Offseason Moves and Polls v.2
by vikingfuture8816 on Feb 13, 2009 4:45 PM CST
22 comments
Welcome back all! The combine is coming up, so its time for the last pre-combine mock. Should be interesting to see how far opinions swing once the combine is over. I am going to keep this one fairly conservative, but I still think more offensive playmakers should be targeted in the early rounds than not because outside of a more steady QB, the Vikings need another playmaker or two. Added bonus: How all the NFC North teams are looking in the 1st round.
Resign U/RFA - Thanks to Capital J's Corner for the list of all U/RFA.
http://www.capitaljscorner.com/2009/02/examining-vikings-pending-free-agents.html
Heath Farwell - LB
Nap Harris - LB
Jimmy Kennedy - DT
Jim Kleinsasser - TE
Fred Evans- DT (Yes, resign both DTs. They need to protect themselves if the Williams Wall ends up getting suspended. Better to play safe and keep your talent then sorry)
Charles Gordon - CB
Jayme Mitchell - DE
FA Signings - With all the U/RFA to sign back to the team (I'd bet none of them get more than 3 years, majority of them on 1 year contracts) I don't see as many FA signings as last year. For now, I only see one.
Jeff Garcia QB - My favorite QB FA already signed with his old team (Carr) and while I would like the Vikings to get a younger vet, there isn't a lot out there (Chris Simms maybe, but don't really know what you are getting with him). Garcia doesn't seem to have much leverage after getting benched in Tampa, but I bet he would be happy to sign on with a playoff team that would let him compete to start (and he probably would win the starting job all things equal).
Now is the time on Sprockets when we show our Vikings draft picks...
1st - D.J. Moore CB 5'10'' 183 - Anyone know when the last time the Vikings used a first round pick on a CB or S? In 1994, the Vikings picked DB DeWayne Washington with a pick they got from Denver (the other 1st round pick that year was Todd Steussie). Its about time they used the first round to get some talent in the secondary. Moore is one of 3 first round talents at CB and whose skill set is considered perfect for the cover 2 scheme. He is very good playmaker that IMO compares favorably to Winfield. Could also help with the KR/PR duties. If Maclin/Harvin are still here, I will have my fingers crossed for one of them, but I would be just as happy with Moore.
2nd - Phil Loadholt OT 6'8'' 343 - While he doesn't have the upside that the other 2nd round OTs (Britton/Beatty) have, he does have the talent to be pluged into RT and play right away. Huge in the run game, but needs some work on his pass pro. You won't, however, see him get pushed around in pass pro like Cook.
3rd - Ramses Barden WR 6'6'' 227 - My favorite. I am a huge fan of this guy and think he would be a fantastic red zone/possesion WR. i liken him to a D2 version of Calvin Johnson. He isn't running a 4.3 40, but he isn't slow. Uses his body very well to shield the ball from defenders and uses his hands instead of his chest to catch the football. May not crack the starting line up right away, but will be great as a situational player and give him a chance to develop a little more.
4th - Bear Pascoe TE 6'5'' 260 - Big time blocker that would benifit learning from Jimmy. Has a decent recieving game, but isn't as fast as Shanko. Another good red zone/possesion reciever to help move chains and in the run game.
5th - Sammie Lee Hill DT 6'4'' 330 - A developing prospect to replace Phat Pat when he retires. I know they took Guion around this spot last year, but i see Guion as a guy that would play in Kevin's spot and not Pat's.
7th - Quinn Johnson FB 6' 251LBS - A big body for short yardage/goal line situations. Is pretty good with the football in his hands too.
7th (2) - James Holt OLB 6'3'' 226 - Led the Big XII in TFL with 19.5. He finished the year with 105 tackles, 10 sacks and six forced fumbles. Sounds worth a look in the 7th.
Around the NFC North -
#1 - Lions - Andre Smith OT - Everyone and their mother might have them taking Stafford, but Stafford isn't the best overall player in the draft. When you get the 1st overall pick. You take the best overall player. Period. Think Houston wishes it took Bush over Mario Williams? I don't either.
