The list of Vikings players that should not be back next year!!!

A forum for the hard core Minnesota Vikings fan. Discuss upcoming games, opponents, trades, draft or what ever is on the minds of Viking fans!

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Pondering Her Percy
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6336
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Location: Watertown, NY

Re: The list of Vikings players that should not be back next year!!!

Post by Pondering Her Percy » Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:35 pm

StumpHunter wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 10:29 am
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:49 am


Xavier Rhodes was arguably the best CB in the NFL in 2017. He's not just going to be benched the following season. Did he play great? No, but he still very much held his own and we still had a top 3 passing defense because of him. Fans got use to him shutting every #1 WR down and that wasnt as much the case this year and guys are all over him for it. What made me mad with him was him being injured every time he got beat. If you get beat, you get beat. Dont play the injury card every time it happens because it lets your team down. Luckily, we had depth to fill in when he limped off. But if we didnt and we had a guy getting smoked every time Rhodes felt like being injured, I'd be snapping.

And again, this CB class is pretty weak. There isnt a playmaking shutdown CB in this class regardless. Even if there was, who is he going to start over?!! Definitely not Waynes or Rhodes. Mac has the slot locked down now. Then you have Hughes and Hill as the other outside CBs. Where would a 1st round CB possibly fit in. It would be a complete waste of a pick.
Aside from the Rams game where we got zero pressure on Goff, Rhodes did not give up a over 70 yards to a single receiver all season. Yea, he should have been benched. :whistle:
This.... And outside of the Rams game, did Waynes give up over 70 yards to a single WR? My guess is no.
0 x
Image

StumpHunter
Franchise Player
Posts: 483
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:55 am

Re: The list of Vikings players that should not be back next year!!!

Post by StumpHunter » Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:16 pm

Pondering Her Percy wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:35 pm
StumpHunter wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 10:29 am


Aside from the Rams game where we got zero pressure on Goff, Rhodes did not give up a over 70 yards to a single receiver all season. Yea, he should have been benched. :whistle:
This.... And outside of the Rams game, did Waynes give up over 70 yards to a single WR? My guess is no.
Was he on MT with Rhodes out versus the Saints? I would assume so, and that means yes, he gave up 89 to him. That was MT's 5th worst game of the season though.
0 x

CharVike
Starter
Posts: 187
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:28 pm

Re: The list of Vikings players that should not be back next year!!!

Post by CharVike » Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:42 am

StumpHunter wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 10:29 am
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:49 am


Xavier Rhodes was arguably the best CB in the NFL in 2017. He's not just going to be benched the following season. Did he play great? No, but he still very much held his own and we still had a top 3 passing defense because of him. Fans got use to him shutting every #1 WR down and that wasnt as much the case this year and guys are all over him for it. What made me mad with him was him being injured every time he got beat. If you get beat, you get beat. Dont play the injury card every time it happens because it lets your team down. Luckily, we had depth to fill in when he limped off. But if we didnt and we had a guy getting smoked every time Rhodes felt like being injured, I'd be snapping.

And again, this CB class is pretty weak. There isnt a playmaking shutdown CB in this class regardless. Even if there was, who is he going to start over?!! Definitely not Waynes or Rhodes. Mac has the slot locked down now. Then you have Hughes and Hill as the other outside CBs. Where would a 1st round CB possibly fit in. It would be a complete waste of a pick.
Aside from the Rams game where we got zero pressure on Goff, Rhodes did not give up a over 70 yards to a single receiver all season. Yea, he should have been benched. :whistle:
It's hard to give up yards from the bench. But somethings wrong. I seen this group fold in the Champ game. The guy averaged over 10 yards an attempt. Do you have any idea how bad that is? If we put Rhodes on the block I doubt we could get a 1st rounder for him. There's a reason for that. Particular when these ratings have him as a shut down guy.
0 x

StumpHunter
Franchise Player
Posts: 483
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:55 am

Re: The list of Vikings players that should not be back next year!!!

