Vikings Message Board.Com

I was really hoping it would have worked with Chris Cook. I thought him and Rhodes could have been a great pair together for years...but hey what do i know??

I'm all for going secondary again early this year...The vikings really have the foundation in place now for a dominating defence for years to come. Lots of impact players drafted by the organisation from Rhodes to Smith to Barr and Griffen

jackal wrote:Josh had some good plays .. I saw a few missed tackles again..

That is starting to concern me ... Good teams don't have those kids of issues

I saw Josh make some good tackles, too. But then, I don't think he played as badly as some do.

OTOH, missed tackles and getting bowled over happens at the worst times for the entire Vikings defense. I can see why Zimmer gets steamed about it.

TheIrishVikingsFan wrote:I was really hoping it would have worked with Chris Cook. I thought him and Rhodes could have been a great pair together for years...but hey what do i know??

I'm all for going secondary again early this year...The vikings really have the foundation in place now for a dominating defence for years to come. Lots of impact players drafted by the organisation from Rhodes to Smith to Barr and Griffen

All of this.

I thought Chris Cook showed tons of potential, but he didn't show enough towards the end for the Vikings to give him another chance. I don't think he's seen the field much, if at all, with SF.

I think in terms of the draft they have some deciding to do. Their O-lline at full health is still pretty good, minus whatever is going on with Kalil so the question is to they shore that up or go for the kill shot and get another CB, SS and LB to solidify the entire defense? In theory you want to say all, but it's hard to hit on 4 impact players out of one draft, though possible. I suppose a free agent signing helps make this decision as well because WR is also probably a something they need to look for.

PacificNorseWest wrote: All of this.

I thought Chris Cook showed tons of potential, but he didn't show enough towards the end for the Vikings to give him another chance. I don't think he's seen the field much, if at all, with SF.

I think in terms of the draft they have some deciding to do. Their O-lline at full health is still pretty good, minus whatever is going on with Kalil so the question is to they shore that up or go for the kill shot and get another CB, SS and LB to solidify the entire defense? In theory you want to say all, but it's hard to hit on 4 impact players out of one draft, though possible. I suppose a free agent signing helps make this decision as well because WR is also probably a something they need to look for.

I don't see SS as that big of a need. Blanton has been pretty decent. Even with the entire offensive line healthy, Charlie Johnson HAS to be replaced. I've been saying he should have cut years ago but we continue to keep him. Hopefully this offseason he's gone

I guess you're right about SS. I just see how dominant Seattle's secondary is and Kam Chancellor is the perfect compliment to Earl Thomas and Sherman by playing the enforcer role...I think Minnesota needs a hitter like that. Maybe not needs, more of 'I want.'

PacificNorseWest wrote:I guess you're right about SS. I just see how dominant Seattle's secondary is and Kam Chancellor is the perfect compliment to Earl Thomas and Sherman by playing the enforcer role...I think Minnesota needs a hitter like that. Maybe not needs, more of 'I want.'

I find myself trying to envision "our version" of Seattle quite frequently as well.

frosted wrote: I find myself trying to envision "our version" of Seattle quite frequently as well.

Are there any free agents safeties this year?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

I would also like to throw in my support of "Rhodes Island". Just perfect.

Personally I like Rhodes Scholar, because he just schools the competition, but I could get used to Rhodes Island.

'Professor X' ?

I have an Xs and Os question, since I'm not an expert on football schemes. If a team has one great CB, which we may have in Rhodes, is there diminishing returns on a second CB? If Rhodes is good enough to cover his man without safety help, how useful is it to have another shutdown guy? Safeties are there to help in pass D, so is it really necessary to have a second shutdown corner, as opposed to having one and giving your other corner safety help? Obviously having two is better than one, but would resources be better spent on another position? Sort of the opposite of DEs. Having one great DE means the other DE is likely one on one with a tackle, leading to a lot of sacks.

kurtkeoki wrote:I have an Xs and Os question, since I'm not an expert on football schemes. If a team has one great CB, which we may have in Rhodes, is there diminishing returns on a second CB? If Rhodes is good enough to cover his man without safety help, how useful is it to have another shutdown guy? Safeties are there to help in pass D, so is it really necessary to have a second shutdown corner, as opposed to having one and giving your other corner safety help? Obviously having two is better than one, but would resources be better spent on another position? Sort of the opposite of DEs. Having one great DE means the other DE is likely one on one with a tackle, leading to a lot of sacks.

Depends on whether you have the resources to get another corner like that. Great corners don't come cheap.

But from a purely football standpoint, I'd say you only have to look as far as the Seattle Seahawks to answer your question. Because they have two great corners, they can use their (also great) safeties to do other things -- blitz, cover tight ends, come up in run support, ... plus ball-hawk and go for interceptions. Having two great corners doesn't mean the safeties have nothing to do. It simply means they can do other things and allow your defense to be more exotic.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: Depends on whether you have the resources to get another corner like that. Great corners don't come cheap.

But from a purely football standpoint, I'd say you only have to look as far as the Seattle Seahawks to answer your question. Because they have two great corners, they can use their (also great) safeties to do other things -- blitz, cover tight ends, come up in run support, ... plus ball-hawk and go for interceptions. Having two great corners doesn't mean the safeties have nothing to do. It simply means they can do other things and allow your defense to be more exotic.

Exactly. It gives the defense increased flexibility.

Mothman wrote:
Exactly. It gives the defense increased flexibility.

Not to mention that some of these DL "sack masters" around the league get to the QBs quite often because of the great coverage behind them.

That's not to take away from the DL players that are quick to the QB, but it is a team sport and the entire D is interconnected.

I'll just go ahead and leave this here:

What you guys said about two corners makes sense. As a followup, and to elaborate on my original questions: Is CB one of the places where a team can overcome having an average player, if the other CB is great? For instance, if you have one great CB, where does another CB rate on the priority list for a team that runs the Vikings scheme? My initial thought was that it wasn't as big a priority as, say, MLB or DE. In the case of DE, Griffen will often get doubled leaving the other DE 1v1 against a tackle. A great DE can win that battle, so having a great DE on one end actually means having a great one on the other end is more important.