PDA

View Full Version : Who would be our biggest loss?



Mark_The_Viking
08-27-2009, 06:09 AM
I was wondering after reading an SI article on the biggest loss for each of the teams who you all thought would have the biggest effect on our season if they were not available excluding QBs (we have enough threads on that).

SI believe it is Adrian Peterson for us but I disagree CT is capable of doing a good job for us in that respect. imo I think one of the Williamses specifically Pat would be a huge loss for the Vikings.

What do you all think?

BleedinPandG
08-27-2009, 08:00 AM
I think we have enough big guys that can plug the hole against the run as well as Pat... additionally, I wouldn't mind seeing teams be a bit more balanced against us and stop exposing our coverage.

This is actually a tough question to answer.
I agree, CT is a serviceable back up to AD.
Sure, we'd see a drop off but it wouldn't kill us... but at the same time, what position would?
We have enough depth on O Line in Hicks (or Cook at Center) to lose anyone on the O Line without a major impact.
None of our WRs are true number 1s that couldn't be replaced without a major impact.
You could say losing a LB would hurt us but LBs don't generally make sacks, force turn overs, or give up big plays so a decrease in play there wouldn't be as noticeable as other positions.
Losing Allen would hurt our pressure and thus are pass defense.
Losing Winfield would cause a major drop off in our coverage.
While I don't think he's a great man to man CB, I believe he's significantly better than Sapp or Allen, and CBs can give up big plays that affect the outcomes of games.
But I wouldn't choose any of those...

I'd go with Safety... losing Madieu Williams... frankly, I don't even know who's backing him up which makes me very nervous especially considering he'd be playing next to a 2nd year player.
It could put us in a position of having one of the weakest safety tandems in the league.
Safeties can be your last line of defense against the big play and the big play is big impact on the outcome of a game.
Safety would be my choice, M-Will.

purple_glory_dreamer
08-27-2009, 08:23 AM
I have to agree with the AD to CT thing.
SI is just going for the fan favorite.
To me its Allen.
Teams have to game plan against him and hes a game changer.
If he stays and you put another safety in I think we can be okay (ei: last year with Tyrell Johnson 1st seven games.)
However, if Allen goes down we dont have tht pass rush and it doesn't matter who is in the defensive backfield the QB would have all day.
Also, Allen relieves some of that pressure on the Williams' Wall that allows them to be even better.

skum
08-27-2009, 08:52 AM
"purple_glory_dreamer" wrote:


I have to agree with the AD to CT thing.
SI is just going for the fan favorite.
To me its Allen.
Teams have to game plan against him and hes a game changer.
If he stays and you put another safety in I think we can be okay (ei: last year with Tyrell Johnson 1st seven games.)
However, if Allen goes down we dont have tht pass rush and it doesn't matter who is in the defensive backfield the QB would have all day.
Also, Allen relieves some of that pressure on the Williams' Wall that allows them to be even better.



+1, The defense is a different unit without him.. Also consider Steve Hutchinson, the dropoff there to the backups is pretty wide also.

Ranger
08-27-2009, 09:03 AM
Allen, for sure.
This team has a good backup running back, so while Peterson would hurt, it wouldn't cripple.

None of our receivers can't be replaced, same with tight end.
We obviously don't need a quarterback to win games.

The good part about the WWC is that there are two of them.
Kevin is the better defensive tackle, but anybody standing next to either of them is going to be able to do fine, as there wont be that much pressure put on them.

Losing Greenway would hurt...same for Winfield.

Nah, it's gotta be Allen.
No pass rush means our secondary gets exploited again.

VikingMike
08-27-2009, 09:03 AM
Why the hell are we talking about possible injuries?!? We all know they happen, and can ruin a team's year.

Get this season started already...

gagarr
08-27-2009, 09:09 AM
Hutch hands down!

Here's the others listed as G on the roster:
Daniels, Brian
2nd year
Kemp, Andy
rookie
Urban, Nick
rookie

Have played guard, but listed as tackles:
Hicks, Hicks replacing Herrera, not much of a drop off
Cook, give me a break!
He only moves the team backwards with FS

How do you replace a 6 time pro-bowler, probably the best guard in the league with Hicks or Cook????

To pick AD over Hutch is saying CT is more of a drop off than Hutch to Hicks.

gagarr
08-27-2009, 09:11 AM
"VikingMike" wrote:


Why the hell are we talking about possible injuries?!? We all know they happen, and can ruin a team's year.

Get this season started already...