Post by StumpHunter » Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:53 am

CharVike wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:42 am

It's hard to give up yards from the bench.
He wasn't on the bench, he was playing and shutting the opposing team's #1 down. They were arguably the best pass defense in the NFL this season, and you want the secondary gone?
CharVike wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:42 am

But somethings wrong. I seen this group fold in the Champ game. The guy averaged over 10 yards an attempt. Do you have any idea how bad that is?
Yep, the defense had a bad game. The biggest issue was coverage of the Ertz in that game though, not necessarily the WRs. Rhodes struggled against Jeffrey no doubt, but there aren't a lot of CBs who wouldn't have.
CharVike wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:42 am

If we put Rhodes on the block I doubt we could get a 1st rounder for him. There's a reason for that. Particular when these ratings have him as a shut down guy.
What CB would warrant a #1? Talib is also one of the best CBs in the NFL and Denver got a 5th for him. Bad argument.
0 x

User avatar
Pondering Her Percy
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6336
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Location: Watertown, NY

Re: The list of Vikings players that should not be back next year!!!

Post by Pondering Her Percy » Tue Feb 12, 2019 11:24 am

CharVike wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:42 am
StumpHunter wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 10:29 am


Aside from the Rams game where we got zero pressure on Goff, Rhodes did not give up a over 70 yards to a single receiver all season. Yea, he should have been benched. :whistle:
It's hard to give up yards from the bench. But somethings wrong. I seen this group fold in the Champ game. The guy averaged over 10 yards an attempt. Do you have any idea how bad that is? If we put Rhodes on the block I doubt we could get a 1st rounder for him. There's a reason for that. Particular when these ratings have him as a shut down guy.
Well he'll be 29 years old by next season and carries a huge cap number. Why would anyone give a first for him? Ask teams what they wouldve gave up for him 3 years ago. We'd get a first any day of the week. I'm not sure what you're even arguing at this point. But once again, this is a weak CB class. And we have the deepest group and top 2-3 overall group in the league. Many teams would drool over what we have for CBs. And our #4 and #5 CBs would probably start on close to half the teams in this league
0 x
Image

StumpHunter
Franchise Player
Posts: 483
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:55 am

Re: The list of Vikings players that should not be back next year!!!

Post by StumpHunter » Tue Feb 12, 2019 2:49 pm

Pondering Her Percy wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 11:24 am
CharVike wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:42 am

It's hard to give up yards from the bench. But somethings wrong. I seen this group fold in the Champ game. The guy averaged over 10 yards an attempt. Do you have any idea how bad that is? If we put Rhodes on the block I doubt we could get a 1st rounder for him. There's a reason for that. Particular when these ratings have him as a shut down guy.
Well he'll be 29 years old by next season and carries a huge cap number. Why would anyone give a first for him? Ask teams what they wouldve gave up for him 3 years ago. We'd get a first any day of the week. I'm not sure what you're even arguing at this point. But once again, this is a weak CB class. And we have the deepest group and top 2-3 overall group in the league. Many teams would drool over what we have for CBs. And our #4 and #5 CBs would probably start on close to half the teams in this league
It just isn't a position that has a lot of trade value.

I wonder why GMs are so willing to spend high 1st rounders, like an 11th overall for instance, on unproven CBs, then when a guy like Talib hits FAs, all he can bring in is a 5th? I know that cap hit is important, and Talib cost a lot more than a rookie, but even Peters and a sixth only brought in a 2nd and a 4th.
0 x

CharVike
Starter
Posts: 187
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:28 pm

Re: The list of Vikings players that should not be back next year!!!

Post by CharVike » Fri Feb 22, 2019 8:14 am

StumpHunter wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 2:49 pm
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 11:24 am


Well he'll be 29 years old by next season and carries a huge cap number. Why would anyone give a first for him? Ask teams what they wouldve gave up for him 3 years ago. We'd get a first any day of the week. I'm not sure what you're even arguing at this point. But once again, this is a weak CB class. And we have the deepest group and top 2-3 overall group in the league. Many teams would drool over what we have for CBs. And our #4 and #5 CBs would probably start on close to half the teams in this league
It just isn't a position that has a lot of trade value.

