Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 57
  1. #11
    mountainviking's Avatar
    mountainviking is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,841

    Re: Vikings Positional Analysis: Tight Ends

    All those checkdowns to Wiggins didn't seem to help Brad Johnson much.
    Most were short of the first down.

    I'm not sure why everyone thinks Shank's contract is so big.
    18.2 million over 5 years ($3.64/year) is nothing compared to what we give Berrian or Williams, much less Allen.
    I'll bet that in comparison with the rest of the league, its pretty close to average and quite a bit below what TonyG and AntonioG are making.
    With the way the player salaries keep going up, it likely won't be long before its considered a deal.

    With the exception of a 79-yard completion to Shiancoe on one play, of the remaining 963 offensive plays run by the Vikings in 2007, only 37 of them (3.8 percent) went to tight ends. Those 37 receptions accounted for just 344 yards of offense – 6.5 percent of the Vikings’ total yards gained. That is one of the lowest totals in terms of tight end production in the league and was not intended to be so.
    That is play calling, not TE talent or production.
    Jimmy can catch just fine, and is one hell of a blocker...so what if he doesn't run a 4.4 forty.
    Although he dropped some (as all players do) Shank caught some nice ones too.
    His last year with the Gmen, I watched a late season game of theirs where the backups were getting most of the action.
    He made several nice catches on good routes that reminded me of how smooth Jerry Rice was on the field.
    IMHO there is plenty of potential at TE on our roster.
    But before we can see it, we'll need better blocking from the OL and better decisions from the QB...and maybe, more TE freindly play calling too.
    Control the line, control the time, and give your D a chance to shine!!

    "Balance it on end and thats the third side of the coin!!" -wookiefoot

  2. #12
    tastywaves's Avatar
    tastywaves is online now Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,879

    Re: Vikings Positional Analysis: Tight Ends

    "mountainviking" wrote:
    All those checkdowns to Wiggins didn't seem to help Brad Johnson much.
    Most were short of the first down.

    I'm not sure why everyone thinks Shank's contract is so big.
    18.2 million over 5 years ($3.64/year) is nothing compared to what we give Berrian or Williams, much less Allen.

    I'll bet that in comparison with the rest of the league, its pretty close to average and quite a bit below what TonyG and AntonioG are making.
    With the way the player salaries keep going up, it likely won't be long before its considered a deal.

    With the exception of a 79-yard completion to Shiancoe on one play, of the remaining 963 offensive plays run by the Vikings in 2007, only 37 of them (3.8 percent) went to tight ends. Those 37 receptions accounted for just 344 yards of offense – 6.5 percent of the Vikings’ total yards gained. That is one of the lowest totals in terms of tight end production in the league and was not intended to be so.
    That is play calling, not TE talent or production.
    Jimmy can catch just fine, and is one hell of a blocker...so what if he doesn't run a 4.4 forty.
    Although he dropped some (as all players do) Shank caught some nice ones too.
    His last year with the Gmen, I watched a late season game of theirs where the backups were getting most of the action.
    He made several nice catches on good routes that reminded me of how smooth Jerry Rice was on the field.
    IMHO there is plenty of potential at TE on our roster.
    But before we can see it, we'll need better blocking from the OL and better decisions from the QB...and maybe, more TE freindly play calling too.
    According to the always reliable Wikipedia, the average TE salary in 2007, when Shank got his deal with the vikes was around $2M.

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_th..._NFL_tight_end
    In 2007, the median salary for a tight end was $2 million. In terms of salary cap numbers, which (this is a simplification) average out the bonuses over the length of the contract and add it to that year's base salary, the highest paid tight ends in 2007 were the Ravens's Todd Heap and the Falcons's Alge Crumpler, both at a little under $5 million. The Chiefs's Tony Gonzales officially had the highest salary of 2007 among tight ends, at $11 million, because it was the first year of his new contract and he collected his $10 million signing bonus in addition to his $1 million salary. The salary cap value of his contract was $4.5 million, placing him third in the league.
    There is no question we overpaid for Shancoe for what we he has contributed to this point.
    Whether its his fault or a fault of our offense, I'm not sure.
    But either way, his signing has not paid the dividends that should be expected.
    This year may change all that, but in the 5 years that he has been in the league he still hasn't shown that he is a top TE in the league even though his salary would indicate that he should be.
    You can argue he hasn't been given the opportunity, but nonetheless he hasn't shown he deserves his salary at this point.


