Vikings Message Board.Com

I don't know how people can compare taking Rogers with Favre there, to having teddy IN HIS FIRST year here, and drafting another rookie with our first or second pick. When you have a guy like Teddy you have to give him 2 years (those of you #7 lovers said it takes 3 years at least, but Teddy isn't #7 now is he, so 2 should suffice) at the very least. Rick would be fired if he drafted the Duck dude. We need a WR, CB, Olineman. Its pretty simple. And has nothing whatsoever to do with Favre being on a team for years, and then the Packers draft another QB in Rogers. I brought up Mariota like a friggin week ago, as a joke.

BTW, did anyone think Carr would be doing what he is in Oakland?

Purple bruise wrote: I got a kick out of you comparing TB's college comp % 71 to 68.3= 2.7%. 3700 yds. 38 tds and three ints. so far this year and his team is 12-1. Let's do compare college careers. Mr. Oregon just receive three of the most prestigous awards a player can garner and soon will be named the Heisman winner. The Walter Camp Award, the Maxwell Award (most oustanding college player) and the Davey O'brien award.
And yet you insist that the "talking heads" do not think too much of him

If you want to go there let me recap past Heisman award winning QB's the past 30 years. Vinny Testaverde, Andre Ware, Ty Detmer, Gino Torretta, Charlie Ward, Danny Wuerffel, Chris Weinke, Carson Palmer, Jason White, Matt Leinart, Troy Smith, Tim Tebow, Sam Bradford, Cam Newton, Robert Griffin III, Johnny Manziel, and Jameis Winston. Not one superbowl winner among them. College awards don't mean crap at the QB position. Almost all of these players wouldn't even be considered average NFL QB's.

Pondering Her Percy wrote: 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!!!

OK. All cool. I just read it twice in a row and was afraid I'd gone off my meds again.

Purplerein1:

"If you want to go there let me recap past Heisman award winning QB's the past 30 years. Vinny Testaverde, Andre Ware, Ty Detmer, Gino Torretta, Charlie Ward, Danny Wuerffel, Chris Weinke, Carson Palmer, Jason White, Matt Leinart, Troy Smith, Tim Tebow, Sam Bradford, Cam Newton, Robert Griffin III, Johnny Manziel, and Jameis Winston. Not one superbowl winner among them. College awards don't mean crap at the QB position. Almost all of these players wouldn't even be considered average NFL QB's.[/quote]

Wow, thanks for setting me straight. I had no idea that winning the Heisman doomed him to failure since so many other Heisman QBs turned out to be "flops". Dam, If i was him I would decline the award and give back the other ones too.
Seriously though, I know what you are saying but the past does not always predict the future.

PurpleKoolaid wrote:I don't know how people can compare taking Rogers with Favre there, to having teddy IN HIS FIRST year here, and drafting another rookie with our first or second pick. When you have a guy like Teddy you have to give him 2 years (those of you #7 lovers said it takes 3 years at least, but Teddy isn't #7 now is he, so 2 should suffice) at the very least. Rick would be fired if he drafted the Duck dude. We need a WR, CB, Olineman. Its pretty simple. And has nothing whatsoever to do with Favre being on a team for years, and then the Packers draft another QB in Rogers. I brought up Mariota like a friggin week ago, as a joke.

BTW, did anyone think Carr would be doing what he is in Oakland?

I was pushing for the Vikes to draft him some I'm not surprised.

Regarding the rest of your post: please leave the "Ponder lover" stuff out of the discussion. It has nothing to do with what we're talking about and is just going to set someone off.

The point about Rodgers has very little to do with Favre. I understand why people are pointing to Favre's age at the time and GB's eventual need to replace him but that's hardly the only way to look at it. The Packers didn't go into that draft with the intent to draft Favre's replacement in the first round. They were flexible enough to adapt to what was happening on their board and draft a potential franchise player when he fell into their lap, thus providing themselves with a player they could groom to replace Favre. The point is that kind of preparation and flexibility can pay off in a big way.

Teddy's youth and the progress he's made this season don't mean much in terms of his long term viability as a starter. They offer no guarantee that he'll even be a viable starter for the Vikings 2 years from now. He might be a viable starter for the next 10 years but there's no way to know.

Mothman wrote: I was pushing for the Vikes to draft him some I'm not surprised.

