Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 59
  1. #11
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,928

    Re: Fred Davis (2nd Round)

    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    It all comes back to investment.

    The Vikes have alot already invested in talent at the TE position.
    Just because people don't want to grasp the concept that our TE's were used exclusively for blocking last year, we will continue to hear how all of them suck and should be pooh canned.

    Long story short, my sisters, brothers friend is the the trash emptier at Winter Park and he told my Uncles, lawn care giver that the OL will block better next year and allow for the TE's to be used in the passing scheme as well.

    I like Kleinsasser a lot, but he has been around long enough that everyone knows his strengths lie in blocking and pass protection, not receiving.
    The scheme last year isn't what makes people think that.
    As far as Shank, his contract is large, but no prohibitively so.
    We had more invested in Chester Taylor last year, yet we still picked up AD.

    Fred Davis is one of the premier TEs in a draft that will not feature many good TEs.
    He is a converted WR who put on weight as his body matures, but kept his speed.
    He has good hands, good size, and good speed.
    If he is available in the second round, the Vikings would be absolutely stupid to pass on him, regardless of the investment made in Shank. Hell, Shank's contract is large, but the cap hit for cutting him would be relatively minor to a team that is substantially under the cap.

    I honestly put Davis in my list of five players I wouldn't mind seeing the Viking take with the #17 pick.
    He is the fifth out of five, simply because 17 is a little high for him, but he is still there...
    I hear ya and am not questioning his talent.
    The argument really goes back to what cost do you take him?

    I know you (some people can't grasp this concept) know that if they take someone that high, someone on the roster leaves and it usually in the group that you took the guy in (i.e. TE).

    Who do you let go?

    83 Jeff Dugan TE 26 6-4 258 4 Maryland
    40 Jim Kleinsasser TE 30 6-3 272 9 North Dakota
    45 Garrett Mills TE 24 6-1 235 2 Tulsa
    81 Visanthe Shiancoe TE 27 6-4 250 5 Morgan State

    Klieny - Best blocker.
    Key for a run oriented offense such as ours. Not a true weapon.
    Shank - Another good blocker.
    Probably better suited to catch passes if they ever pass to him. Probably best passing weapon with respect to TE position.
    Dugan - Depends on what roster/depth chart you look at.
    He is either a FB or TE.
    Again a nice blocker that can catch but not a true weapon.
    Mills - A bit small to be a true blocking/pass catching TE. Will only come in on obvious passing downs. Could/should be move to FB.

    The insane will say get rid of Shank cause he makes to much and didn't produce like Moss last year but again, anyone that knows squat about football knows that a) it isn't cost feasible to let him go, and b) he wasn't (like all our TE's) used in the passing scheme last year.

    Only a staff of imbeciles would risk drafting a guy that high who wouldn't make the team cause then you would have to try to get him on your practice squad.
    Once you try that he is gone, kapoooot, waste of pick.

    Again, I am pretty confidnet that they will address a position of higher need with first, second and third round picks and it won't be TE.
    Hell I am almost convinced they won't take a DE or a WR either because of investment.

    Long story short, TE problem was addressed last year (Shank/Mills), DE will be addressed via FA (if they do anything at all), WR will be addressed via FA and non "Sexy" positions will be addressed via the draft this year.
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  2. #12
    bleedpurple is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,952

    Re: Fred Davis (2nd Round)

    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "bleedpurple" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    It all comes back to investment.

    The Vikes have alot already invested in talent at the TE position.
    Just because people don't want to grasp the concept that our TE's were used exclusively for blocking last year, we will continue to hear how all of them suck and should be pooh canned.

    Long story short, my sisters, brothers friend is the the trash emptier at Winter Park and he told my Uncles, lawn care giver that the OL will block better next year and allow for the TE's to be used in the passing scheme as well.
    regardless of investment.. if the dude sucks then he sucks.... players who make far more money have been cut before and if shank doesn't get his act together, then we may just take one... you never know.. esp. if he is who they have rated the highest at the time.. hell, we have a lot invested in DE but we're still talking about taking one... matter fact, we have more invested in DE than any other position over the last 4-5 years... so it just goes to show investment doesn't really matter if they're not performing now does it???
    Quantify sucks when discussing Shank.
    I say he doesn't. You do. Who is right?
    My guess would be the guy who understood that our TE's were used to block and not catch this year because of OL pass blocking issues.

