2016 draft: Receivers

Talk about the latest College games and players and discuss the NFL Draft here. Get reports on players, prospects, Draft Links, the latest Mock Drafts and other indepth analysis, plus the latest on the NCAA College games.

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
nightowl
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2470
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 12:57 pm
Location: Melbourne,Fl

Re: 2016 draft: Receivers

Post by nightowl » Thu Mar 17, 2016 10:00 am

VikingLord wrote:For me, Sheppard is the guy you draft who has the potential to be a 10 year starter at his position. That doesn't mean he'll be a star per se, but he is a guy who is going to make the team better and add stability. Is he going to be better than Jarius Wright in the slot? That's harder to say, but given what I know about him and what I've seen of him I'd say he'd be a great pickup circa the 3rd round if Spielman can manage it.

That said, he doesn't really solve the immediate need of a true #1 WR for the Vikings, and honestly, I'm not sure there is a guy in this draft who will solve that need. Doctson can go over the top and make plays, but he's not really a dominant prospect in terms of size or speed. Thomas strikes me as a guy who could develop, but is far from a sure bet and doesn't really flash anything I would say warrants the #23 slot. Ditto for Treadwell. I'm just not sold on WR at #23 in this draft. I think there will be better 10-year starter prospects at other positions when that pick comes around (several on defense), and I hope Spielman doesn't force a pick here. If he really loves a WR in this draft, he'd be better off staying pat at #23 and taking the BPA there, then maybe trying to move up into the top of the 2nd to get his WR IMHO.
The stereotype #1 WR doesn't exist in this draft. There are guys who do certain things well, but not one who does it all.

There's a conversation to be had regarding what a true #1 really is. To me a true #1 is a guy who can consistently be counted on to make plays all over the field. Being 6'2" doesn't seem to be a prerequisite given that the best WR in the league is Antonio Brown. Brown is 5'10" 190 same as Sterling Shepard, Steve Smith has been dominant for years and he's 5'9". Why couldn't Sterling Shepard do the same?

I think Shepard probably fits best with what an offense with Teddy should be doing anyway. Someone who can get open quickly with precise routes and make plays after the catch. I see alot of talk about needing somone who can catch jump balls, which is valuable, but still only a small portion of the game. Give me a guy who can get open consistently and be in the right place every time and I'll be happy.
0 x

User avatar
fiestavike
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3546
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am

Re: 2016 draft: Receivers

Post by fiestavike » Thu Mar 17, 2016 10:27 am

nightowl wrote: The stereotype #1 WR doesn't exist in this draft. There are guys who do certain things well, but not one who does it all.

There's a conversation to be had regarding what a true #1 really is. To me a true #1 is a guy who can consistently be counted on to make plays all over the field. Being 6'2" doesn't seem to be a prerequisite given that the best WR in the league is Antonio Brown. Brown is 5'10" 190 same as Sterling Shepard, Steve Smith has been dominant for years and he's 5'9". Why couldn't Sterling Shepard do the same?

I think Shepard probably fits best with what an offense with Teddy should be doing anyway. Someone who can get open quickly with precise routes and make plays after the catch. I see alot of talk about needing somone who can catch jump balls, which is valuable, but still only a small portion of the game. Give me a guy who can get open consistently and be in the right place every time and I'll be happy.
Both types of WR could be valuable, but its the threat of the guy over the top that does help keep defenses from being able to just "play downhill" and opens up space underneath. Diggs is a great fit, because I think he shows the ability to attack the ball downfield and the ability to get open with good route running. He's not extremely tall, but he has a chance to be an excellent WR nonetheless.

Of course, given the inability to hit deep shots, the inability to protect the passer only compounds that problem. Its why the seahawks destroyed the vikings in their first meeting. They were able to have their whole defense play downhill ball, pressuring before routes could develop and smashing underneath routes the moment they opened up. To varying degrees we saw this from nearly every team able to muster a decent pass rush last season.

Mike Wallace wasn't the best fit because Mike Wallace doesn't have the ability to battle for the football. He doesn't have very good ball skills or hands. He is able to run under the football, and that's where he will be a better fit in BAL and PIT then he will ever be here. Teddy has shown himself to be erratic on downfield passes. He needs a WR with the catch radius and ball skills to create a much larger margin for error. Its possible that Diggs could be that guy. I had hoped Patterson would be further along in his development by now, but there is a slim chance that Patterson can at least contribute in that department. Andre Holmes would have been a nice fit to help out there. None of those guys are going to be the type of WR Norv Turner has had so much success with in previous stints, but they at least share some traits. It'll be interesting to see what else they try to do with that position. Josh Gordon was tweeting about who might be next, seeming to imply that he is expecting to possibly be cut. It would be interesting to see if the Vikings would take a flyer on him. His negatives are obvious, but if he comes available a reunion with Norv Turner might not be a bad career move for him.
0 x

nightowl
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2470
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 12:57 pm
Location: Melbourne,Fl

Re: 2016 draft: Receivers

Post by nightowl » Thu Mar 17, 2016 10:44 am

I'd be on board with Gordon for the right price.

