Vikings Message Board.Com

Posted: **Mon Dec 20, 2021 11:37 pm**

YikesVikes wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 11:25 pm
Pondering Her Percy wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 10:39 pm

Dantzlers PFF grade is a 69.1 compared to Breelands 47.2. Dantzler actually has the best pff grade of any CB on our team including Peterson. I think he’s been significantly better than Breeland. Breeland got a little better after the early struggles but went back to struggling these last two games. Some fans like to fault dantzler for the Detroit win and seem to forget about his crunch time pick. Regardless, it was Mike Zimmers play call that had his corners playing 15 yards off Detroit WRs and sent 0 pressure at Jared Goff of all people. If you look at Breeland in the other side of that play, he was just as far off as Dantzler was. Outside of that bad “play” (call) by dantzler, I honestly can’t say I remember a single time where he got flat out burned. That’s been a regular thing for Breeland.

Zimmer has been playing this stupid little game with dantzler all year and to this day I don’t understand why. He was the best corner on our roster last year and looked very promising heading into year two and Zim sat him over Breeland and even at times boyd. Yet every time dantzler has been playing, he’s been quite reliable. More reliable than Breeland that’s for sure. Breeland has given up the 2nd most yards of any CB in the Nfl this year.

Breeland is a lazy thug and that’s been showing more and more. I’m glad he’s gone because I think we’re much better off with dantzler anyways. Unless Mediocre Mike decides to play his little games with him and Kris Boyd now.

Regardless, it just makes zimmer look like even more of a buffoon sticking with a lazy thug over a 2nd year corner with a ton of promise. Again, if Breeland was playing even decent, there could be some argument there but I’d be content. The fact that Breeland was horrendous all year and he continued to stick with him just goes to show what I’ve been talking about for years with Zim. Not recognizing superior talent whether it’s in practice or games. Hardly ever adjusting his starting lineup unless it’s due to injury. Sticking with the same old bums that should be backups. Hill, Samia, Udoh, Bisi, Breeland and the list goes on. Being completely oblivious to who your GM drafted for you to fill those spots. Spielman supplies and Zimmer overlooks. He adjusts his roster just like he coaches. Risk-adverse
Thug?

Yup. His actions. Lazy, selfish, gets heated easily, runs his mouth, punk that starts fights in practice, can’t get off Twitter running his mouth, has a civil suit against him. No thanks

Posted: **Tue Dec 21, 2021 4:23 am**

Pondering Her Percy wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 11:37 pm
YikesVikes wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 11:25 pm

Thug?
Yup. His actions. Lazy, selfish, gets heated easily, runs his mouth, punk that starts fights in practice, can’t get off Twitter running his mouth, has a civil suit against him. No thanks

Summed up in 2 words.... "Dick Head"
Actually let's just make it 1 word... "Dickhead"

Posted: **Wed Dec 22, 2021 2:20 pm**

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 8:15 pm
J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 4:06 pm
If chickens had lips, they wouldn't need to peck for food.

Point being, we're not 0-15. We aren't going to pick first unless we trade up and mortgage the entire future. So until we're in that situation, I'll always err on the side of winning.

And by the way, fewer on this board are "nearer to the end" than I am, and I still want the Vikings to win every game they play. Wanna know why? Because in the end, going 1-16 doesn't pave the way to championships. Going 1-16 means you have a culture of losing, and one player isn't going to overcome that. If you don't believe me, check out Detroit and Jacksonville, or even Cleveland. The only exception to that rule is the Dallas Cowboys in the late 80s, and we all know what paved the way for that turnaround (Vikings and Walker, Herschel). As I recall, Suck for Luck didn't actually work. The Colts never won a championship with him, and he ended up retiring early because of the beating he took in getting them to respectability.

Why do I want them to make the playoffs in a year when it's a huge longshot for them to make the Super Bowl? Because I like watching my team play, and the offseason is long. It's that simple. There is no team in any sport at any level that I root for as hard as I root for the Minnesota Vikings. Rip me if you want. I don't care. I will not root for them to lose.
I am trying to think of any team since Indy who got the #1 overall pick and won a SB in large part because of it.

It would be interesting to look at how many teams got the #1 pick was drafting in the top 3 again a couple of seasons later and how many were in the playoffs.

