Thread: Veteran Favre Enjoys Playing With Sullivan

"V4L" wrote:

Good point EJ

We have tons of people contribute

Thanks V4L.
It's the truth.
This team has plenty of drafted talent that contrinute to this team.
As we found out last year, STs are extremely important.
Those are usually draftees and undrafted FAs.
Just because they don't start on the traditional offense or defense doesn't mean the coach or scouting team doesnt see talent past the 2nd round.

"midgensa" wrote:

"V" wrote:

"ejmat" wrote:

"MaxVike" wrote:

So, is it feasible that Childress actually knows what he is doing?
This kid is doing a great job and is assuming a leadership role.
Good stuff...best case scenario planning re: divesting of Birk (whom, I love) and selecting Sullivan to be the C of the future.
So far, so good... seemless? no, but, can't argue the decision.


Favre's endorsement, icing on the cake.

I was wondering the same thing.
So much has been made on this forum that Chilly doesn't know how to develop young players.
Even though Griff is doing well, Loadholt is holding his own, Sully is doing well.
AP is AP.
Rice is starting to flourish.
Greenway is becoming a stud.
All of these are draft choices from Chilly's regime and all are contributing to the success of this team.

So this is where the Chilly haters give Favre all the credit which I do believe he should get some.
However, before you do that I will point out to the same people that you were the ones blaming Childress for supposedly lacking the ability to develop young guys.
If you blame for bad you have to give credit for good.
Do you think Rice just all of the sudden got better because Favre is here?
Maybe statistically but let's face it.
He's had it in him but he needed a QB to get him the ball.
You give him opportunity he will catch it most of the time no matter who throws to him.

I'll give Chilly credit for developing Rice, Griffin, Edwards, Sullivan, Robison, and Tyrell Johnson but I'm not gonna give him credit for Greenway, AD, and Harvin. Those guys came as advertised and would play well under any coach.

Moreover, for every John Sullivan there is a Ryan Cook.
For every Cedric Griffin there is a Marcus McCauley.
For every Tyrell Johnson there is a Greg Blue.
For every Percy Harvin there is an Aundrae Allison, and Chandler Williams
And surely it would a travesty to forget Tarvaris Jackson and John David Booty

When it comes to late-round gems. Chilly sucks at both picking them and developing them. So either his eye for talent vanishes after the first two rounds, or he is not capable of making a players overachieve. I think its the latter.

Edwards and Sullivan are the only starters which Chilly drafted outside of the first two rounds.

Woah now ... some of those comparisons really are not fair.

Comparing a first round pick like Harvin to Aundrae Allison and Chandler Williams? Lets be real ... Allison and Williams were LONG SHOTS to make it in the NFL ... and we did pretty well with Allison for what he was.

Comparing Tyrell Johnson ... a second round pick ... to a fifth-round flier of a pick like Greg Blue?

The McCauley pick definitely did not pan out ... but still comparing a second-rounder like Griffin to a third rounder like McCauley?

To use late round picks as anti-examples is just not fair. Late round picks are at best fliers for most squads, especially one as deep and talented as ours.

Now, Ryan Cook and Tarvaris Jackson are fair ones to throw out there, but he does have Loadholt, Johnson, Griffin and even later round guys like Reynaud, JJ and Sullivan to more than account for the few and far between first-day flubs.

In no way am I trying to discredit the jobs that or scouts and coaches do in the draft. I'm simply pointing out that we miss more often than most when it comes to late round picks, and I think you have to hand at least some of the blame to the coaches and how they develop talent.

I don't expect them to hit all the time, or even half of the time, but the Vikings have not hit AT ALL. Sure they have achieved solid depth through drafting, but there is no Tom Brady, or Marques Colston, or heck even Johnny Knox, or Jay Ratliff, etc.

"ejmat" wrote:

Great numbers V.
Good research!
However, let's talk about good players in those numbers.
Sure some of those teams may be playing more of their drafted talent but where are they in retrospect to the Vikings?
It shows the Vikings are pretty deep with their vets and FA acquisitions.
Some of those other teams may have more of their own draftees starting but what was the scenarios?


I think the VIkings have several up and coming players in this league that may not necessarily be starting now.
Look at Robison.
He's prety damn good but he's behind Jared Allen.
There's Heath Farwell, Erin Henderson, Jasper Brinkley, Abdullah, Frampton, etc.... that contribute on STs.
Just because they are not starters right now doesn't mean Chilly or the Vikings scout team has a bad eye for talent.
People don't have to start to be considered a good player.
Example. Johnathan Stewart is not a starter is he a good player or of starting calibur?
That's just one player and I can go on and on with those examples but I'm sure you get my point.

Come on, EJ. Read the entire post. I have agreed twice now that it isn't an eye for talent the Chilly lacks. It's the ability to develop that talent.

Deep or not, Injuries mean that young players great shots to contribute. Marcus McCauley had his shot and failed. Aundrae Allison had his shot and failed. Brian Robison had his shot and failed. Greg Blue, Tarvaris, same thing. On the other hand, guys like Griffin succeeded in the opportunity which they got.

