Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 22 of 22
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    999

    Re: Vikings Draft Preview

    "ibleedpurple06" wrote:
    "Purplexing" wrote:
    "elgordo" wrote:
    "Purplexing" wrote:
    This concise recap makes some sense.
    But a few points are worth mentioning.

    WR - picking a WR at 7 when CJohnson is gone doesn't bother me as it is a need.
    [glow=red,2,300]Trying to trade back to take a WR at 10-15 and gain an extra pick is too much of a risk. [/glow]
    The Vikings have few great needs; i.e. WR, so the extra pick is not needed as badly as a top quality, good fit WR.

    QB - upgrade with Quinn with the 7th pick, if possible,[glow=red,2,300] because WRs can be found in later rounds[/glow].
    Franchise quality QBs aren't as commonplace as good quality WRs.
    Everyone knows Tom Brady, but few people can name all of the Pats {sarcasm on} PRO BOWL WRs {sarcasm off} who helped them win 3 SBs.

    :

    Passing on Quinn because Jackson is on the roster is foolish; if you have spare cash (i.e. draft pick #7), you don't turn away from an investment that can yield 12% simply because you are content with an 8% return on a stock you are currently holding.

    DE - not taking a DE at 7 simply because two prior DEs didn't pan out is a false application of probability and correlation concepts.
    The performance of DScott, EJames, and K.Udeze are largely independent of the [erformance of G.Adams, Anderson, etc.
    The Vikings odds of selecting and coaching a good DE may be better without Tice and his DL coach involved.
    Childress wasn't involved in the selection of James, Udeze and Scott.



    But, the loss of EJames and the influence of the defensive line coach are important considerations.
    Will EJames' return help, and will the DL coach be better able to apply pass rush pressure this year with the existing roster DEs?

    RB - an upgrade with APeterson at 7 makes sense if Quinn and CJohnson are gone.

    I'm unsure of whether or not taking AP at 7 with a top DE on the board means Childress feels the current DEs are adequate, or if he feels the potential improvement in the offense is more important than improving the pass rush beyond the return of EJames.

    S - Doss and TWilliams are rehabbing prior injuries.
    Nothing I've read indicated they both won't be ready to play in 2007.
    Odds are that at least one of them will recover well enough to field a good starting pair of safeties and two quality backups.


    People who claim Landry is a need because Doss and TWilliams are both questionable to return are ignoring the slim odds that both will not return to form.
    Others who claim Landry will be a star in the NFL ignore the Vikings greater need for 'stars' who play WR, and that many other players in the draft will be 'stars'; e.g. CJohnson, etc.

    Well, if that author can recycle his ideas, I can recycle mine!

    ;D





    Don't these two statements contradict each other?????

    If you can always pick up a reciever in later rounds, why would it be such a risk to get a reciever from picks 10 - 15?

    Then you could pick up another reciever with the extra pick and get two for one.
    The highlighted statements are contradictory WHEN TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT.

    You ignored the subsequent line that pointed out the GREATER FRANCHISE VALUE OF A FRANCHISE QB over a top WR, and the example of Tom Brady being a common denominator in the NE Pats success in the SB, whereas their WRs weren't PRO BOWL players.

    Trading back to 10-15 means risking losing a top quality WR who would be available at 7 (if a franchise QB is not available at 7).
    IF that WR is lost by trading back too far, the next best WR is taken, and the extra pick gained wouldn't make up for that loss.
    Every team needs a 'go to' WR, and a few role player WRs to fill out the roster.

    The Vikings have McMullen as a 'fair to good' 3rd down, 'go to' WR, but they need to greatly upgrade over him in the draft with Meachem, Bowe, Jarrett or Ginn.
    [glow=red,2,300]Any WR taken in rd 2 or later would have much less impact than the WR taken in rd 1.
    [/glow]

    With Williamson possibly recovering from the dropsies, McMullen available in limited duty, and the addition of Bobby Wade, and assuming a top quality WR is taken at 7, there is less need for an impact WR in rd 2+ via the EXTRA pick gained from a trade back in rd 1.





    Any wide reciever in the 2nd round would have much less impact than in the first?? I highly disagree with this statement... In 2001 David Terrell was taken with the 8th pick in the draft, one after we have this year. He busted big time. And look at the WR's drafter in the later rounds that year.
    Santana Moss and Reggie Wayne Later in the first Round
    Chris Chambers and Chad Johnson in the 2nd
    Steve Smith in the 3rd
    and TJ Housh in the 7th...

    so i wouldn't jump to conclusion that a WR drafted in the first round is going to have more impact than one in the 2nd or even later than that.. because no one knows how it is going to pan out.
    Thanks, Captain Obvious!