I don't intend to diminish what a big jump ball guy can bring. In fact I wanted Holmes too. I mean more to highlight that there's a narrow view of what a #1 is, and that we shouldn't pigeon hole guys like Shepard into slot roles just because they're not 6 ft plus. I also don't want to see the Vikes force a pick again due to a need. That's how we ended up with Ponder.
0 x

User avatar
fiestavike
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3546
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am

Re: 2016 draft: Receivers

Post by fiestavike » Thu Mar 17, 2016 11:09 am

nightowl wrote:I'd be on board with Gordon for the right price.

I don't intend to diminish what a big jump ball guy can bring. In fact I wanted Holmes too. I mean more to highlight that there's a narrow view of what a #1 is, and that we shouldn't pigeon hole guys like Shepard into slot roles just because they're not 6 ft plus. I also don't want to see the Vikes force a pick again due to a need. That's how we ended up with Ponder.
I agree with you on all those points. Styles make fights and fits make great players, so to speak. Shepard may be the best WR in the draft for all I know, and probably brings value in the way you describe, but I personally do think a guy in the mold of Vincent Jackson would be a huge asset for the Vikings given the way they are currently constructed (could that be Doctson or the guy from Ohio State?). Nonethless, I still view the WR position as secondary to the OL in this teams improvement. I've really liked what I've seen from Teddy on short and intermediate passes, and with regard to his poise, composure, toughness and accuracy in that range. Guys like Diggs and probably Shepard, who are very effective in that range would be weapons if there's enough time to throw, especially if its paired with a run game that commands respect. I think there's more than one way to skin a cat, and I don't even mind if they continue to bolster the defense instead of prioritizing the WR position...I just don't see how a repeat of last years offensive line performance can possibly allow this team to get to the next level. Boone is a good start, but I'm desperate to see them improve that unit.
0 x

Jordysghost
Packers Suck
Posts: 2992
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 pm

Re: 2016 draft: Receivers

Post by Jordysghost » Thu Mar 17, 2016 11:42 am

'Number 1 WR' is often used as a misnomer for an 'X' WR.
0 x
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011

nightowl
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2470
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 12:57 pm
Location: Melbourne,Fl

Re: 2016 draft: Receivers

Post by nightowl » Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:41 pm

Jordysghost wrote:'Number 1 WR' is often used as a misnomer for an 'X' WR.
That's a good point, I hadn't looked at it that way. Thanks for the call out.

Though I do think most fans using the #1 term are thinking along the lines of #1 option or Lead Dog... I could be wrong though.

Fiesta;

Definitely agree on the oline being the biggest issue. Watching the Seattle game in the playoffs I kept waiting for them to intercept the snap because the penetration was so instantaneous.
0 x

User avatar
HardcoreVikesFan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6625
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 6:28 pm

Re: 2016 draft: Receivers

Post by HardcoreVikesFan » Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:38 pm

Jordysghost wrote:'Number 1 WR' is often used as a misnomer for an 'X' WR.
Well, technically, the Z WR is supposed to be the number 'one' guy.

But really, it doesn't matter. I think most people define the number one as the guy who has the most production.
0 x
A Randy Moss fan for life. A Kevin Williams fan for life.

Jordysghost
Packers Suck
Posts: 2992
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 pm

Re: 2016 draft: Receivers

Post by Jordysghost » Thu Mar 17, 2016 2:21 pm

HardcoreVikesFan wrote: Well, technically, the Z WR is supposed to be the number 'one' guy.

But really, it doesn't matter. I think most people define the number one as the guy who has the most production.
You got that backwards, the X WR is typically designated the 'number 1' WR, while the Z WR is the flanker who plays off the Line of scrimmage.
0 x
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011

User avatar
HardcoreVikesFan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6625
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 6:28 pm

Re: 2016 draft: Receivers

Post by HardcoreVikesFan » Thu Mar 17, 2016 9:15 pm

Jordysghost wrote: You got that backwards, the X WR is typically designated the 'number 1' WR, while the Z WR is the flanker who plays off the Line of scrimmage.
Not necessarily. It depends on personnel and situation.

