Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34
  1. #21
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,935

    Re: Three Needs The Vikes Should Address

    "ragz" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    To stay with the theme, the 3 needs that need to be addressed are........

    DE as a whole is a topic of much discussion that very few agree with me on.
    Some believe we can just plug any DE into that spot and he will do fine.
    I on the other hand think there are two critters when you talke DE and it even gets more complex when you break them down between a Base 4-3 and a Base 3-4 Defense.

    Regardless, we had an issue last year getting any sort of consistent pressure from our edge rushers at the RDE position.
    Was that because of youth or because we don't have the talent.

    I am kindof leaning towards the "Youth" side and believe that our guys will be better from the experience they got last year.
    In fact I believe we will have a pretty good competition between Robison and Edwards as to who will be the starter and really like them as a team that will rotate.

    With that said, I tend to believe that the staff will draft 2 DE's in this draft.
    One will be a edge kindof guy and the other will be a bigger sort of critter that can play LDE.

    Biggest need.
    LDE.
    Mitchell is young and his ability to be a starter is in question by most fans.
    I am sure the front office won't force the coaching staff to play the whole season with one LDE.

    Second biggest need.
    S.
    Sharp is getting up there and like it or not, is losing a few steps, not to mention the staff carried 5 Safties last year and we only have 3 signed.
    Probably gonna see a 2nd tier vet signed after the draft but I also believe they will try to fill the other position with a draft pick this year.
    Problem is this draft class as well as the FA market is kindof void of the S talent we need.

    DT.
    Even though they just signed a DT/DE kindof guy, it was only for a 1 year contract so I think he is a bandaid fix until they can find a guy that will eventually replace Phat Pat.
    We really need to get some sort of push up the middle (huge part of our inability to get pressure on the QB issue).

    As to the needs you addressed.

    I like our CB's.
    You get some consistent pressure on the QB from your front 4 so our LB's can drop into thier passing zones and our CB's fit the bill for the style of defense we run.

    OL wasn't that big of a concern on my sheet, however, with the advent of Big Mac's off field issue it now has elevated itself.

    Bet they take some sort of LT in the draft someplace and it might be earlier than some think.
    Dan Mozes seems to be the guy that has been tapped to be Birks replacement and he can also add depth at G as he waits to take over the job.
    I look to see the staff let Hicks go to make room for Mozes and M Johnson might go to make room for the rookie we draft this year.

    Again, great post my friend.

    marr, i dont think they can afford to let hicks or johnson go.
    i mean even if they drafted a guy early, if mckinnie is suspended we would have to throw that rookie in right away.
    also mozes is coming off an injury so i dont even know if the vikes have a good feel for what they really have in him.
    if what you say actually becomes fact and they cut one or both then offensive line is gonna be a much bigger focal point in the draft than just one lineman.


    i seem to be one of few that really consider this a major concern.
    a big part of our 3-6 start was poor play from the line, and if you factor in mckinnie's stupidity and cooks erracticness then a strenght can become a weakness real quick.

    I hear ya my friend, but there is two things that all of us fans need to consider....

    1.
    We are dealing with a constraint of a 53 man roster.
    In order to address positions of need with better players, current players on the roster will get cut as we build towards the 2008 season.

    2.
    This staff (From the owner all the way to the water boy) isn't afraid to draft kids and let them play as a starter or act in a significant backup role if they believe he will (right away or in the future) make the team better.

    Even though most of us fans won't agree or won't see why, I could see them opening up a roster position on the OL for a young kid they take in this draft that they believe will make them better in the long run and the scrificial lamb(s) appear to be either hicks or Marcus Johnson.
    (at least the way I read the tea leaves).
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  2. #22
    jargomcfargo's Avatar
    jargomcfargo is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    4,776

    Re: Three Needs The Vikes Should Address

    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "ragz" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    To stay with the theme, the 3 needs that need to be addressed are........

    DE as a whole is a topic of much discussion that very few agree with me on.
    Some believe we can just plug any DE into that spot and he will do fine.
    I on the other hand think there are two critters when you talke DE and it even gets more complex when you break them down between a Base 4-3 and a Base 3-4 Defense.