#9 - packers - Brian Orakpo, 3-4 OLB - GB needs some players made for their new defensive scheme. I would think that means taking at least 2 OLB that can rush the QB at some point in the draft. He has the production in school and will put up big numbers at the combine
#18 - Bears - Michael Johnson DE - The Bears need a WR, but the WRs worth a 1st rounder are basically Hester clones and they have enough trouble getting him the ball. I think if the Bears want to get back to where they were a couple of years ago, they need to get their pash rush on track. It was pretty ineffective this past year.
#20 - Lions - Josh Freeman QB - See? They don't need to take a QB #1 overall. Freeman has upside and I think Lineahan will fall for this kids upside. Will remind him of the last QB he had success with. Would also be a good reason to keep 'Pepper on their roster. They can then pick up a DT like Ron Brace out of BC at the top of the first.
This FanPost was created by a registered user of The Daily Norseman, and does not necessarily reflect the views of the staff of the site. However, since this is a community, that view is no less important.
0 recs |
22 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Offseason moves
Here is what I see us doing and a few reasons why…
1) using our 1st round pick on the OL. I see us drafting, or targeting, Mack out of UCal because he is not only talented but educated. A real Childress fit. We also need OL help especially with Birk going to be gone. Note: I really think we need another playmaker and would love Percy Harvin here but I don’t see Team Childress doing that.
2) QB—-We won’t consider a QB in the 1st round, even though it is a major need, for a number of reasons. First, there are a lot of available QB’s in FA or trade (Garcia, Simms, Cassel, Warner(?), McNabb (?), Palmer (?) etc. Combine this with the draft class of 2010 and most teams will not even sniff a college QB in the 1st round this year. For that reason I don’t see us rushing in round 1 to fill this need when the QB we want will be around in Round 2….. Bottom line, I really see Matt Staffor das the only 1st round QB pick.
3) QB for 2009 and 2010- Garcia. It just makes sense. Value, numbers that will be compatible with Cassel or anyone else you may look at, and then the system. Why spend a ton on Cassel when we really are a running team that plays defense. We only need to have QB that offers a threat to spread it out and that will reduce the number in the box to 7 rather than 8.
4) QB for 2011 and beyond… Round 2 pick Josh Freeman. He will be available when we pick given the reasons mentioned above.
5) FA’s…. I don’t see us playing heavily as Team Chilldress is building the team intelligently and spends only on proven, well needed talent or talent that is priced right…I see 2 moves that fit that profile… S Jermaine Phillips and QB Garcia.
6) Potential surprise move…. Carson Palmer… Cincy needs to rebuild and given the questions surrounding his health we might get him cheap enough that I could see us pulling the trigger on this rather than someone like Cassel.
by PurpleJesus on Feb 15, 2009 9:39 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
thoughts
Garcia won’t put up numbers like Cassel’s. Maybe once apon a time, but now that he’s 39, there is no way that is going to happen. I don’t think the Vikings are going safety in FA. They drafted Tyrell to replace Sharper, and if they thought Tyrell was a liability, they would just re-sign Sharper.
What surprises me the most about the Vikings is the fact that they play at least half of their games in a dome, yet they are a running team. If you played half your games in a dome, that would be a perfect environment to pass. Yet the Vikings have a ground and pound game that is generally associated with an outdoor stadium team. It’s weird. But I do remember back in 98 when the Vikings were moving up and down the field at will. That’s what the Vikings need to get back to. And a better passing game will always make the running game better. I bet AD would love that!
by PurplePeopleEaters09 on Feb 15, 2009 2:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Garcia vs Cassel
I guess to better explain my point… On the Vikings any quarterback in the vanilla running system we have will put up comperable numbers. 250yds/game not the 350-400yds Cassel put up last year in a few games. We just aren’t built for that. Now, if you buy that, Garcia at $6-7M becomes a far better value for a year or two until someone like Josh Freeman (fingers crossed) develops.
by PurpleJesus on Feb 15, 2009 5:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Totally agree with you here
just not about Freeman ;)
by vikingfuture8816 on Feb 16, 2009 10:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think that’s a clear symptom of the problem. You got to get downfield, that’s reflected in the yardage gained, whether it’s passing or running. Putting up 160 passing yards/game isn’t reflective of a good run-oriented football team unless the running yards are at least 240/game, maybe more. AP is a great RB, but if he’s the leading rusher and his yards are less than 200, most likely the Vikings just lost that game unless we can count on the D to score the points while keeping the opponent locked down.