Split End is on the line of scrimmage and opposite of the tight end. Flanker (Z-receiver) is typically the number one guy cause he can play off the line - meaning he have more variety and typically doesn't face press coverage. Ideally, you want your split end to be able to block when you run 22, 13 personnel. However, you can throw the flanker out there at split end if you run play action out of a 22 or 13 set.

Ultimately, it depends on the personnel and situation on the field that dictate the positions. Ideally, in 11 personnel, or 21 personnel, etc. you want your number one guy to play off so he isn't jammed. However, if you are running 22 or 13, you want your number one at split end, or you want your best blocking receiver at split end.
0 x
A Randy Moss fan for life. A Kevin Williams fan for life.

User avatar
jackal
Strong Safety
Posts: 11582
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:05 am
Location: California

Re: 2016 draft: Receivers

Post by jackal » Fri Mar 18, 2016 8:16 am

The west coast I think could possibly change who the number one receiver is on a given play.
I know the 49ers had a lot of passes going to Brent Jones or Tom Rathman. With Rudolf and
McKinnon they could be the X receiver at times. I love Diggs but I have to admit I would love to
have a six foot plus speed threat that can play to the ball and catch. Who knows maybe Patterson
becomes the guy.
0 x
no one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Jordysghost
Packers Suck
Posts: 2992
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 pm

Re: 2016 draft: Receivers

Post by Jordysghost » Fri Mar 18, 2016 9:19 am

But thats the thing, number 1 WRs are typically the 'X' WR, Julio, Calvin, Jordy, Dez, Demaryius, etc. etc.

I've never heard it taught otherwise anywhere else either, but I guess we will agree to disagree.
0 x
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011

User avatar
dead_poet
Commissioner
Posts: 24550
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: 2016 draft: Receivers

Post by dead_poet » Fri Mar 18, 2016 2:46 pm

Michael Thomas scouting report: http://bit.ly/MThomasScout
0 x
“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that.” --- Bill Shankly

User avatar
Texas Vike
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3654
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:52 am

Re: 2016 draft: Receivers

Post by Texas Vike » Fri Mar 18, 2016 8:04 pm

nightowl wrote: The stereotype #1 WR doesn't exist in this draft. There are guys who do certain things well, but not one who does it all.

There's a conversation to be had regarding what a true #1 really is. To me a true #1 is a guy who can consistently be counted on to make plays all over the field. Being 6'2" doesn't seem to be a prerequisite given that the best WR in the league is Antonio Brown. Brown is 5'10" 190 same as Sterling Shepard, Steve Smith has been dominant for years and he's 5'9". Why couldn't Sterling Shepard do the same?

I think Shepard probably fits best with what an offense with Teddy should be doing anyway. Someone who can get open quickly with precise routes and make plays after the catch. I see alot of talk about needing somone who can catch jump balls, which is valuable, but still only a small portion of the game. Give me a guy who can get open consistently and be in the right place every time and I'll be happy.
Shepard's a fine prospect, but he's not elite and he doesn't compliment what we already have very well. Jarius Wright is a pretty similar player and I don't see the need for two WRs of that type.

Another point to consider: other Big 12 WRs (Doctson, Coleman) put up MUCH bigger numbers against the same Ds. If Shepard's so good, why was his production so poor? The Sooners' QB was a bad ####, so he's not to blame! (As a Longhorn Alum that's hard to admit, but the kid can ball).
0 x

User avatar
dead_poet
Commissioner
Posts: 24550
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: 2016 draft: Receivers

Post by dead_poet » Sat Mar 19, 2016 8:47 am

0 x
“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that.” --- Bill Shankly

User avatar
dead_poet
Commissioner
Posts: 24550
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: 2016 draft: Receivers

Post by dead_poet » Sat Mar 19, 2016 8:49 am

Texas Vike wrote: Shepard's a fine prospect, but he's not elite and he doesn't compliment what we already have very well. Jarius Wright is a pretty similar player and I don't see the need for two WRs of that type.

Another point to consider: other Big 12 WRs (Doctson, Coleman) put up MUCH bigger numbers against the same Ds. If Shepard's so good, why was his production so poor? The Sooners' QB was a bad ####, so he's not to blame! (As a Longhorn Alum that's hard to admit, but the kid can ball).
Huh?

In 2015 he played in all 14 games and had 86 receptions for 1,288 yards and 11 touchdowns.

That's poor?
0 x
“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that.” --- Bill Shankly

Post Reply