Vikings Message Board.Com

Firstly, I have not read the previous 15 pages of this topic, only the last points on pg. 15. Seeing Cassel's name again is odd, I haven't thought of him in a while. Having said that, and after reading a bit, I see that forum brothers see Cassel as 1. the backup, 2. barely a competent backup, 3. the injured starter.

So, is it a done deal, Cassel is the backup going into next year, not the starter? I believe I saw a quote where Zimmer stated this is "Bridgewater's team," or am I wrong?

Addendum: We would have all known just how Matt Cassel could/could not have truly led this team, but his early injury forced the team to see what TB can do. That's fine, and TB is progressing, and I sure hope he gets those high balls down soon. Those receivers are finally getting separation!

Addendum II: I'm for any quarterback who can truly lead this team and deliver TDs, not fgs. Go VIKES!

...wisdom ?

Pondering Her Percy wrote: I've been saying the same thing. Trust me, some just don't understand. The only examples anyone can find are Favre/Rodgers and Montana/Young which are completely different situations. Neither Favre nor Montana were young and needed to be replaced sooner rather than later. We have a guy that's played 9 games and is showing great progress yet, we're having first round QB talk??

I'm willing to bet my house that the Vikings don't touch a QB in round 1 or 2. Even 3 for that matter. And in turn, it will be for the better because 1.) it's not needed that early and 2.) we will be able to the fill HOLES that we need to. That's how confident I am. Any takers?

Wow, this site is really running slow for me today, wondering if they are doing back-ups. I would be surprised if they looked at a QB any earlier then Rd. 5.

PurpleKoolaid wrote: Wow, this site is really running slow for me today, wondering if they are doing back-ups. I would be surprised if they looked at a QB any earlier then Rd. 5.

Nope, nothing going on. GoDaddy might be having problems but it's loading fine for me.

Purple bruise wrote: I have posted the same thing that only time will tell. I have also said that I like TB and have seen him improve vastly as the year has progressed and I am in his corner and hopeful that he can lead this team.
I did apparently misspoke (according to some) when I stated my opinion that If Mr. Oregon somehow came available and the Vikes could draft him then I would be all for that. I think TB can be a good QB but I see star qualities in mr. Oregon that far exceeds what I see in TB.
Here is hoping for TB's continued improvement and as far as Mr. Oregon there is not a snopwball's chance in hell that he gets past the first 5-10 picks.

I do believe last year around this time we were all saying the same things about Teddy Bridgewater. Including the snowballs chance in hell comments.

PurpleKoolaid wrote:Ah, I wasn't trying to be snarky, now that I have re-read it again, I agree with you. I don't understand what some of the others are saying. I cant remember the last time I saw a team draft a QB in the first round, that showed progress, and at times greatness, the more he played, and then the same team drafts another QB right away the next year. When the previous drafted QB isn't hurt. We certainly have to develop one, since hopefully #7 is gone, but Im sure Cassel is back. Maybe spend a little money on McCoy or Cousins. Something like that. But for heavens sake, we don't go first rd. back to back QBs. No one even knows what the Duck's QB would look like in the pro's. Its kind funny, those here thinking Mariota should be drafted, are the same people saying we should stick with Ponder the longest, and the last thing they wanted to see was a read option QB.

It happens. Just caught off guard is all. No worries.

I think a few important points are getting lost in all this talk about how other NFL teams do things, how what SF did with Young and Montana or what GB did with Favre and Rodgers is different because it involved aging QBs, etc.:

— The decline of an aging veteran is far from the only scenario in which a team may want to permanently replace an incumbent starter. Since the Vikings just did that with a young player, and had to do it after Culpepper suffered a potentially career-ending injury in 2005, that should be abundantly clear to most Vikings fans.

— It makes sense to spend a first round pick on an extremely talented QB, whether a team needs him immediately or not. GB hit the jackpot when they seized the opportunity to draft Rodgers because they were willing to take advantage of it instead of passing on him because they didn't need a QB and they could have filled a more immediate need in R1. As we've seen with Rodgers, Adrian Peterson, Randy Moss, etc. sometimes it's beneficial to take a really talented player who falls in your lap whether you need help at his position or not.

— My overall point here is about opportunity, preparation and flexibility, not immediate need. It's a point about draft and team-building philosophy.

