PDA

View Full Version : 32 Grades in 32 Days: Minnesota Vikings


D-Unit
05-21-2010, 01:33 PM
*This is an interactive activity that will allow us to get a forum wide's opinion on each team's draft. Please feel free to comment on your decision.

PRE-DRAFT NEEDS (according to Scott): #1 - CB| #2 - QB | #3 - OL

DRAFT PICKS:

Round 2, Pick 2 (34) (From Lions) Chris Cook CB 6'2" 212 Virginia

Round 2, Pick 19 (51) (From Texans) Toby Gerhart RB 6'0" 231 Stanford

Round 4, Pick 2 (100) (From Lions) Everson Griffen DE 6'3" 273 Southern Cal

Round 5, Pick 30 (161) Chris Degeare OT 6'4" 325 Wake Forest

Round 5, Pick 36 (167) (Compensatory selection) Nathan Triplett LB 6'3" 250 Minnesota

Round 6, Pick 30 (199) Joe Webb QB 6'3" 223 UAB

Round 7, Pick 7 (214) (From Browns through Lions) Mickey Shuler TE 6'4" 251 Penn State

Round 7, Pick 30 (237) Ryan D'Imperio LB 6'2" 230 Rutgers




TRADES:

Texans receive:
Second-round pick (No. 62):
Traded to Patriots
Third-round pick (No. 93):
Traded to Chiefs

Vikings receive:
Second-round pick (No. 51):
Toby Gerhart

_________________________

Lions receive:
First-round pick (No. 30):
Jahvid Best
Fourth-round pick (No. 128):
Jason Fox

Vikings receive:
Second-round pick (No. 34):
Chris Cook
Fourth-round pick (No. 100):
Everson Griffen
Seventh-round pick (No. 214):
Mickey Shuler
_________________________

prock
05-21-2010, 01:45 PM
Ugh, this sucks. I voted C, but I should have gone lower. I hate passing up on Clausen. I am not sold on Cook because he is not a physical defender. I don't like spending our second rounder on a backup. Love the Griffen pick. Degreare is a fine developmental prospect I guess. Tripplet is a reach. I have heard the Vikings are impressed with Joe Webb's throwing ability and might move him to QB, which would suck, because I actually like the pick if he is gonna play WR. And the 7th round is the 7th round. I don't think this draft. I may change my mind depending on how the season goes.

RaiderNation
05-21-2010, 02:00 PM
Gave it a C. I like the Griffen pick and Gerhart picks. Not sold on Cook with that high of a pick

killxswitch
05-21-2010, 02:10 PM
Gerhart and Griffen make it a C. Outside of those two picks (and even Griffen is iffy but on potential alone he's a great value) this was not a good draft. Really stupid of them to pass on Clausen.

Splat
05-21-2010, 02:11 PM
Had they took Clausen with their first pick their first three picks would have been sick.

TitanHope
05-21-2010, 02:11 PM
I will never understand the Gerhart pick over Clausen. You have a Top 3 RB (CJ2K, SJax, AD - in no particular order), no long term solution at QB, yet they pass on the QB and choose a powerback who will be a rotational/situational RB. I just don't get that. Gerhart is a stud, but I was stunned the Vikes passed on Clausen twice. Not to mention, they traded up for Gerhart.

Cook fits their Cover 2 scheme, and getting Griffen in the 4th was a steal. After them, they took DeGeare, which helps their OL need but it was kind've a reach. Triplett gives them depth at MIKE, which is needed with E.J. Henderson's injury proneness. Joe Webb is a major project. I was surprised Mickey Shuler was drafted. Ryan D'Imperio looks like a pure ST'er. They didn't get much with their trade back with Detroit.

I have to give it a D+. The only pick that wasn't a reach to me, before the 6th/7th RD, was Griffen. Outside of him, all of the others weren't great value. Could make an argument for Gerhart, but factoring what they gave up to get him, and it was a lot. In actuality, this draft probably gets a C from me based on the players they got and how they project to roles on the team. But when a team has no franchise QB and no guy that they're committed to as a future answer to the position, and they pass on a guy like Clausen, I just can't wrap my head around that so I have to bump it down slightly.