    We are talking about the POTENTIAL of players taken in the draft, because we don't know the future.
    Therefore;

    Potential of player drafted in round 1 @ time=0 >> Potential of player taken in round 2 @ time =0

    Discussing the HISTORIC exceptions to the forecast rule above does not invalidate it.
    There are hundreds of similar examples that validate the rule, and the reason is that those instances that support the rule are much more numerous than the exceptions.


    Are you one of those folks who also believe that minority opinion should rule?
    ??? :
    When we stop to think about it, most folks behavior isn't perplexing after all !

  2. #22
    tb04512's Avatar
    tb04512 is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,803

    Re: Vikings Draft Preview

    "Purplexing" wrote:
    "tb04512" wrote:
    "cajunvike" wrote:
    "Purplexing" wrote:
    This concise recap makes some sense.
    But a few points are worth mentioning.

    WR - picking a WR at 7 when CJohnson is gone doesn't bother me as it is a need.
    Trying to trade back to take a WR at 10-15 and gain an extra pick is too much of a risk.
    The Vikings have few great needs; i.e. WR, so the extra pick is not needed as badly as a top quality, good fit WR.

    QB - upgrade with Quinn with the 7th pick, if possible, because WRs can be found in later rounds.
    Franchise quality QBs aren't as commonplace as good quality WRs.
    Everyone knows Tom Brady, but few people can name all of the Pats {sarcasm on} PRO BOWL WRs {sarcasm off} who helped them win 3 SBs.
    :

    Passing on Quinn because Jackson is on the roster is foolish; if you have spare cash (i.e. draft pick #7), you don't turn away from an investment that can yield 12% simply because you are content with an 8% return on a stock you are currently holding.

    DE - not taking a DE at 7 simply because two prior DEs didn't pan out is a false application of probability and correlation concepts.
    The performance of DScott, EJames, and K.Udeze are largely independent of the [erformance of G.Adams, Anderson, etc.
    The Vikings odds of selecting and coaching a good DE may be better without Tice and his DL coach involved.
    Childress wasn't involved in the selection of James, Udeze and Scott.


    But, the loss of EJames and the influence of the defensive line coach are important considerations.
    Will EJames' return help, and will the DL coach be better able to apply pass rush pressure this year with the existing roster DEs?

    RB - an upgrade with APeterson at 7 makes sense if Quinn and CJohnson are gone.

    I'm unsure of whether or not taking AP at 7 with a top DE on the board means Childress feels the current DEs are adequate, or if he feels the potential improvement in the offense is more important than improving the pass rush beyond the return of EJames.

    S - Doss and TWilliams are rehabbing prior injuries.
    Nothing I've read indicated they both won't be ready to play in 2007.
    Odds are that at least one of them will recover well enough to field a good starting pair of safeties and two quality backups.


    People who claim Landry is a need because Doss and TWilliams are both questionable to return are ignoring the slim odds that both will not return to form.
    Others who claim Landry will be a star in the NFL ignore the Vikings greater need for 'stars' who play WR, and that many other players in the draft will be 'stars'; e.g. CJohnson, etc.

    Well, if that author can recycle his ideas, I can recycle mine!
    ;D



    Of course, IF you get a great WR, who adds an additional 8% in interest to the 8% that TJack is earning, you would be even MORE STUPID to spend your pick on a (very risky) 12% payday...which blocks you from concurrently earning the original 8%.

    I don't know about you, but 16% is higher than 12% everywhere I've ever lived!
    thats the truth
    ;D
    It is?

    ???

    Have you ever gone to your bank, and demanded that they pay you a 16% interest rate
    on your $200 bond investment because you just added another $100 invested in an 8% rate bond to your original $100 bond investment at 8%?
    I'd guess they'll pay you $16 interest on $200 invested, i.e. 8% return, not $32 interest on $200 invested, i.e. 16% return, and send you on your way.

    :




    yea ive gone to my bank and demanded that :

    quinn wouldnt be 12% anyway maybe 6 or 5%, because quinn is just another average quarterback that is overrated because he went to ND

    Thanks josdin00

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Vikings draft preview Part I A look at specialists
    By Marrdro in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-19-2011, 12:56 PM
  2. Vikings 2008 Draft Preview
    By singersp in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 04-10-2008, 02:06 AM
  3. Vikings Draft Preview - Roto Times
    By singersp in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-11-2007, 10:05 PM
  4. NFL.com NFC North preview...also Vikings preview
    By cajunvike in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-25-2005, 05:16 AM
  5. Draft Preview
    By PacNWVike in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-19-2003, 02:37 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
  •