Vikings Message Board.Com

Mothman wrote: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).

No, I was referring to the part in Mondry's post where he responded to Demi about WRs that are also returners or do end around plays. I did not mean you, Jim. That said, after rereading my post, I can see that I was unclear about that. My apologies.

Just to be hopefully clear about the content, what I'm saying overall is that I think it's hogwash to think a WR is less of a receiver if he is also a returner. Heck, almost all the WRs we're talking about - Hopkins, Allen, Patterson, Williams, etc. - have been returners at one time or another.

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

As you know, there is no indication that Patterson isn't a good receiver or won't develop into a good pro.

As you also know, there is no indication that any of the WRs in the draft will be the next Jerry Rice.

Purple bruise wrote: 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.

From your post and the quote you posted, it seemed you were indicating that we should avoid WRs in the top two rounds as they would not have an immediate impact. Maybe I read too far into it, I was simply saying that if we want to truly address the WR position, this is a very solid class with what appears to be solid value at 23, 25 and 52. So avoiding the position with one of those picks because we feel another position provides a bigger impact year one would be a mistake IMO

Purple bruise wrote: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.

I think that's a good philosophy, although there are undoubtedly circumstances where that sort of patience will be trumped by need.

I know I've said it before but in the end, it all comes down to scouting, personnel management and luck. If a team trusts their scouting, a high bust rate at a position shouldn't be a concern and as Saint33 correctly pointed out (and you seem to agree), a team should draft a player for the career they intend to get out of him, not just for what he can give them immediately (although sometimes that odes have to be a consideration, as it will be for the Vikes at MLB).

Anyway, good scouting should provide them a solid decision-making foundation for the draft. After that, I think the GM or personnel man has to work with the coach(es) and get a good feel for which players will fit into the team's systems and philosophy, both of which can have a huge impact on a player's success or failure. It seems like interviews are extremely significant too. For example,when it comes to a player like Cordarrelle Patterson, I'd say it's very important to look beyond his athletic gifts to other considerations: does he fit the team? How will they utilize his abilities? How coachable is he? Is he smart? Is he a quick learner, likely to turn some of his raw abilities into well-honed skills with good coaching? Does he have a strong work ethic? Such considerations should and probably do play a big role in making a choice.

losperros wrote:No, I was referring to the part in Mondry's post where he responded to Demi about WRs that are also returners or do end around plays. I did not mean you, Jim. That said, after rereading my post, I can see that I was unclear about that. My apologies.

No worries. Thanks for clarifying what you meant.

losperros wrote: As you know, there is no indication that Patterson isn't a good receiver or won't develop into a good pro.

As you also know, there is no indication that any of the WRs in the draft will be the next Jerry Rice.

the draft is deep on wr's and defensive linemen, we should be able to get an excellent wr and dt in the draft. maybe a cornerback also.

hibbingviking wrote:the draft is deep on wr's and defensive linemen, we should be able to get an excellent wr and dt in the draft. maybe a cornerback also.

Yes, I agree, though there is no guarantee in the draft. It's always a crap shoot of sorts.

BTW, I also think the Vikings will find a good MLB.

losperros wrote: Yes, I agree, though there is no guarantee in the draft. It's always a crap shoot of sorts.

BTW, I also think the Vikings will find a good MLB.

manti is starting to grow on me after the jon gruden interview. his isn't very good taking on blockers but he might do well stopping the ball carrier and dropping back in coverage.

hibbingviking wrote:isn't very good taking on blockers but he might do well stopping the ball carrier

Those would seem to be conflicting qualities in a linebacker. Being agile enough to move into open holes and stop running backs is of only so much use if you can't also do it while shedding blockers. NFL linemen work very hard at getting to second level defenders.

Ok. I re-watched some Hopkins 'tape' and I am now convinced that we must take him if he is available. The guy's route running is very good and he has the speed to match!

Overall, I would say my WR rankings would be: Austin, Hopkins, Patterson, Allen, Hunter.

HardcoreVikesFan wrote:Ok. I re-watched some Hopkins 'tape' and I am now convinced that we must take him if he is available. The guy's route running is very good and he has the speed to match!

Overall, I would say my WR rankings would be: Austin, Hopkins, Patterson, Allen, Hunter.

Welcome aboard the Hopkins train! Agree with #1-3, after that I feel like everyone else is late second round material with robert woods sort of leading that pack.

Just watched the Patterson "highlights". he looks nothing more than a devin hester type player dancing around trying to find an opening while showing no truly impressive wr skills. I mean he's good, but does he really have what it takes to be great. IMO: no

big deli Vike wrote:Just watched the Patterson "highlights". he looks nothing more than a devin hester type player dancing around trying to find an opening while showing no truly impressive wr skills. I mean he's good, but does he really have what it takes to be great. IMO: no

That's the impression I got from the highlights as well but the guys here who have watched him play and studied his film have seen more from him so for now I'm taking their word for it. Highlights may not tell the whole story on someone.

big deli Vike wrote:Just watched the Patterson "highlights". he looks nothing more than a devin hester type player dancing around trying to find an opening while showing no truly impressive wr skills. I mean he's good, but does he really have what it takes to be great. IMO: no

I dont see devin hester dancing around. I see him throwing jukes like Adrian Peterson. Either way he's really hard to tackle in open space and thats a valuable asset in the vikings west coast offense. Short passes means hes going to have to do alot to take them to the house. The vikings can use Wright, Jennings and Rudolph as the downfield pass catchers even Patterson himself. But the other three open up opportunity for Patterson to be used in the Harvin role as well with end arounds and screens...at least until his route running improves

mondry wrote: That's the impression I got from the highlights as well but the guys here who have watched him play and studied his film have seen more from him so for now I'm taking their word for it. Highlights may not tell the whole story on someone.

You're right. Look at it this way. Would you want the Vikings draft scouts to make decisions based solely on highlight reels and draft bios?