Vikings Message Board.Com

Jordysghost wrote: This is the most misguided post ive seen in a while, did you even bother fact checking any of this?

The Packers D was among the top in the league, until injuries hit and our 5th DB was STARTING at the number 1 corner.

Randall, Rollins and Hyde (Hybrid corner/safety) have all been good picks, the first two would likely be number 1 corners on the Vikings. By the numbers, they are both better then Rhodes.

Furthermore, the Packers have had a top 5 secondary two of the past 3 seasons, top 10 in all of the past 3 seasons.

When the secondary was healthy, I still recall Blake freaking Bortles having the best game of his season, Marvin Jones posting a 200 yard game, Bradford having a great game in his 3rd start with the team while Diggs absolutely took Randall to the cleaners, etc.

If you want to argue that these young DB's will be good with time and health, that's fair. They've all had moments. But they've also struggled this season, even before injuries struck. But as I stated earlier, I think the Vikings have had the most recent draft success in a division where none of the teams have done particularly poorly in that regard. But it was your run defense is what was good early. The Packers' pass D has ranged from below average to downright terrible in just about any category you like.

What's misguided is to think that any of these up and down players would have a prayer of starting over Rhodes. Through that first quarter of the season where your guys were actually playing, but unevenly, Rhodes allowed 3 catches on 10 targets for 23 yards and a picks. That's an NFL passer rating of 0.0. Shields is very good, but not that good. The rest of them aren't close. Your second best DB from recent seasons is playing ball in San Diego.

Banquo wrote: When the secondary was healthy, I still recall Blake freaking Bortles having the best game of his season, Marvin Jones posting a 200 yard game, Bradford having a great game in his 3rd start with the team while Diggs absolutely took Randall to the cleaners, etc.

If you want to argue that these young DB's will be good with time and health, that's fair. They've all had moments. But they've also struggled this season, even before injuries struck. But as I stated earlier, I think the Vikings have had the most recent draft success in a division where none of the teams have done particularly poorly in that regard. But it was your run defense is what was good early. The Packers' pass D has ranged from below average to downright terrible in just about any category you like.

What's misguided is to think that any of these up and down players would have a prayer of starting over Rhodes. Through that first quarter of the season where your guys were actually playing, but unevenly, Rhodes allowed 3 catches on 10 targets for 23 yards and a picks. That's an NFL passer rating of 0.0. Shields is very good, but not that good. The rest of them aren't close. Your second best DB from recent seasons is playing ball in San Diego.

Your pointing out the few poor performances and ignoring that they are STATISTICALLY superior to your secondary for the past 3 years. Randall has as many picks Rhodes. Yup, Hyde too. Rollins did until this season.

Hayward wasnt our second best db, House and Hyde vastly outplayed him and earned up the depth chart over him, cutting him was a good decision, to much money.

Again, the secondary has been ranked above your for 3 years running..

They have played nearly all season with the 5th db at the number one spot. They gave up 24 points to Bortles in the 3rd hottest game they ever played in history yea, but that was week 1, we nearly always #### the bed during the early weeks of the season.

So? You know how many Packers WRs have taken Rhodes the the woodshed? I dont mean this in a smack sort of sense but i seriously dont understand your point on this. Does a bad game equal a bad player?

Shields isnt that good? Do you realize that none of what you say bears out on the field? Shields is a top 5 NFL corner, but im sure you'l just pick out one or two bad performances and act like it supports your point.

Im not going to comment on this anymore, not trying to derail thread.

Jordysghost wrote:Im not going to comment on this anymore, not trying to derail thread.

That's fine with me. To conclude then, my point was not to deride the Packers or insinuate that they are terrible drafters. Rather I'm just arguing that, since taking over in 2012, Spielman's FO has done a fine job and arguably the best in division over that period.

Banquo wrote: That's fine with me. To conclude then, my point was not to deride the Packers or insinuate that they are terrible drafters. Rather I'm just arguing that, since taking over in 2012, Spielman's FO has done a fine job and arguably the best in division over that period.

I dont quite agree, but I think there is a reasonable argument to be made in favor of the idea.

Jordysghost wrote: I dont quite agree, but I think there is a reasonable argument to be made in favor of the idea.

Yeah, and even if you don't agree within the division, I think it's easy to see that the talent Spielman has accrued since 2012 has been above average from a league wide perspective. Everyone has misses. In the final analysis, it's about coming away with positive impact each year. There are a lot of teams that don't do that consistently.