    Hmmmmm, wonder if you fall in that catagory.
    :

    By the way, you don't see me talking about DRAFTING a DE.
    I would get one via FA.
    Usually when a team invests heavily in a position via the draft and still has to fix the problem they will then resort to the FA route.

    Could be because the investment isn't producing enough or they missed the mark on a couple of investments.
    In this case it is a little of both.

    Youth still needs to develop (Robison, Edwards etc) and James just flat can't stay on the field.

    That just goes to show that investment does matter....... Especially if you make bad investments. :
    you pretty much supported my point.. if the inv isn't working then you need to fix it.. i'm not necessarily saying shank sucks.. but he did under-perform his contract... i.e. bad investement MARR..

    i don't care whether he was used to block or not.. the opportunities he had he did not take full advantage of them and dropped like 3 td's and fumbled on a key play late in the season, either wash or denver game... i'm not quantifying the opportunities I'm referring to the quality of the opportunities he had and he clearly did not perform up to par when given those opportunities...

    drafting davis wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing IMO... especially if our TE can't catch or stretch the field.. this would give us the opportunity to add another weapon to the passing game.. so whether it be a WR (hopefully in FA) or a TE the passing game needs to be upgraded and Davis would provide a big threat.. based on his college playing and projection into the NFl..

    maybe a WR in Fa
    and draft the TE...

    and i'm with you on DE.. i don't care how it comes as long as it comes with someone that can rush the passer....


  3. #13
    bleedpurple is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,952

    Re: Fred Davis (2nd Round)

    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    It all comes back to investment.

    The Vikes have alot already invested in talent at the TE position.
    Just because people don't want to grasp the concept that our TE's were used exclusively for blocking last year, we will continue to hear how all of them suck and should be pooh canned.

    Long story short, my sisters, brothers friend is the the trash emptier at Winter Park and he told my Uncles, lawn care giver that the OL will block better next year and allow for the TE's to be used in the passing scheme as well.
    I like Kleinsasser a lot, but he has been around long enough that everyone knows his strengths lie in blocking and pass protection, not receiving.
    The scheme last year isn't what makes people think that.
    As far as Shank, his contract is large, but no prohibitively so.
    We had more invested in Chester Taylor last year, yet we still picked up AD.

    Fred Davis is one of the premier TEs in a draft that will not feature many good TEs.
    He is a converted WR who put on weight as his body matures, but kept his speed.
    He has good hands, good size, and good speed.
    If he is available in the second round, the Vikings would be absolutely stupid to pass on him, regardless of the investment made in Shank. Hell, Shank's contract is large, but the cap hit for cutting him would be relatively minor to a team that is substantially under the cap.

    I honestly put Davis in my list of five players I wouldn't mind seeing the Viking take with the #17 pick.
    He is the fifth out of five, simply because 17 is a little high for him, but he is still there...
    I hear ya and am not questioning his talent.
    The argument really goes back to what cost do you take him?

    I know you (some people can't grasp this concept) know that if they take someone that high, someone on the roster leaves and it usually in the group that you took the guy in (i.e. TE).

    Who do you let go?

    83 Jeff Dugan TE 26 6-4 258 4 Maryland
    40 Jim Kleinsasser TE 30 6-3 272 9 North Dakota
    45 Garrett Mills TE 24 6-1 235 2 Tulsa
    81 Visanthe Shiancoe TE 27 6-4 250 5 Morgan State

    Klieny - Best blocker.
    Key for a run oriented offense such as ours. Not a true weapon.
    Shank - Another good blocker.
    Probably better suited to catch passes if they ever pass to him. Probably best passing weapon with respect to TE position.
    Dugan - Depends on what roster/depth chart you look at.
    He is either a FB or TE.
    Again a nice blocker that can catch but not a true weapon.
    Mills - A bit small to be a true blocking/pass catching TE. Will only come in on obvious passing downs. Could/should be move to FB.

    The insane will say get rid of Shank cause he makes to much and didn't produce like Moss last year but again, anyone that knows squat about football knows that a) it isn't cost feasible to let him go, and b) he wasn't (like all our TE's) used in the passing scheme last year.

    Only a staff of imbeciles would risk drafting a guy that high who wouldn't make the team cause then you would have to try to get him on your practice squad.
    Once you try that he is gone, kapoooot, waste of pick.