Didn't Johnson win a couple? I'm not saying having the 1st pick is a guaranteed SB but I will tell you this and have seen it in practice for decades having stiff after stiff after stiff at QB gives you very little chance if any at all. That's been proven. Even when we had perhaps our greatest D 1970 we had nothing at QB which did us in as it also did in 71. I could go on but we have all seen it.

Posted: **Wed Dec 22, 2021 5:50 pm**

CharVike wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 2:20 pm
StumpHunter wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 8:15 pm
I am trying to think of any team since Indy who got the #1 overall pick and won a SB in large part because of it.

It would be interesting to look at how many teams got the #1 pick was drafting in the top 3 again a couple of seasons later and how many were in the playoffs.
Didn't Johnson win a couple? I'm not saying having the 1st pick is a guaranteed SB but I will tell you this and have seen it in practice for decades having stiff after stiff after stiff at QB gives you very little chance if any at all. That's been proven. Even when we had perhaps our greatest D 1970 we had nothing at QB which did us in as it also did in 71. I could go on but we have all seen it.

Having a higher pick just guarantees a team gets its pick of the litter, but not necessarily the best pup in the litter. Whether that increases the chances of getting the best pup depends mostly on the team's ability to evaluate the pups and probably a healthy dose of luck to go along with that.

The truth is, its extremely difficult to project college QBs, and, for that matter, most college prospects, because a lot of what a given prospect needs to succeed is not something that can be objectively measured, and even when it can be objectively measured, it sometimes isn't obvious how those measurables will play out over time. So much of pro success comes down to how hard a given player works on their individual game and overall understanding of the game. A lot comes down to how they work with their teammates and coaches too, along with the situations and schemes they find themselves playing. You can take a QB out of college who has every possible measurable you could dream up, but if the guy is lazy or arrogant or dumb, his chances of succeeding in the pros is low. Or you can take a guy who otherwise personally has the things you want physically and is a hard worker, but he's thrust onto a crappy team or has a bad coach and he just can't overcome either of those things. He gets pummeled into the ground repeatedly or is handcuffed in terms of what he is allowed to do and pretty soon he's gun shy or a flop. You get guys who come in unheralded and work their behinds off to get better, while others come in heralded and content and never do more than ride on their reputations coming out of college.

So many variables involved that I think it's really poor strategy to think tanking in a given season really improves the chances of future success. More than likely tanking engenders a losing attitude in the rest of the team. Good players who reach free agency won't want to play for a team that tanks, free agents will be less likely to consider signing with a team like that, and newly drafted players will be less likely to put into a position where they can maximize their talents and have success. Chronic losing can infect a team.

There might be a rare draft prospect who is worth that risk and paying a price like that. The last one I can think of was probably Andrew Luck, and he never sniffed a Superbowl and is out of football now.

If the Vikings are going to change their fortunes at QB they'll need to do a good job of comprehensively evaluating QB prospects in as many ways as they can (physical ability, progression in college, talking to college coaches and teammates, personality, leadership, responsibility, etc.) and then be willing to make a move to get a guy if they're sold on him regardless of how the draft sets up for them in a given year. Either that or hope to find that rare prospect that is blooming in a backup role via trade or free agency and snag him before the team that has him fully realizes what they have.

The biggest part of it is just accepting reality if the guy you have is not the guy you need. That, more than anything I think, is the biggest hurdle most teams have to get over, especially when a GM or head coach is personally invested in the outcome because they picked or signed the wrong guy and have to admit they were wrong.

Posted: **Thu Dec 23, 2021 12:51 am**

VikingLord wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 5:50 pm
CharVike wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 2:20 pm
Didn't Johnson win a couple? I'm not saying having the 1st pick is a guaranteed SB but I will tell you this and have seen it in practice for decades having stiff after stiff after stiff at QB gives you very little chance if any at all. That's been proven. Even when we had perhaps our greatest D 1970 we had nothing at QB which did us in as it also did in 71. I could go on but we have all seen it.
Having a higher pick just guarantees a team gets its pick of the litter, but not necessarily the best pup in the litter. Whether that increases the chances of getting the best pup depends mostly on the team's ability to evaluate the pups and probably a healthy dose of luck to go along with that.

