Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14
  1. #11
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,928

    Re: Darrion Scott visits Patriots

    "Overlord" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    Can you believe the comments in that article.
    Some of those yutz's think we should keep him and start him.

    How easily they forget...... :-\
    I didn't put any comments in that article, but maybe you better move me to the 'yutz' category on your spreadsheet.
    I like Darrion Scott as a player and would have easily seen him starting on the left side for us if we did bring him back.

    He's a good player.
    In 2005 and 2006 when he was getting playing time, he managed 104 tackles and 9.5 sacks.
    That's not pro-bowl level play, but it's pretty good.
    I think I've said before on here that I like him better as a player than Antwon Odom, who signed a new contract worth $6 million/year (compare stats: Scott, Odom).

    Maybe the team wasn't happy with his little run in with the law and the whole "don't you know who I am?" thing.
    Maybe Scott wasn't willing to come back to Minnesota no matter what the offer because he wasn't given the playing time last year that he felt he deserves.

    But if he had been willing to come back, who would start over him on the left side?
    Wyms?
    Mitchell?
    Face it, no one else on our roster has the size, ability, or production at the LDE spot that Scott would have had.
    If Allen comes here, I can see either him or Edwards taking over that spot and being successful.
    But until that happens, Scott would be an upgrade.
    I would never move you to the yutz column.
    I would ignore your error in thinking he would be a good fit.

    Talent wise I agree, he would probably beat out what we currently have but I just don't like his attitude.
    I say out with the trash.......

    Mitchell's first year stats
    http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/player...playerId=10042

    Scotts first year stats
    http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/player...?playerId=5613

    I like Mitchells upside to produce just as much as I did Scott his first year without the attitude.
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  2. #12
    cajunvike's Avatar
    cajunvike is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    32,063

    Re: Darrion Scott visits Patriots

    Scott is a pretty good run stuffer..don't know if he really fits in the 3-4 that the Putzies run though.
    BANNED OR DEAD...I'LL TAKE EITHER ONE

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,206

    Re: Darrion Scott visits Patriots

    "cajunvike" wrote:
    Scott is a pretty good run stuffer..don't know if he really fits in the 3-4 that the Putzies run though.
    I actually think he fits perfectly.
    In the 3-4 you like to have bigger guys at the DE position, because DEs don't come off the edge as much and the OLBs take on more of the pass rush responsibility.
    Darrion Scott is a 290 pound DE, which is pretty good size for a DE.
    As you mentioned, he's not a pure pass-rusher.
    He obviously wouldn't start for them because they have guys that are bigger and better at both DE spots, but he fits their system in my opinion.


    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "Overlord" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    Can you believe the comments in that article.
    Some of those yutz's think we should keep him and start him.

    How easily they forget...... :-\
    I didn't put any comments in that article, but maybe you better move me to the 'yutz' category on your spreadsheet.
    I like Darrion Scott as a player and would have easily seen him starting on the left side for us if we did bring him back.

    He's a good player.
    In 2005 and 2006 when he was getting playing time, he managed 104 tackles and 9.5 sacks.
    That's not pro-bowl level play, but it's pretty good.
    I think I've said before on here that I like him better as a player than Antwon Odom, who signed a new contract worth $6 million/year (compare stats: Scott, Odom).

    Maybe the team wasn't happy with his little run in with the law and the whole "don't you know who I am?" thing.
    Maybe Scott wasn't willing to come back to Minnesota no matter what the offer because he wasn't given the playing time last year that he felt he deserves.

    But if he had been willing to come back, who would start over him on the left side?
    Wyms?
    Mitchell?
    Face it, no one else on our roster has the size, ability, or production at the LDE spot that Scott would have had.
    If Allen comes here, I can see either him or Edwards taking over that spot and being successful.
    But until that happens, Scott would be an upgrade.
    I would never move you to the yutz column.
    I would ignore your error in thinking he would be a good fit.

    Talent wise I agree, he would probably beat out what we currently have but I just don't like his attitude.
    I say out with the trash.......

    Mitchell's first year stats
    http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/player...playerId=10042

    Scotts first year stats
    http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/player...?playerId=5613

    I like Mitchells upside to produce just as much as I did Scott his first year without the attitude.
    Scott didn't manage any sacks his rookie year, but in limited playing time he managed to make a good number of tackles.
    Mitchell did have 3 sacks his rookie year, but only 1 last year.
    Additionally, Mitchell has played 2 years now, and has less than 1 tackle/game.
    It'd be great if Mitchell became a big time player, but I don't like the chances of that happening.
    I think you're basically hoping with him that he becomes okay.
    We already know Scott is okay.