Were not really talking about injury, more about depth at a position.

If we were talking about injury, Tahi would be my choice, because if he was gone the team would be better off.

purple_glory_dreamer
08-27-2009, 10:15 AM
"gagarr" wrote:


Hutch hands down!

Here's the others listed as G on the roster:
Daniels, Brian
2nd year
Kemp, Andy
rookie
Urban, Nick
rookie

Have played guard, but listed as tackles:
Hicks, Hicks replacing Herrera, not much of a drop off
Cook, give me a break!
He only moves the team backwards with FS

How do you replace a 6 time pro-bowler, probably the best guard in the league with Hicks or Cook????

To pick AD over Hutch is saying CT is more of a drop off than Hutch to Hicks.


I agree to an extent.
However, defense wins championships.
And if we lost Hutch we may lost some of our offense but our defense would keep us in games.
If we lost our defense which I think we would if we lsot Allen.
Our offense isnt prolific enough to out score everyone we play.

battleaxe4cheese
08-27-2009, 10:48 AM
Ragnar!!!!

kspurplepride
08-27-2009, 11:24 AM
Hutch or Madieu... both make huge differences on their respective sides of the ball. With Madieu our coverage was a 100x better last year than it had been in years past. Attribute that a bit to JA coming on and destroying people, but it was a huge difference with Madieu back. Like someone said Hutch is just Hutch without him or even Mt. Mckinnie our running game is a step slower

gagarr
08-27-2009, 11:45 AM
"purple_glory_dreamer" wrote:


"gagarr" wrote:


Hutch hands down!

Here's the others listed as G on the roster:
Daniels, Brian
2nd year
Kemp, Andy
rookie
Urban, Nick
rookie

Have played guard, but listed as tackles:
Hicks, Hicks replacing Herrera, not much of a drop off
Cook, give me a break!
He only moves the team backwards with FS

How do you replace a 6 time pro-bowler, probably the best guard in the league with Hicks or Cook????

To pick AD over Hutch is saying CT is more of a drop off than Hutch to Hicks.


I agree to an extent.
However, defense wins championships.
And if we lost Hutch we may lost some of our offense but our defense would keep us in games.
If we lost our defense which I think we would if we lsot Allen.
Our offense isnt prolific enough to out score everyone we play.


Don't get me wrong, if you asked me if Allen or Hutch has a greater impact on Viking wins I would pick Allen.
But the question is who would be the biggest loss, thus the difference between starter and backup.


IMO the drop off in production from Allen to Robinson (IMO his backup) is much less than from Hutch to Hicks (who I think would replace Hutch).

midgensa
08-27-2009, 12:06 PM
Jared Allen hands down.
If we lose someone on offense, we still have our defense to keep us in games. If we lose Jared Allen our entire defense changes and all of a sudden the offense will HAVE to win some games.

V-Unit
08-27-2009, 12:34 PM
If we are talking level of dropoff, I think the only candidates are Hutch, Berrian, Winfield, and MWill.

I think we have solid backups everywhere else.

gagarr
08-27-2009, 01:03 PM
"midgensa" wrote:


Jared Allen hands down.
If we lose someone on offense, we still have our defense to keep us in games. If we lose Jared Allen our entire defense changes and all of a sudden the offense will HAVE to win some games.


You must think Robinson really sucks, although in 2007 starting only 5 games and limited game time he managed 4.5 sacks and 20 solo tackle.
In 2008 with no starts and very limited game time, managed 2.5 sacks and 7 solo tackles.
He's also only been in the only league 2 years.

I'm not saying Robinson is as good as Allen, but Robinson is one heck of a player and IMO will be a starter if Edwards doesn't step it up.

Robinson also replace Allen against KC, and did a good job.

Thus, losing Allen would hurt but wouldn't be as catastrophic as you think.

Ranger
08-27-2009, 01:07 PM
"gagarr" wrote:


"midgensa" wrote:


Jared Allen hands down.
If we lose someone on offense, we still have our defense to keep us in games. If we lose Jared Allen our entire defense changes and all of a sudden the offense will HAVE to win some games.


You must think Robinson really sucks, although in 2007 starting only 5 games and limited game time he managed 4.5 sacks and 20 solo tackle.
In 2008 with no starts and very limited game time, managed 2.5 sacks and 7 solo tackles.
He's also only been in the only league 2 years.

I'm not saying Robinson is as good as Allen, but Robinson is one heck of a player and IMO will be a starter if Edwards doesn't step it up.