  3. #13
    Chazz is offline Coordinator
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    782

    Re: Vikings Positional Analysis: Tight Ends

    "tastywaves" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "kevoncox" wrote:
    I look at us like an altered Atlanta. Very run heavy and Vicks primary safety valve was Crumpler. In almost every situation when a developing QB is struggling the team goes out and gets him a TE available for him to check down to. I think we maybe doing Jackson a disservice. In fact Vince was /is struggling so what did Ten do? They went out and go thim said TE.
    But that is wrong to think that way.
    Heck just by watching this team play you should now we don't operate like that.

    If TJ can't get his first and second read he will/should check down to the back in the flats not a TE especially if there isn't a TE in the route because he is in blocking.

    Again, we aren't like a typical WCO that everyone seems to want to try to fit us into.
    Then why did we spend so much on Shank just to have another blocking TE on the roster?

    Unlike this free-agent season, last year the Vikings made very few free-agent signings. Of those, Shiancoe was supposed to be the crown jewel. The Vikings gave Shiancoe a big contract and promised that he would be much more of an offensive threat than he was in his four years with the Giants, where he primarily served as a blocking end opposite Pro Bowler Jeremy Shockey. By any most measures, Shiancoe did not live up to the billing, catching just 27 passes for 323 yards and one touchdown, with almost 25 percent of his season total for yardage coming on one catch.
    Maybe we are primarily a run oriented team, because that is where our strengthand talent lies and not because that's the way Childress' intended for his KAO to operate when he came to Minny.

    I thought I was the only one who seen it that way. There were a couple of games last year that I think he tipped his hand to wanting to be a pass first offense. The game at Detroit really sticks out to me...Its just that T-Jack has not been up for the task...yet.

  4. #14
    V-Unit's Avatar
    V-Unit is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,317

    Re: Vikings Positional Analysis: Tight Ends

    "Chazz" wrote:
    "tastywaves" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "kevoncox" wrote:
    I look at us like an altered Atlanta. Very run heavy and Vicks primary safety valve was Crumpler. In almost every situation when a developing QB is struggling the team goes out and gets him a TE available for him to check down to. I think we maybe doing Jackson a disservice. In fact Vince was /is struggling so what did Ten do? They went out and go thim said TE.
    But that is wrong to think that way.
    Heck just by watching this team play you should now we don't operate like that.

    If TJ can't get his first and second read he will/should check down to the back in the flats not a TE especially if there isn't a TE in the route because he is in blocking.

    Again, we aren't like a typical WCO that everyone seems to want to try to fit us into.
    Then why did we spend so much on Shank just to have another blocking TE on the roster?

    Unlike this free-agent season, last year the Vikings made very few free-agent signings. Of those, Shiancoe was supposed to be the crown jewel. The Vikings gave Shiancoe a big contract and promised that he would be much more of an offensive threat than he was in his four years with the Giants, where he primarily served as a blocking end opposite Pro Bowler Jeremy Shockey. By any most measures, Shiancoe did not live up to the billing, catching just 27 passes for 323 yards and one touchdown, with almost 25 percent of his season total for yardage coming on one catch.
    Maybe we are primarily a run oriented team, because that is where our strengthand talent lies and not because that's the way Childress' intended for his KAO to operate when he came to Minny.

    I thought I was the only one who seen it that way. There were a couple of games last year that I think he tipped his hand to wanting to be a pass first offense. The game at Detroit really sticks out to me...Its just that T-Jack has not been up for the task...yet.
    Sigh...there have been several games over the last two years that Childress has tried to implement typical WCO strategy, passing to set up the run, and it has never worked. The Detroit game is the best example.

