Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 42
  1. #11
    vikingbill50's Avatar
    vikingbill50 is offline Starter
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    271

    Re: Offense better with no stud WR?

    i think we will see out tight ends used alot more than we have ever before....i am hoping the running game will open up more and show more than what the preseason did, but it was the preseason...now is the time to show
    I BLEED THE COLOR PURPLE

  2. #12
    Big C is offline Coordinator
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    828

    Re: Offense better with no stud WR?

    I totally agree. I expect the TE, RB and FB to catch more passes than the WR corps. Wiggins is still the most reliable recieving option. He's the closest thing we have to a "go-to-guy". I think that's what we need at WR rather than a "stud" WR.

    On a side note, I expect Troy to have a breakout year because the west-coast offense is about yards after carry. I believe Troy's speed kicks in to gear once he has the ball rather than when he is running a deep route.
    Halo 4. Start another fight.

  3. #13
    oakmage's Avatar
    oakmage is offline Starter
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    193

    Re: Offense better with no stud WR?

    I don't care what you call them "stud" or go to guy just as long as when the time comes to catch the ball when it is 3 and what ever so we can get that first down that will ensure a victory that is what we need, because when it is all said and done that is what you need to help you win a championship some one to make the play when it has to be done.

  4. #14
    Ltrey33 is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    8,618

    Re: Offense better with no stud WR?

    I don't think you can ever say you are better without a great wide receiver. Childress's experience in Philly was because of TO's attitude, not his ability. TO made that team a whole lot better and played a huge role in getting them to the Super Bowl.

    IMO, we are a better team without TO because of his attitude. But if we had a stud like Marvin Harrison, who is a great wide receiver and a good guy as well, it is definately hard to say that we wouldn't be better. Then again, good guys like Marvin are few and far between.

  5. #15
    Torontovik15 is offline Rookie
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    51

    Re: Offense better with no stud WR?

    You cannot say any team is better without a stud WR...They command double teams and they are consistant is both running routes and catching the ball...

    But I will say this, I would have 2 above average recievers over a stud reciever with attitude...They are nothing but distractions and force the QB to make plays that they normal wouldnt do...
    What we got here is a failure to communicate.

  6. #16
    VAKirks's Avatar
    VAKirks is offline Training Camp
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    44

    Re: Offense better with no stud WR?

    Let's not confuse ability with attitude.
    We don't want any distractions, but you can't underestimate the defense having to focus on somebody.
    Whether it's double teaming a wideout or putting 8 in the box.
    If they can single cover effectively for 60 mins, then we are screwed.

    Even having said that, I also think that we could turn it to our advantage.
    With no one to key on, somebody has to step up and the defense might not be able to predict who.
    But that's the thing - somebody has step up, even if it's someone different each week.

    And if you haven't figured me out yet - I'm a total rose-colored, half-full, homer.
    I think anyone who ever wore purple and gold should be in the hall of fame, by definition.

    Go Vikes
    Bring me the prisoners; I want them alive!

  7. #17
    AngloVike's Avatar
    AngloVike is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Sandhurst, UK
    Posts
    6,784
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Offense better with no stud WR?

    I'm waiting to see more of our offense whn they use a bit more than the vanilla stuff that we've seen this year. Don't forget people that there's no prizes for having an outstanding pre-season when everyone is then tready for you during the regular season.
    Let's see how our RBs operate once we use the proper gameplan that Childress and Co. have in place. Whose to say that the new scheme won't produce a stud WR or RB ?
    Time spent annoying a Packer fan is never time wasted...


  8. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    915

    Re: Offense better with no stud WR?

    "cajunvike" wrote:
    "Mr" wrote:
    Ummm, I remember when we had a stud reciever, and had a Top 5 offense for 7 years straight, but I guess we have a new system now, but whatever....


    I still want Moss back.
    NO Super Bowls though...so screw the stud WR thing and give me a STUD RB and a STUD DEFENSE...that is what wins Super Bowls!!!
    So how many super bowls did the vikings win a top rated D?
    It was not moss' fault the gen manager then owner refused to put money into the D while they were here, they could have won a few if the D was better.
    The vikings have never won a super bowl so if we win with a Moss type reciever its fine with me. If our offence is simular to the offence we ended the year with, it wont matter how good the D is, if you cant score against good teams your not even going to make it to the playoffs.
    You republican whore!

  9. #19
    Vikes_King's Avatar
    Vikes_King is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    7,104

    Re: Offense better with no stud WR?

    i say we're really well set on what we got, however i cant say "better" without a stud reciever, u can have a stud player while still having a well-oiled team.

    do we need one? no.

    it keeps our game plan wide and unpredictable, the only thing i'll sometimes wish we had one for, is bring the safety over the top in coverage and dropping a player out of the box


    http://vikesking.blogspot.com/

    "We’ll win our own Super Bowl, with our own players. Real Vikings. Something Brett Favre can never be."

    - Dan Calabrese

  10. #20
    marcosMN is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Mpls, MN
    Posts
    2,097

    Re: Offense better with no stud WR?

    "Vikes_King" wrote:
    it keeps our game plan wide and unpredictable, the only thing i'll sometimes wish we had one for, is bring the safety over the top in coverage and dropping a player out of the box
    That's why we'll send Chester in motion to the slot quite a bit. Richardson has shown that he can get it done solo in the backfield if we want to draw the safety off run coverage by sending Taylor wide.
    -Sno

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Maybe a stud TE?
    By Purple in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 10-07-2006, 01:21 PM
  2. Look at This 5-STAR STUD MLB in the Draft . . .
    By sleepagent in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 03-27-2006, 07:57 AM
  3. Pack signs STUD LB and STUD K...NOT!!!
    By cajunvike in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 03-26-2006, 04:17 PM
  4. Hey,our new punter is a stud!!
    By Paulbedy59 in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 09-29-2005, 12:42 PM
  5. Vikings sign STUD rb...
    By Phlegm in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-24-2005, 10:54 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
  •