Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 74 of 74
  1. #71
    bleedpurple is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,955

    Re: Vikings Nab Best UDFA Class - Signees are talented

    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "kevoncox" wrote:
    Again i think it's a mismatch of terminology. When I say a # 1 Wr I am talking about talent level.
    I am talking about a WR with prototypical size(6-2. 212lbs) and speed Sub (4.5 forty). Above average leaping ability and great hands.

    It sounds like you guys are talking about positiong on the field, i.e. Who is the flanker, SE and who runs what routes. Like I said,, the eagles ran a WCO and still had a legitamite # 1 WR. I'm not calling TO the Eagles # 1 Wr( i.e SE) I am saying his has legitamite #1 WR talent. I think this is the disconnect.
    Now we are getting someplace.
    ;D
    add to that a guy who can command double coverage consistently and provide relief to a running game.. someone teams at least mildly have to game plan for and attention to him opens things up for other receivers and we have a winner!!!!

  2. #72
    Chazz is offline Coordinator
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    782

    Re: Vikings Nab Best UDFA Class - Signees are talented

    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "Chazz" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "Chazz" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    [quote author=Chazz link=topic=44729.msg777680#msg777680 date=1210559266]
    [quote author=Marrdro link=topic=44729.msg777411#msg777411 date=1210471410]
    [quote author=kevoncox link=topic=44729.msg777387#msg777387 date=1210467418]
    Glad you asked....
    A pass catching TE - Will you bet you life that Shank is the 32nd best TE in this league? I believe some teams have a backup better than him. We need a TE and Eric Johnson is said TE. Shank has been costing teams games since his days on the Giants. He's thrash!
    I probably wouldn't state my life on it (seriously) but I would bet that he is better than the 32nd best TE in the league.

    He was ranked 33rd by this guy (I like how he breaks stuff down better than the ESPN/NFL sites) and according to most casual fans, he had a bad year last year.



    By the way, your boy Johnson wasn't much better.
    26th and 28th.
    ;D

    http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/te.php


    A solid # 1 WR - We have a lot of questions marks. BB is idealy a # 2. He might transform into a # 1 but so far he's a # 2. Rice looks like he has the skills to be good. However, he only had 344 yrds. That's a far cry from Micheal Clayton's 1000 yard rookie season a few years back and he's a bust. We addressed it in FA and UDF but really none of the guys we brought in are # 1's. We have a guy tha played in the FCS and didn't break a 1000 yards receiving. I believe his stats were 700 yrd and 7 tds! WTF is that? he other WR we brought in is more of a RB than a WR. He has always been looked a tthat way and While he is talented, He would be looking to take he 3rd or 4th WR spot. Instead of Johnson, I owuld have wished we took Sweed in the 2nd and trade a 2nd next year and 6th to take take Johnson. I know this opinion is not very popular as everyon thinks AA and BW are greak gods and will be unstopable next year
    :.
    Why do you get so wrapped around the axel on the whole outdated #1, #2 #3 WR thing.
    How many times do I have to show you that it really doesn't apply in a WCO?

    Quick question (I think I've asked you this before).
    Who is the #1 WR on the Pats?

    I think you may of heard of him. Randy Moss.

    :-X
    What is your definition of a "True Number One" WR?
    Seems to me it varies alot on here.

    Is it your go to guy you throw to when you need a first down?
    Is it your leader in Catches?

    Problem is, you can't define the WR role that way in the WCO.

    Randy is the deep threat who stretches the field.

    Welker is the go to guy that you use to move the chains.
    The others are the intermediate guys that exploit the seems and middle stuff.

    Again, who is the #1 for the Pats. Depending on the situation I bet Mr. Brady would say that his number one guy he looks for when he needs to convert a third down, it isn't Randy.
    The #1 WR is the guy the QB looks for when the chips are down and they desperately need to move the chains.

    As to who Brady looks for when he needs a first down....that would depend on the situation. Case in point...when everything was going good, he played within the offense and read coverages and exploited weeknesses. When the chips were down(Giants, Ravens, Philly), you seen Brady start throwning it up for Moss...get the eventual connection that lead to a win.

    Cutler has said that it is necessary to have a #1 guy; a goto guy. Remember when Denver played in KC some 10 years ago? Elway called the play to Sharpe, because he was his #1 guy.

    To say that Moss isn't the #1 guy in NE is a bit ridiculous.
    So your saying that the #1 reciever is situationally depended based on what the down and distance is and what the defense shows.

    And then you say that Moss is the Number 1.
    What if they need 3 yards to move the chains and the defense is in an all out blitz?
    Does Brady wait for his #1 option to be Moss to sprint down the field or does he throw it to his #1 guy Welker as he runs a quick slant?

    Basically, no one is saying Randy isn't the #1 and no one is saying that Welker isn't the number one.
    We are saying it is ridiculous to use the term #1 in a WCO because there is no true #1 WR in that style of offense.

