**Official '12 Vikings Training Camp Thread

[Mercy Percy]

Still looks like a big question mark at starter and NO depth to me. Especially after their defensive end with no linebacking experience failed to crack the lineup in their 43 cover 2 base defense.

And it doesn't take a crystal ball to see this team won't be competing for anything other than 3rd place in the division for at least 3 years...especially with the clowns running it from ownership on down.

And look, Smith will start this week! I'm sure he just proved he could handle it last week and it wasn't some stubbornheadedness from Coach Clueless Part 2.

You're telling me you want Frazier too bash his players in public? I'm sure he knows there isnt much depth anywhere. Its not a good idea to destroy there confidence then what good does that do? Just because the coach tells the MEDIA that we like the depth there that doesn't mean he thinks we have great linebackers. Believe it or not but a lot of players look at stuff written about them, not exactly the best thing to do for a coach is to bash players he has.

[Cliff]

I don't see this as a similar situation as AD's rookie year with Chester Taylor.

To be fair, even starting Chester Taylor ahead of Peterson was only a bad idea in hindsight. Taylor was 1000 yard back the season before and Peterson was a rookie, or am I remembering that wrong?

[Mothman]

To be fair, even starting Chester Taylor ahead of Peterson was only a bad idea in hindsight. Taylor was 1000 yard back the season before and Peterson was a rookie, or am I remembering that wrong?

No, that's correct. Peterson was a rookie and he was sensational so it wasn't hard to understand why fans wanted him on the field more and more. He did get quite a few more carries than Taylor that year (238 to CT's 157) but Taylor was excellent, averaging 5.4 ypc and scoring 7 TDs. Running and receiving he put up 1,125 yards in 2007. Of course, Peterson averaged 5.6 ypc, ran for 1,341 yards, added another 268 in receiving and scored 13 TDs!

Jim

[Cliff]

No, that's correct. Peterson was a rookie and he was sensational so it wasn't hard to understand why fans wanted him on the field more and more. He did get quite a few more carries than Taylor that year (238 to CT's 157) but Taylor was excellent, averaging 5.4 ypc and scoring 7 TDs. Running and receiving he put up 1,125 yards in 2007. Of course, Peterson averaged 5.6 ypc, ran for 1,341 yards, added another 268 in receiving and scored 13 TDs!

Jim

Yeah, I think Peterson later in the season was a no-brainer. But during this time of year? That's really the context I was thinking about.

[Mothman]

Yeah, I think Peterson later in the season was a no-brainer. But during this time of year? That's really the context I was thinking about.

I see. At this time of year, it definitely made sense to work him in and get him acclimated.

Honestly, I think all the hubbub over Harrison Smith not starting is indicative of just how intense NFL coverage (and fandom) has become. At one time, most fans wouldn't have cared much, if at all, about who was starting a mid-August practice but now, with constant Twitter updates, video coverage, etc. it's something else to get riled up about.

I'm trying to take a relaxed approach to this season because I want following football to be fun, I know the team is likely to lose more games than they win and consequently, it feels like there's a little less at stake. I just want to see how Ponder develops, how Frazier and his staff perform, how some of the players likely to play a part in the Vikes future look, etc. I hope they win as many games as realistically possible but unless the wheels come off, I'm just not that worried about it. I'm resigned to the fact that the team is rebuilding, hopeful that they're going about it the right way and openminded about the coach, QB, GM, etc. who I think deserve a chance to prove themselves in their current roles. Spielman and Frazier can't spin straw into gold so I'm only expecting them to accomplish so much this year and the same goes for Ponder. I'm not about to write him off if he doesn't end up with 25 TDs and 8 INTs this year. I'm looking for him to stay healthy, make fewer mental errors, improve on the .500 TD/INT ratio he ended with last year, improve his completion percentage, etc. He doesn't have to look like Aaron Rodgers by the end of 2012, just like a QB who can still get better and who deserves to be at the helm of the offense again in 2013 (in other words, improved).

Sorry if I rambled a bit.

[dead_poet]

No ligament damage for Everson Griffen. Just tweaked that knee. Will be cautious with it. Says he wanted to move back to end. #Vikings

[S197]

To be fair, even starting Chester Taylor ahead of Peterson was only a bad idea in hindsight. Taylor was 1000 yard back the season before and Peterson was a rookie, or am I remembering that wrong?

That's basically what I was alluding to, or at least attempting. We had a solid back, it just turns out AD was an elite one. Our safeties are rather bad so it's an entirely different set of circumstances.

