Vikings Message Board.Com

PacificNorseWest wrote:Does anyone else find it humorous that we're going back and forth over two receivers who arguably weren't even the best receivers on their own teams?

Not to mention that the best receiver from Tennessee may not even be Cordarelle or Hunter.

I do. At one time, it was all about Allen.

I like Patterson ) And Hunter.

mondry wrote: hahaha yeah man, it was fun writing all that like I know what I'm even talking about. All I got going for me is common sense so to me the guy with 1400 yards and 18 touchdowns sounds like a good pick heh.

And I also like the guy who had 1886 all-purpose yards and 9 TDs, especially given that he was dropped into a trial by fire situation. I guess I'm just crazy that way.

On that note, since you two can't respect Cordarrelle Patterson for being a returner and a good runner, do you think Patterson should have told his HC to get bent when he was asked to do those things? Wouldn't that qualify as a bad attitude? And heaven knows, we don't want that.

Also, talking about "hard catches," have you seen the any of the acrobatic grabs that Patterson made last season? I didn't see every WR in the nation, that's for sure, but I saw a lot of the higher draft picks and I can't think of anyone who was better at making difficult catches than Patterson.

losperros wrote: That's simply untrue, John. How many games have you actually seen Cordarrelle Peterson play?

Which part is untrue? Sorry, his stats are a bit south of Nick Toon, drafted in the fourth round of the 2012 draft, with pretty good bloodlines. Toon's college stats his last year - 64 catches, 926 yards, 14.5 ypc, 10 TD's (compare to 46/778/16.9/5). But Toon ran a 4.54 40.

I have never seen Cordarrelle Patterson play. I live in South America now. All I can go on is what you guys say, and over and over again, what I hear is that he's an amazing physical specimen (speed and strength). I heard the term "raw" here. No way I heard it anywhere else. Did anyone say he had hands and route-running skills like Cris Carter, and I just missed it?

As I said before, it's Peterson's natural skill set, his abilities to make plays and his learning curve that has scouts impressed. Does his speed on the field also impress them? Yes. The guy can run away from defenders or run around them, and get great YAC, which is a formidable skill. And please, don't question the competition he faced. It's the SEC. Find a tougher conference anywhere in the nation. As for a pro-caliber QB, that's definitely debatable. Tyler Bray sometimes was so inaccurate that he looked as if he was throwing passes to opposing defenders or maybe the cheerleaders. Peterson needs coaching and more experience, but he's no slouch and deserves to be looked at as a WR with a great deal of potential in this draft.

You had my comment backward. His level of competition overall was good, which would make him potentially better than a receiver who played against lesser competition - some Connecticut WR for example (or maybe, for example, Cordarrelle the prior two years). And this guy - http://nflphilosophy.com/2013-nfl-draft ... rterbacks/ - has Tyler Bray listed as his top QB prospect in college.

And we agree completely on that last sentence of yours. Patterson "deserves to be looked at as a WR with a great deal of potential in this draft." I would just argue that we should use a first round pick on someone who (or a position that) is more of a sure thing, and not grab a boom-or-bust guy when we really don't have the offense to showcase him anyway.

On that note, since you two can't respect Cordarrelle Patterson for being a returner and a good runner, do you think Patterson should have told his HC to get bent when he was asked to do those things? Wouldn't that qualify as a bad attitude? And heaven knows, we don't want that.

Can't respect him for being a returner and a good runner? I can respect him for both. But I don't want a returner or a good runner. I want a receiver. Someone who's not quite as much of a question mark in those areas. Someone we can send out wide and trust to do his job without something as basic as issues running and learning his routes...

Demi wrote: Can't respect him for being a returner and a good runner? I can respect him for both. But I don't want a returner or a good runner. I want a receiver. Someone who's not quite as much of a question mark in those areas. Someone we can send out wide and trust to do his job without something as basic as issues running and learning his routes...

lol @ route running being basic. Being a concise route runner may be one of the most difficult things in football.

losperros wrote:
And I also like the guy who had 1886 all-purpose yards and 9 TDs, especially given that he was dropped into a trial by fire situation. I guess I'm just crazy that way.

All-purpose yards are important in this case because we could use a kick / punt returner but they aren't a huge deal. You're either an explosive returner or not and I think he is.

saint33 wrote:
lol @ route running being basic. Being a concise route runner may be one of the most difficult things in football.

Concise is the right word there, just running routes off the tree in practice probably isn't too bad but being there at the right depth, the right time, and in sync with the QB is a whole nother level.

saint33 wrote: lol @ route running being basic. Being a concise route runner may be one of the most difficult things in football.

Nobody is asking him to be Jerry Rice. But every indication is he's so far from that it's not funny...

Demi wrote: Can't respect him for being a returner and a good runner? I can respect him for both. But I don't want a returner or a good runner. I want a receiver. Someone who's not quite as much of a question mark in those areas. Someone we can send out wide and trust to do his job without something as basic as issues running and learning his routes...

How can you not want a guy that can do everything effectively? We dont have a viable return man with Harvin gone, hell if it wasnt for the return game we wouldnt have beaten the Lions the first time.

And with Greg Jennings the vikings dont have to lean so hard on Patterson right away. They can use him as a Harvin type while they teach him the finer points of being a #1 WR. And who better to learn rout running from than Jennings? You say all this like he's going to be the only viable receiver on the team. He has Wright, Rudy, Jennings and Peterson. He may be a first round pick but he wont be the spotlight of the offense or at least expected to be.