How did Tom Brady get his chance? Colston? Royal? Knox? Well developed players are able to step up when the opportunity presents itself. Again, this is not about depth. I agree we have plenty of depth, but we don't do well when it comes to developing late round gems. It's not a major knock, but it's true.

Again, read the stuff before the numbers. John Stewart is a terrible example. He was drafted in the first round.
I'm talking about the ability to use our eye for talent, which we clearly have, and turn those late rounders into starters through good coaching.

Your original point was that, based on the success of our draft picks, Chilly has shown the ability to develop young players. I'm saying that if you look outside the first two rounds, he really hasn't.

"V" wrote:

"ejmat" wrote:

Great numbers V.
Good research!
However, let's talk about good players in those numbers.
Sure some of those teams may be playing more of their drafted talent but where are they in retrospect to the Vikings?
It shows the Vikings are pretty deep with their vets and FA acquisitions.
Some of those other teams may have more of their own draftees starting but what was the scenarios?


I think the VIkings have several up and coming players in this league that may not necessarily be starting now.
Look at Robison.
He's prety damn good but he's behind Jared Allen.
There's Heath Farwell, Erin Henderson, Jasper Brinkley, Abdullah, Frampton, etc.... that contribute on STs.
Just because they are not starters right now doesn't mean Chilly or the Vikings scout team has a bad eye for talent.
People don't have to start to be considered a good player.
Example. Johnathan Stewart is not a starter is he a good player or of starting calibur?
That's just one player and I can go on and on with those examples but I'm sure you get my point.

Come on, EJ. Read the entire post. I have agreed twice now that it isn't an eye for talent the Chilly lacks. It's the ability to develop that talent.

Deep or not, Injuries mean that young players great shots to contribute. Marcus McCauley had his shot and failed. Aundrae Allison had his shot and failed. Brian Robison had his shot and failed. Greg Blue, Tarvaris, same thing. On the other hand, guys like Griffin succeeded in the opportunity which they got.

How did Tom Brady get his chance? Colston? Royal? Knox? Well developed players are able to step up when the opportunity presents itself. Again, this is not about depth. I agree we have plenty of depth, but we don't do well when it comes to developing late round gems. It's not a major knock, but it's true.

Again, read the stuff before the numbers. John Stewart is a terrible example. He was drafted in the first round.
I'm talking about the ability to use our eye for talent, which we clearly have, and turn those late rounders into starters through good coaching.

Your original point was that, based on the success of our draft picks, Chilly has shown the ability to develop young players. I'm saying that if you look outside the first two rounds, he really hasn't.

But don't you think depth plays a key role in that.
This team has solid contributers that were drafted outside the 1st 2 rounds and even in undrefted free agents.
I used Johnathan Stewart as an example of a goo player that doesn't start.
And since you brought it into the equation he was a 1st rounder so by all means should be starting right?
So if a 1st rounder can't start what makes you think late rounders should?


I hear what you are saying V.
That is your opinion and I respect it.
I just look at things differently.
I look at it as contrinuters being jsut that.
You don't have to start to be a solid player regardless of the round you are drafted in.
Just because they don't have a lot of late round gems starting doesn't mean they don't know how to develop players.
It means there are people that play their positions that are better.

I gotta say I was wrong about Sullivan

He got pushed around by Shaun Rogers first game and I was like oh god I was right

Now I don't mind having him in there at all

"V4L" wrote:

I gotta say I was wrong about Sullivan

He got pushed around by Shaun Rogers first game and I was like oh god I was right

Now I don't mind having him in there at all

+1
he's continually improving.
He still leaves alot to be desire, but I see him continually getting better.
Load is also a pleasant surprise too.

V - Brian Robison failed how?
Because we picked up the best defensive end in the league?

"Yfz01" wrote:

V - Brian Robison failed how?
Because we picked up the best defensive end in the league?

Yes. We had to pickup Allen because he wasn't good enough to start. It's a carbon copy of what happened with Tavaris Jackson.

"V" wrote:

"Yfz01" wrote:

V - Brian Robison failed how?
Because we picked up the best defensive end in the league?

Yes. We had to pickup Allen because he wasn't good enough to start. It's a carbon copy of what happened with Tavaris Jackson.

Jackson had MANY MANY more opportunities to succeed than Robison.
But when you can make a play for JA (absolutely robbing the Chiefs) at a position where an upgrade would be nice, you gotta take it.

"V" wrote:

"Yfz01" wrote:

V - Brian Robison failed how?
Because we picked up the best defensive end in the league?

Yes. We had to pickup Allen because he wasn't good enough to start. It's a carbon copy of what happened with Tavaris Jackson.

They didn't HAVE to pick up Allen.
They wanted to pick up Allen.
The Chiefs were throwing him out there so why not go after the talent.
Sorry V but that is a reach to say we HAD to go get Allen because Robison wasn't good enough.
Robison may not be a Jared Allen but then again there are only a couple of guys that are as good as Allen.
Robison has handled playing time (other than the ST blunder) pretty well.
There is no way you or anyone can assess that Robison wouldn't be a good contributer.