Vikings Message Board.Com

On Facebook someone asked who is the Vikings #1 WR... Charles Johnson or Mike Wallace. Is it just me, or is this a really dumb question... And even more questionable is that some people were saying Johnson is #1 and Wallace is #2... Am I missing something? When did Johnson make the quantum leap to #1 on the depth chart???

PurpleMustReign wrote:On Facebook someone asked who is the Vikings #1 WR... Charles Johnson or Mike Wallace. Is it just me, or is this a really dumb question... And even more questionable is that some people were saying Johnson is #1 and Wallace is #2... Am I missing something? When did Johnson make the quantum leap to #1 on the depth chart???

Usually, a teams #1 is usually their starting X WR, which is Johnson, so yeah, I would consider Johnson our #1 and Wallace as our #2

Wallace 1. Johnson 2 Wright 3. Patterson 4. Theilen or Diggs maybe both

PurpleMustReign wrote:On Facebook someone asked who is the Vikings #1 WR... Charles Johnson or Mike Wallace. Is it just me, or is this a really dumb question... And even more questionable is that some people were saying Johnson is #1 and Wallace is #2... Am I missing something? When did Johnson make the quantum leap to #1 on the depth chart???

Who cares? As long as they are catching 80+ passes and 10 TD's a year. Hell they can be 1A and 1B for all I care.

Who cares? As long as they are catching 80+ passes and 10 TD's a year. Hell they can be 1A and 1B for all I care.

Wide Receivers tend to be ego maniacs ..and our society, post twitter wan't to make stars out of players.

I agree I would love to have four really effective wide outs ... I'm pretty sure Wallace will be listed as our number one, this season.

PurpleMustReign wrote:On Facebook someone asked who is the Vikings #1 WR... Charles Johnson or Mike Wallace. Is it just me, or is this a really dumb question... And even more questionable is that some people were saying Johnson is #1 and Wallace is #2... Am I missing something? When did Johnson make the quantum leap to #1 on the depth chart???

Eh. The split end (the X receiver) is usually the number one guy at the position because he actually lines up on the line of scrimmage. The flanker (the Z receiver) is usually the 2nd guy at the position because he can line up off of the line of scrimmage. Of course, the slot (the Y receiver) is between the tackle and either the split end or the flanker and has to be off of the line line of scrimmage.

If anything, Wallace will line up at the split end position when there is not '22' personnel on the field (2 backs, 2 tight ends). When '22' is on the field, I expect that Charles will line up at the split end position. It really doesn't matter who the number one is in Norv's offense per se - although history says that it is a good bet that Mike Wallace will be the leading receiver this year in terms of production. That is, if everything goes according to plan.

jackal wrote:Wallace 1. Johnson 2 Wright 3. Patterson 4. Theilen or Diggs maybe both

Like I said, Wallace isn't technically considered our #1 because he isn't our X WR. Johnson is.

Like I said, Wallace isn't technically considered our #1 because he isn't our X WR. Johnson is.

I really don't care about small technical listings, such as this... I just want them to play good football and
hopefully win a ring.

Pondering Her Percy wrote: Like I said, Wallace isn't technically considered our #1 because he isn't our X WR. Johnson is.

To me, #1 doesn't mean X. #1 means most productive and the guy you game plan for.

I would have said Wes Welker was the #1 guy in New England for years even though he primarily played in the slot, for instance.

I'm more interested in the bottom of the WR roster. I figure the top is Wallace, Johnson, Patterson, Wright and Diggs.
Wobschall has made multiple mentions of both Theilen and Jordan Leslie as guys making an impact in camp. I don't think we'll keep 7 receivers though. It seems like Theilen may be able to hang on, but it's not guaranteed.

Theilen will make the roster by special teams and effort alone....

I don't see us keeping more than five guys ...

If we keep six that means the staff feels really great about only keeping 2-3 tight ends

and have guys on OL and DL that can play multiple spots

jackal wrote:Theilen will make the roster by special teams and effort alone....

I don't see us keeping more than five guys ...

If we keep six that means the staff feels really great about only keeping 2-3 tight ends

and have guys on OL and DL that can play multiple spots

If the staff only keeps 5 WRs, I don't think Thielen has any chance of making the roster barring a season ending injury to one of the other receivers.

DK Sweets wrote:If the staff only keeps 5 WRs, I don't think Thielen has any chance of making the roster barring a season ending injury to one of the other receivers.

+1. I don't see Thielen as any higher than 6th right now. I sure wouldn't put him ahead of Wright and I'd be shocked for them to cut Diggs after just drafting him. I think the Vikings will keep 6 this year.

Crax wrote: +1. I don't see Thielen as any higher than 6th right now. I sure wouldn't put him ahead of Wright and I'd be shocked for them to cut Diggs after just drafting him. I think the Vikings will keep 6 this year.

Well, we carried 2 FBs last year. I don't see that this year. We have 2 TEs on the roster that can play H back. The opening left by Felton, we could carry another receiver.

DK Sweets wrote:To me, #1 doesn't mean X. #1 means most productive and the guy you game plan for.

I would have said Wes Welker was the #1 guy in New England for years even though he primarily played in the slot, for instance.

I guess you could always look at it that way too. It depends on what kind of offense you run as well. In an offense like Turners, your #1 is usually the X WR. Either way, it doesn't really matter.

As for Thielen, I don't see any way he could make the roster this year with Diggs now in the mix. Diggs offers a lot more than Thielen and could be an eventual replacement for Wallace (because they are similar in skill set). Thielen isn't going to offer anything offensively. Maybe special teams but thats about it.