Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 77 of 77
  1. #71
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,928

    Re:Clarifying my position...a chiller rant

    gagarr wrote:
    Chilly is simply not taking the route of building a team around a QB, like the loser teams in the top part of a draft must do, he's building a team for a QB. Much better chance a QB will succeed if he doesn't immediately have the weight of the franchise on them and has a good cast of players helping him.

    When it's time there will be a QB available, as long as Chilly focuses on intelligence before athletic ability.
    Take the word Chilly out of there and insert the words "Vikings Organization" and that will be one of the best posts I've ever seen on this site.
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  2. #72
    Zeus's Avatar
    Zeus is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Minnesota.
    Posts
    23,937

    Re:Clarifying my position...a chiller rant

    Caine wrote:
    Zeus wrote:
    My point is - you can't tell about a player until they get a chance to play. Some need more time (Romo) than others (Brady). Some get it immediately (Matt Ryan), some need to suffer as a starter to learn (P. Manning), some fail and never get it (Couch, A. Smith, Shuler, etc.).
    1: It's a little early to write off Smith. San Fran has been struggling to put a good team on the field and have finally gotten close (Due to cap hell that they were in)...Smith and Carr are both solid QB's given a decent team, and it will be interesting to see who winds up with the starting job.

    And Couch was thrown to the wolves and ruined by Cleveland. Had they not completely trashed him, he may have turned into something.

    2: When the Patriots drafted Brady they had Drew Bledsoe on the roster and had no reason to think he would later fall apart.

    3: When Dallas acquired Romo, they were still trying to develop Quincy Carter, who was taken in the 2nd round - and was their first pick of that draft - in 2001.

    4: In both 2 and 3 above, both teams either had, or had recently lost a "Franchise" QB. Further, Aikman had a 7 year/$70 million extension pending, but was forced to retire due to concussions. In other wotrds, Dallasd had thought that Aikman would be there for quite awhile longer.

    So, in answer to your questions, "No"...because neither team allowed season after to season to pass while refusing to address a gaping hole at that position...unlike the Vikings.
    Caine
    I don't disagree with anything you've written here. Hindsight is 20/20, as they say. And the time is not yet here to do hindsight on Tarvaris Jackson.

    Oh - BTW - I meant "Akili Smith" rather than "Alex Smith". Crazy world when "A. Smith" isn't enough to distinguist one stiff over another!

    =Z=

    Thanks to Josdin for the awesome sig!

  3. #73
    ejmat is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    8,849

    Re:Clarifying my position...a chiller rant

    Caine wrote:
    Zeus wrote:
    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Zeus wrote:
    Caine wrote:
    C Mac D wrote:
    Caine wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    Zeus wrote:
    Caine wrote:
    Yet you'll never know because Chiller NEVER takes a shot at a QB. His single attempt was to reach up anywhere from 1 to 3 rounds and select Jackson...and despite negative results, he's stood pat ever since.
    No love for Booty, I see.

    =Z=
    I didn't catch the NEVER when I read it the first time either.

    I guess this year, because we had a shot at Clausen, now constitutes NEVER as it is really the first time we have had a shot at a "Franchise" QB.

    All in all, I guess all the rest of the teams can be lumped into the catagory or "Never" as they passed on him, some several times, as well.
    Not really...and here's why.

    my "NEVER" is based upon taking a shot at a legitimate prospect either in Free Agency or early in the darft...and by "legitimate prospect", I mean someone who has more than their immediate family hyped up about.

    Booty, Jackson, and Thigpen were all either late round "projects" or huge reach projects...none were projected starter material initially. The FA crop brought in is much the same - a series of either poor players of players at the end of their careers who had limited viability remaining.

    IMO, most of these QB's weren't brought in as a valid attempt to find a solution, but rather as a validation of Jackson as a QB - as every time he has faced off against even mediocre competition (Frerotte), he has failed. But guys like Bollinger, Holcomb, or Rosenfels - guys who were never all that special - Jackson can edge them out....barely.

    Caine
    That's a very subjective definition of the word 'never'... perhaps you were just wrong?
    No...I'm pretty comfortable with it right where it is. Perhaps I should have said never takes a legitimate shot at a QB.

    The exception being Favre, but that's the exception that proves the rule.

    Further, I wasn't defining the word, but rather my stance on the topic.

    Caine
    Would you have bitched if you were a Patriots fan and they didn't take a legitimate shot at a QB and drafted some doofus from Michigan in the 6th round in 2000?