    Regardless, we had an issue last year getting any sort of consistent pressure from our edge rushers at the RDE position.
    Was that because of youth or because we don't have the talent.

    I am kindof leaning towards the "Youth" side and believe that our guys will be better from the experience they got last year.
    In fact I believe we will have a pretty good competition between Robison and Edwards as to who will be the starter and really like them as a team that will rotate.

    With that said, I tend to believe that the staff will draft 2 DE's in this draft.
    One will be a edge kindof guy and the other will be a bigger sort of critter that can play LDE.

    Biggest need.
    LDE.
    Mitchell is young and his ability to be a starter is in question by most fans.
    I am sure the front office won't force the coaching staff to play the whole season with one LDE.

    Second biggest need.
    S.
    Sharp is getting up there and like it or not, is losing a few steps, not to mention the staff carried 5 Safties last year and we only have 3 signed.
    Probably gonna see a 2nd tier vet signed after the draft but I also believe they will try to fill the other position with a draft pick this year.
    Problem is this draft class as well as the FA market is kindof void of the S talent we need.

    DT.
    Even though they just signed a DT/DE kindof guy, it was only for a 1 year contract so I think he is a bandaid fix until they can find a guy that will eventually replace Phat Pat.
    We really need to get some sort of push up the middle (huge part of our inability to get pressure on the QB issue).

    As to the needs you addressed.

    I like our CB's.
    You get some consistent pressure on the QB from your front 4 so our LB's can drop into thier passing zones and our CB's fit the bill for the style of defense we run.

    OL wasn't that big of a concern on my sheet, however, with the advent of Big Mac's off field issue it now has elevated itself.

    Bet they take some sort of LT in the draft someplace and it might be earlier than some think.
    Dan Mozes seems to be the guy that has been tapped to be Birks replacement and he can also add depth at G as he waits to take over the job.
    I look to see the staff let Hicks go to make room for Mozes and M Johnson might go to make room for the rookie we draft this year.

    Again, great post my friend.

    marr, i dont think they can afford to let hicks or johnson go.
    i mean even if they drafted a guy early, if mckinnie is suspended we would have to throw that rookie in right away.
    also mozes is coming off an injury so i dont even know if the vikes have a good feel for what they really have in him.
    if what you say actually becomes fact and they cut one or both then offensive line is gonna be a much bigger focal point in the draft than just one lineman.


    i seem to be one of few that really consider this a major concern.
    a big part of our 3-6 start was poor play from the line, and if you factor in mckinnie's stupidity and cooks erracticness then a strenght can become a weakness real quick.

    I hear ya my friend, but there is two things that all of us fans need to consider....

    1.
    We are dealing with a constraint of a 53 man roster.
    In order to address positions of need with better players, current players on the roster will get cut as we build towards the 2008 season.

    2.
    This staff (From the owner all the way to the water boy) isn't afraid to draft kids and let them play as a starter or act in a significant backup role if they believe he will (right away or in the future) make the team better.

    Even though most of us fans won't agree or won't see why, I could see them opening up a roster position on the OL for a young kid they take in this draft that they believe will make them better in the long run and the scrificial lamb(s) appear to be either hicks or Marcus Johnson.
    (at least the way I read the tea leaves).
    It would be huge surprise to me if no O Lineman is drafted this year.
    If it comes down to keeping either Hicks or Johnson, who do we keep , and why?
    Hicks is versatile so I think he would be kept for that reason.
    Personally I think Johnson is better when he wants to play but inconsistant.
    I would take inconsistancy over the human turnstile any day.
    We better have a backup QB if Hicks is going to replace McKinnie for 4 games. We're going to need one.
    What takes a quarterback to the next level is not arm strength or mobility or any of that stuff. Its the ability to play on critical downs. Manage third downs, or red zones or four-minute or two-minute situations"
    Dilfer

  3. #23
    snowinapril's Avatar
    snowinapril is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    13,404

    Re: Three Needs The Vikes Should Address

    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "Zeus" wrote:
    "JerBearLuvsDaVikes" wrote:
    Says steroids policy on the net....

    http://www.sportsbonehead.com/nfl/vikings-defensive-ray-edwards-suspended-steroid/

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3142614&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines
    Lazy reporting by writers who can't be bothered to explain the difference between "steroids", "performance-enhancing drugs" and "banned substances".

