Vikes 2013 Draft

[Rick]

I like the draft too. But..we will see as the season progresses.

I see Patterson doing a lot of the same things Percy did as a rookie. Only he's a bigger version. Hopefully they can get him up to speed for his second year when he could be a beast.

I like Floyd and Rhodes. With Floyd and Williams I hope to see an improvement in the run stuffing game. Rhodes is a tall CB and after he gets past the rookie mistakes we need him for the tall, physical receivers in the NFC North. Our defense hopefully moves up from the 14th ranked defense.

With the addition of Jennings and Patterson(not so much his rookie year) hopefully we move up from our 14th ranked offense as well.

Hodges is versatile. I'm not sold on him as a MIKE as a rookie but it's a possibility. I believe he will be better as a WILL his rookie year. He will fill a linebacking need. Would be nice to see the Vikes get a veteran LB at least for the 2013 season. He's a converted safety which should help in the pass heavy NFC North. Who knows, maybe Mauti can recover from all the knee issues and become the 2nd round pick he would have been.

[YiGGiN4SLoBS]

I was very skeptical of Spielman before last years draft. I didnt mind taking Khalil that early but said if we take a tackle that high in the draft hes got to be a pro bowl caliber player nearly every year. It looks like thats exactly what he is. I didnt like the pick of Harrison Smith either and was completely wrong about that.

THis year i couldnt be more pleased with what Spielman has done. 3 first rd picks is ALWAYS better then a 1st, 2nd and 3rd and thats what speilman turned this draft into. I would rather have come away with a MLB then a DT, but apparently the Floyd pick was a no brainer at the spot we were picking, we'll see. I also think GB was PRAYING Floyd would slip to them and we got him instead, LOVE IT.

I dont mind at all the trading away of those few 2nd, 3rd and 4th rd picks to get back to the first, especially after seeing some of the names that went in those spots. I would rather have picked 3 times in the first rd with all the names to chose from then where we WERE scheduled to pick. I also think Patterson, though raw, is immediatly better then any WR we have on roster other then Jennings. When you are able to possibly come away with 3 starters at positions of need in the FIRST RD i cant see how you can argue with that...

MLB still worries me, but if they can get a veteran somehow to come in a play the position it should be a VERY exciting season to watch!

[CaptainMusky]

It seems scouts are all over the place on Patterson. They All tout his speed , leaping ability and shiftyness. But some say precise route runner while others say he needs work. I take whatever I read with a grain of salt but found that interesting they could be so different.

I'm sure he will need considerable work to get there even the best recruits do but maybe he's closer than some say. Either way he doesn't sound like the brightest bulb on the tree so hopefully they can use small words and pictures lol

[Bryce]

They got Chris Carters kid as a free agent. Sounds like he may be a bigger cancer on the sideline than his old man. That's pretty hard to imagine.

[CaptainMusky]

Not so sure about a cancer but he obviously has problems with grades since that's why he bounced around.

[SkunkedAgain]

When you are able to possibly come away with 3 starters at positions of need in the FIRST RD i cant see how you can argue with that...

If only you could erase the word "probably." For many teams, first round picks are only marginally more likely become successful contributors than mid-round picks. Of course it all depends on the GM and his scouting team. I've liked Spielman so far but I will argue against the move.

Spielman showed an aptitude to find gems deep in the draft. If a GM can do that then quantity is generally better than quality. As stated by ESPN "The 2013 draft was widely viewed as being thin on stars, with its redeeming quality the depth into the second round and, to some, the third." Spielman traded away four picks to get back into the first round for a raw receiver. He could have gotten raw later on but admittedly not the potential upside - but that's no guarantee.

What I heard Spielman say on the Rosen sports extra, was that he instructed his staff to look for a deal to move up in the second round. When NE set the price for moving into the first round, Spielman went all in and caved to their demand for four picks. Belichik is no fool. He knows that he will get one to two starters out of those selections. The Vikings are hoping that one works, or they get nothing.

I really hope that this works because Spielman because it has a much higher potential for failure, with a possibility for success mixed in

[Scott K]

I think Patterson is exactly what the Vikings needed, and was a much better fit then any of the other WR in the draft. The Vikes needed a guy to stretch the field, they needed a punt, and kick returner, since they got rid of Harvin. They needed someone to compete with Jerome Simpson, which is penciled in as the starting WR. I am pretty sure Pattereson will overcome Simpson early on. They needed someone that would pull a safety away from Jennings, wich Patterson will do. Just because he is raw at routes, doesnt mean he wont be a threat. He is suppose to have good hands, and good speed, so anyone comparing him to Troy Williamson is off base, since he can catch a ball. Time will tell, but I think we may get some flashes of Moss in him, at times. I am not saying he will be as good, just saying, tall, fast, good hands, and not a route runner, sure sounds pretty comparitive to me.

Now, they just need a QB to throw the ball.

[SkunkedAgain]

...just saying, tall, fast, good hands, and not a route runner, sure sounds pretty comparitive to me.

[Scott K]

A buddy of mine asked me if I thought with the addition of Jennings, and the new draft picks if we were going to win the division this year, he said that by the additions this offseason should give us a couple extra wins.