— I think teams and fans alike are still adjusting to ramifications of the rookie salary cap and I'm not sure everyone fully realizes what a game-changer that cap, and the rule giving teams a fifth year option on first round draft pick contracts, can be for a team that's willing to take advantage of it. Prior to that cap, a first round rookie QB was going to make so much money that the thought of spending another first round pick on the same position was wholly impractical, for financial reasons alone. That's no longer the case and the ability to keep a rookie for his first 4-5 years in the league means a team now has the flexibility to think outside the box and stock up on top talent at that position IF (and only if) the right circumstances arise. Personally, I'd define those circumstances as: a player whose talent is too good to pass up, a spot in the early rounds that would make the contract manageable for the team, and a need to build quality depth at the position.

None of that means a team in the Vikes current position should enter the draft treating QB as a serious need and planning to use their first round pick on a QB. However when a team has struggled to find a long-term solution at the position for over a quarter of a century, I see nothing wrong with a little outside-the-box thinking. Why worry about precedents or what others are doing? In the NFL, a player, young or old, can go from promising to done, from successful to benched or injured very quickly. Teams best prepared for those eventualities are teams best prepared to succeed.

In other words, it all boils down to this: a team that's flexible and open-minded enough can find a key to success even if they weren't looking for it.

I don't know if that clarifies anything for anybody but I tried...

Prior to that cap, a first round rookie QB was going to make so much money that the thought of spending another first round pick on the same position was wholly impractical, for financial reasons alone. That's no longer the case and the ability to keep a rookie for his first 4-5 years in the league means a team now has the flexibility to think outside the box and stock up on top talent at that position IF (and only if) the right circumstances arise.

This is a great point and one I wanted to highlight myself at some point amidst this debate. As the years go on, you'll start to see new and different established draft philosophies, because of the new circumstances in place. Those of us on the outside, we're still somewhat fixed on the old MO's, but 10 years down the road, things that may have looked outlandish in 2005, may be standard fundamentals in team building. Such as, surplus drafting of quarterbacks.

Ardenn wrote: Are the Cardinals really a good example? Using them as an example, what if they used their first rounder on Teddy instead of Deone Bucannon? You could say it would even make sense since Carson Palmer isn't young. However, then they would have a UDFA starting at SS all year. Do you win as many games as they have if they do that?
I don't care if you had three first round picks and used all of them on quarterbacks, if you lose your first two quarterbacks, your season is flushed. Saying that scenario is a good example of why you need to burn top picks on quarterbacks is silly.

Well, I'm glad to know you think such a notion is silly. Unfortunately, that's a complete misrepresentation of what I said.

Unless I'm mistaken (probably not, since I'm staring at the post) I don't believe I said the Cardinals should have burned a high draft pick on a quarterback. Nor did I say the Cardinals could possibly have been as good a team without Carson Palmer. I simply said the Cardinals are an example of how crazy things can happen in this league, which means we need to work toward having quality depth at the position.

Quality depth at the position allows you to win games when your Number 1 goes down, at least in the regular season. It's happened many, many times before in the NFL, so your notion that "your season is flushed" if your Number 1 goes down is kind of flawed historically. Heck, our own Matt Cassel led New England to an 11-5 record in 2008 when Tom Brady went down. Now, I realize they didn't make the playoffs, but that's far from "your season is flushed." So if it CAN be done, I think it's worth working toward it. Your mileage may vary, but it's far from a silly notion.

And how about those situations where the Number 1 is injured but it DOESN'T end his season? Are you saying we should just throw away the season because, say, Teddy is going to be out for a month?

P.S. I fixed your quotes. You're welcome.

Pondering Her Percy wrote:However, I don't believe you need to draft a 1st rounder to find a developmental guy obviously. Who has being in the situation we are?? Not many if any at all. There are many different ways to approach that

Man, I'm so confused.

Where are you guys getting the idea that I think we should spend our first-round pick on a quarterback? I NEVER SAID THAT!

I was first addressing the Kap-Mariota comparison.

Then I was talking about the need for quality depth. Yes, I DO believe Matt Cassel is a quality backup who can fill in when a starter goes down. He proved that in 2008 with New England. He's won games for us as the backup (last year). And yes, we do need a developmental guy. I said that.

But I never, ever, EVER said we should draft Marcus Mariota!!!!!