And yes, I get that Clausen obviously wasn't "their guy," for whatever reason they had whether it's his maturity, perceived value, etc. This is just what I think they should've done.

Splat
05-21-2010, 02:13 PM
Even if they knew 100% that #4 was coming back I still feel they should have took Clausen.

LonghornsLegend
05-21-2010, 02:20 PM
Passing on Clausen I feel will be a blunder, even if Clausen isn't a legit top 10 QB why not have insurance so your not held hostage by what Favre decides. I felt as if Clausen would be able to bus drive this team deep into the playoffs.


Gerhart was a terrible pick to me, maybe AD and his fumbles are pissing them off, but you don't want a RB that at least contrast AD slightly? Who is the 3rd down back? McCluster or McKnight made alot more sense if you ask me.


Taking another athletic developmental QB makes no sense to me either.


Everson Griffen that late is the only thing stopping me from giving it a D because that is incredible value and a great fit who I wouldn't of been shocked to see go late 1st.


I give ita C-, just can't believe their ok with playing the guessing game with Favre.

ramsfan2005813
05-21-2010, 03:21 PM
only pick that wasn't a reach was Griffen. Gerhart was the wrong type of RB in my opinion, they needed a pass catcher to replace Taylor, not a grinder. None of their trades really were that good, they traded out of the first round to move up 12 spots in the 4th and get a 7th. Then gave up a third round to move up 11 in the second. I agree passing on the QB was the wrong decision but maybe they want to see what they have on the roster before taking one from next years deep class.

umphrey
05-21-2010, 04:04 PM
D
The only picks that were good were Griffin and Webb.
Cook is not going to do well in the NFL.
Degeare: so hard to predict middle round lineman, not a plus or minus pick

Scotty D
05-21-2010, 08:49 PM
If they draft Clausen then I doubt you see Favre return. They lost Chester Taylor in free agency and AD had major problems in the playoffs.

P-L
05-21-2010, 09:02 PM
If Minnesota did not view Clausen as a franchise quarterback (and many teams did not) why should they have taken him? Just because you viewed him as a franchise quarterback, doesn't mean the Vikings did. The WORST thing Minnesota could've done was take Clausen if they were not sold on him.

Splat
05-21-2010, 09:04 PM
If they draft Clausen then I doubt you see Favre return. They lost Chester Taylor in free agency and AD had major problems in the playoffs.

I really don't think drafting Clausen would have kept Favre from coming back if he is wants to play he is going to play.

Crazy_Chris
05-21-2010, 09:10 PM
Round 7, Pick 30 (237) Ryan D'Imperio LB 6'2" 230 Rutgers

They are going to use Ryan D'Imperio at FB.

I will never understand the Gerhart pick over Clausen. You have a Top 3 RB (CJ2K, SJax, AD - in no particular order), no long term solution at QB, yet they pass on the QB and choose a powerback who will be a rotational/situational RB. I just don't get that. Gerhart is a stud, but I was stunned the Vikes passed on Clausen twice. Not to mention, they traded up for Gerhart.

Jimmy Clausen was no longer on the board when the Vikings selected Toby Gerhart.

Gerhart was a terrible pick to me, maybe AD and his fumbles are pissing them off, but you don't want a RB that at least contrast AD slightly? Who is the 3rd down back? McCluster or McKnight made alot more sense if you ask me.

They didn't want a 3rd down scat back they already have Percy Harvin with that skill set out of the back field. Aswell Darius Reynaud who they swtiched to RB has a similar scat back skill set aswell. Toby Gerhart is just what they wanted some one who can be a workhorse if AD goes down.

Taking another athletic developmental QB makes no sense to me either.

They didn't originally plan to use him as QB, they drafted him with intentions of being a developmental WR. However they asked him to throw at the mini camps and were impressed with what they saw so they are working him at QB for now.

marshallb
05-21-2010, 09:13 PM
I give it a solid C. Obviously the Vikings were drafting for the short term with the first couple picks over the long term, which I think will come back to bite them in the butt, especially passing on Clausen, but they didn't view him as a franchise guy I guess, so I don't blame them for passing on him. I love the Griffen pick, but after that it was a couple developmental guys and STs.

