Vikings Message Board.Com

This is a bit confusing to me, if this is truly the case then he'll be a top 10 pick pretty much guaranteed and no where near the 2nd rounder you project us to get him at. Even if we hadn't taken Patterson he likely wouldn't have made it to the second round even without ANY WR skills.

The ravens are willing to drop like 18 spots just to pick up a 5th rounder?

I'm kind of the scrooge mcduck of mocking in December so I probably shouldn't have said anything at all but I wouldn't get my hopes up!

Great work as usual PHP, I think Boyd has a lot of talent but he is not a real physical guy and I think we need a big physical WR. I see no way we keep Wallace and take that huge cap hit.

Husker Vike wrote:Great work as usual PHP, I think Boyd has a lot of talent but he is not a real physical guy and I think we need a big physical WR. I see no way we keep Wallace and take that huge cap hit.

I think that's why he said we would attempt to restructure Wallace. I Agree, he is pricey, but I really hope he comes back next year.

The FA might not work in the first year, but as a recent and local example, does anyone think Steve Hutchinson didn't pan out for the Vikings? OL players take time to develop not just individually but also as a team. It isn't surprising that adding one in FA might experience a down season coming out of the deal.

Above all else, what i think our OL lacks is TALENT. So IMO, if they can add a guy with significant talent in FA it might be worth some cap space. Obviously they need to find a guy who has talent for their system as well as having the right head on his shoulders. Having all those things could be expensive unless the guy is unproven on the field.

mondry wrote: This is a bit confusing to me, if this is truly the case then he'll be a top 10 pick pretty much guaranteed and no where near the 2nd rounder you project us to get him at. Even if we hadn't taken Patterson he likely wouldn't have made it to the second round even without ANY WR skills.

The ravens are willing to drop like 18 spots just to pick up a 5th rounder?

I'm kind of the scrooge mcduck of mocking in December so I probably shouldn't have said anything at all but I wouldn't get my hopes up!

Not necessarily. Boyd had a DUI arrest not too long ago which is part of the reason I have him falling out of the first.

According to the draft value chart, the points aren't that far off. Their pick would be worth anywhere from 450-510 points. By us giving them our 2nd and a 5th, that would give them around 400 points. I mean could we have given them a 4th? I suppose. I just went with a 5th instead. It doesnt make a whole lot of different because Vaitai could go anywhere from round 4 to round 6. So I could have just given Baltimore our 2nd and 4th and still taken Vaitai in the 5th I suppose

The Breeze wrote: I didn't realize he played safety....I was viewing him primarily as a linebacker. I would like to see Sendejo replaced vs re-signed if at all possible.

What on your feelings about drafting a center....even if Sully appears good to go?
I know having Berger can offset the need for another season perhaps.

Yeah Cravens is just like Deone Bucannon who was taken by the Cardinals in the 1st round this past year. He plays safety/LB and has all the versatility in the world. Cravens is the same way. Can blitz, tackle, cover, pick the ball off, etc. Zim would have some fun with this kid.

I was thinking about drafting a center but with Sully back and Berger behind him along with Easton who is a question mark, I held off

Cravens is a nice fit but most mocks have him going well before the Vikings will be on the clock. A lot can change obviously but at this stage he'll likely be taken.

I like Fuller out of ND in the receiver class. The guy is always making plays.

I don't know that we need or want Claiborne but maybe if he's cheap. Thanks for posting your mock.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

mansquatch wrote:The FA might not work in the first year, but as a recent and local example, does anyone think Steve Hutchinson didn't pan out for the Vikings? OL players take time to develop not just individually but also as a team. It isn't surprising that adding one in FA might experience a down season coming out of the deal.

Above all else, what i think our OL lacks is TALENT. So IMO, if they can add a guy with significant talent in FA it might be worth some cap space. Obviously they need to find a guy who has talent for their system as well as having the right head on his shoulders. Having all those things could be expensive unless the guy is unproven on the field.