    Sure, we may see some more passing as TJ improves, but it is a strategy I don't agree with. We are suited to run the ball, so run the damn ball. No matter how good TJ gets, handing the ball to AD on 3rd and 4 will always be the better option.

    Now, to stay on topic, I don't see anything that a TE can do in the passing game that Bobby Wade can't. We don't have a TE, but we have many other weapons. The truth is that Shank blocked a lot, and that he didn't see that many balls come his way. That is because of the offense, not because of him. Before Shank there was Wiggins, a pass-catching TE who turned in a few great years for us. Then Childress came to town; Wiggins saw far less balls and was asked to block more. Being the 3rd/4th option on passing plays, and a horrible blocker, Wiggins was useless in our offensive system.

    The bottomline is we don't need a flashy pass-catching TE. To get one would be a waste of money. Shank already is a waste of money if you ask me. He has good hands, but he can't stretch the field. He has size, but isn't that fast, or a great jumper. The key here,, is that he can block. That makes him better than Kellen Winslow in our offense. He is overpaid, but he is a great fit.
    "I hate when threads are destroyed by facts and logic."
    - Prophet


    Thanks Josdin!

  5. #15
    kevoncox's Avatar
    kevoncox is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,915

    Re: Vikings Positional Analysis: Tight Ends

    "V" wrote:
    "Chazz" wrote:
    "tastywaves" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "kevoncox" wrote:
    I look at us like an altered Atlanta. Very run heavy and Vicks primary safety valve was Crumpler. In almost every situation when a developing QB is struggling the team goes out and gets him a TE available for him to check down to. I think we maybe doing Jackson a disservice. In fact Vince was /is struggling so what did Ten do? They went out and go thim said TE.
    But that is wrong to think that way.
    Heck just by watching this team play you should now we don't operate like that.

    If TJ can't get his first and second read he will/should check down to the back in the flats not a TE especially if there isn't a TE in the route because he is in blocking.

    Again, we aren't like a typical WCO that everyone seems to want to try to fit us into.
    Then why did we spend so much on Shank just to have another blocking TE on the roster?

    Unlike this free-agent season, last year the Vikings made very few free-agent signings. Of those, Shiancoe was supposed to be the crown jewel. The Vikings gave Shiancoe a big contract and promised that he would be much more of an offensive threat than he was in his four years with the Giants, where he primarily served as a blocking end opposite Pro Bowler Jeremy Shockey. By any most measures, Shiancoe did not live up to the billing, catching just 27 passes for 323 yards and one touchdown, with almost 25 percent of his season total for yardage coming on one catch.
    Maybe we are primarily a run oriented team, because that is where our strengthand talent lies and not because that's the way Childress' intended for his KAO to operate when he came to Minny.

    I thought I was the only one who seen it that way. There were a couple of games last year that I think he tipped his hand to wanting to be a pass first offense. The game at Detroit really sticks out to me...Its just that T-Jack has not been up for the task...yet.
    Sigh...there have been several games over the last two years that Childress has tried to implement typical WCO strategy, passing to set up the run, and it has never worked. The Detroit game is the best example.

    Sure, we may see some more passing as TJ improves, but it is a strategy I don't agree with. We are suited to run the ball, so run the gol 'darnit ball. No matter how good TJ gets, handing the ball to AD on 3rd and 4 will always be the better option.

    Now, to stay on topic, I don't see anything that a TE can do in the passing game that Bobby Wade can't. We don't have a TE, but we have many other weapons. The truth is that Shank blocked a lot, and that he didn't see that many balls come his way. That is because of the offense, not because of him. Before Shank there was Wiggins, a pass-catching TE who turned in a few great years for us. Then Childress came to town; Wiggins saw far less balls and was asked to block more. Being the 3rd/4th option on passing plays, and a horrible blocker, Wiggins was useless in our offensive system.

