Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 38
  1. #11
    kevoncox's Avatar
    kevoncox is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,909

    Re: aaeyers' Offseason Needs Analysis

    Good job trying the trade. it took guts. Most Mocks neve rhave anything like this.

  2. #12
    aaeyers's Avatar
    aaeyers is offline Pro-Bowler
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    436

    Re: aaeyers' Offseason Needs Analysis

    "kevoncox" wrote:
    Good job trying the trade. it took guts. Most Mocks neve rhave anything like this.
    I never mentioned anything about a trade.. what are you talking about?

  3. #13
    dcboardr41 is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,051

    Re: aaeyers' Offseason Needs Analysis

    "kevoncox" wrote:
    Good job trying the trade. it took guts. Most Mocks neve rhave anything like this.
    wrong thread

    Pissing on the Pack since 08'

  4. #14
    kevoncox's Avatar
    kevoncox is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,909

    Re: aaeyers' Offseason Needs Analysis

    "dcboardr41" wrote:
    "kevoncox" wrote:
    Good job trying the trade. it took guts. Most Mocks neve rhave anything like this.
    wrong thread
    Damn it... I was at work! :P :-[

  5. #15
    tgorsegner's Avatar
    tgorsegner is offline Coordinator
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    786

    Re: aaeyers' Offseason Needs Analysis

    "jkjuggalo" wrote:
    "tgorsegner" wrote:
    My biggest point of disagreement is in the QB. A good veteran back-up would be nice, but i have been convinced that there just isn't anythign better than Bollinger available. Keep in mind that this would be Bollingers 3rd year in the system as well. He is so far ahead in terms of knowing the system, and he really didn't do all that poorly last year. The best option I see is to draft a later round guy, let him and Bollinger compete for the #2 spot, and groom him to be the eventual starter if needed. The only other option I see to upgrade would be to hope that somebody good is a cap cut after the draft. I doubt that a veteran will be signed, and after the Holcomb/Thygpen Disaster, I don't really think they will trade for a back-up if it doesn't happen before the draft.
    I agree and disagree with this post.


    I agree that there aren't any free-agents that could come in and do better than Bollinger this season.

    I disagree that we would wait until the late rounds to get a QB.
    In the best interest of the Viking's future, I think they will draft a QB in the first three rounds that can compete with BB for primary backup duties and eventually challenge TJack for the starting position.
    At worst that QB could become trade-bait down the road for a team with QB needs.

    It is important for us to have a backup plan in case TJack can't stay healthy or can't produce.
    This is the most important position in football, and the worst for us talent/depth-wise.
    Hopefully TJack becomes the man this season, but if not, we need a young QB to come in and start next season that has at least one year in the system.
    I see the first 3 rounds being a DE, a DB (safety, most likely), a DT and a OL in some sort of order. That means that QB is at the earliest a 4th round pick, without trading or somebody really falling and being such a value pick that they can't not pick him. I also don't see the rational of bringing in a QB for a couple years if Brooks is going to do just as well if not better.


    VikesFan787, Thanks for the awesome sig!

  6. #16
    jkjuggalo's Avatar
    jkjuggalo is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    2,131

    Re: aaeyers' Offseason Needs Analysis

    "tgorsegner" wrote:
    "jkjuggalo" wrote:
    "tgorsegner" wrote:
    My biggest point of disagreement is in the QB. A good veteran back-up would be nice, but i have been convinced that there just isn't anythign better than Bollinger available. Keep in mind that this would be Bollingers 3rd year in the system as well. He is so far ahead in terms of knowing the system, and he really didn't do all that poorly last year. The best option I see is to draft a later round guy, let him and Bollinger compete for the #2 spot, and groom him to be the eventual starter if needed. The only other option I see to upgrade would be to hope that somebody good is a cap cut after the draft. I doubt that a veteran will be signed, and after the Holcomb/Thygpen Disaster, I don't really think they will trade for a back-up if it doesn't happen before the draft.
    I agree and disagree with this post.


    I agree that there aren't any free-agents that could come in and do better than Bollinger this season.

    I disagree that we would wait until the late rounds to get a QB.
    In the best interest of the Viking's future, I think they will draft a QB in the first three rounds that can compete with BB for primary backup duties and eventually challenge TJack for the starting position.
    At worst that QB could become trade-bait down the road for a team with QB needs.

    It is important for us to have a backup plan in case TJack can't stay healthy or can't produce.
    This is the most important position in football, and the worst for us talent/depth-wise.
    Hopefully TJack becomes the man this season, but if not, we need a young QB to come in and start next season that has at least one year in the system.
    I see the first 3 rounds being a DE, a DB (safety, most likely), a DT and a OL in some sort of order. That means that QB is at the earliest a 4th round pick, without trading or somebody really falling and being such a value pick that they can't not pick him. I also don't see the rational of bringing in a QB for a couple years if Brooks is going to do just as well if not better.
    I'm not sure what you mean here, so let me clarify what I meant:

    I don't think there is anyone out there we could sign that would come in and do better than Brooks this season, so I would rather us draft a rookie to learn the system and be the emergency third-stringer.
    Or if he
    (the rookie) does well, he can become the primary backup with BB third.
    Rock out with your cock out!!!