I wonder why GMs are so willing to spend high 1st rounders, like an 11th overall for instance, on unproven CBs, then when a guy like Talib hits FAs, all he can bring in is a 5th? I know that cap hit is important, and Talib cost a lot more than a rookie, but even Peters and a sixth only brought in a 2nd and a 4th.
In todays game defense comes down to two positions. Pass rushing DE and coverage guys. It's a passing league more than ever. The Bears get Mack, pass rusher, and they become the top ranked defense. There problem is nothing at QB yet. Maybe the guy will develop but he's a RB now and not much more. Not even close to what we have in Cousins. My feeling is you never have enough CB or pass rushers. That's what makes a D great. Also when I say shutdown I'm talking about giving up nothing like the Pats did in the SB. A complete blank against a top offense. If we ever make the playoffs again it will be the same old secondary getting ripped to pieces A team won't advance doing that. But we won't make the playoffs anytime soon. We have far too many holes including the secondary. Gotta hope Sloter turns into the guy because we have 2 more years of Kirk and the team has too many holes to advance much beyond .500.
0 x

User avatar
Pondering Her Percy
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6336
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Location: Watertown, NY

Re: The list of Vikings players that should not be back next year!!!

Post by Pondering Her Percy » Fri Feb 22, 2019 8:46 am

CharVike wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 8:14 am
StumpHunter wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 2:49 pm


It just isn't a position that has a lot of trade value.

I wonder why GMs are so willing to spend high 1st rounders, like an 11th overall for instance, on unproven CBs, then when a guy like Talib hits FAs, all he can bring in is a 5th? I know that cap hit is important, and Talib cost a lot more than a rookie, but even Peters and a sixth only brought in a 2nd and a 4th.
In todays game defense comes down to two positions. Pass rushing DE and coverage guys. It's a passing league more than ever. The Bears get Mack, pass rusher, and they become the top ranked defense. There problem is nothing at QB yet. Maybe the guy will develop but he's a RB now and not much more. Not even close to what we have in Cousins. My feeling is you never have enough CB or pass rushers. That's what makes a D great. Also when I say shutdown I'm talking about giving up nothing like the Pats did in the SB. A complete blank against a top offense. If we ever make the playoffs again it will be the same old secondary getting ripped to pieces A team won't advance doing that. But we won't make the playoffs anytime soon. We have far too many holes including the secondary. Gotta hope Sloter turns into the guy because we have 2 more years of Kirk and the team has too many holes to advance much beyond .500.
Lol there are literally zero holes in the secondary dude. Idk why you keep trying to push that point. Just because they didn’t play well 2 years ago in the playoffs doesn’t mean they aren’t a good secondary. Time to move past the eagles game. And the patriots are far from a shutdown secondary. They just had an excellent game plan against. But you seem to forget about nick foles shredding their D worse than ours in the actual Super Bowl.....but that’s the kind of secondary you want. They were average against the pass all year. And they didn’t shut down the rams because of talent. It was because of the game plan.....and Jared Goff crapping his pants on the big stage
0 x
Image

CharVike
Starter
Posts: 187
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:28 pm

Re: The list of Vikings players that should not be back next year!!!