Oh, and whoever said that the Vikings made a big mistake taking Gerhart over Clausen, it would have been impossible for that to have happened as Clausen went #48 and Gerhart went #51.

LonghornsLegend
05-22-2010, 09:45 AM
They didn't want a 3rd down scat back they already have Percy Harvin with that skill set out of the back field.


Percy Harvin is a WR. Just because he can move to the backfield in some sets doesn't mean they don't need a 3rd down RB. Or have you already forgotten the role Chester Taylor played last year? Nobody said he had to be a "scat back", but Gerhart isn't a 3rd down back in any shape or form.



Aswell Darius Reynaud who they swtiched to RB has a similar scat back skill set aswell.


Yeaaa, Darius Reynaud is not even worth mentioning....



Toby Gerhart is just what they wanted some one who can be a workhorse if AD goes down.

Obviously. It's still stupid to me. They took a RB almost exactly the same as AD and they took him in the 2nd round which was way too soon. You don't find it strange to spend a 2nd round pick on a RB who "can be good if AD gets hurt"? I don't see how that logic makes any sense.



They didn't originally plan to use him as QB, they drafted him with intentions of being a developmental WR. However they asked him to throw at the mini camps and were impressed with what they saw so they are working him at QB for now.


Annnnd what part of this makes my point null and void, that it was really strange to take another developmental QB? Who cares if he wasn't drafted to be that, then 2 weeks later he threw a good spiral so they changed their mind? The facts are that he is drafted to be another athletic QB who is going to take a long time before he's ready to play, right down the Tavaris Jackson path again.


Not to say that it'll blow up in their face because of Tavaris Jackson, but it really didn't make sense to me no matter how you explain it.

prock
05-22-2010, 11:28 AM
I agree with LL, I really hate the Gerhart pick. I heard about this pick right before I tried salvia for the first time, resulting in an awful scary trip because I was so ******* pissed off we spent a 2nd and 3rd round pick on a goal line back. He could prove me wrong, but I ******* hated that pick, still don't like it.

TitanHope
05-22-2010, 12:40 PM
Jimmy Clausen was no longer on the board when the Vikings selected Toby Gerhart.

Thanks for the correction. I thought they traded up higher in the 2nd for some reason.

Still, I stand by my grade. I don't think passing up Clausen by reaching on Chris Cook was a good decision other, but at least CB was a bigger need.

If they draft Clausen then I doubt you see Favre return. They lost Chester Taylor in free agency and AD had major problems in the playoffs.

It's not a certainty that Favre comes back even though Clausen isn't there, and even if he does come back, he has no long-term future there. It's gonna be funny if he leaves them high and dry now, because with Rosencopter or TJax at the helm, they go from Super Bowl contendor to a WC team. They'd be left with no current or future at the position, but if Minny continues to do well, they won't be picking high and will be missing the top franchise QB's in the drafts year after year the surrounding talent can no longer make up for it. Clausen could be the best talent they'd have a chance on at their spot, and they passed it up for whatever reason.

The Gerhart pick makes some sense, with AD's fumblitis and health concens that he may never shake. Just not sure about investing a pick that high, which you had to give up even more for after trading up to get it, on a guy who will only play if AD gets hurt or screws up royally.

If Minnesota did not view Clausen as a franchise quarterback (and many teams did not) why should they have taken him? Just because you viewed him as a franchise quarterback, doesn't mean the Vikings did. The WORST thing Minnesota could've done was take Clausen if they were not sold on him.

I don't get this. If we all took this mentaility, then no draft could be graded poorly because every team thinks they did well. It'd be like elementary school where we were given out "S" grades. Of course every team is satisfied with the guys they got. They wouldn't have passed on guys and chosen others instead if they weren't.

Minny may not have liked him as their franchise guy, but we're not grading them based on the franchise's opinion. We're grading them based on ours.

Splat
05-22-2010, 12:44 PM
When your QB's kid has a kid you might want to start thinking about finding who is going to be next in line.

Rosebud
05-22-2010, 02:03 PM
I'm not really surprised that they passed on Clausen for Cook. No good reason but I had the feeling that they were in love with Cook, even had them taking him in the first round of one or two of my mock drafts. I think they're trying to throw as much raw talent together while they still have Favre. Ultimately I don't think they squeeze a SB out of it. But that team would be pretty well set up for them to make a Jets for the Sanchize esque move. I would've moved up for Dan Williams because he'd be the absolutely perfect student for fat pat. Cook has monster potential in that cover-2, for their sake I hope they can get him on the fast track.