    Or would you have bitched when the Cowboys signed an UDFA from Easter Illinois in 2003?

    Just wondering....

    =Z=
    Could you please show me the percentage of 6th round or undrafted QB's who turn out to be as good as Romo? Nevermind Brady.

    Wait, I know. In the past 15 years, only two quarterbacks outside of the first round have put together a potential hall of fame Career. Tom Brady and Drew Brees. It works out to be something like 1.8%. So yes, I would bitch.

    Think of it this way, what if we did nothing but throw hail mary's all game long? Very small chance of winning, but occasionally you do. I'm willing to bet you'd bitch about that.
    My point is - you can't tell about a player until they get a chance to play. Some need more time (Romo) than others (Brady). Some get it immediately (Matt Ryan), some need to suffer as a starter to learn (P. Manning), some fail and never get it (Couch, A. Smith, Shuler, etc.).

    =Z=
    1: It's a little early to write off Smith. San Fran has been struggling to put a good team on the field and have finally gotten close (Due to cap hell that they were in)...Smith and Carr are both solid QB's given a decent team, and it will be interesting to see who winds up with the starting job.

    And Couch was thrown to the wolves and ruined by Cleveland. Had they not completely trashed him, he may have turned into something.

    2: When the Patriots drafted Brady they had Drew Bledsoe on the roster and had no reason to think he would later fall apart.

    3: When Dallas acquired Romo, they were still trying to develop Quincy Carter, who was taken in the 2nd round - and was their first pick of that draft - in 2001.

    4: In both 2 and 3 above, both teams either had, or had recently lost a "Franchise" QB. Further, Aikman had a 7 year/$70 million extension pending, but was forced to retire due to concussions. In other wotrds, Dallasd had thought that Aikman would be there for quite awhile longer.

    So, in answer to your questions, "No"...because neither team allowed season after to season to pass while refusing to address a gaping hole at that position...unlike the Vikings.


    Caine
    I guess where the disagreement comes in is the fact you believe the Vikings have refused to address a gaping hole at that position.

    We have already pointed out the drafting of the QBs taken. All Zeus did was point out that Brady and Romo were never considered to be that great of QBs but turned out to be pretty darn good. I took him pointing out these 2 QBs were for that reason. In other words, though the scenarios were different in NE and Dallas it does not mean that the Vikings didn't address the situation. They have addressed the situation but they haven't brought in what people believe to be a top tier QB.

    That goes back to availability and what the teams were willing to give up. Someone stated very nicely previously who the Vikings wouldn't have if they were to choose the route you want them to. So the point is if they would have gone that route the Vikings would be without very key players that make them as good as they are now. All this team needs is a QB that can be consistent and they will contend for a superbowl. That is it. Right now they have that with Favre. They made the playoffs with the likes of TJ and Frerotte who are both inconsistent. So when you weigh the values it is not worth giving up what the Vikings would have had to in order to get that top tier QB or "franchise" QB people so diligently want.

    Yes, they could have had Carr without giving up the farm. I think he would be a good QB with a decent OL. Evidently the FO doesn't agree. We may soon get to find out if they screwed the pooch on that one but as of right now he has been nothing more than a backup. So to keep referring to that is a moot point. It is a point that I do agree with you though.

  4. #74
    Caine's Avatar
    Caine is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    5,139

    Re:Clarifying my position...a chiller rant

    ejmat wrote:
    Caine wrote:
    Zeus wrote:
    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Zeus wrote:
    Caine wrote:
    C Mac D wrote:
    Caine wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    Zeus wrote:
    Caine wrote:
    Yet you'll never know because Chiller NEVER takes a shot at a QB. His single attempt was to reach up anywhere from 1 to 3 rounds and select Jackson...and despite negative results, he's stood pat ever since.
    No love for Booty, I see.

    =Z=
    I didn't catch the NEVER when I read it the first time either.

    I guess this year, because we had a shot at Clausen, now constitutes NEVER as it is really the first time we have had a shot at a "Franchise" QB.

    All in all, I guess all the rest of the teams can be lumped into the catagory or "Never" as they passed on him, some several times, as well.
    Not really...and here's why.

    my "NEVER" is based upon taking a shot at a legitimate prospect either in Free Agency or early in the darft...and by "legitimate prospect", I mean someone who has more than their immediate family hyped up about.