Post by CharVike » Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:40 am

Pondering Her Percy wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 8:46 am
CharVike wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 8:14 am

In todays game defense comes down to two positions. Pass rushing DE and coverage guys. It's a passing league more than ever. The Bears get Mack, pass rusher, and they become the top ranked defense. There problem is nothing at QB yet. Maybe the guy will develop but he's a RB now and not much more. Not even close to what we have in Cousins. My feeling is you never have enough CB or pass rushers. That's what makes a D great. Also when I say shutdown I'm talking about giving up nothing like the Pats did in the SB. A complete blank against a top offense. If we ever make the playoffs again it will be the same old secondary getting ripped to pieces A team won't advance doing that. But we won't make the playoffs anytime soon. We have far too many holes including the secondary. Gotta hope Sloter turns into the guy because we have 2 more years of Kirk and the team has too many holes to advance much beyond .500.
Lol there are literally zero holes in the secondary dude. Idk why you keep trying to push that point. Just because they didn’t play well 2 years ago in the playoffs doesn’t mean they aren’t a good secondary. Time to move past the eagles game. And the patriots are far from a shutdown secondary. They just had an excellent game plan against. But you seem to forget about nick foles shredding their D worse than ours in the actual Super Bowl.....but that’s the kind of secondary you want. They were average against the pass all year. And they didn’t shut down the rams because of talent. It was because of the game plan.....and Jared Goff crapping his pants on the big stage
Forget two years ago. The Pats this year passed at will against our great secondary. They took our secondary to the cleaners. That to me is a problem. But the excuse will be just a bad game. To me that is BS. We couldn't stand up against the best. That's what I saw. So zero holes and Brady has 10 yards an attempt. That isn't zero holes IMO. That's getting ripped apart.
0 x

User avatar
Pondering Her Percy
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6336
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Location: Watertown, NY

Re: The list of Vikings players that should not be back next year!!!

Post by Pondering Her Percy » Mon Feb 25, 2019 12:40 pm

CharVike wrote:
Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:40 am
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 8:46 am


Lol there are literally zero holes in the secondary dude. Idk why you keep trying to push that point. Just because they didn’t play well 2 years ago in the playoffs doesn’t mean they aren’t a good secondary. Time to move past the eagles game. And the patriots are far from a shutdown secondary. They just had an excellent game plan against. But you seem to forget about nick foles shredding their D worse than ours in the actual Super Bowl.....but that’s the kind of secondary you want. They were average against the pass all year. And they didn’t shut down the rams because of talent. It was because of the game plan.....and Jared Goff crapping his pants on the big stage
Forget two years ago. The Pats this year passed at will against our great secondary. They took our secondary to the cleaners. That to me is a problem. But the excuse will be just a bad game. To me that is BS. We couldn't stand up against the best. That's what I saw. So zero holes and Brady has 10 yards an attempt. That isn't zero holes IMO. That's getting ripped apart.
If we don't trade any of our CBs, who do you sign or draft as a CB that will IMMEDIATELY play in front of who we have....I would love to know. The Patriots took Chicago's D to the cleaner too. Does that mean they arent good either? And that was without Gronk playing (granted his play has dipped but he's still a huge threat when playing). Also, Brady threw for 126 yards against the Lions this year and got smoked. Does that mean their defense is legit and they have no holes in their secondary then? It's going to happen against every team no matter how good your D is. The 2000 Ravens was arguably the best defense of all time and they gave up 36 points, 386 yards and 3 TDs to Mark Brunell. Did their defense not have any holes in the secondary? I could do this all day dude. Bottom line is, you're nitpicking games. There is zero reason to be concerned with this secondary. And when I say, "this secondary has no holes" I'm referring to the depth of the entire secondary. We have backup corners and safeties that would literally start for half the teams in the NFL. Our top CBs are legit and our depth is better than anyone in the NFL. I wouldnt say we have the best "duo" in Rhodes and Waynes (I think Ramsey and Buoye are slightly better), but I will say we have the best overall trio in Rhodes, Waynes and Alexander. Then adding in Hughes and Hill as depth, there isnt a team in the league with more talent at CB than the Vikings. Especially when you look at all 5 as a whole.