Robinson also replace Allen against KC, and did a good job.

Thus, losing Allen would hurt but wouldn't be as catastrophic as you think.


That's now how you spell his name, is it?

Mr Anderson
08-27-2009, 01:10 PM
"Ranger" wrote:


"gagarr" wrote:


"midgensa" wrote:


Jared Allen hands down.
If we lose someone on offense, we still have our defense to keep us in games. If we lose Jared Allen our entire defense changes and all of a sudden the offense will HAVE to win some games.


You must think Robinson really sucks, although in 2007 starting only 5 games and limited game time he managed 4.5 sacks and 20 solo tackle.
In 2008 with no starts and very limited game time, managed 2.5 sacks and 7 solo tackles.
He's also only been in the only league 2 years.

I'm not saying Robinson is as good as Allen, but Robinson is one heck of a player and IMO will be a starter if Edwards doesn't step it up.

Robinson also replace Allen against KC, and did a good job.

Thus, losing Allen would hurt but wouldn't be as catastrophic as you think.


That's now how you spell his name, is it?

No, it is Robison.



And my vote is Winfield.

V4L
08-27-2009, 01:13 PM
Allen

Clearly our pass D improved a ton wit him there

And it was nice to get some pass rush

Purple Floyd
08-27-2009, 09:28 PM
Anybody in the secondary. We have less depth there and fewer quality, experienced vets than any other group IMO so I will go with that.

gagarr
08-27-2009, 10:15 PM
"Ranger" wrote:


"gagarr" wrote:


"midgensa" wrote:


Jared Allen hands down.
If we lose someone on offense, we still have our defense to keep us in games. If we lose Jared Allen our entire defense changes and all of a sudden the offense will HAVE to win some games.


You must think Robinson really sucks, although in 2007 starting only 5 games and limited game time he managed 4.5 sacks and 20 solo tackle.
In 2008 with no starts and very limited game time, managed 2.5 sacks and 7 solo tackles.
He's also only been in the only league 2 years.

I'm not saying Robinson is as good as Allen, but Robinson is one heck of a player and IMO will be a starter if Edwards doesn't step it up.

Robinson also replace Allen against KC, and did a good job.

Thus, losing Allen would hurt but wouldn't be as catastrophic as you think.


That's now how you spell his name, is it?


Yes, I screwed th spelling up.
But since that is your only comment I take it you agree.

gagarr
08-27-2009, 10:20 PM
"Mr" wrote:


"Ranger" wrote:


"gagarr" wrote:


"midgensa" wrote:


Jared Allen hands down.
If we lose someone on offense, we still have our defense to keep us in games. If we lose Jared Allen our entire defense changes and all of a sudden the offense will HAVE to win some games.


You must think Robinson really sucks, although in 2007 starting only 5 games and limited game time he managed 4.5 sacks and 20 solo tackle.
In 2008 with no starts and very limited game time, managed 2.5 sacks and 7 solo tackles.
He's also only been in the only league 2 years.

I'm not saying Robinson is as good as Allen, but Robinson is one heck of a player and IMO will be a starter if Edwards doesn't step it up.

Robinson also replace Allen against KC, and did a good job.

Thus, losing Allen would hurt but wouldn't be as catastrophic as you think.


That's now how you spell his name, is it?

No, it is Robison.



And my vote is Winfield.


Winfield would be replaced by McCauley (made sure I got the spelling right), a drop off but McCauley is still a decent corner.
I still contend going from a 6 time pro-bowler in Hutch to Hicks will still have a greater impact.

Remember, we are not talking about the importance of a player, we are talking the drop-off between the starter and the backup.

The Dropper
08-27-2009, 10:28 PM
This thread is a jinx. Close it NOW!
:o

Seriously though, this is actually a pretty difficult question to answer. Right now, I'm leaning toward John Sullivan. I mean, sure, we don't even know if HE is that good, but can you imagine how weak everyone below him must be?

soonerbornNbred
08-27-2009, 10:54 PM
The SI article is correct AD is the MVP on the vikings team that was the gist of the article...that being said I understand CT is a more than capable backup but AD is MVP on most any team I hope the newest acquisition will be the biggest difference between 1st and 2nd string being Favre to whoever the 2nd string is....in other words I hope that is the kind of year we are about to witness that BF is head over heels better than Travaris/Sage...Im willing to put money on it, so was Zygi

Ranger
08-27-2009, 11:27 PM
"gagarr" wrote:


"Ranger" wrote:


"gagarr" wrote:


"midgensa" wrote:


Jared Allen hands down.
If we lose someone on offense, we still have our defense to keep us in games. If we lose Jared Allen our entire defense changes and all of a sudden the offense will HAVE to win some games.