CaptainKirov wrote:How can you not want a guy that can do everything effectively? We dont have a viable return man with Harvin gone, hell if it wasnt for the return game we wouldnt have beaten the Lions the first time.

You mean the Lions with their completely incompetent special teams? A joke.

Kick returner has become an inconsequential position in the NFL. Yeah, a few kickoffs will still be returned each year, but it's not a position worth worrying about. Certainly not worth paying for.

Eli wrote: You mean the Lions with their completely incompetent special teams? A joke.

Kick returner has become an inconsequential position in the NFL. Yeah, a few kickoffs will still be returned each year, but it's not a position worth worrying about. Certainly not worth paying for.

Special teams has won a few games for us recently that I can think of,in the return game.

losperros wrote: And I also like the guy who had 1886 all-purpose yards and 9 TDs, especially given that he was dropped into a trial by fire situation. I guess I'm just crazy that way.

On that note, since you two can't respect Cordarrelle Patterson for being a returner and a good runner, do you think Patterson should have told his HC to get bent when he was asked to do those things? Wouldn't that qualify as a bad attitude? And heaven knows, we don't want that.

Since I'm one of the two people quoted above, I assume I'm one of the two you're referring to but given some of the other comments people have made about Patterson in this thread, perhaps I'm wrong about that. Anyway, in the post you quoted above, I wrote "I hope they will use him extensively as a return man because to me, that's where a great deal of his value would lie, at least early in his career" so it should be clear that I respect Patterson's abilities as a returner. I know he can run too. Open field running is his strength. All I'm saying is that I see him as a "boom or bust" player and at this time, with this team, I'd be reluctant to spend a first round pick on him (not completely opposed to it, but reluctant).

Interesting factoid, "In the past ten years, the top 64 picks have produced 14 receivers who have had over 800 yards from scrimmage in their rookie year (out of 79 who played in games). Of those, only four chosen between pick 23 and 52 produced 800 yards (out of 36 who played games). This doesn't include those who haven't made an impact in games, like A.J. Jenkins."
It gives me pause to wonder if using one or both of the 1st round picks should be spent on a wide receiver, especially since I do not see any AJ Greens, Calvin Johnson types on the board

Purple bruise wrote:Interesting factoid, "In the past ten years, the top 64 picks have produced 14 receivers who have had over 800 yards from scrimmage in their rookie year (out of 79 who played in games). Of those, only four chosen between pick 23 and 52 produced 800 yards (out of 36 who played games). This doesn't include those who haven't made an impact in games, like A.J. Jenkins."
It gives me pause to wonder if using one or both of the 1st round picks should be spent on a wide receiver, especially since I do not see any AJ Greens, Calvin Johnson types on the board

I've said this before and I'll say it again. You don't draft for year one. You draft a player for the career you plan to get out him. Anything they can produce as a rookie is bonus. Successful teams don't draft to fill needs, they draft to fill their roster with talented players for the longevity.

We complain about the lack of talent we have at WR, well the way we're going to address that is through the draft. Some people like to point out the time it usually takes for WRs to develop and the "high bust rate" at the position (although I don't think I've ever seen it proven that WRs have a higher bust rate then other positions. I honestly think this may be more of a media driven thing, based on the fact that often WRs are much more high profile picks then say a DT, so the draft busts stand out more in our minds). But the thing people fail to realize is that the "bust rate" at WR, like every other position, is much higher in the mid-late rounds then it is in the higher rounds. Sure there are a number of sleeper picks that get drafted in the 3rd round or later that turn out to be solid pros, but there are tons of 3rd round or later WRs that fail to ever have an impact on their team. I've pointed to this before, but for every Mike Wallace that ends up in the 3rd round, there is also Derrick Williams, Brandon Tate, Patrick Turner, Ramses Barden, Deon Butler and Juaquin Iglesias that get drafted in the same round.

saint33 wrote:
I've said this before and I'll say it again. You don't draft for year one. You draft a player for the career you plan to get out him. Anything they can produce as a rookie is bonus. Successful teams don't draft to fill needs, they draft to fill their roster with talented players for the longevity.

We complain about the lack of talent we have at WR, well the way we're going to address that is through the draft. Some people like to point out the time it usually takes for WRs to develop and the "high bust rate" at the position (although I don't think I've ever seen it proven that WRs have a higher bust rate then other positions. I honestly think this may be more of a media driven thing, based on the fact that often WRs are much more high profile picks then say a DT, so the draft busts stand out more in our minds). But the thing people fail to realize is that the "bust rate" at WR, like every other position, is much higher in the mid-late rounds then it is in the higher rounds. Sure there are a number of sleeper picks that get drafted in the 3rd round or later that turn out to be solid pros, but there are tons of 3rd round or later WRs that fail to ever have an impact on their team. I've pointed to this before, but for every Mike Wallace that ends up in the 3rd round, there is also Derrick Williams, Brandon Tate, Patrick Turner, Ramses Barden, Deon Butler and Juaquin Iglesias that get drafted in the same round.

I am not sure that I have intimated that you only draft for one year? Maybe you are referring to someone else. I am saying that although the Vikes are desperate for a "stretch the field" type of receiver they do not necessarily need to spend their first round pick/picks to get "that guy". I like the BPA theory but not if it comes up as a running back, place kicker or QB for example. My point is that the Vikes need a WR but if a MLB or a guard or a CB happen to be BPA then take him and fill the WR need later on.