Bottom line; the Vikes need a QB with a receiving corp that can rack up 300+ yard games, conservatively, and that’s while being a primarily ‘running’ football team.
by DCPurple on Feb 17, 2009 10:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You just don’t get that with the WCO. The idea of the passing game is to spread the field horizontally to create seam for the running game; completing several short passes to reach the first down – and taking calculated shots down field. Unless you get big plays after the catch, it’s virtually impossible to rack up the receiving statistics you pine for.
It’s not so much the quarterback as the system.
by LoveHate on Feb 17, 2009 11:37 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Pining Away!
I do! I really do pine for those recieving stats! Heh.
If you don’t have the yardage (I’m tossing out a guess here, ballpark figure, around 350-400 total offensive yards), you aren’t moving down the field enough to be in decent strike range to score many points (to be within the upper echelon of winning NFL teams). That’s maybe two decent drives/quarter, at least one of which gets you into fg range, you take the points you can get.
If you can’t make that yardage, you have to depend on your D to hold the other team to a production level lower than your poorly performing offense, and the D might need to score some points too. I think that’s where the Vikes are, the O can’t produce enough yardage to get within strike range, consistently.
Last year, in average yards per game, the Vikes pulled in 330, good enough for a middling rank of 17 in the NFL. With the mighty D to pick up the O’s slack, we got to the playoffs, which was nice (if for no other reason than to pass the cheeseheads a nice tall glass of SHUTHEFUKUP), but the good that the O achieved was self-sabotaged by 31 fumbles (tying us with the Lions for the 3rd most in the NFL in 2009).
Compare that to the Saints, who lead the league in yardage, and coincidentally, also in points scored. They limped in with a .500 record despite their offensive circus maximus because their D couldn’t hold the line, but the offensive correlation between yardage and points still holds. Cincy had the least amount of yards and the least amount of scored points.
Your point about the WCO is well-taken, but at the same time, it’s got to drive the total yardage up between running and passing in order to generate higher scores and therefore, more wins. I don’t know how much more room is left in the running game, but I think there’s plenty of space for improvement in the passing game. Of the Vikes 6 losses last year, 4 of them were by a single score or less (TD or FG). Just being able to make up that one score puts all those games into close contention.
Besides, Sir Francis used to nickle ’n dime the opposition into submission on a regular basis, racking up league-leading yardage as he did it. Not exactly WCO, or KAO, but it was very effective.
Chilly doesn’t seem to like to adapt to change, requiring the players to adapt to his scheme, rather than maximizing each player’s best ability.
by DCPurple on Feb 18, 2009 9:12 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The Little Things Make Big Differences
Statistics can be used as indicators, but they can’t be relied on to tell the whole story. I don’t agree that more yards equals more points. You noted the 31 fumbles that clearly had an impact on the Vikings total points scored.
I do agree the Vikings passing game needs to be more efficient. I believe that an efficient passing game would allow the running game more success. There is plenty of room for improvement in both areas. But I don’t think you can point to an arbitrary number of passing yards as the reason the Vikings didn’t win close ball games or as a key to future success.
Historically quarterbacks in West Coast systems don’t have the bloated passing statistics. (average of best six seasons):
Joe Montana 265 yds/g – 290 best year
Steve Young 252 – 291
B. Favre 259 – 275
T. Hasselbeck 223 – 247
J. Garcia 221 – 267
(Tarkenton never threw for more than 228 yards/g in a season).