I don't like the trade up for Toby. I totally understand looking for a powerful backup for AD who could take over the short yardage duties aswell, limiting the dangers of AD's fumble issues. Still don't like the value here.

Griffin is a good gamble, the type of move a team with good DEs should be taking just to keep their beastiliness at the position solidified.

Big D could be a nice project at guard or even RT, but really, meh I don't expect much. Triplett does nothing for me although Webb I like. A great athlete with strong hands.

A very mediocre draft. You've got 1 starter, one major contributer a rotational pass rusher but I think they could've done so much more.

Crazy_Chris
05-23-2010, 01:51 AM
Percy Harvin is a WR. Just because he can move to the backfield in some sets doesn't mean they don't need a 3rd down RB. Or have you already forgotten the role Chester Taylor played last year? Nobody said he had to be a "scat back", but Gerhart isn't a 3rd down back in any shape or form.

It's not simply black & white, but more like shades of grey with Harvin. As Percy is definatly not simply a WR. Trust me I remember Chester's role on this team, and no matter who they took it wasn't going to simply be filled by that player. What it seems like people forget is that Chester wasn't simply a great 3rd down back, he was someone proven to be able to carry the load. If you take a Joe McKnight, Dexter McCluster or even Jahvid Best you only fill the receiving part of his 3rd down role.

They aren't going to fill his role as insurance if AD goes down and their blocking(Chester excelled doing) leaves a lot to be desired. Gerhart may not be an ideal scat/3rd down back, but he is a guy you can trust to pick up a blitz for the QB on 3rd down and can be the workhorse if needed. Neither of which is something I could comfortably say about the other guys you mentioned as making more sense.

Obviously. It's still stupid to me. They took a RB almost exactly the same as AD and they took him in the 2nd round which was way too soon. You don't find it strange to spend a 2nd round pick on a RB who "can be good if AD gets hurt"? I don't see how that logic makes any sense.


That doesn't make sense, they shouldn' take a guy simply because is has a similar punishing running style. Gerhart being "almost exaclty" the same RB is a stretch. Sure he is the same besides his far inferior explosion/change of direction skills/top end speed, and inability to get outside turn the corner. By similar logic I could say Jahvid Best is "almost exactly" the same RB since he is explosive with great change of direction and top end speed.

Despite some old misconceptions AD is a complete back now that can catch, block, and he is both the thunder and the lighting. Every RB is going to be similar to him in different ways. By your logic they shouldn't have taken anyone since they already have a workhorse/punisher in AD, and they already have 2 explosive options in AD and Percy Harvin. The only thing that another RB can offer the Vikings that would contrast AD right now would be ball security.

Hell I didn't like the Gerhart selection either, It's not horrible as you say, but it definatly wasn't good. However the reasoning that he is too similar to AD and they needed more of a 3rd down back like McKnight or McCluster is wrong. The pick was a bad one because they used a 2nd and a 3rd rounder on a RB who won't touch the ball but maybe 5-7 times a game(barring injuries of course).

The facts are that he is drafted to be another athletic QB

Except that facts are he was not drafted to be that. No one was trying to null and void any point, I was simply correcting you.

Quite frankly I don't really care what they drafted him for or plan to do with him now. It was simply just a late 6th round flyer for an very athletic guy who they orignially planned to use at WR. However he could end up at QB if he really impresses throughout rest of OTAs and TC. He isn't all that likely to make the 53 man roster either way.

BlueBandit24
05-23-2010, 02:31 PM
I give the draft an average grade - C. Passing on Clausen at #30 (and trading down) upset me orgininally, but seeing so many other teams pass on Jimmy as well alleviates those concerns a bit. It doesn't mean he can't succeed, but I have tempered my expectations a bit.

I like Cook well enough in our zone scheme. I felt 34 was a reach value-wise but the organization really likes him. I like Gerhart, though I am not sold on taking a pure backup that high - especially via trade up. He should be a good compliment to AD though. The thing with Peterson is that he is speed and power wrapped into one so you do not need to compliment him with the other trait; he has both in spades.

