Thread: Vikings sign free agent OT Charlie Johnson

Originally Posted by "midgensa" #1102411

Cook is too versatile to let go. Not great at anything, not really even good at anything, but average at a lot of O-line spots.

This Johnson signing is very good due to the injury situations and age situations on our line. Johnson will likely be a starter I think when the season starts, assuming Herrera is not ready to go.

But depth on the OL is NEVER a bad thing.

I imagine the starting line at this point will be McKinnie, Hutch, Sully, Loadholt and Johnson.

Damn fine post. I've heard on 3 different discussions that Herrera might not be 100%, two of which were by people quoting Anthony.

My guess, this guy is insurance in case Anthony isn't ready to go.

Originally Posted by "MulletMullitia" #1102417

Originally Posted by "midgensa" #1102411

Cook is too versatile to let go. Not great at anything, not really even good at anything, but average at a lot of O-line spots.

This Johnson signing is very good due to the injury situations and age situations on our line. Johnson will likely be a starter I think when the season starts, assuming Herrera is not ready to go.

But depth on the OL is NEVER a bad thing.

I imagine the starting line at this point will be McKinnie, Hutch, Sully, Loadholt and Johnson.

He is the worst player on the team. I'm praying we won't re-sign him. As for Johnson, he is definitely going to start. He is heads and shoulders better than Herrera. And we will pay him as such. We didn't sign him to be a backup to anyone.

I think you are only looking back at his production when he was put out there at RT (when he shouldn't have been).

Cat has been money as a backup for the last 2 years.

Again, not a good starter, but damn valuable as a backup IMHO.

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1102430

Originally Posted by "midgensa" #1102411

Cook is too versatile to let go. Not great at anything, not really even good at anything, but average at a lot of O-line spots.

This Johnson signing is very good due to the injury situations and age situations on our line. Johnson will likely be a starter I think when the season starts, assuming Herrera is not ready to go.

But depth on the OL is NEVER a bad thing.

I imagine the starting line at this point will be McKinnie, Hutch, Sully, Loadholt and Johnson.

Damn fine post. I've heard on 3 different discussions that Herrera might not be 100%, two of which were by people quoting Anthony.

My guess, this guy is insurance in case Anthony isn't ready to go.

Actually ... in looking into it ... I almost sure that Johnson is going to start. But having Johnson, Herrera and Hutch healthy will mean we are good at guard. Which is a good thing.

Of course, they could just be keeping him at tackle and trying to motivate Load and McK.

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1102423

Originally Posted by "MulletMullitia" #1102407

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1102404

Originally Posted by "MulletMullitia" #1102396

Looks like we have our starting guard! And he's been Peyton's starting LT for 6 seasons. I've lived in Indianapolis my whole life. I've seen this guy play a lot. Definitely will be a better guard than we was a tackle. This is a great move.

Thanks for the read/update my friend.

I wonder though, is this guy gonna come in and start or is he a insurance policy if Herrera can't go?

On a side note, anyone see anything about Cook signing his tender?

:sick: Please tell me this isn't true. I'm going to be sick. I thought signing Johnson would mean no more Cook.

And as far as the insurance policy, there is no way. He will be the starter for sure at guard. Peyton Manning called him the #1 priority for the Colts this FA. I'm guessing we are paying him a lot.

You might be right. On a side note, you don't think that Cook played well last year (at 3 postitions)?

Is he starting caliber? I don't think so, but he sure provided much needed depth last year and didn't do a bad job doing it either.

Whether he is a starter or a backup I have a fairly simple test that I use to determine whether a player like Cook is a value to us or not.

If he has to come in and play, he will be facing the likes of Nick Fairley, Suh, Raji. Matthews,Peppers, Okoye, Idonije etc just in our division.

Now, whether it is protecting the latest washed up QB the team has brought in or our QB of the possible future are you satisfied enough with his performance to put their careers in his hands?

I am not and believe there are going to be several other OL available that would be more trustworthy than he is.

Originally Posted by "midgensa" #1102433

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1102430

Originally Posted by "midgensa" #1102411

Cook is too versatile to let go. Not great at anything, not really even good at anything, but average at a lot of O-line spots.

This Johnson signing is very good due to the injury situations and age situations on our line. Johnson will likely be a starter I think when the season starts, assuming Herrera is not ready to go.

But depth on the OL is NEVER a bad thing.

I imagine the starting line at this point will be McKinnie, Hutch, Sully, Loadholt and Johnson.

Damn fine post. I've heard on 3 different discussions that Herrera might not be 100%, two of which were by people quoting Anthony.

My guess, this guy is insurance in case Anthony isn't ready to go.

Actually ... in looking into it ... I almost sure that Johnson is going to start. But having Johnson, Herrera and Hutch healthy will mean we are good at guard. Which is a good thing.

Of course, they could just be keeping him at tackle and trying to motivate Load and McK.

Again, good stuff.

I don't think you have to motivate Load. I think last year was nothing more than people had tape on him (experience will over come that) mixed in with changes at RG all the time.

If it came down to Herrera and Cook, I think I'd rather have Cook. Herrera didn't do to well filling in as the C and I don't think he can play LG like Cook can.

As you said, its good thing to have depth. Maybe they can figure out how to keep them all.

@TomPelissero: Charlie Johnson signed a three-year deal with the #Vikings, per an NFL source. Likely to get a look at tackle and guard.

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1102438

If it came down to Herrera and Cook, I think I'd rather have Cook. Herrera didn't do to well filling in as the C and I don't think he can play LG like Cook can.

Wait a minute. For a second it almost looked like you said that you would keep Cook over Herrera. Naaah, that can't be right because no sane fan who has ever watched a Vikings game could ever come to that conclusion.

Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1102443

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1102438

If it came down to Herrera and Cook, I think I'd rather have Cook. Herrera didn't do to well filling in as the C and I don't think he can play LG like Cook can.

Wait a minute. For a second it almost looked like you said that you would keep Cook over Herrera. Naaah, that can't be right because no sane fan who has ever watched a Vikings game could ever come to that conclusion.

Lol post of the year. Which makes up for your worst post of the year saying you'd rather have Chilly back than start McNabb :laugh:

I know this is totally irrelevant to real football. BUT, if you move Charlie Johnson from Tackle to Guard on Madden, he goes from 81 to 85. Yeah buddy! :laugh: (Cook is a 72, and Herrera is a 73)

Originally Posted by "MulletMullitia" #1102445

Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1102443

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1102438

If it came down to Herrera and Cook, I think I'd rather have Cook. Herrera didn't do to well filling in as the C and I don't think he can play LG like Cook can.

Wait a minute. For a second it almost looked like you said that you would keep Cook over Herrera. Naaah, that can't be right because no sane fan who has ever watched a Vikings game could ever come to that conclusion.

Lol post of the year. Which makes up for your worst post of the year saying you'd rather have Chilly back than start McNabb :laugh:

I was merely trying to put the amount of dislike for him in the proper perspective.