The Vikings need a reliable passing game so they never have to rely on it. But I wouldn’t expect this team to transform in to some aerial assault squad. They are built to eat up the clock and to win field possession battles. They were 12th in the league is scoring, that isn’t too shabby!
by LoveHate on Feb 18, 2009 1:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The Steelers
were 20th in scoring. They still won their division and the Super Bowl.
by vikingfuture8816 on Feb 18, 2009 2:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
20th in Scoring but not in the Super Bowl
In the Super Bowl, they didn’t score points like they were #20 in the league. The Steelers averaged 21.7 points per game during the regular season, but in the Super Bowl, they had to beat the Card’s season average of 26.7, with 27 points of their own. The Card’s D (ranked #19th!) couldn’t hold the Steelers down to their normal scoring average (unless you take away that TD by Holmes). When you look at the total O and D yards, both teams performed pretty much on expectation except for the interception-TD that skewed it in Pittsburgh’s favor. Despite having the top-rated D in the NFL, Pittsburgh would have lost that game had it not been for a fluke.
What’s more interesting to me is that the Vikes win over the Cards earlier in the year wasn’t a fluke at all. Sure, we lost in the WC round, but it could easily have gone the other way, despite the issues.
by DCPurple on Feb 20, 2009 11:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Average
yes, they scored better than their average in the Super Bowl, but they did that several times over the course of the season. They also scored less then average on several occasions. The point is that it is an average of how many points they scored last season vs the number of games played. They didn’t have that great of a scoring year, but they had the best D. That kept them in games by only allowing 13.9 (14) points a game. On average, the winning team would need to score 23 points (median pts/g was 22.6), but the team that won it all did it by having a dominate D and an effective O, not the other way around. In fairness, the next worst scoring team to make the playoffs was the Titans at #14 with 23.4 pts/g, but only 2 of the top 10 scoring Offenses made it past the first game of the playoffs (Philly #6 and Zona #3).
My point here is that while they did score over their average in the Super Bowl, that doesn’t make them an exception to the rule. Plus there are many things that go into how many yards a team earns per game (where are they starting their drives?/What is the clock situation when they start a drive?/Are they ahead or behind when they start a drive?/etc). I would love it if the Vikings scored more points, but according to the statistics they weren’t that bad in the category. Like I stated at the top, I think adding a play maker like Maclin or Harvin if one is available in the draft would go a long way in helping the offense move the ball up the field (and with special teams).
by vikingfuture8816 on Feb 20, 2009 5:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yards and Scoring
The little things always make a huge difference, the unknown, the flukes you never saw coming that change the game into something far more than just a collection of statistics. I totally agree with that, and I think that’s why we watch the games; you never know what unexpected things can occur. I keyed on the passing game because that’s the one area that improvement should be easiest to come by if the right moves are made in this off-season (or if T-Jack improves, but that’s not something that anyone but T-Jack can make happen).
However, when I look back across the stats, the teams with the most total offensive yardage gained AND the least defensive yardage allowed tend to be the teams that win the most games. It’s a balancing equation (and one that’s just consummed most of my lunch hour trying to compile the numbers). They say that defense wins Super Bowls and that’s true to an extent; if you can’t stop the other team, you’re screwed. But the Steelers, who had the 22nd ranked offense last year, put up some damned respectable offensive numbers in the Super Bowl, and without it, they wouldn’t have won, despite their #1 ranked D. They HAD to get down the field somehow, and that’s measured in yards. The more you do that, be it passing or rushing or tip-toeing or lateralling (heh), the more times you’re in position to score with a fg at least. As great as it is to have a show-stopping D, you just can’t count on that D to force interceptions and fumbles that are returned for TDs. You can’t plan for it, you can’t create plays for it, it’s just one of those flukey things that if happens works out, merry Christmas, and that’s why I don’t think it makes sense to add that into the equation.
I’m not looking at an arbitrary number of passing yards, I’m looking at total offensive yards and total defensive yards, compared against the other teams during the regular season. The Vikings ranked 17th and 6th, respectively. On the D side, the difference between the Vikings and the Steelers (#1) was about 55 yards per game, and a whopping 110 opponent points on the season (6.8 points/game). On the O side, the difference between the Vikes and the Saints (#1) is about 70 yards per game, and 84 scored points on the season (5.25 points/game). Or, to sum it up, the Vikings were less than a single TD per game, on both O and D, from being the top rated team in both categories, in 2009. If both can step up their games by just 1 TD per game, through the next season, it’d be an extremely rosey picture.