Regarding the rest of your post: please leave the "Ponder lover" stuff out of the discussion. It has nothing to do with what we're talking about and is just going to set someone off.

The point about Rodgers has very little to do with Favre. I understand why people are pointing to Favre's age at the time and GB's eventual need to replace him but that's hardly the only way to look at it. The Packers didn't go into that draft with the intent to draft Favre's replacement in the first round. They were flexible enough to adapt to what was happening on their board and draft a potential franchise player when he fell into their lap, thus providing themselves with a player they could groom to replace Favre. The point is that kind of preparation and flexibility can pay off in a big way.

Teddy's youth and the progress he's made this season don't mean much in terms of his long term viability as a starter. They offer no guarantee that he'll even be a viable starter for the Vikings 2 years from now. He might be a viable starter for the next 10 years but there's no way to know.

I could just about guarantee they were saying "if Rodgers is there, take him". They knew they weren't going to have Favre for much longer. However, our Vikings team is not in the condition GBs team was at that time either. GB might have had a couple holes here and there but overall they were a very good team and consistently in the playoffs. They could afford to draft Rodgers. We can't afford to take a QB early no matter who it is. We have to give this offense better protection and more weapons. We have our QB. Now move forward

John_Viveiros wrote: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.

One of them was all they needed to hit but they placed so much importance on the position that they still spent those two picks on it. I think that speaks volumes as does the 49ers decision to trade 2nd and 4th round picks for Young while Montana was still playing at a high level. To me, it's no coincidence that two of the most successful coaches/teams of the modern era showed that kind of foresight and that level of willingness to invest in the QB position.

John_Viveiros wrote: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).

A third of the time isn't bad, all things considered. You're right that there's an opportunity cost to selecting another first round QB (or second or third round QB, for that matter) but that cost always to be paid.

Pondering Her Percy wrote:I could just about guarantee they were saying "if Rodgers is there, take him".

Read the article I linked to yesterday and decide for yourself:

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/203119011.html

Either way, the choice illustrates flexibility and willingness to prepare.

They knew they weren't going to have Favre for much longer. However, our Vikings team is not in the condition GBs team was at that time either. GB might have had a couple holes here and there but overall they were a very good team and consistently in the playoffs.

They were actually in need of quite a bit of help in other areas, especially on defense. They'd had a good record in the previous 4 seasons but were heading into rebuilding mode, as their 4-12 record that season illustrates.

They could afford to draft Rodgers. We can't afford to take a QB early no matter who it is. We have to give this offense better protection and more weapons.

Using a first round pick sin;t the only way to do that.

We have our QB. Now move forward

They have A QB. At this point nobody knows what the future holds for Bridgewater's career. Again, I'm NOT saying the Vikings need to spend a first round pick on a QB but this idea that Teddy's the man, there are no doubts, and they can just grab another QB in rounds 4-7 and that will suffice just baffles me.

My goodness, year after year, we see evidence of the fragility of a starting job in the NFL. As Vikings fans, we've seen first hand that a promising, potentially franchise-caliber QB can have his career irreparably damaged in a moment. We've watched the team put all their eggs in the basket of a young QB twice in the past decade only to have that strategy blow up in their face both times. We've seen backups step in and help teams win Super Bowls. We've seen promising seasons end for teams because they had inadequate depth at the game's most important position. We are bombarded by comments in the media and comments from fans stating that football is a QB-driven sport to a greater extent than it's ever been, that the NFL is a passing league. It's obvious that quality and stability at the QB position is one of the keys, perhaps the key, to becoming a perennial contender and yet the very idea of investing heavily in that position, investing heavily in finding a franchise QB who can be the key to long-term success and in having a depth chart that can help ensure a season doesn't go down in flames with the starting QB, seems to really rile people up.

Oh, I realize people want that depth chart, just at a bargain rate. That's great if it can be achieved but it's a LOT harder to achieve. heck, it's hard to even find a really good starting QB.

As further food for thought, I offer the cautionary tales of Robert Griffith III and Josh Freeman. RGIII had a tremendous rookie season and looked like a future star. Now his career appears to be a mess and at this point, he's certainly not the reliable franchise QB the Redskins' hoped they had found in 2012.