Griffen was a great value. The rest of the draft is just throwing something against a wall and hoping it stick, so I won't comment too much.

I felt we could have done more overall and did not work the draft board as well as we could. That said, I still feel we added valuable pieces.

princefielder28
05-23-2010, 02:46 PM
I gave the Vikings a B. The biggest topic seems to be with Jimmy Clausen and there's a simple explanation to why they passed on him, the team believes that Tavaris Jackson can be a starting quarterback for them. People can laugh and it may be a silly thought by them but he did show improvement in the limited time that he played last season.

Now onto the picks.....

I loved the Chris Cook selection and had him graded out as a first rounder so to no surprise to me he went at the top of round two. The team has a big need there with the question marks with Griffin and Winfield, and the position obviously needed to be addressed. Toby Gerhart was another solid choice. The team lost Chester Taylor and they needed a capable back behind him and Gerhart is a good fit there. Everson Griffen was a wondeful value pick and looking at the unknown long term situation with Ray Edwards, it could turn out that he'll slid into a starting spot in 2011. None of the later picks really jumped out at me but they made their mark with the first three choices.

bored of education
05-23-2010, 08:25 PM
The fact they didn't waste a pick on Clausen makes it good. Clausen will be out of the league in 4 years.

Abaddon
05-24-2010, 05:49 AM
Everyone passed on Clausen. That should tell you something.

Cook at the top of Rd2 may have been a little high. But, if he pans out, good for them.

Taking Toby that high might motivate Peterson to improve. There has to be something deeper to that pick than just calling it BPA. And, if the anticipated eventual Peterson injury happens, Toby could be pretty productive in that offense.

Griffen is a piece of garbage.

Tempted to say D, but I'll go C here.

prock
05-24-2010, 10:22 AM
Everyone passed on Clausen. That should tell you something.


I personally hate this argument. Everyone passed on Tom Brady too, we know how that worked out. Scouts and GMs aren't always right, so just because they passed on someone doesn't mean he isn't gonna be a good player. I don't think Clausen's free fall in the draft means he is going to be garbage, I rely on my own analysis of each player, not the team's, because they are just as likely to be wrong as I am.

LizardState
05-24-2010, 06:10 PM
I vote C b/c mainly they missed on a Brett I May or May Not Retire this Yr. Favre insurance QB, & Webb (who will be soon nicknamed Tavaris 2.0) it ain't. Now with the news of Favre's ankle surgery they will be reminded that over-40 injuries are exponentially bad & worse for the player. Favre's tendency toward INTs in late season crucial games (remember his Jets gig? Jets fans would like to forget) resurfaced in the playoffs, that need for a quality signal caller may come back to bite Minnesota in the butt.

Everyone passed on Clausen. That should tell you something.

And they passed on Clausen...... yes sportsfans, there's a msg. there.

They got their CB & Shuler was excellent late-rd. value. The rest didn't meet needs but will anybody be surprised that nobody from this draft starts for the Vikings? This is after all an NFC CG-caliber team with a talent-rich roster.

I was going to vote D but Gerhart upgraded them to a C, he's going to be the surprise in the crackerjack box for the Vikes in 2010, an instant fan fave to ease the frustration that comes with Peterson, the best RB in the league with serious, career-undermining ball security issues

prock
05-24-2010, 06:21 PM
I was going to vote D but Gerhart upgraded them to a C, he's going to be the surprise in the crackerjack box for the Vikes in 2010, an instant fan fave to ease the frustration that comes with Peterson, the best RB in the league with serious, career-undermining ball security issues

So spending a second AND third round pick on a back up who will touch the ball I'd say on average 6-8 times a game and doesn't contradict AD's style of running whatsoever upgrades the draft for you? Downgrades it for me.

CC.SD
05-24-2010, 06:28 PM
If Minnesota did not view Clausen as a franchise quarterback (and many teams did not) why should they have taken him? Just because you viewed him as a franchise quarterback, doesn't mean the Vikings did. The WORST thing Minnesota could've done was take Clausen if they were not sold on him.