[Cliff]

That's basically what I was alluding to, or at least attempting. We had a solid back, it just turns out AD was an elite one. Our safeties are rather bad so it's an entirely different set of circumstances.

I misread what you wrote there. Sorry about that.

I agree, the situations aren't really the same. Regardless, it's like Jim said, there really isn't an issue. Smith will be starting by week 1 unless he's horrible anyway.

[Eli]

I wonder if the Vikings wouldn't be smart to shop Everson Griffen around to teams looking for a 3-4 outside linebacker. He's proved to be a lot more valuable than his fourth round draft selection, and after a rough start, has remained out of trouble off the field.

He's just a poor fit on a team running a 4-3 with two DEs ahead of him on the depth chart, and too valuable to be used only as a situational pass rusher and gunner on the punting squad. Sometimes it's nice to have depth at a position, but if you're unable to figure out how to use a potentially valuable player, you should probably cash him in rather than letting him watch from the sidelines.

[Cliff]

I wonder if the Vikings wouldn't be smart to shop Everson Griffen around to teams looking for a 3-4 outside linebacker. He's proved to be a lot more valuable than his fourth round draft selection, and after a rough start, has remained out of trouble off the field.

He's just a poor fit on a team running a 4-3 with two DEs ahead of him on the depth chart, and too valuable to be used only as a situational pass rusher and gunner on the punting squad. Sometimes it's nice to have depth at a position, but if you're unable to figure out how to use a potentially valuable player, you should probably cash him in rather than letting him watch from the sidelines.

I think he's got value where he is. They're talking about taking JA out more this season to keep him fresh so good depth will be pretty important in that respect.

[Mothman]

I think he's got value where he is. They're talking about taking JA out more this season to keep him fresh so good depth will be pretty important in that respect.

I agree. He's valuable where he is, even if his minutes are limited by Robison and Allen. It's more than nice to have good depth, it's crucial. You never know when a starter will miss playing time and if the drop from starter to backup is too significant, it can have a noticeable impact on wins and losses.

Jim

[Eli]

I think he's got value where he is. They're talking about taking JA out more this season to keep him fresh so good depth will be pretty important in that respect.

We'll see. Allen has been vocal about not wanting to be rested, so if he's pulled for more than 1 out of 5 plays I'd be surprised.

I wonder if they'd give Griffen a fighting chance to move ahead of Robison to start at LDE. Seems like nobody on the entire coaching staff has a clue what to do with him.

[Eli]

I agree. He's valuable where he is, even if his minutes are limited by Robison and Allen. It's more than nice to have good depth, it's crucial. You never know when a starter will miss playing time and if the drop from starter to backup is too significant, it can have a noticeable impact on wins and losses.

No surprise. I don't think I've ever seen a reaction on this board that was any different. Suggest trading a backup who gets on the field for less than 10% of the snaps, and you'll hear a dozen different reasons why that player is suddenly critical to the organization.

A bird in the hand, I suppose...

[dead_poet]

Andrew Sendejo keeps getting a lot of work with No. 1 special teams units. Sleeper for the roster. #Vikings

Rookie halfback Derrick Coleman getting reps on first punt return unit. That's new. Interesting. #Vikings

[Mothman]

No surprise. I don't think I've ever seen a reaction on this board that was any different.

What does tell you?

Suggest trading a backup who gets on the field for less than 10% of the snaps, and you'll hear a dozen different reasons why that player is suddenly critical to the organization.

Maybe that's just because the Vikes have so few good backups!

I won't give you a dozen reasons not to trade Griffen but I'll give you two:

1.) As I said above, Griffen is a valuable backup and is one injury away from becoming a starter.

2.) Griffen is 24 and Allen is 30. At some point, Allen's game could drop off or he could become too expensive to retain. Grooming his successor isn't a bad idea.

Let me put it this way: what do you think the Vikes would get in return for "cashing in" on Griffen? You're suggesting they trade him because he's too valuable to be a backup but it's very unlikely that he's valuable enough to net the Vikes a surefire starter in return. They'd probably end up trading one valuable backup player for another. What's the point?

One of the ways good teams become good teams is they develop quality players, preparing them to take over starting jobs when the veterans ahead of them falter or sign elsewhere (or when they just surpass those veterans in playmaking ability). I'm not against trading a player like Griffen if the return truly justifies the trade but I don't think "he's too good" is a compelling reason to trade a talented young d-lineman.