Thread: Is Merling the answer at DE?

[size=13pt]Is Merling the answer at defensive end?[/size]

Friday, April 11, 2008

Posted by Jonathan Mohr
realfootball365.com


The experts have spoken, and with the No. 17 pick in the NFL Draft, the Minnesota Vikings select Phillip Merling, defensive end, Clemson.....

I dont watch alot of college football, planning on this year, but when I look at the stats Merling only has 12 sacks in 3 years, while harvey have 20 in 3 years (since he didnt play his first year). But Merling did have 146 tackles while harvey had 91. Merling is a person who makes more plays but harvey is a better pass rush which we are looking for. I dont think merling is the answer because he is probably the run stopper/short pass playmaker, which we are already good at. If we dont trade up and harvey is gone I wouldnt be too pissed if we take him

"singersp" wrote:

[size=13pt]Is Merling the answer at defensive end?[/size]

Friday, April 11, 2008

Posted by Jonathan Mohr
realfootball365.com


The experts have spoken, and with the No. 17 pick in the NFL Draft, the Minnesota Vikings select Phillip Merling, defensive end, Clemson.....

Where are we getting this talk about us always talking the "best player available". Is everyone basing his off of 1 draft pick ?(AD) I think that we draft on need most of the time. I would expect any team to draft a player of ADs talent level should he had fallen to them.

I feel like drafting a LT is such a crap shoot. You have a lot of 5-7 rounders that come in and play just as good as top teir LTs. I feel like if we aren't getting a Franchise LT, there is no need to draft one in the 2nd or 3rd rounds. In fact like I said. Sign shan oliviea and use that 2nd round pick on Kenny phillips or Kelly. A game changer.

I actually Peterson was the BPA when the vikes drafted last year.
Yet I think Merling sounds like a good base end, not great, but solid.
If he doesn';t fit our need right now then we should take a look at all options.
I would be very happy with either of those two tackles, or even Malcom Kelly if he was to drop to us.

Mike

I don't think he is. I would be more interested in someone like Groves if Harvey goess off the board early.

"Mikecarter81" wrote:

I actually Peterson was the BPA when the vikes drafted last year.
Yet I think Merling sounds like a good base end, not great, but solid.
If he doesn';t fit our need right now then we should take a look at all options.
I would be very happy with either of those two tackles, or even Malcom Kelly if he was to drop to us.

Mike

Malcolm Kelly is a bag of douche, with all his bitchin and complaining i wouldnt wanna take him in the 2nd round.

In the second yes, which is where I think he may still be available for the Vikings to take. He is one of 2 or 3 DE that were seen as first round picks that I think will be there in round 2

Vikes should trade up and take Gholston...they are 1 IMPACT DE away from a super bowl right now....and I dont think Merling's worth a 1st round pick...he'll be another Udeze...solid but nothing special

"audioghost" wrote:

Vikes should trade up and take Gholston...they are 1 IMPACT DE away from a super bowl right now....and I dont think Merling's worth a 1st round pick...he'll be another Udeze...solid but nothing special

and a *Cough* *Cough** QB *Cough* Cough* ;D ;D ;D

But What we need more than anything is a solid DE at least. We are really one failed drug test away from being down 3 DE's next year.

"Garland" wrote:

"audioghost" wrote:

Vikes should trade up and take Gholston...they are 1 IMPACT DE away from a super bowl right now....and I dont think Merling's worth a 1st round pick...he'll be another Udeze...solid but nothing special

and a *Cough* *Cough** QB *Cough* Cough* ;D ;D ;D

But What we need more than anything is a solid DE at least. We are really one failed drug test away from being down 3 DE's next year.

Or one torn ACL.
Or one more case of leukemia.
Come on, we need to get off the Edwards drug test.
If it was actually steroids he got nailed for, I would understand it...