Isn't the worst thing actually pinning your Super Bowl hopes on Tavaris Jackson?

prock
05-24-2010, 06:34 PM
Isn't the worst thing actually pinning your Super Bowl hopes on Tavaris Jackson?

Or worse, Roflcopter.

LizardState
05-24-2010, 06:38 PM
:Originally Posted by LizardState
I was going to vote D but Gerhart upgraded them to a C, he's going to be the surprise in the crackerjack box for the Vikes in 2010, an instant fan fave to ease the frustration that comes with Peterson, the best RB in the league with serious, career-undermining ball security issues
Originally posted by prock
So spending a second AND third round pick on a back up who will touch the ball I'd say on average 6-8 times a game and doesn't contradict AD's style of running whatsoever upgrades the draft for you? Downgrades it for me.

Did you see Gerhart at USC last season? He knocked the Trojans' collective dicks in the dirt. He set the rcd. for most yds. ever given up by a Trojan defense, best performance by a RB in California all season & made believers out of anybody who saw it. Best game by a Stanford player since Touchdown Tommy Vardell.

I realize there are much tougher run defenses in the NFL, but mark my words, Peterson will get benched unless he corrects his fumbling & Gerhart will be the RB who pushes the pile forward, he will be The Man in Minnesota who moves the chains & keeps the pass rush off Favre or Frerotte or Tavaris or whoever.

prock
05-24-2010, 06:42 PM
Did you see Gerhart at USC last season? He knocked the Trojans' collective dicks in the dirt. He set the rcd. for most yds. ever given up by a Trojan defense, best performance by a RB in California all season & made believers out of anybody who saw it. Best game by a Stanford player since Touchdown Tommy Vardell.

I realize there are much tougher run defenses in the NFL, but mark my words, Peterson will get benched unless he corrects his fumbling & Gerhart will be the RB who pushes the pile forward, he will be The Man in Minnesota who moves the chains & keeps the pass rush off Favre or Frerotte or Tavaris or whoever.

So because Toby ran wild in COLLEGE against USC in a down year, where their defense was no where near the level it normally is, he is going to dominate the NFL? If Peterson needs to be benched, Toby will get 15 carries a game, but if AD will have to fumble a lot to get benched. A lot.

Abaddon
05-24-2010, 09:19 PM
I personally hate this argument. Everyone passed on Tom Brady too, we know how that worked out. Scouts and GMs aren't always right, so just because they passed on someone doesn't mean he isn't gonna be a good player. I don't think Clausen's free fall in the draft means he is going to be garbage, I rely on my own analysis of each player, not the team's, because they are just as likely to be wrong as I am.

And playing the Tom Brady (one in a million shot) Card isn't a lame argument? Come on, now.

As often as they miss, I'll still generally rate the opinion of 32 NFL GMs over a group of hack fans.

prock
05-24-2010, 09:41 PM
And playing the Tom Brady (one in a million shot) Card isn't a lame argument? Come on, now.

As often as they miss, I'll still generally rate the opinion of 32 NFL GMs over a group of hack fans.

Well you can use a million other examples by Tom Brady, and I can list them if you want, but I think that would be unnecessary. I am saying that just because all these teams passed over him doesn't mean he is going to bust. They could just as easily be wrong as they could be right, so that is just not a good argument.

Abaddon
05-24-2010, 09:49 PM
For every Tom Brady, there are 500 Giovani Carmazzis. So, no. Your argument holds no water.

GB12
05-24-2010, 09:53 PM
Everyone passed on Clausen. That should tell you something.

Incorrect. Neither the Bears or Panthers passed on Clausen.

prock
05-24-2010, 11:48 PM
For every Tom Brady, there are 500 Giovani Carmazzis. So, no. Your argument holds no water.