    [/quote]


    Yeah... you're right, teams would never work their offense around there best player. :
    I'm sure no team ever taylor's their passes to their best (#1) WR. I know Philly NEVER worked their offense around TO.
    [/quote]
    You completely missed the point.

    :'(
    [/quote]

    Then you are obviously arguing just for the sake of doing it.

  3. #73
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,935

    Re: Vikings Nab Best UDFA Class - Signees are talented

    "Chazz" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "Chazz" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "Chazz" wrote:
    [quote author=Marrdro link=topic=44729.msg777760#msg777760 date=1210592989]
    [quote author=Chazz link=topic=44729.msg777680#msg777680 date=1210559266]
    [quote author=Marrdro link=topic=44729.msg777411#msg777411 date=1210471410]
    [quote author=kevoncox link=topic=44729.msg777387#msg777387 date=1210467418]
    Glad you asked....
    A pass catching TE - Will you bet you life that Shank is the 32nd best TE in this league? I believe some teams have a backup better than him. We need a TE and Eric Johnson is said TE. Shank has been costing teams games since his days on the Giants. He's thrash!
    I probably wouldn't state my life on it (seriously) but I would bet that he is better than the 32nd best TE in the league.

    He was ranked 33rd by this guy (I like how he breaks stuff down better than the ESPN/NFL sites) and according to most casual fans, he had a bad year last year.



    By the way, your boy Johnson wasn't much better.
    26th and 28th.
    ;D

    http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/te.php


    A solid # 1 WR - We have a lot of questions marks. BB is idealy a # 2. He might transform into a # 1 but so far he's a # 2. Rice looks like he has the skills to be good. However, he only had 344 yrds. That's a far cry from Micheal Clayton's 1000 yard rookie season a few years back and he's a bust. We addressed it in FA and UDF but really none of the guys we brought in are # 1's. We have a guy tha played in the FCS and didn't break a 1000 yards receiving. I believe his stats were 700 yrd and 7 tds! WTF is that? he other WR we brought in is more of a RB than a WR. He has always been looked a tthat way and While he is talented, He would be looking to take he 3rd or 4th WR spot. Instead of Johnson, I owuld have wished we took Sweed in the 2nd and trade a 2nd next year and 6th to take take Johnson. I know this opinion is not very popular as everyon thinks AA and BW are greak gods and will be unstopable next year
    :.
    Why do you get so wrapped around the axel on the whole outdated #1, #2 #3 WR thing.
    How many times do I have to show you that it really doesn't apply in a WCO?

    Quick question (I think I've asked you this before).
    Who is the #1 WR on the Pats?

    I think you may of heard of him. Randy Moss.

    :-X
    What is your definition of a "True Number One" WR?
    Seems to me it varies alot on here.

    Is it your go to guy you throw to when you need a first down?
    Is it your leader in Catches?

    Problem is, you can't define the WR role that way in the WCO.

    Randy is the deep threat who stretches the field.

    Welker is the go to guy that you use to move the chains.
    The others are the intermediate guys that exploit the seems and middle stuff.

    Again, who is the #1 for the Pats. Depending on the situation I bet Mr. Brady would say that his number one guy he looks for when he needs to convert a third down, it isn't Randy.
    The #1 WR is the guy the QB looks for when the chips are down and they desperately need to move the chains.

    As to who Brady looks for when he needs a first down....that would depend on the situation. Case in point...when everything was going good, he played within the offense and read coverages and exploited weeknesses. When the chips were down(Giants, Ravens, Philly), you seen Brady start throwning it up for Moss...get the eventual connection that lead to a win.

    Cutler has said that it is necessary to have a #1 guy; a goto guy. Remember when Denver played in KC some 10 years ago? Elway called the play to Sharpe, because he was his #1 guy.

    To say that Moss isn't the #1 guy in NE is a bit ridiculous.
    So your saying that the #1 reciever is situationally depended based on what the down and distance is and what the defense shows.

    And then you say that Moss is the Number 1.
    What if they need 3 yards to move the chains and the defense is in an all out blitz?
    Does Brady wait for his #1 option to be Moss to sprint down the field or does he throw it to his #1 guy Welker as he runs a quick slant?

    Basically, no one is saying Randy isn't the #1 and no one is saying that Welker isn't the number one.
    We are saying it is ridiculous to use the term #1 in a WCO because there is no true #1 WR in that style of offense.

    [/quote]


    Yeah... you're right, teams would never work their offense around there best player. :
    I'm sure no team ever taylor's their passes to their best (#1) WR. I know Philly NEVER worked their offense around TO.
    [/quote]
    You completely missed the point.

