Sansevere: 5 things to watch in the Vikings' draft

**singersp** · 04-22-2008, 06:35 AM

[size=13pt]Bob Sansevere: Five things to watch in the Vikings' draft[/size]

Bob Sansevere

Pioneer Press

Article Last Updated: 04/21/2008 09:06:11 PM CDT

**Marrdro** · 04-22-2008, 08:28 AM

Thanks for the read my friend.

2. They will draft an offensive tackle in the first or second round in an attempt to cover themselves if Bryant McKinnie messes up again. (That, of course, is if they don't trade for Allen or if Harvey is unavailable.)

Throughout this whole Allen thing I have been asking myself.......Self, what do they want that 2nd round pick so bad for......

Obviously they have had Allen in thier sights all the way through FA (Why they didn't try hard for Smith or any others) and have targeted someone in the second round.
What are our biggest needs?

Could it be a QB? Could it be a OT?

Old self is thinking that maybe we are seeing the first indications that McKinnie isn't long for this team.
As I've said repeatedly, it would have been dumb for Bryzcheapski to write up a contract that didn't give the team outs (as we see in the verbiage with Allen) and the staff is going to get a LT that they like to either start or add depth behind Chase.

Again, pure speculation on my part, but that is what my slightly balding head has come up with to make sense of why we won't get off that 2nd pick.
By keeping that pick they can either get their guy or use that and thier 3rd to move up and get him.

By bet is they might be targeting either Sam Baker or Carl Nicks as they seem to be in the range we are talking on some value boards.

**ThorSPL** · 04-22-2008, 08:46 AM

The more I think about it, the more I agree with you Marrdro.
They DEFINITELY have their sites on somebody in the 2nd; unless they're blowing one hell of a smoke-screen.

However, if that's true.. why not ship BM for a 2nd rounder???

**Marrdro** · 04-22-2008, 08:49 AM

"ThorSPL" wrote:

The more I think about it, the more I agree with you Marrdro.
They DEFINITELY have their sites on somebody in the 2nd; unless they're blowing one hell of a smoke-screen.

However, if that's true.. why not ship BM for a 2nd rounder???

You know me, I always over think these things, but I really think they want that 2nd for a reason and for the life of me I can't figure out why other than that scenario.

**PacNWVike** · 04-22-2008, 09:28 AM

"Marrdro" wrote:

"ThorSPL" wrote:

The more I think about it, the more I agree with you Marrdro.
They DEFINITELY have their sites on somebody in the 2nd; unless they're blowing one hell of a smoke-screen.

However, if that's true.. why not ship BM for a 2nd rounder???

You know me, I always over think these things, but I really think they want that 2nd for a reason and for the life of me I can't figure out why other than that scenario.

Could they already be in discussions with another team (other than KC) vis a vis a trade for their second?

**Marrdro** · 04-22-2008, 09:31 AM

"PacNWVike" wrote:

"Marrdro" wrote:

"ThorSPL" wrote:

The more I think about it, the more I agree with you Marrdro.
They DEFINITELY have their sites on somebody in the 2nd; unless they're blowing one hell of a smoke-screen.

However, if that's true.. why not ship BM for a 2nd rounder???

You know me, I always over think these things, but I really think they want that 2nd for a reason and for the life of me I can't figure out why other than that scenario.

Could they already be in discussions with another team (other than KC) vis a vis a trade for their second?

You know, that is a very interesting thought.

To tell the truth, after watching ole Ricky boy work the board last year and his plan of attack during FA this year, I wouldn't put anything over him.

Fact of the matter is, we are seeing stuff with regard to the Allen deal that discussions have been going on for some time and no one got wind of it until Allen actually made arrangements to come visit.

Again, very interesting idea.

**V-Unit** · 04-22-2008, 09:37 AM

"Marrdro" wrote:

"ThorSPL" wrote:

The more I think about it, the more I agree with you Marrdro.
They DEFINITELY have their sites on somebody in the 2nd; unless they're blowing one hell of a smoke-screen.

However, if that's true.. why not ship BM for a 2nd rounder???

You know me, I always over think these things, but I really think they want that 2nd for a reason and for the life of me I can't figure out why other than that scenario.

To not have a single pick on day one is absolute suicide.

**BloodyHorns82** · 04-22-2008, 09:54 AM

"V" wrote:

"Marrdro" wrote:

"ThorSPL" wrote:

The more I think about it, the more I agree with you Marrdro.
They DEFINITELY have their sites on somebody in the 2nd; unless they're blowing one hell of a smoke-screen.

However, if that's true.. why not ship BM for a 2nd rounder???

You know me, I always over think these things, but I really think they want that 2nd for a reason and for the life of me I can't figure out why other than that scenario.

To not have a single pick on day one is absolute suicide.

Not if we came out of it with a quality OL and DE....which is realistically better than we could expect with those three picks in the draft anyways.

**Marrdro** · 04-22-2008, 10:18 AM

"V" wrote:

"Marrdro" wrote:

"ThorSPL" wrote:

The more I think about it, the more I agree with you Marrdro.
They DEFINITELY have their sites on somebody in the 2nd; unless they're blowing one hell of a smoke-screen.

However, if that's true.. why not ship BM for a 2nd rounder???

You know me, I always over think these things, but I really think they want that 2nd for a reason and for the life of me I can't figure out why other than that scenario.

To not have a single pick on day one is absolute suicide.

I hear ya my friend and that is probably the simplest solution to the quandry, however, I would like to add that a crappy team (such as the Chiefs) would need a first day picks more than a team that was pretty much set at almost all of its positions.

I kindof lump the Vikes in that catagory.
If we get Allen we have a few issues to deal with but nothing that requires a instant starter.
Just depth/backup/future potential kindof guys. You can get alot of them in the second day.

**bleedpurple** · 04-22-2008, 10:22 AM

"Marrdro" wrote:

"V" wrote:

"Marrdro" wrote:

"ThorSPL" wrote:

The more I think about it, the more I agree with you Marrdro.
They DEFINITELY have their sites on somebody in the 2nd; unless they're blowing one hell of a smoke-screen.

However, if that's true.. why not ship BM for a 2nd rounder???

You know me, I always over think these things, but I really think they want that 2nd for a reason and for the life of me I can't figure out why other than that scenario.

To not have a single pick on day one is absolute suicide.

I hear ya my friend and that is probably the simplest solution to the quandry, however, I would like to add that a crappy team (such as the Chiefs) would need a first day picks more than a team that was pretty much set at almost all of its positions.

I kindof lump the Vikes in that catagory.
If we get Allen we have a few issues to deal with but nothing that requires a instant starter.
Just depth/backup/future potential kindof guys. You can get alot of them in the second day.

not to mention that the second day now includes the third round as well.. and we have 2 picks in that round and could potentially move back into the 2nd with a trade...