It doesn't hold to only quarterbacks. If you really don't understand my point and need me to list players who went in the second round or later who ended up being better than players picked in the first, I will. Or you can use logic and realize that just because a lot of teams passed on Clausen doesn't mean he is gonna bust. Scouts know more about football than a fan, but their guess is as good as mine when it comes to a player. There is no certainty. And that is my point. But you somehow don't get this and are spending time debating on the example I used.

scottyboy
05-24-2010, 11:54 PM
http://news.rutgers.edu/focus/issue.2009-10-29.7399988752/article.2009-11-11.0587579735/photo

A+

Rosebud
05-25-2010, 01:45 AM
It doesn't hold to only quarterbacks. If you really don't understand my point and need me to list players who went in the second round or later who ended up being better than players picked in the first, I will. Or you can use logic and realize that just because a lot of teams passed on Clausen doesn't mean he is gonna bust. Scouts know more about football than a fan, but their guess is as good as mine when it comes to a player. There is no certainty. And that is my point. But you somehow don't get this and are spending time debating on the example I used.

There's a reason why most second round prospects don't do as well as the average first round prospects and the success rate of second round QBs is awful. Not saying Clausen will bust, but there's a reason he got passed that much, and that's that he projects to be a solid starter at best.

Abaddon
05-25-2010, 03:42 AM
Clausen's fanboys are nearly as bad as Tebow's. Kinda funny, really.

killxswitch
05-25-2010, 07:33 AM
Clausen's fanboys are nearly as bad as Tebow's. Kinda funny, really.

Clausen's detractors are a lot more annoying.

prock
05-25-2010, 08:49 AM
Clausen's fanboys are nearly as bad as Tebow's. Kinda funny, really.

I like how this is your defense mechanism. "I don't have anything to say so I will just pretend that the other guy is an idiot when I can't even form a simple rebuttal."

Well played, sir.

princefielder28
05-25-2010, 08:59 AM
It's plain and simple, the Vikings were not going to go after any quarterback because Brad Childress believes Tavaris Jackson can be a quarterback in the NFL. Plus, they're in a win now mode and investing a high pick in a quarterback benefits them very little NOW. Call it dumb or whatever you want but it's clear that's their view with the franchise right now.

LonghornsLegend
05-25-2010, 10:30 AM
It's not simply black & white, but more like shades of grey with Harvin. As Percy is definatly not simply a WR. Trust me I remember Chester's role on this team, and no matter who they took it wasn't going to simply be filled by that player. What it seems like people forget is that Chester wasn't simply a great 3rd down back, he was someone proven to be able to carry the load. If you take a Joe McKnight, Dexter McCluster or even Jahvid Best you only fill the receiving part of his 3rd down role.




That's all fine and good, but I disagree. Chestor's role could have been easily filled by one player, and of course if you took one of those type of backs you'd only be filling the receiving part of the 3rd down role, and that's almost primarily what Chestor Taylor did. Then again, if you see great logic in spending a mid 2nd round pick on a player who will only have value "if AD gets hurt" then by all means proceed.




They aren't going to fill his role as insurance if AD goes down and their blocking(Chester excelled doing) leaves a lot to be desired. Gerhart may not be an ideal scat/3rd down back, but he is a guy you can trust to pick up a blitz for the QB on 3rd down and can be the workhorse if needed. Neither of which is something I could comfortably say about the other guys you mentioned as making more sense.


Which was a waste of a 2nd round pick. I get that you can twist and contort this however you want and make every pick look like some awesome pick that only the team understands and nobody else does, but I don't. If you wanted this type of guy I would of spent a much later pick on him personally, which is why I don't like the pick(or do I have to be forced to like the pick because Minnesota did?).




That doesn't make sense, they shouldn' take a guy simply because is has a similar punishing running style. Gerhart being "almost exaclty" the same RB is a stretch. Sure he is the same besides his far inferior explosion/change of direction skills/top end speed, and inability to get outside turn the corner. By similar logic I could say Jahvid Best is "almost exactly" the same RB since he is explosive with great change of direction and top end speed.

Despite some old misconceptions AD is a complete back now that can catch, block, and he is both the thunder and the lighting. Every RB is going to be similar to him in different ways. By your logic they shouldn't have taken anyone since they already have a workhorse/punisher in AD, and they already have 2 explosive options in AD and Percy Harvin. The only thing that another RB can offer the Vikings that would contrast AD right now would be ball security.

Hell I didn't like the Gerhart selection either, It's not horrible as you say, but it definatly wasn't good. However the reasoning that he is too similar to AD and they needed more of a 3rd down back like McKnight or McCluster is wrong. The pick was a bad one because they used a 2nd and a 3rd rounder on a RB who won't touch the ball but maybe 5-7 times a game(barring injuries of course).



