HardcoreVikesFan wrote:Peters to the Kansas City Chiefs. Pretty jealous tbh. He is a better player.
Nonsense. Waynes is clearly the best CB in this draft and he should have gone #7 to the Bears if they hadn't gone full-NFL and picked a gimmick WR from a gimmick team in a gimmick conference.
Have you ever wondered why the same exact teams in the NFL are good year and year out in a league that operates on a 100% level playing field? It's because those teams don't take the Justin Gilberts, Kyle Fullers, and Marcus Peters over the Darqueze Dennards and Trae Waynes.
Victory4MSU wrote:
Nonsense. Waynes is clearly the best CB in this draft and he should have gone #7 to the Bears if they hadn't gone full-NFL and picked a gimmick WR from a gimmick team in a gimmick conference.
Have you ever wondered why the same exact teams in the NFL are good year and year out in a league that operates on a 100% level playing field? It's because those teams don't take the Justin Gilberts, Kyle Fullers, and Marcus Peters over the Darqueze Dennards and Trae Waynes.
With respect to your msu faith you can't exactly say that. Dennard (who I like) only played 61 defensive snaps last year where as Gilbert and Fuller were tossed to the wolves from the get go. Also the Vikings and Bengals aren't exactly "good year after year"...unfortunately..
TeddyB wrote:
With respect to your msu faith you can't exactly say that. Dennard (who I like) only played 61 defensive snaps last year where as Gilbert and Fuller were tossed to the wolves from the get go. Also the Vikings and Bengals aren't exactly "good year after year"...unfortunately..
Marvin Lewis supposedly doesn't like plugging in rookies if he can avoid it and the Bengals were already set at CB. Dennard will start this season and become all-pro in short order. The Vikings will be good year after year now that they have competent management. Just watch. Although I am a little skeptical of Bridgewater.
Victory4MSU wrote:
Nonsense. Waynes is clearly the best CB in this draft and he should have gone #7 to the Bears if they hadn't gone full-NFL and picked a gimmick WR from a gimmick team in a gimmick conference.
Have you ever wondered why the same exact teams in the NFL are good year and year out in a league that operates on a 100% level playing field? It's because those teams don't take the Justin Gilberts, Kyle Fullers, and Marcus Peters over the Darqueze Dennards and Trae Waynes.
Lol. Yeah, real objective coming a person's who username is Victory4MSU. BTW, if Darqueze was so great, why couldn't he challenge for more playing time and get stuck behind Terrance Newman, Dre Kirkpatrick, Adam Jones, or Leon Hall last year? I seriously doubt he starts opposite of Leon Hall this season as well. He has to beat Kirkpatrick and Adam Jones for that role.
Back on topic. I happened to think Marcus Peters was the better corner. It doesn't mean anything. Minnesota clearly felt different. Trae Waynes is a Viking. I will support Trae Waynes as a member of the team I am a fan of. Time will tell who has the better career. My hope is that both Trae Waynes and Marcus Peters have great careers for their respective teams.
A Randy Moss fan for life. A Kevin Williams fan for life.
TeddyB wrote:
With respect to your msu faith you can't exactly say that. Dennard (who I like) only played 61 defensive snaps last year where as Gilbert and Fuller were tossed to the wolves from the get go. Also the Vikings and Bengals aren't exactly "good year after year"...unfortunately..
I'm not sure what the criteria is for gimmicky players, I'd suppose it's based upon who is doing the labeling.
....but I would suggest that the Bengals have been consistently good for the past 10 seasons. They have had 3 losing years and 3 division titles and 6 playoff appearances in that span. They've laid huge eggs in the playoffs...but considering the strength of the division they're in, I'd label them as being pretty darn good on a consistent basis.
The Breeze wrote:
I'm not sure what the criteria is for gimmicky players, I'd suppose it's based upon who is doing the labeling.
....but I would suggest that the Bengals have been consistently good for the past 10 seasons. They have had 3 losing years and 3 division titles and 6 playoff appearances in that span. They've laid huge eggs in the playoffs...but considering the strength of the division they're in, I'd label them as being pretty darn good on a consistent basis.
And gimmicky teams and conferences? WTH? Oh, you mean WVU, the team that defeated the Baylor Bears in a much more convincing fashion than MSU did? The Big 12 is gimmicky? TCU spanked an SEC (non-gimmicky, I supposed) "powerhouse" in Ole Miss, was that all done with smoke and mirrors?
I like Waynes plenty, myself, but I don't get the blanket statements. They don't help your case at all.
I guess it depends on your definition. Good teams do well in the playoffs. Cincy has been a consistent team in the regular season, yes, but what does that matter? Plenty of teams across sports are consistent in the regular season, don't get it done in the playoffs then fall apart, and rebuild. The last time the Vikings had a good team, we won games in the playoffs, then we weren't so great. Good teams are the Packers ( ), colts, patriots, and now seahawks that show up in the playoffs and draft really well.
I was more so referring to his statement that the Bengals are good year after year because they draft players like Dennard over Fuller- that's just not the case. We're not now a good team because we drafted Waynes, and I know that's far from the popular assumption around here.
DK Sweets wrote:Yeah, the Bengals are "aiight" but they're not a model franchise by any means.