    The bottomline is we don't need a flashy pass-catching TE. To get one would be a waste of money. Shank already is a waste of money if you ask me. He has good hands, but he can't stretch the field. He has size, but isn't that fast, or a great jumper. The key here,, is that he can block. That makes him better than Kellen Winslow in our offense. He is overpaid, but he is a great fit.
    Winslow is a better blocker. Additionally, if you have a weapon they have to be accounted for. Adding winslow and motioning him will force the defense to send 1 less man. However, we have forgotten was a weapon in the passing game can do for you sine Moss got traded.

  6. #16
    V-Unit's Avatar
    V-Unit is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,317

    Re: Vikings Positional Analysis: Tight Ends

    "kevoncox" wrote:
    "V" wrote:
    "Chazz" wrote:
    "tastywaves" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    [quote author=kevoncox link=topic=44889.msg777855#msg777855 date=1210608045]
    I look at us like an altered Atlanta. Very run heavy and Vicks primary safety valve was Crumpler. In almost every situation when a developing QB is struggling the team goes out and gets him a TE available for him to check down to. I think we maybe doing Jackson a disservice. In fact Vince was /is struggling so what did Ten do? They went out and go thim said TE.
    But that is wrong to think that way.
    Heck just by watching this team play you should now we don't operate like that.

    If TJ can't get his first and second read he will/should check down to the back in the flats not a TE especially if there isn't a TE in the route because he is in blocking.

    Again, we aren't like a typical WCO that everyone seems to want to try to fit us into.
    Then why did we spend so much on Shank just to have another blocking TE on the roster?

    Unlike this free-agent season, last year the Vikings made very few free-agent signings. Of those, Shiancoe was supposed to be the crown jewel. The Vikings gave Shiancoe a big contract and promised that he would be much more of an offensive threat than he was in his four years with the Giants, where he primarily served as a blocking end opposite Pro Bowler Jeremy Shockey. By any most measures, Shiancoe did not live up to the billing, catching just 27 passes for 323 yards and one touchdown, with almost 25 percent of his season total for yardage coming on one catch.
    Maybe we are primarily a run oriented team, because that is where our strengthand talent lies and not because that's the way Childress' intended for his KAO to operate when he came to Minny.

    I thought I was the only one who seen it that way. There were a couple of games last year that I think he tipped his hand to wanting to be a pass first offense. The game at Detroit really sticks out to me...Its just that T-Jack has not been up for the task...yet.
    Sigh...there have been several games over the last two years that Childress has tried to implement typical WCO strategy, passing to set up the run, and it has never worked. The Detroit game is the best example.

    Sure, we may see some more passing as TJ improves, but it is a strategy I don't agree with. We are suited to run the ball, so run the gol 'darnit ball. No matter how good TJ gets, handing the ball to AD on 3rd and 4 will always be the better option.

    Now, to stay on topic, I don't see anything that a TE can do in the passing game that Bobby Wade can't. We don't have a TE, but we have many other weapons. The truth is that Shank blocked a lot, and that he didn't see that many balls come his way. That is because of the offense, not because of him. Before Shank there was Wiggins, a pass-catching TE who turned in a few great years for us. Then Childress came to town; Wiggins saw far less balls and was asked to block more. Being the 3rd/4th option on passing plays, and a horrible blocker, Wiggins was useless in our offensive system.

    The bottomline is we don't need a flashy pass-catching TE. To get one would be a waste of money. Shank already is a waste of money if you ask me. He has good hands, but he can't stretch the field. He has size, but isn't that fast, or a great jumper. The key here,, is that he can block. That makes him better than Kellen Winslow in our offense. He is overpaid, but he is a great fit.
    Winslow is a better blocker. Additionally, if you have a weapon they have to be accounted for. Adding winslow and motioning him will force the defense to send 1 less man. However, we have forgotten was a weapon in the passing game can do for you sine Moss got traded.
    [/quote]

    Winslow is not a better blocker. Our offense is not designed to send our TE out wide, so adding Winslow would be a waste of his talents and our money. I would rather have an offense that was full of capable players rather than that deceiving, one weapon offense like we had in 2004. However, you have made it clear this offseason that you reply to reasonable arguments with heavily biased opinions, which will not change, so I don't know why I'm wasting my time.
    "I hate when threads are destroyed by facts and logic."
    - Prophet


    Thanks Josdin!