The truth is, its extremely difficult to project college QBs, and, for that matter, most college prospects, because a lot of what a given prospect needs to succeed is not something that can be objectively measured, and even when it can be objectively measured, it sometimes isn't obvious how those measurables will play out over time. So much of pro success comes down to how hard a given player works on their individual game and overall understanding of the game. A lot comes down to how they work with their teammates and coaches too, along with the situations and schemes they find themselves playing. You can take a QB out of college who has every possible measurable you could dream up, but if the guy is lazy or arrogant or dumb, his chances of succeeding in the pros is low. Or you can take a guy who otherwise personally has the things you want physically and is a hard worker, but he's thrust onto a crappy team or has a bad coach and he just can't overcome either of those things. He gets pummeled into the ground repeatedly or is handcuffed in terms of what he is allowed to do and pretty soon he's gun shy or a flop. You get guys who come in unheralded and work their behinds off to get better, while others come in heralded and content and never do more than ride on their reputations coming out of college.

So many variables involved that I think it's really poor strategy to think tanking in a given season really improves the chances of future success. More than likely tanking engenders a losing attitude in the rest of the team. Good players who reach free agency won't want to play for a team that tanks, free agents will be less likely to consider signing with a team like that, and newly drafted players will be less likely to put into a position where they can maximize their talents and have success. Chronic losing can infect a team.

There might be a rare draft prospect who is worth that risk and paying a price like that. The last one I can think of was probably Andrew Luck, and he never sniffed a Superbowl and is out of football now.

If the Vikings are going to change their fortunes at QB they'll need to do a good job of comprehensively evaluating QB prospects in as many ways as they can (physical ability, progression in college, talking to college coaches and teammates, personality, leadership, responsibility, etc.) and then be willing to make a move to get a guy if they're sold on him regardless of how the draft sets up for them in a given year. Either that or hope to find that rare prospect that is blooming in a backup role via trade or free agency and snag him before the team that has him fully realizes what they have.

The biggest part of it is just accepting reality if the guy you have is not the guy you need. That, more than anything I think, is the biggest hurdle most teams have to get over, especially when a GM or head coach is personally invested in the outcome because they picked or signed the wrong guy and have to admit they were wrong.

I agree with what you posted but I do feel last year was one of those rare years like 1983 when there was a bunch of highly touted QB prospects. That only happens once or twice a lifetime. I like what the 49ers did. They made the move to get in the mix. That's working a draft to your benefit and they got a prospect. Of course the guy they picked might suck. That happens to many picks. It's a hard decision to tank but when you start off 1-5 do you really have a chance to compete at a high level. Our D was the worst in our history so winning a few games meant nothing except throwing the pick of the litter out the window in the draft. We weren't tanking a potential SB team or team that could even compete with that crap D. We would have been beaten like a sick dog in the playoffs. That's my whole point in this. Last year our team didn't have enough talent to compete. That's the perfect time to tank. Nobody would care.

Posted: **Thu Dec 23, 2021 3:11 pm**

CharVike wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 12:51 am I agree with what you posted but I do feel last year was one of those rare years like 1983 when there was a bunch of highly touted QB prospects. That only happens once or twice a lifetime.

Just as it couldn't have been obvious in 1984 that the 1983 QB class would be exceptional as a whole, it isn't obvious in 2021 that the 2020 class will be exceptional as a whole. It might be, but if it is nobody can know that as of right now.

CharVike wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 12:51 am I like what the 49ers did. They made the move to get in the mix. That's working a draft to your benefit and they got a prospect. Of course the guy they picked might suck. That happens to many picks.

Maybe it was working the draft to their benefit, or maybe it was getting caught up in the hype surrounding a player who honestly had the most question marks of any of the top QB prospects heading into that draft mixed with a bit of desperation to rapidly alter their fortunes at QB.

One could also argue that if any team in the NFL right now doesn't need a game-changer at QB to be competitive it is a healthy 49ers team. They are built to run the ball on offense and their short passing game which relies on throws to the tight ends mostly complements that coupled with a disruptive and stingy defense designed to keep low scoring games in reach. The aggressive move for a QB, and in particular the QB they moved up to get, doesn't jibe with the team as it is composed, so that was a puzzling move for them IMHO.

Then again, successful teams make puzzling moves at QB a lot. Witness the Packers blowing a 1st round pick on a QB when they have Rodgers in the prime of his career and are having tons of success on the field. That move made no sense and if anything, introduced a controversy on their future at QB when one wasn't needed.

In the end, Trey Lance might turn out to be the next Steve Young for the 49ers, but no way to say that now and no way to say it was a good move in the draft yet.

CharVike wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 12:51 am We weren't tanking a potential SB team or team that could even compete with that crap D. We would have been beaten like a sick dog in the playoffs. That's my whole point in this. Last year our team didn't have enough talent to compete. That's the perfect time to tank. Nobody would care.