Who thought, after Josh Freeman's 25 TD, 6 INT, 3400 yard season in 2010 that his NFL career would look over just a few seasons later? He's not even in the league now and that's not due to catastrophic injury.

It's the most important position in the game. The Vikes should to treat it that way, all the way down their depth chart. If that means spending a first or second day pick on another QB, that makes sense IF they think he's a talent worthy of the pick.

Mothman wrote: Read the article I linked to yesterday and decide for yourself:

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/203119011.html

Either way, the choice illustrates flexibility and willingness to prepare.


They were actually in need of quite a bit of help in other areas, especially on defense. They'd had a good record in the previous 4 seasons but were heading into rebuilding mode, as their 4-12 record that season illustrates.
Using a first round pick sin;t the only way to do that.
They have A QB. At this point nobody knows what the future holds for Bridgewater's career. Again, I'm NOT saying the Vikings need to spend a first round pick on a QB but this idea that Teddy's the man, there are no doubts, and they can just grab another QB in rounds 4-7 and that will suffice just baffles me.

My goodness, year after year, we see evidence of the fragility of a starting job in the NFL. As Vikings fans, we've seen first hand that a promising, potentially franchise-caliber QB can have his career irreparably damaged in a moment. We've watched the team put all their eggs in the basket of a young QB twice in the past decade only to have that strategy blow up in their face both times. We've seen backups step in and help teams win Super Bowls. We've seen promising seasons end for teams because they had inadequate depth at the game's most important position. We are bombarded by comments in the media and comments from fans stating that football is a QB-driven sport to a greater extent than it's ever been, that the NFL is a passing league. It's obvious that quality and stability at the QB position is one of the keys, perhaps the key, to becoming a perennial contender and yet the very idea of investing heavily in that position, investing heavily in finding a franchise QB who can be the key to long-term success and in having a depth chart that can help ensure a season doesn't go down in flames with the starting QB, seems to really rile people up.

Oh, I realize people want that depth chart, just at a bargain rate. That's great if it can be achieved but it's a LOT harder to achieve. heck, it's hard to even find a really good starting QB.

As further food for thought, I offer the cautionary tales of Robert Griffith III and Josh Freeman. RGIII had a tremendous rookie season and looked like a future star. Now his career appears to be a mess and at this point, he's certainly not the reliable franchise QB the Redskins' hoped they had found in 2012.

Who thought, after Josh Freeman's 25 TD, 6 INT, 3400 yard season in 2010 that his NFL career would look over just a few seasons later? He's not even in the league now and that's not due to catastrophic injury.

It's the most important position in the game. The Vikes should to treat it that way, all the way down their depth chart. If that means spending a first or second day pick on another QB, that makes sense IF they think he's a talent worthy of the pick.

exactly what I am thinking too
About RG111, prior to his devastating injury, he was scarry good and now they have to suffer with Cousins (was good now injured and pretty much sucks) and now McCoy (what a joke he is).
Many teams, Broncos lose Manning they are done, Packers lose Rodgers they are done, Chargers lose Rivers they are history etc. etc.
How great would it be if the Vikings filled their most important needs, offensive line and middle linebacker, through free agency and was able to draft a QB of Mr. Oregon's potential and use the balance of the draft to take a great receiver and another db or two.
Think out of the box, two very very young talented QBs competing for a starting job and if one is failing you have a great backup plan!!

Mothman wrote: It's the most important position in the game. The Vikes should to treat it that way, all the way down their depth chart. If that means spending a first or second day pick on another QB, that makes sense IF they think he's a talent worthy of the pick.

Given the history of this team and the history of our GM, I don't see them feeling that way come draft day.

Let's say, purely hypothetical, that Jameis Winston has fallen to our pick during the draft due to his off-the-field issues. Do you think that Minnesota would draft him, even if from a football standpoint, he was the best player on the board? I don't. Right or wrong, it is not for me to say. I sincerely believe that this team will not draft a QB until round 4 at the earliest - if not at all.

That being said, it is time this team did something about the quarterback depth chart. Teddy is our future and I cannot be more than happy. Cassel as a back-up for one more year will be fine with me. However, the third spot needs to be a younger player, so he can become the back-up one day. Where the team gets the third guy for next year will be key. Hopefully, that is through the draft.