    Booty, Jackson, and Thigpen were all either late round "projects" or huge reach projects...none were projected starter material initially. The FA crop brought in is much the same - a series of either poor players of players at the end of their careers who had limited viability remaining.

    IMO, most of these QB's weren't brought in as a valid attempt to find a solution, but rather as a validation of Jackson as a QB - as every time he has faced off against even mediocre competition (Frerotte), he has failed. But guys like Bollinger, Holcomb, or Rosenfels - guys who were never all that special - Jackson can edge them out....barely.

    Caine
    That's a very subjective definition of the word 'never'... perhaps you were just wrong?
    No...I'm pretty comfortable with it right where it is. Perhaps I should have said never takes a legitimate shot at a QB.

    The exception being Favre, but that's the exception that proves the rule.

    Further, I wasn't defining the word, but rather my stance on the topic.

    Caine
    Would you have bitched if you were a Patriots fan and they didn't take a legitimate shot at a QB and drafted some doofus from Michigan in the 6th round in 2000?

    Or would you have bitched when the Cowboys signed an UDFA from Easter Illinois in 2003?

    Just wondering....

    =Z=
    Could you please show me the percentage of 6th round or undrafted QB's who turn out to be as good as Romo? Nevermind Brady.

    Wait, I know. In the past 15 years, only two quarterbacks outside of the first round have put together a potential hall of fame Career. Tom Brady and Drew Brees. It works out to be something like 1.8%. So yes, I would bitch.

    Think of it this way, what if we did nothing but throw hail mary's all game long? Very small chance of winning, but occasionally you do. I'm willing to bet you'd bitch about that.
    My point is - you can't tell about a player until they get a chance to play. Some need more time (Romo) than others (Brady). Some get it immediately (Matt Ryan), some need to suffer as a starter to learn (P. Manning), some fail and never get it (Couch, A. Smith, Shuler, etc.).

    =Z=
    1: It's a little early to write off Smith. San Fran has been struggling to put a good team on the field and have finally gotten close (Due to cap hell that they were in)...Smith and Carr are both solid QB's given a decent team, and it will be interesting to see who winds up with the starting job.

    And Couch was thrown to the wolves and ruined by Cleveland. Had they not completely trashed him, he may have turned into something.

    2: When the Patriots drafted Brady they had Drew Bledsoe on the roster and had no reason to think he would later fall apart.

    3: When Dallas acquired Romo, they were still trying to develop Quincy Carter, who was taken in the 2nd round - and was their first pick of that draft - in 2001.

    4: In both 2 and 3 above, both teams either had, or had recently lost a "Franchise" QB. Further, Aikman had a 7 year/$70 million extension pending, but was forced to retire due to concussions. In other wotrds, Dallasd had thought that Aikman would be there for quite awhile longer.

    So, in answer to your questions, "No"...because neither team allowed season after to season to pass while refusing to address a gaping hole at that position...unlike the Vikings.


    Caine
    I guess where the disagreement comes in is the fact you believe the Vikings have refused to address a gaping hole at that position.
    I think I've been pretty clear on that point, yes.

    We have already pointed out the drafting of the QBs taken. All Zeus did was point out that Brady and Romo were never considered to be that great of QBs but turned out to be pretty darn good. I took him pointing out these 2 QBs were for that reason. In other words, though the scenarios were different in NE and Dallas it does not mean that the Vikings didn't address the situation. They have addressed the situation but they haven't brought in what people believe to be a top tier QB.
    And I pointed out that at the time both of those players were selected, neither franchise was in the midst of an extended period of time where they had a QB drought - in fact New England had a "Franchise" guy already there.

    Minnesota, on the other hand, has had a plethora of "less than stellar" QB's slotted in year after year...until Favre came out of retirement...again.

    Big difference between the two situations.

    That goes back to availability and what the teams were willing to give up. Someone stated very nicely previously who the Vikings wouldn't have if they were to choose the route you want them to. So the point is if they would have gone that route the Vikings would be without very key players that make them as good as they are now. All this team needs is a QB that can be consistent and they will contend for a superbowl. That is it. Right now they have that with Favre. They made the playoffs with the likes of TJ and Frerotte who are both inconsistent. So when you weigh the values it is not worth giving up what the Vikings would have had to in order to get that top tier QB or "franchise" QB people so diligently want.
    And that point is also debateable. Which player on our team would be absolutely impossible to win without? Not even Peterson is in that category. And, truth be told, we haven't won a superbowl WITH them. Maybe we don't have Peterson...maybe we have Taylor and another back a little less taqlented than Peterson...but we have a damn good QB. Where does that put us on the power curve? Possibly ahead.

