Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25
  1. #21
    marstc09's Avatar
    marstc09 is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    23,179

    Re:Sanford or Johnson?

    Marrdro wrote:
    marstc09 wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    Why are we always so quick to throw a kid under the bus.

    As I said in the "Post Game" thread. One should take into account that the presence of Whinny (and possibly Jasper) could have alot to do with the improved play at S.

    Here's a novel idea, how about we give them both a couple 3 years to develop before we go ahead and claim that they don't tackle or have mental issues related to the game?

    I for one love that both seem to be able to play the position enough for the team to win. At this point in thier careers, that all we as fans should really expect out of them.
    I could so derail this thread but I won't in regards to throwing people under the bus.

    Anyways this is almost the end of his 2nd year starting. If he has not learned to tackle by then, what makes you think he will figure that part out. I can understand the mental mistakes.

    Truth be told, when you put a rookie in and he appears to be playing better, of course people are going to want him to start.

    Here is a novel idea, go with who is getting the job done. We are making a playoff push not creating holiday cookies.
    Since when don't we derail threads?

    I have see nothing wrong with putting a player in who is playing better. My only point was and still is, we should look at the bigger picture when we say that he played better.

    I believe Whinny's presence alone should make the cat playing on the backside better.

    As to your point of 2 years. Weren't you one of the crew who was ready to get rid of Griff?
    Nope I always liked Griff. It was Greenway that I I feel played poorly. I never want to get rid of players. Well except for Cook. I came out on top with that one though. So anyways if Whinnys presence alone makes people better (which I agree) then why was TJ not playing well all year? I would rather see Sanford in there.

  2. #22
    V4L's Avatar
    V4L
    V4L is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    20,612

    Re:Sanford or Johnson?

    Maybe Johnson can learn from the bench

    I am not ready to crown anyone a starter yet.. But I did like Sanfords decision making that game compared to Johnson's

    I would atleast love to give Sanford some reps and see if we got a late round gem here

  3. #23
    tastywaves's Avatar
    tastywaves is online now Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,869

    Re:Sanford or Johnson?

    Marrdro wrote:
    Why is it unrealistic?

    Take Griff for instance. There is no reason at all that they can't take a look at a kid or two (one on ST's, other on PS) for two or three years before we opt to let Griff go, say after his 2nd or 3rd contract if the roster is comprised of a mix of youth, vets and FA's.

    Now if you had a roster that comprised of nothing but old guys that were either not performing anymore or two expensive to hold, and you had to predominantly field a team of 1rst and 2nd year players, yes, I can see that.

    Back to this team, I see no issue with letting a guy spend a year or two on the PS as he develops and then promote him up to STs and let him rotate in a bit to get some "Real" game time tape as a measure of maturation.

    Kindof the way they used to do things back when they had a heck of alot more draft rounds than 7 my friend.
    I didn't notice your response until now.

    My point on the give the new guys a chance theory is that you've only got so many available slots where you can allocate a spot for future growth prospects. For some players, that show potential and the coaches feel strongly about, then yes, you can carry them on the PS, try to use them on special teams or give them some reduced playing role until they have a chance to show whether they can be a significant starting player.

    Usually, these select few spots are going to towards higher round draft picks and stop gap FA's that the org felt strongly about in the beginning and have more invested in. Example are guys like Tyrell. If Tyrell would have been selected in the 7th round like Sanford, I think they would be quicker to pull the trigger. Unfairly as this may be, the chances given to Sanford will more than likely be much more limited than a 2nd round pick guy. If Sanford doesn't take full advantage of the playing time he gets, he will more than likely continue to be labeled as a guy than can fill a depth spot, and will be fighting on a daily basis to keep his roster spot.

    It could very well be that if Sanford was given as much play time and practice time as Tyrell that he would be the better player, but we will probably never know due to the nature of limited spots/playing time and the coaching staff making their best attempts at putting the players that they feel can make the biggest impact in the game. Tyrell was selected from day one due to their belief in him. Sanford was a flyer pick.

    Don't read that I don't think Tyrell will figure this out and become a solid safety, just saying he is getting every chance to show he belongs and to date has not shown much. If his play does not pick up significantly, I would guess that his starting spot is in jeopardy next year.

    Giving players 3 years to prove their worthiness is only a luxury you give to select players that you truly believe in due to something they've shown you or you've signed to a large rookie contract.

    One last point is that even if Sanford is let go next year, I would argue that they made a good pick with him in the 7th and he helped contribute to the team's success in a way that is comparable to the team's investment in him. Draft picks don't have to be long term starting players to be considered good draft picks and I don't think most NFL teams feel like it is imperative to make all of their draft picks become solid starters in order to build their team.

  4. #24
    C Mac D's Avatar
    C Mac D is offline Posting to P'own
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    13,490

    Re:Sanford or Johnson?

    I think Sanford could be a great safety in this league. He had a good training camp, I remember seeing his name pop up a lot. I was sorta surprised he didn't start at the beginning of the season... not sure why coaches are so stuck on Johnson, he hasn't done much of anything.