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    218

    Re: Vikings Positional Analysis: Tight Ends

    i think with 8 or 9 in the box are TE's have to stay in and block

  8. #18
    Chazz is offline Coordinator
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    782

    Re: Vikings Positional Analysis: Tight Ends

    "vikings4life33" wrote:
    i think with 8 or 9 in the box are TE's have to stay in and block
    Or...just run more 4 WR sets, then the most you can have in the box is 7.

  9. #19
    kevoncox's Avatar
    kevoncox is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,915

    Re: Vikings Positional Analysis: Tight Ends

    "Chazz" wrote:
    "vikings4life33" wrote:
    i think with 8 or 9 in the box are TE's have to stay in and block
    Or...just run more 4 WR sets, then the most you can have in the box is 7.
    You are wasting your time. They belive that packing the box with extra blocks and few routes are the answer. Clearly the defense will quake in their boots at the extra blocks and retreat.

    Winslow would give our offense more flexability. He blocks extremely well. Better thank Shank who is average. We tried that last year...and our run game and pass game was destoryed.

  10. #20
    V-Unit's Avatar
    V-Unit is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,317

    Re: Vikings Positional Analysis: Tight Ends

    "kevoncox" wrote:
    "Chazz" wrote:
    "vikings4life33" wrote:
    i think with 8 or 9 in the box are TE's have to stay in and block
    Or...just run more 4 WR sets, then the most you can have in the box is 7.
    You are wasting your time. They belive that packing the box with extra blocks and few routes are the answer. Clearly the defense will quake in their boots at the extra blocks and retreat.

    Winslow would give our offense more flexability. He blocks extremely well. Better thank Shank who is average. We tried that last year...and our run game and pass game was destoryed.
    We didn't suck in the passing game because we ran conservative formations. We sucked because we had an inconsistent QB, and no legitimate options at WR. Wade is a slot guy. Rice was jsut coming into his own. Williamson sucked. We were forced to use conservative formations because Childress didn't want to take his best talent off of the field. Why sub out Richardson for Williamson, when he can catch better and block much better? Same goes for Shank. This year, we are hoping that the growth of Rice and TJ, and the addition of Berrian, is enough to propel our passing game. That's when you will see 3 WR sets. Adding a pass catching TE who is asked to be a block-first guy is pointless. I am not a fan of Shank, but at least he knows his role and plays it well.

    Also, please stop referring to Winslow as if he actually might come here. I only mentioned his name to exemplify a pass-catching TE type that we don't need. As far as giving our offense more flexability, let me just say that I was pissed when Wiggins left. I now realize that the coaches don't intend to use TE as a main receiving threat. You seem to be very player/talent based when analyzing teams. I'm sorry we didn't get the pass-catching TE you wanted, but the draft is over and so is FA for the most part. It's time to start thinking about how the coaches can make the most of the talent that we do have.

    Finally, we have a new WR, a new FB, a stellar RB with a year of experience under his belt, a good WR with a year of experience under his belt, and an average QB with 2 years of experience under his belt. That should be enough to make this offense better. Yet, because we have the same average TE, you ignore all of the upgrades I just mentioned and think that our offense will suck because we don't have Kellen Winslow. Good Riddance.
    "I hate when threads are destroyed by facts and logic."
    - Prophet


    Thanks Josdin!

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Projecting the Vikings' 53-Man Roster: Tight Ends
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-03-2008, 10:09 AM
  2. Vikings Positional Analysis: Wide Receiver
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 05-14-2008, 11:04 AM
  3. Vikings Positional Analysis: Running Backs
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-11-2008, 07:42 AM
  4. Missing tight ends on Vikings' radar
    By cogitans in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 09-21-2007, 05:14 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
  •