This conversation makes me think about the movie "Major League". If you haven't seen it and want a good laugh I highly recommend it. In that movie the team owner wants to move the team to a new city and does literally everything in her power to make the team lose. She argues the team stinks and can't make money in Cleveland, but if she can move them she'll make more money and can improve the team. Problem is, the coaches and players find out about it and decide not to let it happen.

Point being - it will affect somebody. Fans might not care per se, but most players don't have a lot of years to play at that level and neither do most coaches. Asking someone to stand down and not show what they can do for a substantial portion of a season would probably do more to hurt reputations and kill team morale than just about anything else I can imagine. I could see some players and coaches simply refuse to do it. The ones who agreed to do it are probably not guys you'd personally want to play with in the future.

It's just really dubious. In my view, no speculative college prospect is worth that. Do the best you can, and if the GM is that sold on a prospect in the draft, then do what it takes to move up and get that prospect or equivalently sign that free agent.

Posted: **Fri Dec 24, 2021 4:35 pm**

Pondering Her Percy wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 11:37 pm
YikesVikes wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 11:25 pm

Thug?
Yup. His actions. Lazy, selfish, gets heated easily, runs his mouth, punk that starts fights in practice, can’t get off Twitter running his mouth, has a civil suit against him. No thanks

None of those things make him a thug. He's also not lazy or selfish. He routinely sacrifices his body in the run game and is a willing and able tackler. He plays hard. He's just not very good in this scheme and probably isn't much better in other schemes. During his interview when he joined the team, I questioned if he would be a culture fix. However, lets not throw around words haphazardly. Dude isn't a thug. Is the the clean cut guys we normally bring in? Nah. Also, You weren't at the practice so you don't know who started the fight. According to him, he didn't start it and guess what, I believe him.

Posted: **Sat Dec 25, 2021 11:43 pm**

YikesVikes wrote: ↑Fri Dec 24, 2021 4:35 pm
Pondering Her Percy wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 11:37 pm

Yup. His actions. Lazy, selfish, gets heated easily, runs his mouth, punk that starts fights in practice, can’t get off Twitter running his mouth, has a civil suit against him. No thanks
None of those things make him a thug. He's also not lazy or selfish. He routinely sacrifices his body in the run game and is a willing and able tackler. He plays hard. He's just not very good in this scheme and probably isn't much better in other schemes. During his interview when he joined the team, I questioned if he would be a culture fix. However, lets not throw around words haphazardly. Dude isn't a thug. Is the the clean cut guys we normally bring in? Nah. Also, You weren't at the practice so you don't know who started the fight. According to him, he didn't start it and guess what, I believe him.

Lol what are you his cousin or something? So you believe that Dalvin Cook started the fight? The most “about the team” guy on our roster? You think Rick Spielman cut him when he did nothing wrong? Lol come on dude. Back a player all you want but if you believe he didn’t start the fight after he moped on the sideline after he wasn’t put back in, idk what to tell you.

In terms of him being lazy, im honestly not sure what CB you’re watching but it must not be him. The Detroit game he looked like he didn’t even wanna be there. Getting turned around by no name WRs. He’s an “about me” guy. And it’s exactly why he has a short fuse which is also more reason to not believe him in terms of the fight.

If he’s not good in this scheme and probably not in others either then guess what, he’s just not good. Add on his baggage and he’s even less appealing. By the sounds of it, he deserved every bit of what he got

Posted: **Mon Dec 27, 2021 1:30 am**

I'm bumping this topic because I feel like being blasphemous as the Vikings season. :ripple:

Posted: **Tue Dec 28, 2021 10:15 am**

This is hilarious ... the Cardinals have signed Bashaud Breeland.

Now THAT is a desperate team.

Posted: **Wed Dec 29, 2021 11:38 pm**

J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 28, 2021 10:15 am This is hilarious ... the Cardinals have signed Bashaud Breeland.

Now THAT is a desperate team.

I heard he couldn't sign because he got Covid

Vikings Message Board.Com

Breeland Cut

Re: Breeland Cut

Re: Breeland Cut

Re: Breeland Cut

Re: Breeland Cut

Re: Breeland Cut

Re: Breeland Cut

Re: Breeland Cut

Re: Breeland Cut

Re: Breeland Cut

Re: Breeland Cut

Re: Breeland Cut