  7. #17
    tgorsegner's Avatar
    tgorsegner is offline Coordinator
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    786

    Re: aaeyers' Offseason Needs Analysis

    "jkjuggalo" wrote:
    "tgorsegner" wrote:
    "jkjuggalo" wrote:
    "tgorsegner" wrote:
    My biggest point of disagreement is in the QB. A good veteran back-up would be nice, but i have been convinced that there just isn't anythign better than Bollinger available. Keep in mind that this would be Bollingers 3rd year in the system as well. He is so far ahead in terms of knowing the system, and he really didn't do all that poorly last year. The best option I see is to draft a later round guy, let him and Bollinger compete for the #2 spot, and groom him to be the eventual starter if needed. The only other option I see to upgrade would be to hope that somebody good is a cap cut after the draft. I doubt that a veteran will be signed, and after the Holcomb/Thygpen Disaster, I don't really think they will trade for a back-up if it doesn't happen before the draft.
    I agree and disagree with this post.


    I agree that there aren't any free-agents that could come in and do better than Bollinger this season.

    I disagree that we would wait until the late rounds to get a QB.
    In the best interest of the Viking's future, I think they will draft a QB in the first three rounds that can compete with BB for primary backup duties and eventually challenge TJack for the starting position.
    At worst that QB could become trade-bait down the road for a team with QB needs.

    It is important for us to have a backup plan in case TJack can't stay healthy or can't produce.
    This is the most important position in football, and the worst for us talent/depth-wise.
    Hopefully TJack becomes the man this season, but if not, we need a young QB to come in and start next season that has at least one year in the system.
    I see the first 3 rounds being a DE, a DB (safety, most likely), a DT and a OL in some sort of order. That means that QB is at the earliest a 4th round pick, without trading or somebody really falling and being such a value pick that they can't not pick him. I also don't see the rational of bringing in a QB for a couple years if Brooks is going to do just as well if not better.
    I'm not sure what you mean here, so let me clarify what I meant:

    I don't think there is anyone out there we could sign that would come in and do better than Brooks this season, so I would rather us draft a rookie to learn the system and be the emergency third-stringer.
    Or if he
    (the rookie) does well, he can become the primary backup with BB third.
    Alright, I misunderstood you. We are on the same page regarding a veteran.


    VikesFan787, Thanks for the awesome sig!

  8. #18
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is online now Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,915

    Re: aaeyers' Offseason Needs Analysis

    "bleedpurple" wrote:
    I disagree with the DE point you made... although, very nice analysis and thorough thought process...

    However, it appears you've been listening to Marrdro a bit too much, as i've argued with him several times on the very subject...

    While LDE is a problem, i don't think it's as big of a need as just a basic pass rush guy who can get the the QB...

    Yes, the loss of Udeze was a big blow, but you are putting entirely way to much emphasis on the two DE positions as if they are the difference between Safety and Running back.
    It is but it's not that different... The entire line is pretty much interchangeable, as evidenced by the fact that everyone rotated all over the line.. some more than others...

    A pass rush DE was our biggest priority in the offseason with our without the Loss of Udeze.. as evidenced by our crappy pass defense... which by the way has been a problem for years....

    so you see my friend, it doesn't matter how big the LDE, RDE or DE is.. as long as he can hold the line, shed blocks, keep contain and get to the QB we should get them....

    ppl make all this fuss about weight and height of an LDE when we also have Lb's that come in behind them as well as the williams wall all going to the RB...

    Let me remind you that with/without Udeze, our run defense is going to be solid... we need a Rush end... plain and simple...

    and as far as yur assessment of the LDE being approx. 270lbs, Robison, Edwards, and James are all in the vicinity of 268lbs.. so its not that much of a difference...

    Additionally, Back up QB isn't our biggest need at the moment... it's a need, nonetheless, but i think in the coming weeks, we'll look to address that whether we sign a Trent Dilfer, Frerotte, Quinn Gray or trade for one... we'll pick up one of those guys and also draft a Qb my guess between rounds 3-5.

    but overall very good analysis.... very good!...
    You crack me up my friend.
    Thats all I got to say.
    ;D
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  9. #19
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is online now Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,915

    Re: aaeyers' Offseason Needs Analysis

    My friend that has got to be one of the best posts I have ever seen on this site.


    Very good analysis and I love the format especially the Draft/FA ratio you give.

    Of course I have a couple of comments........

    a.
    QB.
    I believe they will draft a QB sooner than most of us that are happy with TJ believe.
    As I've stated repeatedly, the QB position is one that needs constant care and feeding with respect to the make up of the QB's on the roster.
    Because the previous regime was content to sit with Pepp as thier long term solution we have had to live through last years "Grooming of a QB" on the field, under center.