Hutchison was arguably the best offensive lineman in the NFL at that time so it's quite different. None of these guys I mentioned above were the best lineman in the NFL. The only two high priced lineman in FA would be Osemele (LT, Baltimore) and Okung (LT, Seattle). Both of them will be resigned I would guess and even if they werent, it would be pretty stupid of us to spend a bunch of money on a left tackle.

Bottom line is, there is no one even somewhat close to a Steve Hutchinson in free agency and I have no clue who you would want to trade for. We already have big contracts invested in Sully, Fusco and Loadholt. Kalil's rookie deal isn't cheap and if we want to retain Harris this offseason (which we should), he is going to want more than what he was getting. This is why it is much better to draft. It's cheaper and provides more upside for the future vs. getting a guy to come in here thats already 27-28 and cost us 8 mill a year

S197 wrote:Cravens is a nice fit but most mocks have him going well before the Vikings will be on the clock. A lot can change obviously but at this stage he'll likely be taken.

I like Fuller out of ND in the receiver class. The guy is always making plays.

I don't know that we need or want Claiborne but maybe if he's cheap. Thanks for posting your mock.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Yeah I've seen him go as early as the top 15 and I've seen him go in the 2nd round so it's so hard to say at this point but I will be posting many more of these.

As for Claiborne, I had us letting Robinson go and you never know whats going to happen with Newman. So with Rhodes and Waynes taking the outside with Cap in the slot, Claiborne would be great depth.

It's WAY too early for this stuff...

Why is Hill going to retire when he signed a two year deal and stands to make about $3 million dollars next season?

I want no part of Claiborne and I'm guessing the Chiefs will find a way to keep Allen. If not, he's an intriguing possibility?

A 3 year contract for Harris? I hope it's cheap.

The draft ideas are interesting, although I'd be somewhat frustrated if they went with defense in R1 again. The need to improve on the o-line is beyond glaring and , as is the need to improve the downfield passing game.

Mothman wrote:It's WAY too early for this stuff...

Why is Hill going to retire when he signed a two year deal and stands to make about $3 million dollars next season?

I want no part of Claiborne and I'm guessing the Chiefs will find a way to keep Allen. If not, he's an intriguing possibility?

A 3 year contract for Harris? I hope it's cheap.

The draft ideas are interesting, although I'd be somewhat frustrated if they went with defense in R1 again. The need to improve on the o-line is beyond glaring and , as is the need to improve the downfield passing game.

Did you not see Hill's mobility vs St. Louis. The poor guy is better off in a wheelchair.

Why no part of Claiborne when you have a coach like Zim? It's not like we're bringing him in to start.

Yeah a 3 year contract for Harris. He's been arguably one of our best, most consistent lineman all season. We aren't going to pay him 8 mill a year but he sure isn't going to take what he is making now which is next to nothing.

I wouldnt be upset with a guy like Cravens in round 1 though. He is a guy that could almost fill two needs at once (SS and OLB) which are really our only two "holes" on defense.

Also, you don't need to take an offensive lineman in round 1 in order to improve the line. Garnett is a 1st team all american and should be around between rounds 2-3. He is a day 1 starter IMO. Its the same thing I said about Tre Jackson last year and he was drafted in the 3rd and starting for NE. And yeah we do need to improve the downfield passing game......hence Tyler Boyd

Pondering Her Percy wrote:Did you not see Hill's mobility vs St. Louis. The poor guy is better off in a wheelchair.

That doesn't address the question. If he's on the roster now with that lack of mobility, collecting a paycheck, why is he going to pass on a second $3+ million season and choose to retire? It's not impossible but I doubt it will happen unless the Vikes force his hand by cutting him.

Why no part of Claiborne when you have a coach like Zim? It's not like we're bringing him in to start.

I don't like his injury history.

Yeah a 3 year contract for Harris. He's been arguably one of our best, most consistent lineman all season. We aren't going to pay him 8 mill a year but he sure isn't going to take what he is making now which is next to nothing.