    =Z=
    Yup.
    The "Steroid" policy includes a lot of non-steroid things...

    http://ww3.startribune.com/vikingsblog/?p=1196
    The agent for Vikings defensive end Ray Edwards said in an e-mail that his client was suspended for four games by the NFL after he “took some workout supplements last February that he thought was OK under the [NFL] guidelines.”
    I bet if we search the PP.O pages from last December, we will find all sorts of information and links...
    Edwards may not have been injecting HGH, but don't minimize it.
    He was caught "under the steroid policy," which includes band substances.
    I remember from one of the interviews with Edwards, that he didn't try to minimize it.
    He said I should have checked the list.
    The word steroid encompasses a wide web of substances from the female hormone estrogen to the male hormone testosterone.


    Definition of Steroid

    Steroid: A general class of chemical substances that are structurally related to one another and share the same chemical skeleton (a tetracyclic cyclopenta[a]phenanthrene skeleton).

    Many hormones, body constituents, and drugs are steroids. Thus, the term steroid may carry many meanings. For example, steroids may refer to the corticosteroid drugs such as prednisone used to reduce swelling, pain, and other symptoms of inflammation. Vitamin D is a steroid, too, one that is necessary to normal health. The male hormone testosterone and its derivatives are steroids with anabolic effects that can be used medically (or illicitly) to build up muscle mass.

    Cholesterol is yet again another steroid. In fact, the word steroid was coined in 1926 to refer to compounds like the sterols (as in cholesterol).
    http://www.sptimes.com/2005/04/27/Sports/NFL_bulks_up_on_stero.shtml
    The league and union had recently agreed to add new substances to the list of banned performance enhancers, to put in writing previously agreed-to policies to test for designer steroids, and to lower the testosterone ratio threshold.
    It is obvious that the list of substances is there for a reason.
    The items on the list will cause your testosterone level to go up and cause a positive test for Steroids.

    The bonehead.com link was a bit skewed but both articles said that it was a violation of the NFL steroid policy.

    "ItalianStallion" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    Welcome to the site.
    Just wanted to point out that Edwards did not use steroids.
    He tested positive for a banned substance in April of 2006, which turned out to be a supplement that he was taking that was not on the approved list.
    Still not the right thing to do, but a far cry from using steroids...
    Depends on what the substance is, does anybody know?
    Does it matter what the substance was?


    I know I am being tick tack about this, but the substances in these supplements are derivatives of steroid or closely represent steroids enough to raise the testosterone levels for a positive test.
    It comes down to the ignorance of the player to check the list.


    "A far cry" sounds a bit like minimizing to me.

    http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2007-12-05-supplement-study_N.htm
    A study scheduled to be released Wednesday and obtained by USA TODAY reports that 13 of the 52 supplements (25%) purchased at various U.S. retailers contained small amounts of steroids and six (11.5%) had banned stimulants.

    The study was overseen by Informed-Choice, a non-profit coalition of dietary supplements. Testing was conducted by HFL, a lab located in England.

    "We were very surprised by these results," said Dave Hall, CEO of HFL.
    I am guessing that the substance that Edwards took probably did contain steroids.

    Thanks for reading my post on something that is really a moot point.
    With that said, Edwards was suspended for violating the NFL's steroid policy, if that wasn't the case, he would have a nice lawsuit.
    Intent is the question, but ignorance is no excuse.

    List of substance the NFL has banned:
    http://www.prostaronline.com/bannedsubstances.html

  4. #24
    snowinapril's Avatar
    snowinapril is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    13,404

    Re: Three Needs The Vikes Should Address

    Three needs agreed.

    1.) DE and another DE just in case
    2.) A back up QB.
    3.) CB (D.Hall would have been a definite upgrade)

    Before the FA signings, WR would have been high on this list.
    It is amazing how BB has changed our view on this.

  5. #25
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,935

    Re: Three Needs The Vikes Should Address

    "snowinapril" wrote:
    Three needs agreed.