I think they are, but when it comes to football if you don't have an above average player at QB you're going to struggle in the playoffs against all those teams that do. Put Tom Brady on the Bengals and I think they could have won any of the last 3 superbowls, and likely would have been favorites to do so.
Maybe you can hold not having a top QB against them that much, I dunno, but to me I think finding an elite QB is basically the hardest thing to do in sports. They're never available in free agency or trade and you usually have to pick pretty high in the draft which is tough to do when you're winning 10 games every year.
mondry wrote:
I think they are, but when it comes to football if you don't have an above average player at QB you're going to struggle in the playoffs against all those teams that do. Put Tom Brady on the Bengals and I think they could have won any of the last 3 superbowls, and likely would have been favorites to do so.
Maybe you can hold not having a top QB against them that much, I dunno, but to me I think finding an elite QB is basically the hardest thing to do in sports. They're never available in free agency or trade and you usually have to pick pretty high in the draft which is tough to do when you're winning 10 games every year.
I was just constructing a post to this effect but deleted. The Packers and Colts have both proven to be very marginal without Rodgers or Manning/Luck. Would they be considered a good drafting team without either of those guys? The Ravens have had more playoff success than either of them in the past 10 years.
And the Bengals have a very average QB, which to me might suggest they do a better job of drafting guys....but I don't know they do. It all comes down to the QB and that kinda makes this debate a bit moot....which is why I deleted my post.
The Breeze wrote:
I was just constructing a post to this effect but deleted. The Packers and Colts have both proven to be very marginal without Rodgers or Manning/Luck. Would they be considered a good drafting team without either of those guys? The Ravens have had more playoff success than either of them in the past 10 years.
And the Bengals have a very average QB, which to me might suggest they do a better job of drafting guys....but I don't know they do. It all comes down to the QB and that kinda makes this debate a bit moot....which is why I deleted my post.
Did they prove to be marginal without Rodgers and Luck? Or did they prove to be marginal with QBs like Painter, Sorgi, Wallace, and Tolzein?
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011
Jordysghost wrote:
Did they prove to be marginal without Rodgers and Luck? Or did they prove to be marginal with QBs like Painter, Sorgi, Wallace, and Tolzein?
I think that's the real difference and one that can't be easily answered. Also, why I advocate drafting a starting caliber QB as a backup once you have a guy who is the franchise guy.
When the Pack had to use Flynn they didn't really miss a beat....same with the Pats and Casell. Brady has been upright ever since, but they have been drafting arms just in case(Mallet,Garapolo) GB just nabbed Hundley, I can hardly wait for Rodgers to go down so we can resolve this point j/k
Seen as the consensus top cornerback prospect by many, but not by College Football Focus, the only people that watched and graded every snap he played in 2014 along, with those of every other cornerback in the FBS. Waynes has elite speed, but that speed doesn’t always translate. Was beaten for 14.9 yards per reception (78th among CBs), was our 44th-graded cornerback overall, and 40th in terms of completion percentage allowed on passes into his coverage this year. We did not have him ranked in the Top 5 of our corner prospects coming in to this draft, and think he was drafted a clear round higher than he should have been given his tape.
Depth Chart Fit: Will depend how fast he gets it. With Rhodes, Robinson and Munnerlyn in place the Vikings can wait on him if they need to, but they’ll want him to claim the No. 2 role.
9. Trae Waynes, CB, Michigan State
#11 Overall to Minnesota
This was a pick that was seen coming a mile away, but it doesn’t excuse how bad of a reach it was for a player we saw as a second-round talent at best. Waynes has a blazing forty time, and was shutdown on deep passes, allowing a passer rating of just 21.9 on those this past season, but he actually ran a faster forty time than short shuttle, an extremely rare occurrence that raises major change of direction red flags.
30 other draft eligible corners graded better in coverage this season than Waynes, who allowed a passer rating of 60.4 into his coverage (21st) while allowing 50.8% of passes thrown his way to be caught (40th). Waynes only allowed 30 receptions all season, but those catches went for an average of 14.9 yards per reception, a mark bettered by 106 other cornerbacks.
Waynes has all the tools, but he is a major project to be taken so high.
The Breeze wrote:
I think that's the real difference and one that can't be easily answered. Also, why I advocate drafting a starting caliber QB as a backup once you have a guy who is the franchise guy.
When the Pack had to use Flynn they didn't really miss a beat....same with the Pats and Casell. Brady has been upright ever since, but they have been drafting arms just in case(Mallet,Garapolo) GB just nabbed Hundley, I can hardly wait for Rodgers to go down so we can resolve this point j/k
Ugh jeez, don't even kid..
I jumped for joy when we got Hundley though, really like that dudes talent, who is on the Vikes depth chart at QB behind Teddy?
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011
BTW, if Darqueze was so great, why couldn't he challenge for more playing time and get stuck behind Terrance Newman, Dre Kirkpatrick, Adam Jones, or Leon Hall last year? I seriously doubt he starts opposite of Leon Hall this season as well. He has to beat Kirkpatrick and Adam Jones for that role. 
), colts, patriots, and now seahawks that show up in the playoffs and draft really well. 
j/k