PacificNorseWest wrote: This is a great point and one I wanted to highlight myself at some point amidst this debate. As the years go on, you'll start to see new and different established draft philosophies, because of the new circumstances in place. Those of us on the outside, we're still somewhat fixed on the old MO's, but 10 years down the road, things that may have looked outlandish in 2005, may be standard fundamentals in team building. Such as, surplus drafting of quarterbacks.

Thanks. I definitely think we will see some fundamental changes to the way teams draft as they realize some of the possibilities offered by the rookie cap and the 5th year option for 1st round picks.

kurtkeoki wrote:I think Marcus Mariotta will be a better QB than Teddy Bridgewater, although I do have high hopes for Teddy and was both thrilled that we drafted him and pleased with his progression. That being said, it's laughable to suggest that we would take a QB to compete with/replace Teddy. I can only assume anyone that was saying it was trolling. We have what looks like a good qb. We're obviously not taking Mariotta just because he's a better prospect.

smh when will people learn that running/ system qbs in college do NOT translate to the nfl

haters can hate all they want but jameis winston is the best talent at qb in this draft, and too me its not even close....


mariota reminds me of kaepernick, if dont have a good defense in the pros he will struggle

TeddyBaller wrote: smh when will people learn that running/ system qbs in college do NOT translate to the nfl

haters can hate all they want but jameis winston is the best talent at qb in this draft, and too me its not even close....


mariota reminds me of kaepernick, if dont have a good defense in the pros he will struggle

Agreed. I dont want a replacement for Teddy already (seeing he hasn't even had a year yet to show his worth) but I would take the youngster in Winston, with just 2 years under his belt, as the heir to Teddy then the Kap wanna be clone in Mariota. If the Vikes even wanted to go the QB route again. No one was really even that high on Mariota last year, which maybe one of the reason he didn't enter the draft.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: Man, I'm so confused.

Where are you guys getting the idea that I think we should spend our first-round pick on a quarterback? I NEVER SAID THAT!

I was first addressing the Kap-Mariota comparison.

Then I was talking about the need for quality depth. Yes, I DO believe Matt Cassel is a quality backup who can fill in when a starter goes down. He proved that in 2008 with New England. He's won games for us as the backup (last year). And yes, we do need a developmental guy. I said that.

But I never, ever, EVER said we should draft Marcus Mariota!!!!!

Noooo I know you didn't say that Kapp. I was basically just generating that part to the entire board. Not you!!! That's my fault man!!!

A.D_blazing wrote:Any Qbs drafted in the 1st or 2nd round are expected to eventually start for their team. When was the last time an NFL team drafted in the early rounds(1st,2nd) back to back years a QB to hold a clipboard?That's a wasted draft pick!

The Cowboys drafted Troy Aikman in the regular draft, and another guy (Steve Walsh? from Miami) with the first pick in the Supplemental draft (the same year I think). Ended up being the #1 overall pick that they threw away for Jimmy Johnson's pretty pedestrian college cuarterback (going for the true alliterative pattern there). Well, one of them hit.

I don't draft another QB at this juncture. Sure, if we were at #1 and a Luck or Elway appeared, I'd do it. But any guy left in the #10 slot (for example) is going to be anything but a sure thing, and since NFL coaches have basically decided that you don't platoon QB's, I say you probably pass the best QB on board, even if he's at the top of your board.

The Lions basically went with that strategy to a degree with their drafting of WR's. Williams/Rogers/Johnson IIRC. Only Johnson was worth anything. Was he worth three #1's - the cost of drafting one every year until they hit? I suppose it might be if he leads them to a Superbowl win. But other than that, the Lions have been pretty bad for years with Johnson, and have only begun to compete now that they have a defense.

There is also an opportunity cost in selecting a QB with a selection around, let's say the #12 pick (for purely incendiary reasons!). Historically, you can find a pretty solid CB, S, or LB at that point in the draft. In the past, offensive linemen were pretty safe there too, but the last few years have broken that trend (unfortunately for us and our current needs). Still, it takes only a cursory look into the history of the draft to see just how bad QB's from the middle of the first round turn out. Seems to me they succeed about a third of the time (feel free to post data - I'm just too tired to do the research tonight).

Yes, we might think Gabbert is going to be a great QB, but we might as well take Polamalu just to be safe.