    Again, I am pretty confidnet that they will address a position of higher need with first, second and third round picks and it won't be TE.
    Hell I am almost convinced they won't take a DE or a WR either because of investment.

    Long story short, TE problem was addressed last year (Shank/Mills), DE will be addressed via FA (if they do anything at all), WR will be addressed via FA and non "Sexy" positions will be addressed via the draft this year.
    I say get rid of the guy who's isn't in the top 4 at the position... why keep shank who can't catch.. or keep him and cut dugan... Davis better than all of them, so why not upgrade that position.. we didnt need a RB last year but picked him with the first pick#7... look how he panned out...

    we need passing threats.. and whether that comes WR / TE or both.. it needs to be addressed... hell, we could address DE and WR in FA and address as you say non-sexxy picks via the draft.. this would probably include TE... (whether 1st or 2nd or 3rd)...

    we can get a good corner in the 1st or 2nd round.. get a S/CB a TE/WR and a DT (like you want) all with the first 3 picks.. and have depth..

    the fact is Davis is better than all of the weapons we have at TE.. u'd rather have Mills than Davis.. that's crazy... mills could go back to the P-squad or dugan can as well since he's pretty much a SASS clone.. or cut him...

    i'm not necessarily saying we should go TE with one of the first two picks.. i'm just saying it would be a bad thing or stupid to do so either.. unlike you who wants to go S or DT in the first... that's kinda silly if you ask me...

    safety's unless they play like Palamalu or S. Taylor are a dime a dozen.. and unless we can get a tip top prospect in the first/second we could go corner and move griffin to Safety and be just as effective...

  4. #14
    Garland Greene's Avatar
    Garland Greene is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    A, A
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: Fred Davis (2nd Round)

    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    It all comes back to investment.

    The Vikes have alot already invested in talent at the TE position.
    Just because people don't want to grasp the concept that our TE's were used exclusively for blocking last year, we will continue to hear how all of them suck and should be pooh canned.

    Long story short, my sisters, brothers friend is the the trash emptier at Winter Park and he told my Uncles, lawn care giver that the OL will block better next year and allow for the TE's to be used in the passing scheme as well.

    I like Kleinsasser a lot, but he has been around long enough that everyone knows his strengths lie in blocking and pass protection, not receiving.
    The scheme last year isn't what makes people think that.
    As far as Shank, his contract is large, but no prohibitively so.
    We had more invested in Chester Taylor last year, yet we still picked up AD.

    Fred Davis is one of the premier TEs in a draft that will not feature many good TEs.
    He is a converted WR who put on weight as his body matures, but kept his speed.
    He has good hands, good size, and good speed.
    If he is available in the second round, the Vikings would be absolutely stupid to pass on him, regardless of the investment made in Shank. Hell, Shank's contract is large, but the cap hit for cutting him would be relatively minor to a team that is substantially under the cap.

    I honestly put Davis in my list of five players I wouldn't mind seeing the Viking take with the #17 pick.
    He is the fifth out of five, simply because 17 is a little high for him, but he is still there...
    I hear ya and am not questioning his talent.
    The argument really goes back to what cost do you take him?

    I know you (some people can't grasp this concept) know that if they take someone that high, someone on the roster leaves and it usually in the group that you took the guy in (i.e. TE).

    Who do you let go?

    83 Jeff Dugan TE 26 6-4 258 4 Maryland
    40 Jim Kleinsasser TE 30 6-3 272 9 North Dakota
    45 Garrett Mills TE 24 6-1 235 2 Tulsa
    81 Visanthe Shiancoe TE 27 6-4 250 5 Morgan State

    Klieny - Best blocker.
    Key for a run oriented offense such as ours. Not a true weapon.
    Shank - Another good blocker.
    Probably better suited to catch passes if they ever pass to him. Probably best passing weapon with respect to TE position.
    Dugan - Depends on what roster/depth chart you look at.
    He is either a FB or TE.
    Again a nice blocker that can catch but not a true weapon.
    Mills - A bit small to be a true blocking/pass catching TE. Will only come in on obvious passing downs. Could/should be move to FB.

    The insane will say get rid of Shank cause he makes to much and didn't produce like Moss last year but again, anyone that knows squat about football knows that a) it isn't cost feasible to let him go, and b) he wasn't (like all our TE's) used in the passing scheme last year.