Again that's your opinion. Personally I think having a RB with a skillset who was a great 3rd down RB would be much better used and have a much bigger role on the team. The need was a 3rd down RB, and Gerhart is as far away from that as possible, I also wouldn't want to take AD off the field very much on early downs and that's what you'd be doing with Gerhart. I get the points your making, but still don't like the pick for numerous reasons.





Except that facts are he was not drafted to be that. No one was trying to null and void any point, I was simply correcting you.

Quite frankly I don't really care what they drafted him for or plan to do with him now. It was simply just a late 6th round flyer for an very athletic guy who they orignially planned to use at WR. However he could end up at QB if he really impresses throughout rest of OTAs and TC. He isn't all that likely to make the 53 man roster either way.



Who gives a **** what he was drafted to be? What position is he going to be playing? That's what were grading it off of, now what position he was drafted at the time of the draft. We are grading the draft right now, and right now we know he's going to be another developmental QB, that changes nothing because they at one point thought he would be a WR.

prock
05-25-2010, 05:48 PM
I agree with LL. Do not like the Gerhart pick.

Abaddon
05-26-2010, 12:25 AM
I like how this is your defense mechanism. "I don't have anything to say so I will just pretend that the other guy is an idiot when I can't even form a simple rebuttal."

Well played, sir.

When some guy on a message board claims he's just as likely to be right as a pro personnel guy, yeah. He's an idiot. What more is there to add once you've determined that the person you're talking to is an idiot with a hilariously overinflated sense of self?

prock
05-26-2010, 10:31 AM
When some guy on a message board claims he's just as likely to be right as a pro personnel guy, yeah. He's an idiot. What more is there to add once you've determined that the person you're talking to is an idiot with a hilariously overinflated sense of self?

Ignorance never ceases to amaze me. And all it takes is simple reading and interpretation skills to avoid it. You say because most teams passed on Clausen he won't be a good quarterback. I said that is a dumbass argument because pro personnel guys are wrong a lot, too. And you retorted with "Tom Brady is a bad example" and then you come back again with "You are an idiot and I am smarter than you". Well argued, your rhetorical skills will find no equal on this website. So please, keep throwing out the insults, you are making yourself look brilliant and you are definitely winning the argument.

yourfavestoner
05-26-2010, 11:48 AM
Any plans on getting Harvin more touches out of the backfield next year?

nepg
05-26-2010, 12:33 PM
I personally hate this argument. Everyone passed on Tom Brady too, we know how that worked out. Scouts and GMs aren't always right, so just because they passed on someone doesn't mean he isn't gonna be a good player. I don't think Clausen's free fall in the draft means he is going to be garbage, I rely on my own analysis of each player, not the team's, because they are just as likely to be wrong as I am.
Brady needed a lot of work out of college and he also wasn't the starting QB for large chunks of time at Michigan.

Clausen fell for the same reasons Brian Brohm (almost identical situation) and JD Booty fell.

djp
05-26-2010, 01:46 PM
Any plans on getting Harvin more touches out of the backfield next year?

Not that I have heard of, plus with the Gerhart pick, there's probably less opportunities. I think it's possible if we are playing out of the shotgun a lot again, but I tend to think we drift away from throwing so much and trend back towards our traditional power running game.

djp
05-26-2010, 01:48 PM
re: Clausen, the team just didn't like him. Plain and simple. I don't know what all the debate is about. Whether it be because they still like Tarvaris, or they just didn't want to look past the character issues, they passed just like everyone else did. It's not like Clausen was the universal top QB super prospect. I tend to trust our personnel department on this one.

prock
05-26-2010, 02:48 PM
Brady needed a lot of work out of college and he also wasn't the starting QB for large chunks of time at Michigan.

Clausen fell for the same reasons Brian Brohm (almost identical situation) and JD Booty fell.

But again, Clausen is a different player. I know why Clausen fell, I know Brady wasn't an instant starter in NE. These points aren't being debated. The point was Clausen isn't going to necessarily be a bad player just because he dropped. That is what I am saying. Scouts are very often wrong. Some people in this thread seem to not be able to grasp this.