    So who's to say that we WOULDN'T have been better off making a move for a QB? Truthfully, we'll never know, because we didn't. And, since trade packages vary, we can't even say who would have actually been removed from teh roster because that trade would ahve set off a cascade of events which would have altered every draft and trade after it for the entire NFL...these incidents don't happen in a vaccuum.

    Yes, they could have had Carr without giving up the farm. I think he would be a good QB with a decent OL. Evidently the FO doesn't agree. We may soon get to find out if they screwed the pooch on that one but as of right now he has been nothing more than a backup. So to keep referring to that is a moot point. It is a point that I do agree with you though.
    Carr was a starter for 5 years with the worst team in the NFL - the expansion Texans. Like Tim Couch, he was brought in to an expansion team and thrown to the wolves. Houston gave him no weapons except Andre Johnson, and virtually NO protection. Yet he managed to post up some pretty impressive numbers despite all of that. He's been much more than a Back-up...

    Further, addressing this notion of "mechanics" and such...what a load of hooey. Did Bradshaw have great mechanics? Did Tarkenton? This entire notion of "mechanics" is a rather recent development in pundit-speak. No one talked about a "quick-release" until Marino started playing...now everyone has to have one. Oddly, Marino never won a Superbowl.

    The truth is, there are guys out there who can flat out WIN, despite what the pundits like Mel Kiper think. Despite alleged flaws in their game. Why the FO passed on Carr, I don't profess to know. But I DO believe it was a mistake. One of many when it comes to that particular position.

    Caine

  5. #75
    ejmat is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    8,849

    Re:Clarifying my position...a chiller rant

    Caine wrote:
    ejmat wrote:
    Caine wrote:
    Zeus wrote:
    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Zeus wrote:
    Caine wrote:
    C Mac D wrote:
    Caine wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    Zeus wrote:
    Caine wrote:
    Yet you'll never know because Chiller NEVER takes a shot at a QB. His single attempt was to reach up anywhere from 1 to 3 rounds and select Jackson...and despite negative results, he's stood pat ever since.
    No love for Booty, I see.

    =Z=
    I didn't catch the NEVER when I read it the first time either.

    I guess this year, because we had a shot at Clausen, now constitutes NEVER as it is really the first time we have had a shot at a "Franchise" QB.

    All in all, I guess all the rest of the teams can be lumped into the catagory or "Never" as they passed on him, some several times, as well.
    Not really...and here's why.

    my "NEVER" is based upon taking a shot at a legitimate prospect either in Free Agency or early in the darft...and by "legitimate prospect", I mean someone who has more than their immediate family hyped up about.

    Booty, Jackson, and Thigpen were all either late round "projects" or huge reach projects...none were projected starter material initially. The FA crop brought in is much the same - a series of either poor players of players at the end of their careers who had limited viability remaining.

    IMO, most of these QB's weren't brought in as a valid attempt to find a solution, but rather as a validation of Jackson as a QB - as every time he has faced off against even mediocre competition (Frerotte), he has failed. But guys like Bollinger, Holcomb, or Rosenfels - guys who were never all that special - Jackson can edge them out....barely.

    Caine
    That's a very subjective definition of the word 'never'... perhaps you were just wrong?
    No...I'm pretty comfortable with it right where it is. Perhaps I should have said never takes a legitimate shot at a QB.

    The exception being Favre, but that's the exception that proves the rule.

    Further, I wasn't defining the word, but rather my stance on the topic.

    Caine
    Would you have bitched if you were a Patriots fan and they didn't take a legitimate shot at a QB and drafted some doofus from Michigan in the 6th round in 2000?

    Or would you have bitched when the Cowboys signed an UDFA from Easter Illinois in 2003?

    Just wondering....

    =Z=
    Could you please show me the percentage of 6th round or undrafted QB's who turn out to be as good as Romo? Nevermind Brady.

    Wait, I know. In the past 15 years, only two quarterbacks outside of the first round have put together a potential hall of fame Career. Tom Brady and Drew Brees. It works out to be something like 1.8%. So yes, I would bitch.

    Think of it this way, what if we did nothing but throw hail mary's all game long? Very small chance of winning, but occasionally you do. I'm willing to bet you'd bitch about that.
    My point is - you can't tell about a player until they get a chance to play. Some need more time (Romo) than others (Brady). Some get it immediately (Matt Ryan), some need to suffer as a starter to learn (P. Manning), some fail and never get it (Couch, A. Smith, Shuler, etc.).