    Only a staff of imbeciles would risk drafting a guy that high who wouldn't make the team cause then you would have to try to get him on your practice squad.
    Once you try that he is gone, kapoooot, waste of pick.

    Again, I am pretty confidnet that they will address a position of higher need with first, second and third round picks and it won't be TE.
    Hell I am almost convinced they won't take a DE or a WR either because of investment.

    Long story short, TE problem was addressed last year (Shank/Mills), DE will be addressed via FA (if they do anything at all), WR will be addressed via FA and non "Sexy" positions will be addressed via the draft this year.
    Damn Marr you and I agree even more all of the time about things next thing you know we will be saying together Tjack for MVP and Chilly for President ;D

    In reality how many premier TE in the league anymore anyeways? Gates, Cooley, Gonzo, Clark, Whitten. Arguments could be made for Winslow, Lee, Watson, Crumpler and Shockey so we are looking at 8-10 teams out of 32 with premier TE's. TE 's do alot of other things besides just catch that help a teams offense.

  5. #15
    bleedpurple is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,952

    Re: Fred Davis (2nd Round)

    "Garland" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    It all comes back to investment.

    The Vikes have alot already invested in talent at the TE position.
    Just because people don't want to grasp the concept that our TE's were used exclusively for blocking last year, we will continue to hear how all of them suck and should be pooh canned.

    Long story short, my sisters, brothers friend is the the trash emptier at Winter Park and he told my Uncles, lawn care giver that the OL will block better next year and allow for the TE's to be used in the passing scheme as well.
    I like Kleinsasser a lot, but he has been around long enough that everyone knows his strengths lie in blocking and pass protection, not receiving.
    The scheme last year isn't what makes people think that.
    As far as Shank, his contract is large, but no prohibitively so.
    We had more invested in Chester Taylor last year, yet we still picked up AD.

    Fred Davis is one of the premier TEs in a draft that will not feature many good TEs.
    He is a converted WR who put on weight as his body matures, but kept his speed.
    He has good hands, good size, and good speed.
    If he is available in the second round, the Vikings would be absolutely stupid to pass on him, regardless of the investment made in Shank. Hell, Shank's contract is large, but the cap hit for cutting him would be relatively minor to a team that is substantially under the cap.

    I honestly put Davis in my list of five players I wouldn't mind seeing the Viking take with the #17 pick.
    He is the fifth out of five, simply because 17 is a little high for him, but he is still there...
    I hear ya and am not questioning his talent.
    The argument really goes back to what cost do you take him?

    I know you (some people can't grasp this concept) know that if they take someone that high, someone on the roster leaves and it usually in the group that you took the guy in (i.e. TE).

    Who do you let go?

    83 Jeff Dugan TE 26 6-4 258 4 Maryland
    40 Jim Kleinsasser TE 30 6-3 272 9 North Dakota
    45 Garrett Mills TE 24 6-1 235 2 Tulsa
    81 Visanthe Shiancoe TE 27 6-4 250 5 Morgan State

    Klieny - Best blocker.
    Key for a run oriented offense such as ours. Not a true weapon.
    Shank - Another good blocker.
    Probably better suited to catch passes if they ever pass to him. Probably best passing weapon with respect to TE position.
    Dugan - Depends on what roster/depth chart you look at.
    He is either a FB or TE.
    Again a nice blocker that can catch but not a true weapon.
    Mills - A bit small to be a true blocking/pass catching TE. Will only come in on obvious passing downs. Could/should be move to FB.

    The insane will say get rid of Shank cause he makes to much and didn't produce like Moss last year but again, anyone that knows squat about football knows that a) it isn't cost feasible to let him go, and b) he wasn't (like all our TE's) used in the passing scheme last year.

    Only a staff of imbeciles would risk drafting a guy that high who wouldn't make the team cause then you would have to try to get him on your practice squad.
    Once you try that he is gone, kapoooot, waste of pick.

    Again, I am pretty confidnet that they will address a position of higher need with first, second and third round picks and it won't be TE.
    Hell I am almost convinced they won't take a DE or a WR either because of investment.

