mondry wrote:Personally I don't like the idea of mediocre veteran's as the backup QB. I'd rather have a young guy with some upside because realistically if Teddy's your guy and he goes down, how likely is it that a Shaun Hill keeps your superbowl run going? Maybe it's just me but I'd rather the #2 QB be like a 3rd round pick and just develop 2 QB's (him and Teddy) at the same time. That way if Teddy some how isn't the guy, you're not starting over another 3+ year long development process. If he gets hurt then you have another talented QB, if he doesn't then worst case scenario (aside from the guy busting) is that Teddy works out and you trade him for a first rounder to some team like the 49er's.
I figured that guy was Taylor Heinecke, at least for the coming year. The guy looked like a nice developmental prospect in the preseason. I doubt we want him starting this year, but lets see what he gives us in year three. If he's not good enough to be the primary backup by then, we should be drafting another young guy, regardless of how Teddy is turning out (although I don't think we need to go high draft choice unless the QB position is a catastrophe).
We wouldn't have the draft ammo to get a top ranked QB unless our QB position was a catastrophe, and we were drafting in the top 5 or so.
The Breeze wrote:@John
Just to clarify, my comment on talent evaluation was specifically regarding QB and O-line.
We're in agreement on that. It definitely is a question.
I can name a few scenarios for our success on the defensive side of the ball.
* Spielman and Zimmer can really spot defensive talent
* Zimmer and the staff can really coach up players who wouldn't otherwise be so good
* We just got lucky
* The players aren't that good, and they'll be exposed as such as their careers continue
I really don't mind if it's any combination of the first three, although the success will continue if it wasn't the third or fourth reason.
@John
I think one of the things Spielman does well is spot the athletic guy....maybe not the most fundamentally sound, but the guy with crazy potential. Then he's not afraid to pull the trigger. It looks as though Zimmer's real knack is getting that guy to love the game and play fundamentally sound, along with recognizing what guy will work out.
I'm really hoping the new offensive hires will provide Spielman with something similar on the other side of the ball.
Superbowl winning QB Peyton Manning 13/23 for 141 yards 0 TD's 1 int and 2 fumbles. 1/14 on third down (7% conversion rate) 5 sacks taken
Runner up Cam Newton 18/41 for 265 yards, 0 TD's, 1 INT and 2 fumbles. 3/15 on 3rd down (20% conversation rate) 7 sacks taken.
I know we talked about improving the O-line and maybe bringing some more weapons in for Teddy but honestly we should just use another full draft and FA on defense because after all, defenses win championships, not passing TD's of which there were ZERO in the superbowl.
mondry wrote:Superbowl winning QB Peyton Manning 13/23 for 141 yards 0 TD's 1 int and 2 fumbles. 1/14 on third down (7% conversion rate) 5 sacks taken
Runner up Cam Newton 18/41 for 265 yards, 0 TD's, 1 INT and 2 fumbles. 3/15 on 3rd down (20% conversation rate) 7 sacks taken.
I know we talked about improving the O-line and maybe bringing some more weapons in for Teddy but honestly we should just use another full draft and FA on defense because after all, defenses win championships, not passing TD's of which there were ZERO in the superbowl.
This is a defense favored league.
What do you think I have been trying to tell people here for the last few months. A top 5 QB may get you to the playoffs, but a top 5 defense with a QB between 5-12 will get you to the Super Bowl.
Vikings fan since Nov. 6, 1966. Annoying Packer fans since Nov. 7, 1966
Raptorman wrote:
What do you think I have been trying to tell people here for the last few months. A top 5 QB may get you to the playoffs, but a top 5 defense with a QB between 5-12 will get you to the Super Bowl.
I sat at work one night bored out of my mind, looking up the super bowl contestants over the last 49 super bowls, the winners had some absurd 75% or so being at least a top 10 defense, like 50% of those have been in the top 5. The losers have also had high ranked defenses. Something along those lines. Another #1 ranked defense won the super bowl on sunday. Vs the leagues top scoring offense.
Its no secret and what has me optimistic about the future, having one of the best defensive minds in the game as our head coach. A guy who adapts his schemes on a gameday basis and adjusts to the league is an asset we haven't had in a while
Raptorman wrote:What do you think I have been trying to tell people here for the last few months. A top 5 QB may get you to the playoffs, but a top 5 defense with a QB between 5-12 will get you to the Super Bowl.