    =Z=
    1: It's a little early to write off Smith. San Fran has been struggling to put a good team on the field and have finally gotten close (Due to cap hell that they were in)...Smith and Carr are both solid QB's given a decent team, and it will be interesting to see who winds up with the starting job.

    And Couch was thrown to the wolves and ruined by Cleveland. Had they not completely trashed him, he may have turned into something.

    2: When the Patriots drafted Brady they had Drew Bledsoe on the roster and had no reason to think he would later fall apart.

    3: When Dallas acquired Romo, they were still trying to develop Quincy Carter, who was taken in the 2nd round - and was their first pick of that draft - in 2001.

    4: In both 2 and 3 above, both teams either had, or had recently lost a "Franchise" QB. Further, Aikman had a 7 year/$70 million extension pending, but was forced to retire due to concussions. In other wotrds, Dallasd had thought that Aikman would be there for quite awhile longer.

    So, in answer to your questions, "No"...because neither team allowed season after to season to pass while refusing to address a gaping hole at that position...unlike the Vikings.


    Caine
    I guess where the disagreement comes in is the fact you believe the Vikings have refused to address a gaping hole at that position.
    I think I've been pretty clear on that point, yes.

    We have already pointed out the drafting of the QBs taken. All Zeus did was point out that Brady and Romo were never considered to be that great of QBs but turned out to be pretty darn good. I took him pointing out these 2 QBs were for that reason. In other words, though the scenarios were different in NE and Dallas it does not mean that the Vikings didn't address the situation. They have addressed the situation but they haven't brought in what people believe to be a top tier QB.
    And I pointed out that at the time both of those players were selected, neither franchise was in the midst of an extended period of time where they had a QB drought - in fact New England had a "Franchise" guy already there.

    Minnesota, on the other hand, has had a plethora of "less than stellar" QB's slotted in year after year...until Favre came out of retirement...again.

    Big difference between the two situations.

    That goes back to availability and what the teams were willing to give up. Someone stated very nicely previously who the Vikings wouldn't have if they were to choose the route you want them to. So the point is if they would have gone that route the Vikings would be without very key players that make them as good as they are now. All this team needs is a QB that can be consistent and they will contend for a superbowl. That is it. Right now they have that with Favre. They made the playoffs with the likes of TJ and Frerotte who are both inconsistent. So when you weigh the values it is not worth giving up what the Vikings would have had to in order to get that top tier QB or "franchise" QB people so diligently want.
    And that point is also debateable. Which player on our team would be absolutely impossible to win without? Not even Peterson is in that category. And, truth be told, we haven't won a superbowl WITH them. Maybe we don't have Peterson...maybe we have Taylor and another back a little less taqlented than Peterson...but we have a damn good QB. Where does that put us on the power curve? Possibly ahead.

    So who's to say that we WOULDN'T have been better off making a move for a QB? Truthfully, we'll never know, because we didn't. And, since trade packages vary, we can't even say who would have actually been removed from teh roster because that trade would ahve set off a cascade of events which would have altered every draft and trade after it for the entire NFL...these incidents don't happen in a vaccuum.

    Yes, they could have had Carr without giving up the farm. I think he would be a good QB with a decent OL. Evidently the FO doesn't agree. We may soon get to find out if they screwed the pooch on that one but as of right now he has been nothing more than a backup. So to keep referring to that is a moot point. It is a point that I do agree with you though.
    Carr was a starter for 5 years with the worst team in the NFL - the expansion Texans. Like Tim Couch, he was brought in to an expansion team and thrown to the wolves. Houston gave him no weapons except Andre Johnson, and virtually NO protection. Yet he managed to post up some pretty impressive numbers despite all of that. He's been much more than a Back-up...

    Further, addressing this notion of "mechanics" and such...what a load of hooey. Did Bradshaw have great mechanics? Did Tarkenton? This entire notion of "mechanics" is a rather recent development in pundit-speak. No one talked about a "quick-release" until Marino started playing...now everyone has to have one. Oddly, Marino never won a Superbowl.

    The truth is, there are guys out there who can flat out WIN, despite what the pundits like Mel Kiper think. Despite alleged flaws in their game. Why the FO passed on Carr, I don't profess to know. But I DO believe it was a mistake. One of many when it comes to that particular position.