    Long story short, TE problem was addressed last year (Shank/Mills), DE will be addressed via FA (if they do anything at all), WR will be addressed via FA and non "Sexy" positions will be addressed via the draft this year.
    gol 'darnit Marr you and I agree even more all of the time about things next thing you know we will be saying together Tjack for MVP and Chilly for President ;D

    In reality how many premier TE in the league anymore anyeways? Gates, Cooley, Gonzo, Clark, Whitten. Arguments could be made for Winslow, Lee, Watson, Crumpler and Shockey so we are looking at 8-10 teams out of 32 with premier TE's. TE 's do alot of other things besides just catch that help a teams offense.
    i agree but if Davis is a decent blocker like shank but can stretch the field and OMG catch the BALL!!! i'd take him...

    hey if Shank could catch i'd leave him alone.. i'm not saying he won't be better next year.. i actually thought they should throw to him more and get him more involved.. and i understand they had to use him to help pass block but c'mon.. he dropped the ball quite a few times.. fumbled.. and in the future.. i see chilly wanting to go to more 3 wide sets to get AP some running lanes...

    so with that said.. we could keep a FB in the game and use the TE as the other receiving option.. if not.. perhaps we move Sass back to H-back and not re-sign t rich...

    there are a lot of options we have and getting a TE who is arguably better than anyone on the roster would help the passing game out tremendously... putting a lesser emphasis on the lack of/or young receivers on the roster..

  6. #16
    seaniemck7's Avatar
    seaniemck7 is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    1,453

    Re: Fred Davis (2nd Round)

    "bleedpurple" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "bleedpurple" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    It all comes back to investment.

    The Vikes have alot already invested in talent at the TE position.
    Just because people don't want to grasp the concept that our TE's were used exclusively for blocking last year, we will continue to hear how all of them suck and should be pooh canned.

    Long story short, my sisters, brothers friend is the the trash emptier at Winter Park and he told my Uncles, lawn care giver that the OL will block better next year and allow for the TE's to be used in the passing scheme as well.

    regardless of investment.. if the dude sucks then he sucks.... players who make far more money have been cut before and if shank doesn't get his act together, then we may just take one... you never know.. esp. if he is who they have rated the highest at the time.. hell, we have a lot invested in DE but we're still talking about taking one... matter fact, we have more invested in DE than any other position over the last 4-5 years... so it just goes to show investment doesn't really matter if they're not performing now does it???
    Quantify sucks when discussing Shank.
    I say he doesn't. You do. Who is right?
    My guess would be the guy who understood that our TE's were used to block and not catch this year because of OL pass blocking issues.

    Hmmmmm, wonder if you fall in that catagory.

    :

    By the way, you don't see me talking about DRAFTING a DE.
    I would get one via FA.

    Usually when a team invests heavily in a position via the draft and still has to fix the problem they will then resort to the FA route.

    Could be because the investment isn't producing enough or they missed the mark on a couple of investments.

    In this case it is a little of both.

    Youth still needs to develop (Robison, Edwards etc) and James just flat can't stay on the field.

    That just goes to show that investment does matter....... Especially if you make bad investments. :
    you pretty much supported my point.. if the inv isn't working then you need to fix it.. i'm not necessarily saying shank sucks.. but he did under-perform his contract... i.e. bad investement MARR..

    i don't care whether he was used to block or not.. the opportunities he had he did not take full advantage of them and dropped like 3 td's and fumbled on a key play late in the season, either wash or denver game... i'm not quantifying the opportunities I'm referring to the quality of the opportunities he had and he clearly did not perform up to par when given those opportunities...

    drafting davis wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing IMO... especially if our TE can't catch or stretch the field.. this would give us the opportunity to add another weapon to the passing game.. so whether it be a WR (hopefully in FA) or a TE the passing game needs to be upgraded and Davis would provide a big threat.. based on his college playing and projection into the NFl..

    maybe a WR in Fa
    and draft the TE...

    and i'm with you on DE.. i don't care how it comes as long as it comes with someone that can rush the passer....

    A. Fred Davis won't be there in the 2nd round
    B. While Davis MIGHT be an upgrade at TE from what we have on our roster, I would bet dollars to doughnuts that our personel people will not invest the kind of pick necessary to get him into a position where we have a vet (Sauce), youth (Mills), depth/versatility (Dugan) and upside (Shank) already on the roster.





  7. #17
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,928

    Re: Fred Davis (2nd Round)

    I say get rid of the guy who's isn't in the top 4 at the position... why keep shank who can't catch.. or keep him and cut dugan... Davis better than all of them, so why not upgrade that position.. we didnt need a RB last year but picked him with the first pick#7... look how he panned out...
    You do realize that we already carry more TE's than an average staff don't you?
    The reason for that isn't cause we are a pass happy team.
    It is because we beat TE/FB and RB's to death with all the runs.