I would say about 65%-75% of good games and bad games are a result of game planning. New England proved that in the Super Bowl. They found a way to shut down the 2nd best offense in the NFL that could literally score at will. That doesnt mean the Patriots have the most talented secondary in the league. Not even close. But the game plan was unreal. Of course, players have to do their part. But in the end, it's all about game planning. Zimmer has always been pretty good shutting down the very good to elite QBs in the past 3 years. Brees, Rodgers, Wilson, Ryan, etc. Yeah we have always had a dud of a game almost every season. Seattle in 2015, Indy in 2016, Philly last year, NE this year, etc. But for the most part, this defense is good enough to win a championship IMO. New England proved this year that you can win a SB if you construct an effective game plan. Nobody looked at them as a D that was "SB caliber" or "elite". I mean they got destroyed by the Lions and Titans. They just implemented an excellent game plan in the SB and perfected it.

Zim's problem is that he underestimates the "not-so good" QBs at times. Such as Foles. I dont think Zim thought Foles would challenge them deep. He relied on his pass rush to get to Foles and for our DBs to be in a lot of 1 on 1 coverage. Simply preparing for dink and dunks from Foles. Belichick did the same thing. Neither Zim or Belichick thought Foles had the balls to throw downfield. And he caught them both off guard. And outside of the first drive, Keenum and our offense was horrendous.

But IMO, I'm not worried about this defense at all. You dont need a 85 Bears defense to win a SB. You need to be rolling as a team. This year, we didnt do that. The O would play bad and the D would be great, the D would play bad and the O would be great, special teams will crap the bed, etc. It was a whole slew of things that played into this seasons results.
0 x
Image

StumpHunter
Franchise Player
Posts: 483
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:55 am

Re: The list of Vikings players that should not be back next year!!!

Post by StumpHunter » Mon Feb 25, 2019 1:05 pm

Pondering Her Percy wrote:
Mon Feb 25, 2019 12:40 pm
CharVike wrote:
Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:40 am


Forget two years ago. The Pats this year passed at will against our great secondary. They took our secondary to the cleaners. That to me is a problem. But the excuse will be just a bad game. To me that is BS. We couldn't stand up against the best. That's what I saw. So zero holes and Brady has 10 yards an attempt. That isn't zero holes IMO. That's getting ripped apart.
If we don't trade any of our CBs, who do you sign or draft as a CB that will IMMEDIATELY play in front of who we have....I would love to know. The Patriots took Chicago's D to the cleaner too. Does that mean they arent good either? And that was without Gronk playing (granted his play has dipped but he's still a huge threat when playing). Also, Brady threw for 126 yards against the Lions this year and got smoked. Does that mean their defense is legit and they have no holes in their secondary then? It's going to happen against every team no matter how good your D is. The 2000 Ravens was arguably the best defense of all time and they gave up 36 points, 386 yards and 3 TDs to Mark Brunell. Did their defense not have any holes in the secondary? I could do this all day dude. Bottom line is, you're nitpicking games. There is zero reason to be concerned with this secondary. And when I say, "this secondary has no holes" I'm referring to the depth of the entire secondary. We have backup corners and safeties that would literally start for half the teams in the NFL. Our top CBs are legit and our depth is better than anyone in the NFL. I wouldnt say we have the best "duo" in Rhodes and Waynes (I think Ramsey and Buoye are slightly better), but I will say we have the best overall trio in Rhodes, Waynes and Alexander. Then adding in Hughes and Hill as depth, there isnt a team in the league with more talent at CB than the Vikings. Especially when you look at all 5 as a whole.

I would say about 65%-75% of good games and bad games are a result of game planning. New England proved that in the Super Bowl. They found a way to shut down the 2nd best offense in the NFL that could literally score at will. That doesnt mean the Patriots have the most talented secondary in the league. Not even close. But the game plan was unreal. Of course, players have to do their part. But in the end, it's all about game planning. Zimmer has always been pretty good shutting down the very good to elite QBs in the past 3 years. Brees, Rodgers, Wilson, Ryan, etc. Yeah we have always had a dud of a game almost every season. Seattle in 2015, Indy in 2016, Philly last year, NE this year, etc. But for the most part, this defense is good enough to win a championship IMO. New England proved this year that you can win a SB if you construct an effective game plan. Nobody looked at them as a D that was "SB caliber" or "elite". I mean they got destroyed by the Lions and Titans. They just implemented an excellent game plan in the SB and perfected it.