    Caine
    When it comes to this topic we are going to continue to agree on the David Carr thought. I don't disagree with anything you say regarding him. Couch on the other hand, it's hard to tell. But in all fairness a lot of QBs get thrown to the wolves and don't make it out alive.

    We will continue to disagree on the addressing issue. Like I stated, they have addressed the situation with QBs they thought would fit their system. None of them were "sexy" picks but when it comes down to it all of them had potential. I don't blame them for the TJ pick. I don't blame them for the Thigpen pick. Nor do I blame them for the Booty pick. Then they traded for Sage and begged Favre. This is all a part of addressing the QB position.

    I will agree they didn't go after that "franchise" type QB that some people think would take theis team over the top. I will also agree that losing one or two of the players we do have in exchange for having a top tier QB may help this team for the better. However, what would you give up and for what QB?

    1) We all know we agree on Carr
    2) We all know we agree on Schaub however would you have been willing to give anythng up for a guy that never won an NFL game? In hind-sight, absolutely. You and I did back then too but it still would have been a huge risk to give up their asking price.
    3) The other alternative is draft an unknown. What would you give up for that? Personally I wouldn't have given jack crap for any of the QBs out there after our first 3 picks. However, there is no reason why they didn't draft someone out of the 2nd tier type guys. But on a side note, they did sign Ryan Perrilloux. Early round talent so it would take staying on him for off the field issues.

    Sorry but the only one that makes sense to me was David Carr. I agree that mechanics mean nothing to me. Evidently to the FO it did.

  6. #76
    Caine's Avatar
    Caine is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    5,139

    Re:Clarifying my position...a chiller rant

    Hae you read Perriloux's history? The guy never met a suspension he didn't like...

    His freshman year at LSU, Perrilloux was a “person of interest” in a Federal investigation being conducted in New Orleans, Louisiana. He was never charged, but he retained an attourney.

    Sophomore season he was suspended twice - once for using his brother's ID to try and get onto a gambling boat, and once for a bar fight that got two of his team mates kicked off teh squad.

    In Feb of 2008, he was kicked off the LSU team for a violation of team rules. What exactly was never disclosed, but he is reported to have a failed a drug test due to marijuana, missed a team meeting, skipped classes and was late for a handful of conditioning workouts.

    He then transfers to Jacksonville State, and was suspended again at the beginning of the 2009 season for violating undisclosed team rules.
    That's a summary from his Wikipedia write up - and while I admit that Wikipedia is not a fantastic source, all of the incidents include references...

    This kid sounds like he has major league talent and minor league self-control. If he pulls his head out of his ass, maybe he can become something.

    Caine

  7. #77
    ejmat is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    8,849

    Re:Clarifying my position...a chiller rant

    Caine wrote:
    Hae you read Perriloux's history? The guy never met a suspension he didn't like...

    His freshman year at LSU, Perrilloux was a “person of interest” in a Federal investigation being conducted in New Orleans, Louisiana. He was never charged, but he retained an attourney.

    Sophomore season he was suspended twice - once for using his brother's ID to try and get onto a gambling boat, and once for a bar fight that got two of his team mates kicked off teh squad.

    In Feb of 2008, he was kicked off the LSU team for a violation of team rules. What exactly was never disclosed, but he is reported to have a failed a drug test due to marijuana, missed a team meeting, skipped classes and was late for a handful of conditioning workouts.

    He then transfers to Jacksonville State, and was suspended again at the beginning of the 2009 season for violating undisclosed team rules.
    That's a summary from his Wikipedia write up - and while I admit that Wikipedia is not a fantastic source, all of the incidents include references...

    This kid sounds like he has major league talent and minor league self-control. If he pulls his head out of his ass, maybe he can become something.

    Caine
    Yeah I read all of that as well. I totally agree. I'm hoping he can straighten out. If he can this just may be a total steal. Hopefully the FO and vets guide this kid.

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678

Similar Threads

  1. Clarifying Winfield’s Contract
    By Marrdro in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-10-2009, 11:56 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-05-2009, 05:36 AM
  3. If the Vikes don't get it done today, chiller or no chiller next year?
    By battleaxe4cheese in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 01-04-2009, 08:22 PM
  4. Williamson wants a piece of Chiller
    By kspurplepride in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 83
    Last Post: 11-23-2008, 04:33 PM
  5. The Chiller......In action.
    By Marrdro in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 05-05-2008, 07:29 AM

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
  •