    Which lead me to believe that we did need a RB last year.
    When I put my mock draft out last year everyone Tedd Ginn crotch sniffer in the world was on my ass for taking/projecting a RB instead of WR for us.
    In that/those threads I pulled the stats for the team when CT went down last year and for 5 games no one stepped up.

    we need passing threats.. and whether that comes WR / TE or both.. it needs to be addressed... hell, we could address DE and WR in FA and address as you say non-sexxy picks via the draft.. this would probably include TE... (whether 1st or 2nd or 3rd)...
    We do need passing threats but most people want more passing threats cause they want to relive the days of Moss, Carter, and Reed.


    We will never see those days again.
    We will be a very boring, grind it out kindof team for years to come.
    Its the way we are built.
    Again, look at how many TE/FB's we carry on this team.


    i'm not necessarily saying we should go TE with one of the first two picks.. i'm just saying it would be a bad thing or stupid to do so either.. unlike you who wants to go S or DT in the first... that's kinda silly if you ask me...
    I have been called silly before
    ;D, but seriously when a team gets to the point were they are drafting for the future and not so much instant impact, you will see them take the BPA in the draft that will address upcoming holes in the roster.

    S is a immediate need.
    DT is a upcoming need (Phat Pat will slowly decline next year and the year after).
    I have them taking a S to fill a starter role and a DT to fill an eventual starter role of the future.
    If you look close, I also have them addressing FB pretty high as well for the same reason.
    Again, I attribute this to the fact that most of our positional starters are set.

    the fact is Davis is better than all of the weapons we have at TE.. u'd rather have Mills than Davis.. that's crazy... mills could go back to the P-squad or dugan can as well since he's pretty much a SASS clone.. or cut him...
    I don't doubt his talent.
    If fact from what I see of the scouting reports on him I really like his future in the NFL but I wouldn't pick him because of pressing needs else were.
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  8. #18
    seaniemck7's Avatar
    seaniemck7 is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    1,453

    Re: Fred Davis (2nd Round)

    "bleedpurple" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    It all comes back to investment.

    The Vikes have alot already invested in talent at the TE position.
    Just because people don't want to grasp the concept that our TE's were used exclusively for blocking last year, we will continue to hear how all of them suck and should be pooh canned.

    Long story short, my sisters, brothers friend is the the trash emptier at Winter Park and he told my Uncles, lawn care giver that the OL will block better next year and allow for the TE's to be used in the passing scheme as well.

    I like Kleinsasser a lot, but he has been around long enough that everyone knows his strengths lie in blocking and pass protection, not receiving.
    The scheme last year isn't what makes people think that.
    As far as Shank, his contract is large, but no prohibitively so.
    We had more invested in Chester Taylor last year, yet we still picked up AD.

    Fred Davis is one of the premier TEs in a draft that will not feature many good TEs.
    He is a converted WR who put on weight as his body matures, but kept his speed.
    He has good hands, good size, and good speed.
    If he is available in the second round, the Vikings would be absolutely stupid to pass on him, regardless of the investment made in Shank. Hell, Shank's contract is large, but the cap hit for cutting him would be relatively minor to a team that is substantially under the cap.

    I honestly put Davis in my list of five players I wouldn't mind seeing the Viking take with the #17 pick.
    He is the fifth out of five, simply because 17 is a little high for him, but he is still there...
    I hear ya and am not questioning his talent.
    The argument really goes back to what cost do you take him?

    I know you (some people can't grasp this concept) know that if they take someone that high, someone on the roster leaves and it usually in the group that you took the guy in (i.e. TE).

    Who do you let go?

    83 Jeff Dugan TE 26 6-4 258 4 Maryland
    40 Jim Kleinsasser TE 30 6-3 272 9 North Dakota
    45 Garrett Mills TE 24 6-1 235 2 Tulsa
    81 Visanthe Shiancoe TE 27 6-4 250 5 Morgan State

    Klieny - Best blocker.
    Key for a run oriented offense such as ours. Not a true weapon.
    Shank - Another good blocker.
    Probably better suited to catch passes if they ever pass to him. Probably best passing weapon with respect to TE position.
    Dugan - Depends on what roster/depth chart you look at.
    He is either a FB or TE.
    Again a nice blocker that can catch but not a true weapon.
    Mills - A bit small to be a true blocking/pass catching TE. Will only come in on obvious passing downs. Could/should be move to FB.