    If you want to talk about potential, I think you have to look at Robison.
    A little small, but very productive for a part-time player.
    I like the combination of Allen, Edwards, and Robison for years to come.
    Add in Udeze and/or James if they can come back and show something, and you're not too bad off.
    Without Allen though, there's too much potential and not enough performance.
    Scott would have been a reliable player if the potential of the other guys doesn't pan out.
    When the age of the Vikings came to a close, they must have sensed it. Probably, they gathered together one evening, slapped each other on the back and said, "Hey, good job." - Jack Handey [Deep Thoughts]

  4. #14
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,928

    Re: Darrion Scott visits Patriots

    "Overlord" wrote:
    "cajunvike" wrote:
    Scott is a pretty good run stuffer..don't know if he really fits in the 3-4 that the Putzies run though.
    I actually think he fits perfectly.
    In the 3-4 you like to have bigger guys at the DE position, because DEs don't come off the edge as much and the OLBs take on more of the pass rush responsibility.
    Darrion Scott is a 290 pound DE, which is pretty good size for a DE.
    As you mentioned, he's not a pure pass-rusher.
    He obviously wouldn't start for them because they have guys that are bigger and better at both DE spots, but he fits their system in my opinion.


    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "Overlord" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    Can you believe the comments in that article.
    Some of those yutz's think we should keep him and start him.

    How easily they forget...... :-\
    I didn't put any comments in that article, but maybe you better move me to the 'yutz' category on your spreadsheet.
    I like Darrion Scott as a player and would have easily seen him starting on the left side for us if we did bring him back.

    He's a good player.
    In 2005 and 2006 when he was getting playing time, he managed 104 tackles and 9.5 sacks.
    That's not pro-bowl level play, but it's pretty good.
    I think I've said before on here that I like him better as a player than Antwon Odom, who signed a new contract worth $6 million/year (compare stats: Scott, Odom).

    Maybe the team wasn't happy with his little run in with the law and the whole "don't you know who I am?" thing.
    Maybe Scott wasn't willing to come back to Minnesota no matter what the offer because he wasn't given the playing time last year that he felt he deserves.

    But if he had been willing to come back, who would start over him on the left side?
    Wyms?
    Mitchell?
    Face it, no one else on our roster has the size, ability, or production at the LDE spot that Scott would have had.
    If Allen comes here, I can see either him or Edwards taking over that spot and being successful.
    But until that happens, Scott would be an upgrade.
    I would never move you to the yutz column.
    I would ignore your error in thinking he would be a good fit.

    Talent wise I agree, he would probably beat out what we currently have but I just don't like his attitude.
    I say out with the trash.......

    Mitchell's first year stats
    http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/player...playerId=10042

    Scotts first year stats
    http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/player...?playerId=5613

    I like Mitchells upside to produce just as much as I did Scott his first year without the attitude.
    Scott didn't manage any sacks his rookie year, but in limited playing time he managed to make a good number of tackles.
    Mitchell did have 3 sacks his rookie year, but only 1 last year.
    Additionally, Mitchell has played 2 years now, and has less than 1 tackle/game.
    It'd be great if Mitchell became a big time player, but I don't like the chances of that happening.
    I think you're basically hoping with him that he becomes okay.
    We already know Scott is okay.

    If you want to talk about potential, I think you have to look at Robison.
    A little small, but very productive for a part-time player.
    I like the combination of Allen, Edwards, and Robison for years to come.
    Add in Udeze and/or James if they can come back and show something, and you're not too bad off.
    Without Allen though, there's too much potential and not enough performance.
    Scott would have been a reliable player if the potential of the other guys doesn't pan out.
    That is why I like Merling so much.
    Perfect fit for that group of players and we don't need to keep Darion on the roster to add beef to the LDE side.

    As always, good stuff.
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Darrion Scott arrested
    By Garland Greene in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 07-08-2008, 10:17 AM
  2. Vikings Darrion Scott cited for marijuana
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 188
    Last Post: 12-31-2007, 05:44 PM
  3. The Darrion Scott situation
    By singersp in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-25-2007, 05:58 AM
  4. DARRION SCOTT!
    By TheFloridianVikingFan in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-23-2004, 10:04 AM
  5. SN on Darrion Scott, the Cottrell D, and the Vikes WRs
    By sdvikefan in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-24-2004, 12:50 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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