    :'(
    [/quote]

    Then you are obviously arguing just for the sake of doing it.
    [/quote]
    Sometimes I do that, but this isn't one of them.
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  4. #74
    bleedpurple is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,955

    Re: Vikings Nab Best UDFA Class - Signees are talented

    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "Chazz" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "Chazz" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    [quote author=Chazz link=topic=44729.msg777996#msg777996 date=1210623950]
    [quote author=Marrdro link=topic=44729.msg777760#msg777760 date=1210592989]
    [quote author=Chazz link=topic=44729.msg777680#msg777680 date=1210559266]
    [quote author=Marrdro link=topic=44729.msg777411#msg777411 date=1210471410]
    [quote author=kevoncox link=topic=44729.msg777387#msg777387 date=1210467418]
    Glad you asked....
    A pass catching TE - Will you bet you life that Shank is the 32nd best TE in this league? I believe some teams have a backup better than him. We need a TE and Eric Johnson is said TE. Shank has been costing teams games since his days on the Giants. He's thrash!
    I probably wouldn't state my life on it (seriously) but I would bet that he is better than the 32nd best TE in the league.

    He was ranked 33rd by this guy (I like how he breaks stuff down better than the ESPN/NFL sites) and according to most casual fans, he had a bad year last year.


    By the way, your boy Johnson wasn't much better.
    26th and 28th.
    ;D

    http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/te.php


    A solid # 1 WR - We have a lot of questions marks. BB is idealy a # 2. He might transform into a # 1 but so far he's a # 2. Rice looks like he has the skills to be good. However, he only had 344 yrds. That's a far cry from Micheal Clayton's 1000 yard rookie season a few years back and he's a bust. We addressed it in FA and UDF but really none of the guys we brought in are # 1's. We have a guy tha played in the FCS and didn't break a 1000 yards receiving. I believe his stats were 700 yrd and 7 tds! WTF is that? he other WR we brought in is more of a RB than a WR. He has always been looked a tthat way and While he is talented, He would be looking to take he 3rd or 4th WR spot. Instead of Johnson, I owuld have wished we took Sweed in the 2nd and trade a 2nd next year and 6th to take take Johnson. I know this opinion is not very popular as everyon thinks AA and BW are greak gods and will be unstopable next year
    :.
    Why do you get so wrapped around the axel on the whole outdated #1, #2 #3 WR thing.
    How many times do I have to show you that it really doesn't apply in a WCO?

    Quick question (I think I've asked you this before).
    Who is the #1 WR on the Pats?

    I think you may of heard of him. Randy Moss.
    :-X
    What is your definition of a "True Number One" WR?
    Seems to me it varies alot on here.

    Is it your go to guy you throw to when you need a first down?
    Is it your leader in Catches?

    Problem is, you can't define the WR role that way in the WCO.

    Randy is the deep threat who stretches the field.
    Welker is the go to guy that you use to move the chains.
    The others are the intermediate guys that exploit the seems and middle stuff.

    Again, who is the #1 for the Pats. Depending on the situation I bet Mr. Brady would say that his number one guy he looks for when he needs to convert a third down, it isn't Randy.
    The #1 WR is the guy the QB looks for when the chips are down and they desperately need to move the chains.

    As to who Brady looks for when he needs a first down....that would depend on the situation. Case in point...when everything was going good, he played within the offense and read coverages and exploited weeknesses. When the chips were down(Giants, Ravens, Philly), you seen Brady start throwning it up for Moss...get the eventual connection that lead to a win.

    Cutler has said that it is necessary to have a #1 guy; a goto guy. Remember when Denver played in KC some 10 years ago? Elway called the play to Sharpe, because he was his #1 guy.

    To say that Moss isn't the #1 guy in NE is a bit ridiculous.
    So your saying that the #1 reciever is situationally depended based on what the down and distance is and what the defense shows.

    And then you say that Moss is the Number 1.
    What if they need 3 yards to move the chains and the defense is in an all out blitz?
    Does Brady wait for his #1 option to be Moss to sprint down the field or does he throw it to his #1 guy Welker as he runs a quick slant?

    Basically, no one is saying Randy isn't the #1 and no one is saying that Welker isn't the number one.
    We are saying it is ridiculous to use the term #1 in a WCO because there is no true #1 WR in that style of offense.

    [/quote]


    Yeah... you're right, teams would never work their offense around there best player. :
    I'm sure no team ever taylor's their passes to their best (#1) WR. I know Philly NEVER worked their offense around TO.
    [/quote]
    You completely missed the point.
    :'(
    [/quote]

    Then you are obviously arguing just for the sake of doing it.
    [/quote]
    Sometimes I do that, but this isn't one of them.
    [/quote]

    LMAO!!! hilarious!!!

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678

Similar Threads

  1. Look how talented Peterson is!
    By VikesFanInNC in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-02-2007, 04:35 PM
  2. Vikings sign UDFA Jimmy Terwilliger QB----sleeper signing look at this resume
    By Salzy in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 05-06-2007, 04:32 PM
  3. Vikings UDFA
    By Garland Greene in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 82
    Last Post: 05-04-2007, 05:43 PM
  4. talented packers? what a joke
    By Alharrissuks91 in forum Trash the Pack
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-04-2006, 07:51 PM
  5. Anyone talented at blending pictures?
    By vikingschic18 in forum Help / Suggestion Box
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-03-2006, 04:50 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
  •