Zim's problem is that he underestimates the "not-so good" QBs at times. Such as Foles. I dont think Zim thought Foles would challenge them deep. He relied on his pass rush to get to Foles and for our DBs to be in a lot of 1 on 1 coverage. Simply preparing for dink and dunks from Foles. Belichick did the same thing. Neither Zim or Belichick thought Foles had the balls to throw downfield. And he caught them both off guard. And outside of the first drive, Keenum and our offense was horrendous.

But IMO, I'm not worried about this defense at all. You dont need a 85 Bears defense to win a SB. You need to be rolling as a team. This year, we didnt do that. The O would play bad and the D would be great, the D would play bad and the O would be great, special teams will crap the bed, etc. It was a whole slew of things that played into this seasons results.
I don't blame Zim for not gameplanning for Foles correctly. The previous game Foles could not throw beyond 10 yards accurately. Plus, Bellicheck didn't gameplan Foles correctly in the very next game. It is just really hard to plan for something you have never seen before, and that is what Foles and that Eagles offense were, something no one had ever seen before.

That changed the following season, and we saw the results in the playoffs this year.
1 x

CharVike
Starter
Posts: 187
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:28 pm

Re: The list of Vikings players that should not be back next year!!!

Post by CharVike » Tue Feb 26, 2019 12:12 pm

Pondering Her Percy wrote:
Mon Feb 25, 2019 12:40 pm
CharVike wrote:
Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:40 am


Forget two years ago. The Pats this year passed at will against our great secondary. They took our secondary to the cleaners. That to me is a problem. But the excuse will be just a bad game. To me that is BS. We couldn't stand up against the best. That's what I saw. So zero holes and Brady has 10 yards an attempt. That isn't zero holes IMO. That's getting ripped apart.
If we don't trade any of our CBs, who do you sign or draft as a CB that will IMMEDIATELY play in front of who we have....I would love to know. The Patriots took Chicago's D to the cleaner too. Does that mean they arent good either? And that was without Gronk playing (granted his play has dipped but he's still a huge threat when playing). Also, Brady threw for 126 yards against the Lions this year and got smoked. Does that mean their defense is legit and they have no holes in their secondary then? It's going to happen against every team no matter how good your D is. The 2000 Ravens was arguably the best defense of all time and they gave up 36 points, 386 yards and 3 TDs to Mark Brunell. Did their defense not have any holes in the secondary? I could do this all day dude. Bottom line is, you're nitpicking games. There is zero reason to be concerned with this secondary. And when I say, "this secondary has no holes" I'm referring to the depth of the entire secondary. We have backup corners and safeties that would literally start for half the teams in the NFL. Our top CBs are legit and our depth is better than anyone in the NFL. I wouldnt say we have the best "duo" in Rhodes and Waynes (I think Ramsey and Buoye are slightly better), but I will say we have the best overall trio in Rhodes, Waynes and Alexander. Then adding in Hughes and Hill as depth, there isnt a team in the league with more talent at CB than the Vikings. Especially when you look at all 5 as a whole.

I would say about 65%-75% of good games and bad games are a result of game planning. New England proved that in the Super Bowl. They found a way to shut down the 2nd best offense in the NFL that could literally score at will. That doesnt mean the Patriots have the most talented secondary in the league. Not even close. But the game plan was unreal. Of course, players have to do their part. But in the end, it's all about game planning. Zimmer has always been pretty good shutting down the very good to elite QBs in the past 3 years. Brees, Rodgers, Wilson, Ryan, etc. Yeah we have always had a dud of a game almost every season. Seattle in 2015, Indy in 2016, Philly last year, NE this year, etc. But for the most part, this defense is good enough to win a championship IMO. New England proved this year that you can win a SB if you construct an effective game plan. Nobody looked at them as a D that was "SB caliber" or "elite". I mean they got destroyed by the Lions and Titans. They just implemented an excellent game plan in the SB and perfected it.