    Even if the staff is happy with TJ and he does do a great job for us this year, we need to have a guy on the bench learning for a year or two instead having to throw him to the wolves like we did TJ.
    Heck if nothing else, have you seen the money QB's are getting.
    Last one to sign got 100 Mill.
    Do we think TJ won't want something in that area if he has a good year this year?

    b. DE. I would believe that you would have the draft priority a bit higher on the DE positions.
    I still contend that they will draft at least 2 DE's in this draft.
    One RDE and one LDE ( ;D) unless they trade a pick or two for a vet like Taylor or Peppers.
    By the way, Peppers is the proper size/wieght to play LDE in our scheme.

    By the way, I like your point on the difference between RDE and LDE based on our scheme.
    Seems there are a few out there that still don't agree with that point.
    ;D

    c.
    Roster (overall).
    As I count your players I see 26 on offense and 23 on Defense.
    I assume you will count another QB and at least 1 DT, 1 DE that would get you to 52.
    Then you have to add Loeffler, Kluwe and Longwell which puts you at 55.

    What are your expected cuts to the roster?
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  10. #20
    bleedpurple is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,949

    Re: aaeyers' Offseason Needs Analysis

    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "bleedpurple" wrote:
    I disagree with the DE point you made... although, very nice analysis and thorough thought process...

    However, it appears you've been listening to Marrdro a bit too much, as i've argued with him several times on the very subject...

    While LDE is a problem, i don't think it's as big of a need as just a basic pass rush guy who can get the the QB...

    Yes, the loss of Udeze was a big blow, but you are putting entirely way to much emphasis on the two DE positions as if they are the difference between Safety and Running back.
    It is but it's not that different... The entire line is pretty much interchangeable, as evidenced by the fact that everyone rotated all over the line.. some more than others...

    A pass rush DE was our biggest priority in the offseason with our without the Loss of Udeze.. as evidenced by our crappy pass defense... which by the way has been a problem for years....

    so you see my friend, it doesn't matter how big the LDE, RDE or DE is.. as long as he can hold the line, shed blocks, keep contain and get to the QB we should get them....

    ppl make all this fuss about weight and height of an LDE when we also have Lb's that come in behind them as well as the williams wall all going to the RB...

    Let me remind you that with/without Udeze, our run defense is going to be solid... we need a Rush end... plain and simple...

    and as far as yur assessment of the LDE being approx. 270lbs, Robison, Edwards, and James are all in the vicinity of 268lbs.. so its not that much of a difference...

    Additionally, Back up QB isn't our biggest need at the moment... it's a need, nonetheless, but i think in the coming weeks, we'll look to address that whether we sign a Trent Dilfer, Frerotte, Quinn Gray or trade for one... we'll pick up one of those guys and also draft a Qb my guess between rounds 3-5.

    but overall very good analysis.... very good!...
    You crack me up my friend.
    Thats all I got to say.
    ;D
    You know i'm going to argue that until the end!!! ;D

    with that being said...

    I still don't or wonder.. why everyone is saying we're gonna draft all this defense...

    let me ask a question..

    As crappy as our offense was last year... only adding Berrian and a significant drop off in FB.. and with all the starters on defense returning except for 2...

    DO yall honestly think by Swapping BB for Twill that our offense doesn't need to be addressed??... am i missing something here???..... I understand rice is going to develop and all.. but do you really think we're not gonna draft a receiver in the first three rounds??... I sure hope so...

    BB for Twill swap is not going to get us over the hump in my opinion... We had the worst receiving core in the league last year.. and you add BB to that and all of a sudden we're set at receiver!????

    BB is good, but he's not that good, nor is he gonna have the "Moss" effect on our offense.... I could be wrong, but i still say we should draft one...

    and as far as roster moves go... Marr your so bent on the fact of roster cuts and who's gonna get cut and all... the point is, that some tough decisions are going to have to be made, and some guys are gonna get cut... like we cut Fred Robbins a few years back and now he's starting for the Giants...

    We have lots of dept everywhere with the exception of Safety... so i imagine, we don't need to keep 5 safeties on the roster.. that's just too many... I also assume, the roster dynamics will be a little different than last year depending on how much talent we have at a particular position and who we need for special teams...

    So basically, the odd man out will be the guy that doesn't perform... some guys that made the team last year won't be around this year...

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Marrdro's Roster Analysis (New Roster Analysis Added)
    By Marrdro in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 101
    Last Post: 05-02-2008, 07:27 PM
  2. aaeyers' Offseason (Pre-Combine Edition)
    By aaeyers in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-10-2008, 06:17 PM
  3. aaeyers' Offseason
    By aaeyers in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 12-31-2007, 09:12 PM
  4. BCS Analysis
    By Prophet in forum College Ball
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-02-2006, 08:21 AM
  5. Analysis: Packer's D.
    By ItalianStallion in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-05-2003, 02:41 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
  •