A message board dedicated to the discussion of Minnesota Viking Football.
https://vikingsmessageboard.com/
I liked this bit:Mothman wrote:Here's a link to the "Look Ahead" entry on wide receivers:
http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikin ... 22551.html
Put like that and Wright seems like a legit pick and potential to be a solid contributor (though I doubt he'll rise to anything other than a #3 or possibly #2 receiver, but I might be pleasantly surprised). How the coaching staff incorporates him (assuming Harvin is on the roster) is going to be very interesting. I think he's proven the team is better off with him on the field, especially given the alternatives. I wonder where he'll end up in the pecking order at the start of the season with hopefully another competent receiver on the roster in place of Jenkins, Burton and Aromashodu. Hopefully more than simply Harvin insurance.b)After Harvin sprained an ankle in Week 9 in Seattle, an injury that ultimately ended his season, rookie Jarius Wright made the most of his newfound opportunity. After being inactive for the Vikings’ first nine games, Wright’s first career reception was a 54-yarder against the Lions in Week 10 followed two plays later with a 3-yard touchdown grab. In the Vikings’ playoff-clinching win in the regular season finale, Wright had an 8-yard TD grab, an odd 17-yard catch to aid another TD drive and delivered the longest reception of the Vikings’ season, a 65-yarder in the fourth quarter that set up a key go-ahead touchdown against Green Bay. Wright’s flashes were eye-catching. And his humble, team-first attitude was impressive.
I hope so. If they just use him as "Harvin insurance" I'll be disappointed. He's shown he can help them so they need to be creative enough to find ways to use him even if Harvin is healthy.dead_poet wrote:Put like that and Wright seems like a legit pick and potential to be a solid contributor (though I doubt he'll rise to anything other than a #3 or possibly #2 receiver, but I might be pleasantly surprised). How the coaching staff incorporates him (assuming Harvin is on the roster) is going to be very interesting. I think he's proven the team is better off with him on the field, especially given the alternatives. I wonder where he'll end up in the pecking order at the start of the season with hopefully another competent receiver on the roster in place of Jenkins, Burton and Aromashodu. Hopefully more than simply Harvin insurance.
This years schedule. Vikings played teams that ended up after all was said and down with a .517 winning percentage. Next years teams have a winning percentage from this year of .517. Now, that will change but I don't see a big difference in the strength of schedule.losperros wrote:I have to go along with Wiederer about the upcoming schedule. It's tougher than what the Vikings had in 2012.
All the more reason for upgrades at certain positions. A better balanced offense with a more talented WR corps is going to be badly needed.
Which might be their only options. Why would guys like Bowe and Jennings want to play in this offense with this QB? Plenty of teams have plenty of cap room. And a lot of them have quarterbacks that will actually allow a receiver to have success. We've missed out on wide receivers in the past because of the qb situation, and there's no reason to think that it's going to be any better now with the below average guy leading this team.With plenty of cap room, the Vikings will be able to freely explore the free agent market in March in search of aid to bolster their downfield passing attack. Greg Jennings will be a free agent after spending the first seven seasons of his career in Green Bay. The other marquee names that could eventually be available include Dwayne Bowe and Mike Wallace.
As free agency goes, it may be more likely for the Vikings to explore a few second-tier options – guys like Donnie Avery or Brandon Gibson if they become available
I can't imagine the Chargers don't re-sign him.Boon wrote:Danario Alexander would be a nice fit and shouldn't be too pricey. Dudes like 6'5 220 ish and has decent hands
Thanks for posting those rankings. They definitely need all 3 of the things you mentioned, although upgrades at LB, DT or safety could also improve the defensive numbers and if they get a big time WR, that should help QB play. Despite the 10 win record, the Vikings are definitely still a rebuilding team with several genuine holes on their roster and plenty of areas that need to be upgraded.MrPurplenGold wrote:2012 Vikings Offensive and Defensive rankings that are in the bottom half of the league
Offensive Passing Yards/Game: 171.9 - NFL Rank: 31
Interceptions: 10 (only 5 from CBs) - NFL Rank: 27T
Defensive 3rd down conversion: 41.3% - NFL Rank: 27
Defensive Passer Rating: 92.3 - NFL Rank: 25
Defensive Passing Yards/Game: 244.3 - NFL Rank: 24
Sacks: 32 - NFL Rank: 22
Offensive Passer Rating: 81.2 - NFL Rank: 22
Offensive 3rd down conversion: 37.1% - NFL Rank: 18
Passes Defended: 71 - NFL Rank: 18T
I guess I didn't realize how bad statistically the passing defense was. Out of the 10 INTs the team had, 1 came from Everson Griffen, 3 from Harrison Smith and 1 from Greenway. I was also surprised at how low the Vikings ranked in Sacks; I thought that was actually a strength of the team. I think this shows that the team definitely needs a big time WR, improved QB play and a ball-hawking CB.
The number 32 is sacks they gave up on offense. The defense had 44 sacks.Mothman wrote: However, I'm not sure how the NFL arrived at a sack total of 32 for the Vikes. There's some funky math going on there because on the Vikings team stats page (link below) they credit sacks as follows:
...
They list the total as 32. If you add up the number of sacks they credit to the players, it yields a total of 44. What's the deal?
D'oh! You're right, of course, and it's listed correctly on the site too. It's odd that they would place the stat for total number of sacks by an opponent at the bottom of the section devoted to the Vikes defensive stats. Anyway, thanks for setting this blind man straight.Eli wrote:The number 32 is sacks they gave up on offense. The defense had 44 sacks.
At least we know I can add!Indeed!More correctly:
Sacks Allowed: 32 - NFL Rank: 11
Sacks: 44 - NFL Rank: 5T
Much better.