Zim's problem is that he underestimates the "not-so good" QBs at times. Such as Foles. I dont think Zim thought Foles would challenge them deep. He relied on his pass rush to get to Foles and for our DBs to be in a lot of 1 on 1 coverage. Simply preparing for dink and dunks from Foles. Belichick did the same thing. Neither Zim or Belichick thought Foles had the balls to throw downfield. And he caught them both off guard. And outside of the first drive, Keenum and our offense was horrendous.

But IMO, I'm not worried about this defense at all. You dont need a 85 Bears defense to win a SB. You need to be rolling as a team. This year, we didnt do that. The O would play bad and the D would be great, the D would play bad and the O would be great, special teams will crap the bed, etc. It was a whole slew of things that played into this seasons results.
Some good points especially the game planning. BB might be the best ever. As somebody pointed out he turns nobody into somebody. And yes I agree I'm picking on the wrong part. Our secondary is good and deep but I would like to see a stellar effort against a top team. Who wouldn't. Maybe in todays game that wont happen. We may never see a Ravens or Bears type again. But how do we get out of this middle of the road lump. Perhaps and many have said it and that's to get the OL fixed. But it still hard for me to shy away from BPA even if it's a CB. But I see the argument draft for need as legit.
1 x

YikesVikes
Pro Bowl Elite Player
Posts: 786
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 12:04 am

Re: The list of Vikings players that should not be back next year!!!

Post by YikesVikes » Thu Mar 07, 2019 11:01 pm

Just wanted to use this opportunity to point out how silly the "we don't need high picks on the oline" argument is. As many of your have pointed out, we have 3 1st rounders and a 2nd rounder in a position that usually has 2-3 players on the field. We have 0 1st rounders on our oline that is constantly with 5 on the field. Both positional groups play as a unit out there. Its absurd.
1 x

User avatar
soflavike
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9554
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:38 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL

Re: The list of Vikings players that should not be back next year!!!

Post by soflavike » Thu Apr 04, 2019 10:01 am

Laquon Treadwell, WR, #11 Drafted in the 1st round of the 2016 Draft.

3 Seasons, 31 games played, 9 games as a starter, 40 career receptions, 395 career yds., 1 TD, 1 Fumble

It's time to say good-bye to this bust.

Trade him for a grilled cheese sandwich.
0 x
*********
A die-hard Vikings fan in South Florida

User avatar
Pondering Her Percy
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6336
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Location: Watertown, NY

Re: The list of Vikings players that should not be back next year!!!

Post by Pondering Her Percy » Thu Apr 04, 2019 11:55 am

YikesVikes wrote:
Thu Mar 07, 2019 11:01 pm
Just wanted to use this opportunity to point out how silly the "we don't need high picks on the oline" argument is. As many of your have pointed out, we have 3 1st rounders and a 2nd rounder in a position that usually has 2-3 players on the field. We have 0 1st rounders on our oline that is constantly with 5 on the field. Both positional groups play as a unit out there. Its absurd.
If we dont draft and OL in the first round but draft one in the second, why is that wrong? We drafted O'Neill last year in the 2nd and he was arguably the best OT in the draft (at least from a pass blocking perspective). Just because you pick a first round OL doesnt mean it was the right choice. They could easily but like a Levi Brown or Robert Gallery or they could be all pro's. It's about assessing their talent the correct way. If we're up and there isnt a OL there that we think is worthy of that pick and there is a top DT or TE out there, we shouldnt pull the trigger? I've said this before but I hope we dont go into this draft with OL goggles on and pass up on a better talent just because every analyst and fan out there are screaming take a guard. I'm completely find with them waiting until round 2 this year. There are going to be some good players there. And that's where a lot of the guards are going to be sitting. Most of the first round OL are tackles that "could" switch to guard. The "true" guards are going to be in the 2nd and 3rd round.
0 x
Image