Vikings Message Board.Com

David Yankey according to the staff his conditioning, was very poor
early in offseason was predicted to go late 1 to early 2 nd round ....
we picked him up in 5th round .. any updates ?? I have not heard a thing



Scott Crighton .. a beast on defense at Oregon State
DE I was hoping he could sub in for Robison and push him
for the spot this year??

jackal wrote:David Yankey according to the staff his conditioning, was very poor
early in offseason was predicted to go late 1 to early 2 nd round ....
we picked him up in 5th round .. any updates ?? I have not heard a thing

Scott Crighton .. a beast on defense at Oregon State
DE I was hoping he could sub in for Robison and push him
for the spot this year??

Reports said they didn't feel Yankey was strong enough to play. Presumably, he worked on strength and conditioning all season so we'll see what happens with him this year.

Apparently, Crichton wasn't ready either:

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikin ... 76691.html

The Vikings thought Crichton would be capable of playing multiple positions on their defensive line. But after trying to develop him as a backup to right defensive end Everson Griffen, the team determined that he didn’t have enough pass-rushing prowess right now, so they moved him back to left end, where strength and power are typically coveted over speed.

“These defensive linemen sometimes take a little bit longer,” coach Mike Zimmer said. “We’re not disappointed in him. He’s close, but he’s not quite there yet.”

It doesn’t help Crichton that defensive line is arguably the team’s deepest position group, but despite that veteran depth keeping him off the field, the rookie actually sees it as a positive.

“I’ve got a great group of guys to learn from,” Crichton said. “That’s the main thing, I’m just learning right now. I just can’t wait to get out on the field.”

Mothman wrote:

Sounds as if Crichton has a good attitude and that Zimmer believes the guy can eventually do the job.

That's all good news. I think we'll see him on the field in the not too distant future.

Mothman wrote: Reports said they didn't feel Yankey was strong enough to play. Presumably, he worked on strength and conditioning all season so we'll see what happens with him this year.

Apparently, Crichton wasn't ready either:

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikin ... 76691.html

I seem to recall a thread on here that praised Stanford's unconventional / non-traditional strength and conditioning program, which begs the question: why didn't it work out for Yankey at the next level? I wonder if other Stanford OL have faced similar difficulties making the transition or if it is a personal thing. Also, Yankey was an odd prospect leading up to the draft: his worth was perceived all over the place if I remember right. A lot of teams avoided him for some reason. Maybe they knew something we didn't.

Texas Vike wrote: Also, Yankey was an odd prospect leading up to the draft: his worth was perceived all over the place if I remember right. A lot of teams avoided him for some reason. Maybe they knew something we didn't.

I wouldn't necessarily look at it like that. He was a highly touted prospect that was an All American. To get him in the 5th round was a steal IMO. Granted, he never played but to get a guy like that in the 5th is pretty good. I'm sure we knew he had some strength issues. It showed at the combine but my guess is we viewed him as a developmental prosepct. I'd take a developmental guy that was a college all American any day in the 5th round. That's great value IMO. We just have to let the guy develop. If we wasted an early pick on him, then I would say teams knew something we didn't but to get him in the 5th doesn't warrant that

Pondering Her Percy wrote: I wouldn't necessarily look at it like that. He was a highly touted prospect that was an All American. To get him in the 5th round was a steal IMO. Granted, he never played but to get a guy like that in the 5th is pretty good. I'm sure we knew he had some strength issues. It showed at the combine but my guess is we viewed him as a developmental prosepct. I'd take a developmental guy that was a college all American any day in the 5th round. That's great value IMO. We just have to let the guy develop. If we wasted an early pick on him, then I would say teams knew something we didn't but to get him in the 5th doesn't warrant that

You're missing the point. His stock jumped all over leading up to the draft, in a way that is uncommon. I agree that we got him late for how highly he was touted, but there was a reason he slipped, and some scouts must have seen something that raised red flags for him to fall to the 5th. His inability to get on the field at a position we are desperately weak at also points to underperformance/ not living up to expectations.

We've hit on some players drafted in those positions when we gave them time - Everson Griffen, Brian Robison, Brandon Fusco, and John Sullivan come to mind. They all fell for different reasons, but they all developed given time. This isn't to say these players will develop, but I'm not worried about them. Traditionally we find value in these spots given time, so if we give them time, good things could happen. If not, we didn't invest highly in them, and it was worth the gamble.

Daniel Jerimiah Said dropped because of footwork and a bad 40 time...5.5
I think


Interesting I will keep an eye on those two players

Texas Vike wrote: You're missing the point. His stock jumped all over leading up to the draft, in a way that is uncommon. I agree that we got him late for how highly he was touted, but there was a reason he slipped, and some scouts must have seen something that raised red flags for him to fall to the 5th. His inability to get on the field at a position we are desperately weak at also points to underperformance/ not living up to expectations.

No I understand what you're saying it's just that he was going to be picked right around where we took him no matter what. He's a developmental prospect that needs time. We have done a good job developing late round talent. Especially OL. Granted he had red flags but for a 5th round pick, most guys do

Texas Vike wrote: You're missing the point. His stock jumped all over leading up to the draft, in a way that is uncommon. I agree that we got him late for how highly he was touted, but there was a reason he slipped, and some scouts must have seen something that raised red flags for him to fall to the 5th. His inability to get on the field at a position we are desperately weak at also points to underperformance/ not living up to expectations.