    The insane will say get rid of Shank cause he makes to much and didn't produce like Moss last year but again, anyone that knows squat about football knows that a) it isn't cost feasible to let him go, and b) he wasn't (like all our TE's) used in the passing scheme last year.

    Only a staff of imbeciles would risk drafting a guy that high who wouldn't make the team cause then you would have to try to get him on your practice squad.
    Once you try that he is gone, kapoooot, waste of pick.

    Again, I am pretty confidnet that they will address a position of higher need with first, second and third round picks and it won't be TE.
    Hell I am almost convinced they won't take a DE or a WR either because of investment.

    Long story short, TE problem was addressed last year (Shank/Mills), DE will be addressed via FA (if they do anything at all), WR will be addressed via FA and non "Sexy" positions will be addressed via the draft this year.
    I say get rid of the guy who's isn't in the top 4 at the position... why keep shank who can't catch.. or keep him and cut dugan... Davis better than all of them, so why not upgrade that position.. we didnt need a RB last year but picked him with the first pick#7... look how he panned out...

    we need passing threats.. and whether that comes WR / TE or both.. it needs to be addressed... hell, we could address DE and WR in FA and address as you say non-sexxy picks via the draft.. this would probably include TE... (whether 1st or 2nd or 3rd)...

    we can get a good corner in the 1st or 2nd round.. get a S/CB a TE/WR and a DT (like you want) all with the first 3 picks.. and have depth..

    the fact is Davis is better than all of the weapons we have at TE.. u'd rather have Mills than Davis.. that's crazy... mills could go back to the P-squad or dugan can as well since he's pretty much a SASS clone.. or cut him...

    i'm not necessarily saying we should go TE with one of the first two picks.. i'm just saying it would be a bad thing or stupid to do so either.. unlike you who wants to go S or DT in the first... that's kinda silly if you ask me...

    safety's unless they play like Palamalu or S. Taylor are a dime a dozen.. and unless we can get a tip top prospect in the first/second we could go corner and move griffin to Safety and be just as effective...


    In Traditional defenses, this maybe true.
    However, the more people run the Cover/Tampa2, the more skilled, playmaking, cover capable Safeties are needed in the league.
    Who had the most improved defense laste year?


    INDY .... who let both their starting corners leave (from a SUPER BOWL WINNING TEAM) and kept their play making safeties.

  9. #19
    vikes2456's Avatar
    vikes2456 is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,656

    Re: Fred Davis (2nd Round)

    "Marrdro" wrote:
    [quote]
    "bleedpurple" wrote:
    [quote]
    "Marrdro" wrote:


    That just goes to show that investment does matter....... Especially if you make bad investments. :
    Like Shiancoe for instance

  10. #20
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,928

    Re: Fred Davis (2nd Round)

    "Garland" wrote:
    gol 'darnit Marr you and I agree even more all of the time about things next thing you know we will be saying together Tjack for MVP and Chilly for President ;D

    In reality how many premier TE in the league anymore anyeways? Gates, Cooley, Gonzo, Clark, Whitten. Arguments could be made for Winslow, Lee, Watson, Crumpler and Shockey so we are looking at 8-10 teams out of 32 with premier TE's. TE 's do alot of other things besides just catch that help a teams offense.
    Wildwoman says I tend to rub off on people.
    Normally I think she is actually insulting me.
    ;D
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 2009 PPO FF DRAFT - Round by round - YARY Division
    By Zeus in forum Fantasy Football Talk
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 11-10-2009, 09:35 PM
  2. 2009 PPO FF DRAFT - Round by Round - ZIMMERMAN Division
    By Zeus in forum Fantasy Football Talk
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-10-2009, 09:07 AM
  3. 2009 PPO FF DRAFT - Round by Round - TINGELHOFF DIVISION
    By Zeus in forum Fantasy Football Talk
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-09-2009, 01:26 AM
  4. 2009 PPO FF DRAFT - Round by Round - MCDANIEL DIVISION
    By Zeus in forum Fantasy Football Talk
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09-04-2009, 02:23 PM
  5. Redskins TE Fred Davis MIA
    By Garland Greene in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-06-2008, 06:31 AM

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
  •