    Anyways, start Sanford.
    Disclaimer: I'm an idiot.

  5. #25
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,909

    Re:Sanford or Johnson?

    tastywaves wrote:
    Marrdro wrote:
    Why is it unrealistic?

    Take Griff for instance. There is no reason at all that they can't take a look at a kid or two (one on ST's, other on PS) for two or three years before we opt to let Griff go, say after his 2nd or 3rd contract if the roster is comprised of a mix of youth, vets and FA's.

    Now if you had a roster that comprised of nothing but old guys that were either not performing anymore or two expensive to hold, and you had to predominantly field a team of 1rst and 2nd year players, yes, I can see that.

    Back to this team, I see no issue with letting a guy spend a year or two on the PS as he develops and then promote him up to STs and let him rotate in a bit to get some "Real" game time tape as a measure of maturation.

    Kindof the way they used to do things back when they had a heck of alot more draft rounds than 7 my friend.
    I didn't notice your response until now.

    My point on the give the new guys a chance theory is that you've only got so many available slots where you can allocate a spot for future growth prospects. For some players, that show potential and the coaches feel strongly about, then yes, you can carry them on the PS, try to use them on special teams or give them some reduced playing role until they have a chance to show whether they can be a significant starting player.

    Usually, these select few spots are going to towards higher round draft picks and stop gap FA's that the org felt strongly about in the beginning and have more invested in. Example are guys like Tyrell. If Tyrell would have been selected in the 7th round like Sanford, I think they would be quicker to pull the trigger. Unfairly as this may be, the chances given to Sanford will more than likely be much more limited than a 2nd round pick guy. If Sanford doesn't take full advantage of the playing time he gets, he will more than likely continue to be labeled as a guy than can fill a depth spot, and will be fighting on a daily basis to keep his roster spot.

    It could very well be that if Sanford was given as much play time and practice time as Tyrell that he would be the better player, but we will probably never know due to the nature of limited spots/playing time and the coaching staff making their best attempts at putting the players that they feel can make the biggest impact in the game. Tyrell was selected from day one due to their belief in him. Sanford was a flyer pick.

    Don't read that I don't think Tyrell will figure this out and become a solid safety, just saying he is getting every chance to show he belongs and to date has not shown much. If his play does not pick up significantly, I would guess that his starting spot is in jeopardy next year.

    Giving players 3 years to prove their worthiness is only a luxury you give to select players that you truly believe in due to something they've shown you or you've signed to a large rookie contract.

    One last point is that even if Sanford is let go next year, I would argue that they made a good pick with him in the 7th and he helped contribute to the team's success in a way that is comparable to the team's investment in him. Draft picks don't have to be long term starting players to be considered good draft picks and I don't think most NFL teams feel like it is imperative to make all of their draft picks become solid starters in order to build their team.
    I didn't notice your response until now.
    Phew, I thought you were ignoring me. :P

    JK, good stuff my friend. Couple of comments.....

    My point on the give the new guys a chance theory is that you've only got so many available slots where you can allocate a spot for future growth prospects.
    I agree, but when you look at a team like the Vikes, who have basically gutted thier team, cats like this will have a shot at holding a spot as there are more available.

    Truth of the matter, I started to point out that this roster is gonna be hard for rooks to crack, and I think it will be even harder this year especially if for some reason a kid like Berry or Mays were to suddenly become available.

    Usually, these select few spots are going to towards higher round draft picks and stop gap FA's that the org felt strongly about in the beginning and have more invested in. Example are guys like Tyrell. If Tyrell would have been selected in the 7th round like Sanford, I think they would be quicker to pull the trigger.
    I understand your point here, but don't quite agree with you when it comes to this staff. Rationale for me is how they treated McCauley and Gordon. Using your logic, Mac should have been given more reps/opportunities when in fact, it was quite the opposite.

    I tend to believe the coaches will/are putting the best player out there in most instances, based on play, and not so much were they were drafted.

    Which brings me back to my point. Maybe he is the better player, however, without the seasoned vet over there helping out, his play appears to be worse than the backup that was playing with the Vet.

    Don't read that I don't think Tyrell will figure this out and become a solid safety,
    No worries my friend. I wouldn't do that. All the stuff I track on my spreadsheets help me keep straight what posters opinions trend towards. B)

    Again, excellent post.
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Jamarca Sanford to start at SS
    By MulletMullitia in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-06-2011, 12:36 AM
  2. Congratz Marrdro on the Jamarca Sanford (33) G!!!
    By BadlandsVikings in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 04-20-2010, 09:55 AM
  3. The Official Jamarca Sanford Fan Club
    By ChesterTheMolester in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 01-06-2010, 11:33 AM
  4. 7th round pick Jamarca Sanford
    By skum in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 06-22-2009, 12:00 PM
  5. Tyrell Johnson psyched for first game action - Johnson far from star-struck
    By singersp in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 08-09-2008, 07:55 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
  •