Purple bruise wrote:
exactly what I am thinking too
About RG111, prior to his devastating injury, he was scarry good and now they have to suffer with Cousins (was good now injured and pretty much sucks) and now McCoy (what a joke he is).
Many teams, Broncos lose Manning they are done, Packers lose Rodgers they are done, Chargers lose Rivers they are history etc. etc.
How great would it be if the Vikings filled their most important needs, offensive line and middle linebacker, through free agency and was able to draft a QB of Mr. Oregon's potential and use the balance of the draft to take a great receiver and another db or two.
Think out of the box, two very very young talented QBs competing for a starting job and if one is failing you have a great backup plan!!

And I still believe it's as unrealistic as it gets. You literally NEVER see a team draft a first round QB two years in a row. Were the Colts considering a early QB after Lucks first year?? Highly doubtful. Are the Raiders or Jaguars going to look to draft Mariota??? Highly doubtful. Every team in the NFL that has elite QBs must just have idiots for GMs right? Since none of them have taken a first round QB to put behind their current good, young QB. What were they thinking??!! It just doesn't happen and it won't happen so I continue to be baffled as to why we are even talking about it. We already have Cassel who is a fairly reliable backup. You find a developmental guy to put behind him. Not waste a first round pick. Nobody fully knows what we have in Teddy but bottom line is, you let him take this team forward. Not waste a first round pick so a guy is breathing down his neck all year. Oh and for the 10th time.....MARIOTA DOESN'T FIT NORVS OFFENSE. He is a running QB that relies in his legs more than anything and is coming out of a non pro style offense. Just face the fact that he will not be in a Vikings uniform next year. My goodness

Let's say Mariota, Cooper (Alabama WR), Parker (Louisville WR), Ekpre Olomu (Oregon CB), Brandon Scherff (Iowa OT/OG) and Andrus Peat (Stanford OL) are all sitting there when we pick. Are you honestly going to say you would take Mariota over any of those guys? If so, that's pretty darn pathetic.

Pondering Her Percy wrote: And I still believe it's as unrealistic as it gets. You literally NEVER see a team draft a first round QB two years in a row. Were the Colts considering a early QB after Lucks first year?? Highly doubtful. Are the Raiders or Jaguars going to look to draft Mariota??? Highly doubtful. Every team in the NFL that has elite QBs must just have idiots for GMs right? Since none of them have taken a first round QB to put behind their current good, young QB. What were they thinking??!! It just doesn't happen and it won't happen so I continue to be baffled as to why we are even talking about it. We already have Cassel who is a fairly reliable backup. You find a developmental guy to put behind him. Not waste a first round pick. Nobody fully knows what we have in Teddy but bottom line is, you let him take this team forward. Not waste a first round pick so a guy is breathing down his neck all year. Oh and for the 10th time.....MARIOTA DOESN'T FIT NORVS OFFENSE. He is a running QB that relies in his legs more than anything and is coming out of a non pro style offense. Just face the fact that he will not be in a Vikings uniform next year. My goodness

You are the one that won't leave it alone. I have an opinion and a perception and you just cant keep your "mouth shut" about how stupid it is. Have you said it enough times yet The Raiders and Jaguars have "elite" QBS TB is an "elite QB"?; Not by anyone's imagination but yours if you think that he has shown anything close to being elite. Good and improving but faaar from elite.
So as I said to you over and over on other topics can we agree to disagree?!

This thread was more fun when people posted stats and video/picture analysis of Teddy.

Pondering Her Percy wrote:And I still believe it's as unrealistic as it gets.

Perhaps but he's putting forth a proposal, not making a prediction.

Were the Colts considering a early QB after Lucks first year?? Highly doubtful. Are the Raiders or Jaguars going to look to draft Mariota??? Highly doubtful. Every team in the NFL that has elite QBs must just have idiots for GMs right? Since none of them have taken a first round QB to put behind their current good, young QB. What were they thinking??!! It just doesn't happen and it won't happen so I continue to be baffled as to why we are even talking about it.

Because it's an idea that has merit and there are precedents for such a move, even if they're rare. Realistic or not, Mariota or someone else, the idea is worthy of consideration, especially in an NFL where the position has become of paramount importance.

TSonn wrote:This thread was more fun when people posted stats and video/picture analysis of Teddy.

Post some stats and video analysis!