    1.) DE and another DE just in case
    2.) A back up QB.
    3.) CB (D.Hall would have been a definite upgrade)

    Before the FA signings, WR would have been high on this list.
    It is amazing how BB has changed our view on this.
    I really see them drafting 2 DE's this year.
    Heck if the S crop wasn't so weak, the might've got 2 of them as well.
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  6. #26
    Schutz's Avatar
    Schutz is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,719

    Re: Three Needs The Vikes Should Address

    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "snowinapril" wrote:
    Three needs agreed.

    1.) DE and another DE just in case
    2.) A back up QB.
    3.) CB (D.Hall would have been a definite upgrade)

    Before the FA signings, WR would have been high on this list.
    It is amazing how BB has changed our view on this.
    I really see them drafting 2 DE's this year.
    Heck if the S crop wasn't so weak, the might've got 2 of them as well.
    I don't see them DRAFTING two DEs, I think they may bring in two one way or another, but not two rookies.

  7. #27
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Three Needs The Vikes Should Address

    1)
    Build their own stadium
    2) Win a SB
    3) Repeat (2) often

  8. #28
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,271

    Re: Three Needs The Vikes Should Address

    Three Needs The Vikes Should Address
    Four if you include trying to achieve having the hottest cheerleaders in the NFL.

    "If at first you don't succeed, parachuting is not for you"

  9. #29
    ragz's Avatar
    ragz is offline GM
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,114

    Re: Three Needs The Vikes Should Address

    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "ragz" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    To stay with the theme, the 3 needs that need to be addressed are........

    DE as a whole is a topic of much discussion that very few agree with me on.
    Some believe we can just plug any DE into that spot and he will do fine.
    I on the other hand think there are two critters when you talke DE and it even gets more complex when you break them down between a Base 4-3 and a Base 3-4 Defense.

    Regardless, we had an issue last year getting any sort of consistent pressure from our edge rushers at the RDE position.
    Was that because of youth or because we don't have the talent.

    I am kindof leaning towards the "Youth" side and believe that our guys will be better from the experience they got last year.
    In fact I believe we will have a pretty good competition between Robison and Edwards as to who will be the starter and really like them as a team that will rotate.

    With that said, I tend to believe that the staff will draft 2 DE's in this draft.
    One will be a edge kindof guy and the other will be a bigger sort of critter that can play LDE.

    Biggest need.
    LDE.
    Mitchell is young and his ability to be a starter is in question by most fans.
    I am sure the front office won't force the coaching staff to play the whole season with one LDE.

    Second biggest need.
    S.
    Sharp is getting up there and like it or not, is losing a few steps, not to mention the staff carried 5 Safties last year and we only have 3 signed.
    Probably gonna see a 2nd tier vet signed after the draft but I also believe they will try to fill the other position with a draft pick this year.
    Problem is this draft class as well as the FA market is kindof void of the S talent we need.

    DT.
    Even though they just signed a DT/DE kindof guy, it was only for a 1 year contract so I think he is a bandaid fix until they can find a guy that will eventually replace Phat Pat.
    We really need to get some sort of push up the middle (huge part of our inability to get pressure on the QB issue).

    As to the needs you addressed.

    I like our CB's.
    You get some consistent pressure on the QB from your front 4 so our LB's can drop into thier passing zones and our CB's fit the bill for the style of defense we run.

    OL wasn't that big of a concern on my sheet, however, with the advent of Big Mac's off field issue it now has elevated itself.

    Bet they take some sort of LT in the draft someplace and it might be earlier than some think.
    Dan Mozes seems to be the guy that has been tapped to be Birks replacement and he can also add depth at G as he waits to take over the job.
    I look to see the staff let Hicks go to make room for Mozes and M Johnson might go to make room for the rookie we draft this year.