He's been adequate at best and I'm tired of "adequate" at guard. If he wants to take backup money to be a utility player on the OL, fine but I'll be disappointed if they pay him to start for the next 3 years.

Also, you don't need to take an offensive lineman in round 1 in order to improve the line.

I didn't say it was necessary to take an offensive lineman in round 1 in order to improve the line ...

Garnett is a 1st team all american and should be around between rounds 2-3. He is a day 1 starter IMO. Its the same thing I said about Tre Jackson last year and he was drafted in the 3rd and starting for NE. And yeah we do need to improve the downfield passing game......hence Tyler Boyd

What's confusing you? I was specifically referring to the first round.

Pondering Her Percy wrote: Yeah I've seen him go as early as the top 15 and I've seen him go in the 2nd round so it's so hard to say at this point but I will be posting many more of these.

As for Claiborne, I had us letting Robinson go and you never know whats going to happen with Newman. So with Rhodes and Waynes taking the outside with Cap in the slot, Claiborne would be great depth.

He would be good depth but is he in a position where he would be willing to be a backup? I haven't followed him all that closely. He is a taller DB than Robinson, which Zimmer seems to like.

i'm fine with moving on from sullivan and loadholt. their injury histories, ages and salaries aren't a good combination. cut them along with hill, then restructure wallace and you probably get 20 mil in cap space. use that to go get an andre smith from the bengals to take over at right tackle, and alex boone from the 49ers to take one of the guard spots. no more wishing and hoping that diamond in the rough free agents or late round picks can fix the o line. get some talent like the cards did last offseason with they signed iupati and jared valdheer. definitely keep harris and along with clemmings they would give us two great backup options capable of playing multiple positions if needed. only question would be center where we use berger one more year, along with drafting one to develop somewhere in rds 3 or 4 of the draft.

Mothman wrote:
That doesn't address the question. If he's on the roster now with that lack of mobility, collecting a paycheck, why is he going to pass on a second $3+ million season and choose to retire? It's not impossible but I doubt it will happen unless the Vikes force his hand by cutting him.

Steve Smith was ready to retire after this season and he still had another year left on his contract. Even though he just decided to come back next year, why does it matter if he has a year left on his contract or not?? Guys can retire before their contract is up.

I don't like his injury history.

Hence the "one year deal" next to his name. Jeff Allen has just as much of an injury history as Claiborne does and you said Allen would be intriguing. So that doesnt really add up. Like I said, its not like we're signing him to some huge deal. It's a one year prove it contract that has a lot of upside under Zim.

He's been adequate at best and I'm tired of "adequate" at guard. If he wants to take backup money to be a utility player on the OL, fine but I'll be disappointed if they pay him to start for the next 3 years.

I'm not sure what Mike Harris you've been watching but it sure isn't #79 for the Vikings. He's graded out positive according to PFF almost every week this year. After the first 2 weeks of the season he had a +4.0 rating overall. He received a +3.6 overall vs. the Raiders. St. Louis he was a +4.4 overall. Chicago he was a +4.6. A +3.7 overall grade vs. the Giants. Not only has he graded out positively all year but he's been getting the best overall grades on the entire team 4 different weeks.

This is a quote directly from PFF......

If you’d have said that Michael Harris would be the best performer on the Vikings’ line this year, you likely would have received many a quizzical look. His transition to guard has been a roaring success.

So if you like PFF or not, bottom line is, he's played very well this year and has been arguably our best lineman. To say he's been "adequate at best" is simply false. With the way he's been playing, he should be getting paid for the next 3 years and I hope its by us. Taking backup money shouldn't even be in consideration at this point.

I didn't say it was necessary to take an offensive lineman in round 1 in order to improve the line ...

Well it sure seems like you're implying that.

What's confusing you? I was specifically referring to the first round.

And Boyd could still easily fill that void in the second round is what I am saying.