The key to that, I think, is in the passing game on the offense, and secondary on defense, when you’re looking at controllable factors. Specifically, improvements at QB, WR, and CB/S, might make up the difference. And those same upgrades can also address the leak in the special teams coverage, which otherwise skews the equation.
Your stat on Tarkenton is on-target when you average the passing yards/game across the entire season, but he definitely had games where he threw for more yards than that. Combined with the running game’s yardage, and the original PPE squad on D, and the redoubtable leg of Fred Cox taking advantage of good field position (gained by yardage). it was a game winning formula.
Back to work, TGIF!
by DCPurple on Feb 20, 2009 11:21 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you that the passing game and secondary need to get better. The secondary problem is by far the easiest to fix. Just add talent. The passing game isn’t something that is going to change drastically next season. And its not because the Vikings aren’t doing what they can to get the best QB and WRs possible (I believe they are), but because A) the FA talent at those positions aren’t that good this year and B) the WCO, as LoveHate pointed out, doesn’t rely on or have big passing numbers. If the Vikings have a lot of passing yards in a game, it will be because they were behind and needed to catch up. They are predicated on stuffing the ball down the throats of their opponents through out the game so they are ready to give up by the 4th quarter. Just don’t see that changing anytime soon.
by vikingfuture8816 on Feb 20, 2009 5:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
4th Quarter
The problem is, by the 4th quarter, the Vikes haven’t shown a lot of abiity to pour on the offensive pressure either.
by DCPurple on Feb 24, 2009 9:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I dig what your saying, but I don’t agree that the Vikings would take a QB in this draft. IF per chance they fall absolutely in love with a guy, then yeah, but I just don’t see that now. Unless one Stafford or Sanchez, no other QB would be considered capable of stepping in right away (and maybe not even Sanchez) and that is the kind of QB the VIkings would need this year. I think they have a good chance to get a few guys that can start right away and some really good depth. If the team falls apart (or not) they can still take a QB in what could be a really good crop next year.
by vikingfuture8816 on Feb 16, 2009 10:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I like
All of your picks. That would be a great draft. I think that we would definetly need to address the offensive tackle postion in free agency though, if we don’t take a player in the first round. Loadholt might be more of a left tackle than right. As for signing all the free agents back I don’t see it happening. Farwell, the DTs, Jimmy klein and Charles gordon should get another shot but I don’t see Nap Harris wanting to sit behind E.J. again.
by mattscards77 on Feb 15, 2009 3:50 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Thanks
appreciate the feedback. I would argue, though, that Childress thinks he has a guy to start at RT now. If Hicks hadn’t got hurt, he would have finished the season as a starter. He is a Childress guy and as MilCardsFan has pointed out in a good post, Childress has much more patience with his guys. Also, Harris might not want to sit behind EJ (who would, you would really get to play), but theere was a reason he was available during the season like he was. Might not have a lot of options and if I remember correctly he did pretty well on special teams after they got him too (though that might have been Thomas).
by vikingfuture8816 on Feb 16, 2009 10:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Like your picks except...
The FB in the 7th I would go with a power RB like Rodney Fergurson or another ST player but great picks.
by nmvikesfan on Feb 15, 2009 4:30 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I would like a power back in the rotation too. Think a guy that can get a good push behind the line for short yardage/goal line situations would really benefit the RB corp as a whole. Someone who can get the tough yardage while saving AD and Taylor the damage. I am not a fan of Hicks and with Tahi going I think a FB would be the position to get that kind of production.
by vikingfuture8816 on Feb 16, 2009 10:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
OK
I’d say your picks are reasonable. Can Moore return punts? The vikings desperatly need a punt returner. Damn our special teams were bad
by Spartan99 on Feb 16, 2009 4:09 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
He can return punts. IMO he would be a nickel back the first year with also being a special teams maven. His versatility is another reason I think he would be so valuable to the Vikings and worth that 1st pick.
by vikingfuture8816 on Feb 16, 2009 10:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