    Again, great post my friend.

    marr, i dont think they can afford to let hicks or johnson go.
    i mean even if they drafted a guy early, if mckinnie is suspended we would have to throw that rookie in right away.
    also mozes is coming off an injury so i dont even know if the vikes have a good feel for what they really have in him.
    if what you say actually becomes fact and they cut one or both then offensive line is gonna be a much bigger focal point in the draft than just one lineman.


    i seem to be one of few that really consider this a major concern.
    a big part of our 3-6 start was poor play from the line, and if you factor in mckinnie's stupidity and cooks erracticness then a strenght can become a weakness real quick.

    I hear ya my friend, but there is two things that all of us fans need to consider....

    1.
    We are dealing with a constraint of a 53 man roster.
    In order to address positions of need with better players, current players on the roster will get cut as we build towards the 2008 season.

    2.
    This staff (From the owner all the way to the water boy) isn't afraid to draft kids and let them play as a starter or act in a significant backup role if they believe he will (right away or in the future) make the team better.

    Even though most of us fans won't agree or won't see why, I could see them opening up a roster position on the OL for a young kid they take in this draft that they believe will make them better in the long run and the scrificial lamb(s) appear to be either hicks or Marcus Johnson.
    (at least the way I read the tea leaves).
    no doubt, but i think if anyone is gonna be sacrificed it's gonna be mozes.
    at least in the sense of active roster.
    unless they go heavy on lineman in the draft.
    but take into account that alot of young guys playing in childress's and wilfs run at things was more outta necessity, cuz we didnt have capable veterans worth playing.
    plus we were doing a good portion of team building through the draft so we let the young kids play.
    now we are at a point that were on the verge of the playoffs, we have a young qb, might be picking up an immobile backup, and we live off of running the ball.
    you dont spend money on berrian and others if the vikings figure they can just throw a rookie 2nd round pick as our starting left tackle to start the season.
    cuz i figure we go defensive end in the 1st round.
    cuz both hicks and johnson are our primary backups at probably 4 positions on the line they may be too valueable, unless some young guy just blows them outta the water in camp.
    either way they need to sure this up fo sho.
    "self improvement's masturbation.
    now self destruction" that's enlightenment

  10. #30
    KrackerJack's Avatar
    KrackerJack is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,502

    Re: Three Needs The Vikes Should Address

    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "Zeus" wrote:
    "JerBearLuvsDaVikes" wrote:
    Says steroids policy on the net....

    http://www.sportsbonehead.com/nfl/vikings-defensive-ray-edwards-suspended-steroid/

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3142614&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines
    Lazy reporting by writers who can't be bothered to explain the difference between "steroids", "performance-enhancing drugs" and "banned substances".

    =Z=
    Yup.
    The "Steroid" policy includes a lot of non-steroid things...

    http://ww3.startribune.com/vikingsblog/?p=1196
    The agent for Vikings defensive end Ray Edwards said in an e-mail that his client was suspended for four games by the NFL after he “took some workout supplements last February that he thought was OK under the [NFL] guidelines.”
    I bet if we search the PP.O pages from last December, we will find all sorts of information and links...





    Yeah...though he should've done a better job of knowing what he was taking wasn't aloud, however saying that he shouldn't be a starter, on the team, or isn't a good player or something like that because of that one incident is just rediculous...He didn't know the substance he was using was illegal under NFL rules, and had no intention of unfairly getting an advantage...not even steroids, he has very good potential, and not accepting that because of that incident is, again, rediculous.






    I do agree we need a DE to help our pass rush, whether its a vet to help out, or a rookie to bring in a big pass rush it doesn't matter, I think Edwards and Robinson will be just fine, but another DE should be brought in to help at the position incase they do disapoint, and who knows how long it will take these guys to get to the ability we need them to be at, they could need time to develop, so bringing a DE as a vet, or a rookie that could make an impact soon needs to be a priority.
    Even though rookies who will make an imediate impact are hard to come by.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. My State of the Vikings Address
    By kevoncox in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 09-11-2008, 12:39 AM
  2. Logged IP address
    By Zeus in forum Help / Suggestion Box
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-14-2007, 11:27 AM
  3. Let us address our offeason needs.
    By baumy300 in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 02-12-2007, 09:26 PM
  4. I.P Address
    By V4L in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-01-2006, 07:25 AM
  5. IP Address
    By koolkev8 in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-11-2005, 07:09 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
  •