You must think Robinson really sucks, although in 2007 starting only 5 games and limited game time he managed 4.5 sacks and 20 solo tackle.
In 2008 with no starts and very limited game time, managed 2.5 sacks and 7 solo tackles.
He's also only been in the only league 2 years.

I'm not saying Robinson is as good as Allen, but Robinson is one heck of a player and IMO will be a starter if Edwards doesn't step it up.

Robinson also replace Allen against KC, and did a good job.

Thus, losing Allen would hurt but wouldn't be as catastrophic as you think.


That's now how you spell his name, is it?


Yes, I screwed th spelling up.
But since that is your only comment I take it you agree.


I wasn't trying to nit-pick you, just wasn't sure if I was messed up the whole time or not.

Anyway, I still think Jared Allen is a tremendous upgrade over any DE on our roster.
There's a bigger drop off from Allen to Robison than there is for Peterson to Taylor, to put it in perspective.

tke0933
08-27-2009, 11:34 PM
My vote is for KWill.
The pass d is suspect anyway, but if we lose part of the run d, it opens the door for opponents.

Odin VAVikefan
08-28-2009, 12:20 AM
Madeiu, Allen, and KWill are probably the biggest crisis points...

But I would also include (assuming his production continues to increase) Shiancoe, in terms of what he can do versus other TEs.
Obviously 'Sasser is a good blocking TE, but losing Shank would cost us a big piece of our Red Zone and 3rd-down productivity. I seriously doubt that other TEs coming off the bench could quickly take over his specific role.

gregair13
08-28-2009, 12:39 AM
I would vote Hutch as #1. We really cannot replace a pro bowl hall of fame guard with a scrub from the bench.

Then I would vote Winfield. As good as Griffin is, he cannot stop many #1 receivers and after him is it not so hot.

Third would be Allen. I agree with everything said about him in the topic for those who picked him.

VKG4LFE
08-28-2009, 03:43 AM
I gotta go with EJ or Greenway. Losing EJ hurt quite a bit last year and I think it would hurt our D to lose either of those guys during another one of their prime years.

Prophet
08-28-2009, 08:42 AM
Brzezinski.

Caine
08-28-2009, 08:56 AM
I gotta say Chiller.

Without Chiller, who would hold back our Offense?
Who would slow down Peterson?

Caine

V-Unit
08-28-2009, 10:02 AM
"Odin" wrote:


Madeiu, Allen, and KWill are probably the biggest crisis points...

But I would also include (assuming his production continues to increase) Shiancoe, in terms of what he can do versus other TEs.
Obviously 'Sasser is a good blocking TE, but losing Shank would cost us a big piece of our Red Zone and 3rd-down productivity. I seriously doubt that other TEs coming off the bench could quickly take over his specific role.


Mills has been a flop. Is he even going to make the team this year?

Freya
08-28-2009, 10:13 AM
Griffin!
**starts laughing**

no,no,no, wait........I mean McKinney!
**laughs harder**



OK, ok... seriously, I would say.......

Any of the 4 on the Defensive line.

i_bleed_purple
08-28-2009, 11:34 AM
"Freya" wrote:


Griffin!
**starts laughing**

no,no,no, wait........I mean McKinney!
**laughs harder**



OK, ok... seriously, I would say.......

Any of the 4 on the Defensive line.







McKinney was a stud last year, losing him would definitely be a huge blow. (no sarcasm)

jessejames09
08-28-2009, 11:37 AM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"Freya" wrote:


Griffin!
**starts laughing**

no,no,no, wait........I mean McKinney!
**laughs harder**



OK, ok... seriously, I would say.......

Any of the 4 on the Defensive line.







McKinney was a stud last year, losing him would definitely be a huge blow. (no sarcasm)


As would Griffin... I don't get either of those jokes.

Freya
08-28-2009, 12:19 PM
"jessejames09" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"Freya" wrote:


Griffin!
**starts laughing**

no,no,no, wait........I mean McKinney!
**laughs harder**



OK, ok... seriously, I would say.......

Any of the 4 on the Defensive line.







McKinney was a stud last year, losing him would definitely be a huge blow. (no sarcasm)


As would Griffin... I don't get either of those jokes.


No problem. Perhaps our definition of a "stud" is different. :D