Vikings Message Board.Com

Funkytown wrote: The same could be said for any "expert." But I feel like Mayock really knows his stuff.
...yeah? And who is?

I'm just saying. It seems like the fact that Mayock is so high on Manziel that people are trying to validate that he is the right person to take if available at 8

chicagopurple wrote:I am NOT thrilled with the prospect. He is another "stretch" play for the draft. I had enough of that with Ponder. We Vike fans have waited far too long to get a premier QB. I don't want a Mike Vick type who can only run an option and scurry around. I don't want a short guy who has over come his limitiations like Flutie/Tebow. I want a great guy in the pocket who CAN scramble a bit. Its been too many decades. Its time to get it right.

Okay, so who is the QB that you want for the Vikings

King James wrote: I'm just saying. It seems like the fact that Mayock is so high on Manziel that people are trying to validate that he is the right person to take if available at 8

Nah, I'm not doing that. I'm just saying that he is saying some nice things about him. That's it. Basically, when he talks, I listen, but that's about it. I can make up my own mind.

Johnny Manziel - QB - Player

A source tells ESPN that Texas A&M QB Johnny Manziel is on the short list of the players the Bucs are considering at No. 7 overall.

Despite the signing of Josh McCown and presence of Mike Glennon, recent rumors out of Tampa have tied them strongly to a quarterback. It's not as crazy as it sounds. The Bucs have a solid roster and can afford to take a shot at quarterback -- especially if the new Lovie Smith regime believes Manziel is a long-term difference-maker. We know McCown and Glennon are stop-gap options. ESPN's source did not disclose any other players on the "short list" or how many prospects are on it.
Source: ESPN.com

Purplemania wrote: Poor Mike Glennon. Drafted in the 3rd round just last year, came in and threw 19 tds 9 int 2,600 yds in 13 games, and only 24 years old, he is now considered a stop gap option

Patience is becoming a forgotten concept at that position.

Mothman wrote: Patience is becoming a forgotten concept at that position.

TRUTH. Some coaches still think they need to see 2-3 seasons for a proper evaluation. Some "studies" now say 10 games or so. I wonder what the average length is for fans to give a rookie QB before demanding a replacement. Six games?

dead_poet wrote: TRUTH. Some coaches still think they need to see 2-3 seasons for a proper evaluation. Some "studies" now say 10 games or so. I wonder what the average length is for fans to give a rookie QB before demanding a replacement. Six games?

1.5

I think Manziel is going to be a superstar in the league and I don't think there is any chance he'll be around at 8. He could be a huge bust for sure (just as easy as any of the other guys)....but if you need a QB I don't see how you could pass on him and his potential without losing a good amount of sleep over the decision.

If he was there at 8 I'd take him and all the BS that goes with it. Then I would live or die with that decision...of course.

Texas Vike wrote: 1.5

I think Texas Vike might have the number right.

The Breeze wrote:I think Manziel is going to be a superstar in the league and I don't think there is any chance he'll be around at 8. He could be a huge bust for sure (just as easy as any of the other guys)....but if you need a QB I don't see how you could pass on him and his potential without losing a good amount of sleep over the decision.

If he was there at 8 I'd take him and all the BS that goes with it. Then I would live or die with that decision...of course.

That's my take too, Breeze. BTW, welcome back to the boards!

dead_poet wrote:TRUTH. Some coaches still think they need to see 2-3 seasons for a proper evaluation. Some "studies" now say 10 games or so. I wonder what the average length is for fans to give a rookie QB before demanding a replacement. Six games?

You look at some of the evidence, and it seems that the best QB's can be evaluated pretty quickly once they get to the NFL. It took Pete Carroll parts of four pre-season games to go with Wilson, Belicheck saw Brady for a handful of games before deciding that it didn't matter if Drew Bledsoe was healthy, Andrew Luck - don't even need to go into that.

So someone set me straight. I looked into WR's, and they often times need three years to really break out. Which QB's have set the world on fire after a couple mediocre-to-poor seasons (you can choose a first few years like Tarvaris Jackson had, or of course, Ponder)? It's a bit late in the evening here, and I'm drawing a blank.

John_Viveiros wrote: You look at some of the evidence, and it seems that the best QB's can be evaluated pretty quickly once they get to the NFL. It took Pete Carroll parts of four pre-season games to go with Wilson, Belicheck saw Brady for a handful of games before deciding that it didn't matter if Drew Bledsoe was healthy, Andrew Luck - don't even need to go into that.

So someone set me straight. I looked into WR's, and they often times need three years to really break out. Which QB's have set the world on fire after a couple mediocre-to-poor seasons (you can choose a first few years like Tarvaris Jackson had, or of course, Ponder)? It's a bit late in the evening here, and I'm drawing a blank.

Alex Smith is a solid quarterback who fits that criteria.

Hard to think of many, could be due to the nature of the position. Most quarterbacks who fail early in their careers don't get a second or third chance.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

frosted21 wrote: Alex Smith is a solid quarterback who fits that criteria.

Hard to think of many, could be due to the nature of the position. Most quarterbacks who fail early in their careers don't get a second or third chance.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Rich Gannon and Brad Johnson would be on that list. IMO

John_Viveiros wrote: You look at some of the evidence, and it seems that the best QB's can be evaluated pretty quickly once they get to the NFL. It took Pete Carroll parts of four pre-season games to go with Wilson, Belicheck saw Brady for a handful of games before deciding that it didn't matter if Drew Bledsoe was healthy, Andrew Luck - don't even need to go into that.

So someone set me straight. I looked into WR's, and they often times need three years to really break out. Which QB's have set the world on fire after a couple mediocre-to-poor seasons (you can choose a first few years like Tarvaris Jackson had, or of course, Ponder)? It's a bit late in the evening here, and I'm drawing a blank.

Drew Brees. Take a look at his stats over his first 3 years in the league and then consider what followed.

80 PurplePride 84 wrote:Rodgers sat for 3 years and wasn't the Rodgers we know now until about 2010.

Aikman didn't start off well either. It's not uncommon at all. I think it's easy to evaluate whether a QB is talented enough to have a chance to become great but I don't think anyone can tell in 10 games, or even one season, if a QB is going to be great.

I still say circumstances play a huge role in how QBs perform and are perceived. For example, John wrote that if "you look at some of the evidence, and it seems that the best QB's can be evaluated pretty quickly once they get to the NFL. It took Pete Carroll parts of four pre-season games to go with Wilson". Is wilson really one of the best QBs in the NFL? Would he be perceived that way if he'd landed in Oakland and started as a rookie instead of landing in Seattle and starting as a rookie? I seriously doubt it and I mean no disrespect to his obvious talent when I say that. I'm simply saying the main reason his name even comes up in a discussion about the best QBs in the league is because he's on such a good team. Drop him onto a bad team and he might still work his way into that "best QB" conversation but it's unlikely he'd be in it yet.