send 6 or more blitzers that we struggle. Why is that? Because our Qb cannot spot the blitz and throw the ball on his 3rd step. If our QB had any respect in the league we will see less 6 + men coming after our QB and our oline can do it's job. There is a reason they say Championships are built with Good Qbs and DEs. We can put 15 other Qbs behind this line and they would excell. We have one of the best lines in football; Running and Passing. It's our QB situations that sucks. Could you imagine if we had a line like oaklands and houstons? We have a top 5 Oline. Get me a top 15 QB and we will excel.


Did you watch the end of the Eagles game? They were getting pressure rushing three or four linemen.


Because we had to pass so if they rush 3 and use the other 8 in coverage, our Qb wasn't smart enough to take off running or accurate enough to fit the ball in the gaps. Again it starts with the QB!