Vikings Message Board.Com

Minnesota

Many years ago now it appeared Chad Greenway was going to be one of the best 4-3 linebackers we’d see but as his reputation grew his production fell – such is the beauty of the NFL. If last season with its 21 missed tackles (third-worst at his position) wasn’t the final bell it likely only because his contract is so onerous and as a result he now looks set to complete a group of linebackers that vies for the worst in the league. In a system where quality play from that position group is so vital, it has to be upgraded.

However, the position at QB is equally dire and that will take precedence – redshirt or not – it has to be addressed.

Texas Vike wrote:
Just about anything, except RB, TE, & FB.

@evansilva Bill Polian & Mark Dominik both said Aaron Donald makes sense to #Buccaneers at 7. "Most pivotal part of that (Tampa 2) defense." RE: Aaron Donald. Lovie's Ds in Chicago & St Louis always operated at their optimum levels with deep rotations of pass rushers inside & out.

Slick Rick wrote:What players do you think Rick would legitimately select at #8? I think it's very likely that it's either a offensive lineman, quarterback, corner, linebacker, or maybe receiver.

I'm stoked to find out who we pick first.

dead_poet wrote: I don't want a kicker or punter in R1, but that's just me. I just don't see the value there. YMMV.

dead_poet wrote:

80 PurplePride 84 wrote: Why would they pick a OT?

Even if you plan on moving him I'm not comfortable using a top 10 pick on a G.

Texas Vike wrote:OT is not my top choice of scenarios, but here's a couple potential reasons:
1. You see once in a generation talent and feel you can move folks around on your line.
2. Trade potential--again, assuming the player in question is a game changer and will have suitors.

I'd rather have a LB, QB, S, or CB. I'd be fine with DL or WR, though I don't think either is a glaring need. OL would cause my eye brows to raise, and I'd want to look into what the plan is.

dead_poet wrote: Robinson would be the only OL I'd take at 8. I'd have a hard time pulling the trigger at 8 on any of this draft's top safeties as well. To me, it will be very interesting if one of Watkins or Evans is available at 8. If that's the case, I can certainly see Rick trading down and taking the extra picks. I have a hard time believing both will be gone by our pick, so the chances are good one will be there. The question is, would Rick take one of them?

80 PurplePride 84 wrote:Spielman said in his presser today that he does read mocks for fun and "you guys are missing some potential players for us"

The most common picks for us recently have been Bortles, Donald and Dennard. Bridgewater, Manziel, Mack, Mosely, Gilbert and Carr have been mocked in the past.

Who are they missing? Mike Evans? One of the Tackles? Another Ponder like reach we're not thinking of?


Or, most likely, this is just more gamesmanship.

mondry wrote:I'd actually be okay with a guard at #8 if he's really high quality / BPA. We have Peterson, we have shaky QB play, better protection is a big deal for this team. I know this probably won't be popular but I actually think left guard is the weakest position on the team right now. All we have is a really bad journeyman there...

Mothman wrote: They have the same situation at QB. I wouldn't call it "really bad" but I wouldn't actually characterize Johnson that way either. At both positions, they have players that are sub-standard starters but one position is far more significant than the other.