It certainly can... did anybody actually disagree with that? I don't remember.
The Vikes don't have either by the league's default measures (yardage) but they DO have a top 5 defense in terms of scoring and it's young enough that we should feel encouraged about it going forward.
As for the QB... let's hope he can get into that top 12.
mondry wrote:I know we talked about improving the O-line and maybe bringing some more weapons in for Teddy but honestly we should just use another full draft and FA on defense because after all, defenses win championships, not passing TD's of which there were ZERO in the superbowl.
Better o-line play/blocking can sure help though, especially since the best counterpunch to a defense with a ferocious pass rush is a power running game.
Mothman wrote:
It certainly can... did anybody actually disagree with that? I don't remember.
The Vikes don't have either by the league's default measures (yardage) but they DO have a top 5 defense in terms of scoring and it's young enough that we should feel encouraged about it going forward.
As for the QB... let's hope he can get into that top 12.
I mean. empirically speaking Both QBs just proved you can play like #### and win a superbowl. the Broncos proved you can do so with mostly mediocre play all year at the position. I doubt you could consider the games played by Cam and Peyton as top 20 or even 25 performances yesterday
IrishViking wrote:I mean. empirically speaking Both QBs just proved you can play like #### and win a superbowl. the Broncos proved you can do so with mostly mediocre play all year at the position. I doubt you could consider the games played by Cam and Peyton as top 20 or even 25 performances yesterday
No, they weren't top 20 or 25 performances but we already knew a team doesn't need that sort of performance from their QB in the Super Bowl to win it. It's one game and there are lots of ways to win one game.
We also know a team can win the Super Bowl with mostly mediocre play from their QB during the season. It's been done. There are different of ways to win it all.
Mothman wrote:
It certainly can... did anybody actually disagree with that? I don't remember.
The Vikes don't have either by the league's default measures (yardage) but they DO have a top 5 defense in terms of scoring and it's young enough that we should feel encouraged about it going forward.
As for the QB... let's hope he can get into that top 12.
Disagree, no, not really. Most people have just ignored while calling for a QB that throws for 4,000 yards and 40 tds a year. It's the defense that wins you the Super Bowl. That has been proven time and time again.
Vikings fan since Nov. 6, 1966. Annoying Packer fans since Nov. 7, 1966
Raptorman wrote:As for the QB... let's hope he can get into that top 12.
Disagree, no, not really. Most people have just ignored while calling for a QB that throws for 4,000 yards and 40 tds a year. It's the defense that wins you the Super Bowl. That has been proven time and time again.[/quote]
I understand the thinking but it seems to me that what's been proven most definitively is the team that plays the best game wins the Super Bowl. I'd say it's been true 50 out of 50 times. Sometimes they win on the strength of a dominant defensive performance, sometimes on the strength of a dominant offensive performance. Sometimes, they just play well enough on both sides of the ball or special teams ends up being the difference. There are lots of ways to win it all and playing great defense is just one of them.
I think the point Jim made about it being one game is succinct.
It may be more correct to suggest a strong defense is a big component to getting you to that final game...and occasionally it can win it for you. But most often both teams have a solid defenses and it just comes down to who plays better on that day. Sometimes both stout defenses get blown up, like when the Harbaugh bowl happened.
I don't think it's a winning formula to put all your eggs in one basket in any sense.
TB has got to improve if he is going to ever expect to hoist the Lombardi. The same can be said for Zimmer....he ain't ready yet IMO. His defense plays great..they're good enough to get you there IMO, but you have to be able to get into the endzone to seal the deal. That doesn't mean you need the #1 offense...it means you have to find a way when it matters, regardless of what defense you're up against.
Peyton Manning is no slouch.....poetic he closes his career winning a superbowl as a game manager with a dominant defense after years of mostly coming up short with explosive offenses and no D. He showed huge adaptability and humility this season.
Hopefully the Vikes can get this offense rolling so as not to waste whatthey have going on D.
But seriously rankings don't win superbowls.....coaches and players do. The more you can do, the better your chances.
Sometimes they win on the strength of a dominant defensive performance, sometimes on the strength of a dominant offensive performance. Sometimes, they just play well enough on both sides of the ball or special teams ends up being the difference. There are lots of ways to win it all and playing great defense is just one of them.