I think his point is that the expectations that fans have of him due to his perceived draft stock are different than those of the club who view his potential more in line with his actual draft value, a 5th round pick who may need some time to develop.

had he not been a highly touted player during the draft process, many fans might not view him as a "disappointment" or as an "underperforming" player, rather they may see him more as the late round, developmental prospect that he actually appears to be. In that regard, it's a little unfair to the kid that he was so highly spoke of coming out of the draft, because it seems that many fans have a very high level of expectations of the kid, despite where he actually ended up being drafted.

To compare, look at Gerald Hodges a year ago. Not much was said about him in the predraft process and he ended up getting draft right around where he was expected to. He saw little time on the field as a rookie despite our weakness at the position, and yet fans were mostly encouraged about his future with the club coming into the season, and now that he has gotten on the field in his second season, fans seem to be even higher on him as a potential starter and answer to the position.

So while it certainly isn't a positive that Yankey has yet to get on the field or make any sort of impact, it should not be a huge disappointment considering where he was drafted. It is not unusual for a late round draft pick to essentially be redshirted his rookie season before he truly starts to push for a bigger role with the team. With that said, I don't think it's wise to consider him an answer at the LG position as many did when we drafted him, however I wouldn't rule him out as a potential solution to that spot at this point either.

saint33 wrote:

I think his point is that the expectations that fans have of him due to his perceived draft stock are different than those of the club who view his potential more in line with his actual draft value, a 5th round pick who may need some time to develop.

had he not been a highly touted player during the draft process, many fans might not view him as a "disappointment" or as an "underperforming" player, rather they may see him more as the late round, developmental prospect that he actually appears to be. In that regard, it's a little unfair to the kid that he was so highly spoke of coming out of the draft, because it seems that many fans have a very high level of expectations of the kid, despite where he actually ended up being drafted.

To compare, look at Gerald Hodges a year ago. Not much was said about him in the predraft process and he ended up getting draft right around where he was expected to. He saw little time on the field as a rookie despite our weakness at the position, and yet fans were mostly encouraged about his future with the club coming into the season, and now that he has gotten on the field in his second season, fans seem to be even higher on him as a potential starter and answer to the position.

So while it certainly isn't a positive that Yankey has yet to get on the field or make any sort of impact, it should not be a huge disappointment considering where he was drafted. It is not unusual for a late round draft pick to essentially be redshirted his rookie season before he truly starts to push for a bigger role with the team. With that said, I don't think it's wise to consider him an answer at the LG position as many did when we drafted him, however I wouldn't rule him out as a potential solution to that spot at this point either.

I don't know about all of those hypotheticals, but I do know that leading up to the draft Mike Mayock had Yankey ranked as his top guard:

Guard
1. David Yankey, Stanford
2. Xavier Su'a-Filo, UCLA
3. Gabe Jackson, Mississippi State
4. Chris Watt, Notre Dame
5. Cyril Richardson, Baylor

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap200000 ... -nfl-draft

The question is: were Mayock's expectations realistic in the first place?

Yankey's draft position suggests NFL teams didn't end up considering him one of the top guards in the draft and there were certainly people with a vastly different view of his game. For example:

An anonymous NFL scout called Stanford OG David Yankey undraftable.
"I must not know what the heck I'm doing," the scout told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. "He's one of the most disappointing guys I saw. I see that guy get pushed around, then he ran 5.5 at the combine. You've got to be kidding me. Free agent." Yankey, considered by some the top OG prospect during the season, has seen his stock deflate since it ended. He's consistent at being inconsistent," another scout said. "There's a lot of want there, but I just think he's nonathletic. He's a stiff guy. That bothers me. But you know what? There's so many in the league like that. I don't like him." A third scout was more complimentary: "A real battler. Generally a good anchor. Gets careless with head duck and will lunge. A Stanford kid will do what he needs to do to be successful."

NFL Media analyst Daniel Jeremiah believes that Stanford OG David Yankey is not a top tier prospect.
"I wasn't a big fan of Yankey when I studied him. Slow feet, struggles to redirect in space. I don't think he's a top tier prospect," Jeremiah tweeted. Yankey's disappointing outing at the combine did not help his draft stock any. Jeremiah also tweeted that he hasn't "talked to one scout/exec that would take David Yankey in the first 3 rounds." ESPN's Louis Riddick also chimed in and stated that Yankey "was one of the most over-valued prospects all fall/winter in this '14 draft." It's interesting that NFL Network analyst Mike Mayock's No. 1 guard is taking some heat as of late, look for Yankey's name to be called in the second-round of the draft.

Well said by saint and Jim. If there wasn't any (apparently misplaced) hype, and Yankey was just an anonymous 5th round pick, nobody would have even noticed that he didn't sniff the field in his rookie year.

Texas Vike wrote: I don't know about all of those hypotheticals, but I do know that leading up to the draft Mike Mayock had Yankey ranked as his top guard: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap200000 ... -nfl-draft

I am too lazy to check but where did those other top 4 guards get drafted and how have they done?

Mothman wrote:The question is: were Mayock's expectations realistic in the first place?

Yankey's draft position suggests NFL teams didn't end up considering him one of the top guards in the draft and there were certainly people with a vastly different view of his game. For example:

Thanks for posting those, Jim. Like I said upstream, the fact that Yankey was projected all over the place is what is interesting. His case is also interesting because of the supposedly superior strength and conditioning program at Stanford, which doesn't jibe well with the fact that he was considered out of shape in camp and throughout the season. He's a bit of an enigma. It also seems to me that he can serve as a litmus for measuring how well different media "draft experts" evaluate certain positions. Obviously, it's just one player, a very small sample size, so I won't make any strong negative conclusions about Mayock's abilities, but it goes on his record.

Regarding whether he can get it together and contribute or not, well, who knows... that'd be great, but that's just speculation and not really the point that interests me. I think he was worth a try in the 5th.