My response to him was, I think the team has improved from last season, but I think the 10 wins last year was a fluke, and we just caught good teams at bad times in the season, and got lucky. We were not a 10 win team last year. I think the Vikes will win 9-10 games this season, and look good doing it. I think 2014 will be the year the Vikes take over the division, depending on Ponders development, or how good his replacement is. If Ponder can get on a role like he did early last year, we may get a 11 win year, but I doubt it.

[nofishfisherman]

I tend to agree with you. We over achieved last year, there is no way we were as good as our record showed.

We had to improve talent if we want a chance at reaching that 10 win mark again. I don't see us getting that lucky again with the talent we had on the field last year.

[Fish Head]

Ye of little faith... We definitely upgraded our receivers, defensive line, and corners. Also, as much as I loved his talent, Percy the locker room cancer is gone. I think we are a legitimate 10-11 win team easily. We play in a tough division, but we can compete for the crown.

Keep the faith!!

[schmitty3]

I'm excited to see our defense this year. We are starting to look good everywhere except for that linebacker position. Cook and Rhodes on the edge with Smith and Sanford in the back. Jamarca Sanford surprised me last year, I never thought he would turn into a decent player, but that exactly what he did last year. Then you have JA, and Efferson Griffin/Brian Robinson on the edge with Williams and Floyd on the inside our D line all of suddenly looks pretty good.

[SkunkedAgain]

As much as this Packers fan hates to admit it, your team is starting to emulate its coach by over-acheiving.

Spot on assessment 4wanderingeyes

[pikestabber]

I think the 10 wins last year was a fluke, and we just caught good teams at bad times in the season, and got lucky. We were not a 10 win team last year.

I tend to agree with you on most sports related issues, 4, but I have to disagree here. Our Pass D was much improved, our special teams were stellar, our Pass O was bad, but marginally better than the year before, and Peterson ran out of his mind, granted, but that's what he does when he is healthy. We WERE a 10 win team... We beat some teams we weren't supposed to, and we beat some teams we were supposed to, and that added up to 10 wins (and is the mark of a team on the rise). We made upgrades across the board and filled some holes. I think we are definitely a double digit win team going forward. The year before winning only 3 games, how many losses were by one score or less? MANY. And that often comes down to one or two key plays. We have guys in place that are making those plays now... I would say we "achieved" last year and greatly "underachieved" the year before. I like what we have going...

[Scott K]

pike, not to argue, since it was just an opinion, but if I recall, I believe every good team we played last year, we got lucky and played them, when they had a star out with an injury. Sure injuries happen to every team, including ours, but it just seemed to fall our way early in the season, during our winning streak. I do agree, we got hosed a few times in 2011, and we should have been more like a 5-6 win team. I also like the direction the team is going in, but to me the biggest question marks this year is our LB's, and our QB. Other then that, we have a promising team. If Ponder can be a quality starter, we can win 11 games this year, if he just got lucky like last year early on, it will be a 9 win season. If we can fill the void at LB for this season, and Ponder has a good year, we could win the division.

I think the Packers are still the best team in the division, they lost a couple key players this season, but they improved in other weak areas, and I think they will still be the better team. Chicago, well they are going to be your usual team that competes, but will fall short of making the playoffs. The Lions, until I see them contend, and not fall apart during the year, I wont bring them into any consideration of winning the division.

[LABS4ME]

I think the Vikings are a 10 win team vying for the division with the Packers... whom I am saying have 10 or 11 wins. The Vikings have upgraded their squad over the last two years and apart from the QB position probably have a more balanced squad than the Packers. Until the new RBs, O-line and DE in Green Bay prove their worth, I would still not lay claim to a walk in the park for GB. The Bears will hang around but I agree will fall short. Until the Lions prove they can consistantly compete, I will claim them irrelevant.

Both the Vikes and Pack have LB issues, DB concerns and DL rookies. The Vikes have the better kicker and the Pack have the better QB. The Vikes have a proven RB with WR concerns and the Pack have a proven WR squad with RB concerns... Overall only a slight nod can be given to GB.

As much as it pains me to say it... the Vikings are again relevent.

Good Luck!

Ken

[zepman]

The Vikings have a much better over all team than the Packers...QB is what sets them apart.

[LABS4ME]

The Vikings have a much better over all team than the Packers...QB is what sets them apart.

I don't get into too much Kool-Aide banter... but seriously? MUCH better? That is a very purple sunglasses statement. If you would've said a better team, I'd give you a pass because you are a fan... but much better? ya... okay.

I'd say the teams are at best equilivalent, minus the QBs...

[zepman]

Put Ponder on the Packers and what do you have...a mess.

Green Bay is a slightly above average team with Rodgers slinging the ball...take him out of the equation and they're LUCKY to win 6 games.

[FISHINGURU]

Packers have a better chance to win more games when you have Rodgers, but if a team can get after him there's not much they can do after that. We got AP who runs like he's possessed but he can be shut down sometimes then we don't have much to fall back on in the passing game.

They've been addressing the running game while we been addressing the passing game. It will be interesting if the Pack all of a sudden has a running game and we all of a sudden have a passing game.

The Vikes surprised everyone with the run we made at the end of the year, hater or fan that was pretty awesome. People had us down for 2-3 wins at the beginning of the season but we did some work and made the playoffs.

[schmitty3]

The Packers won 1 more game than the Vikings last year. You take away the qb's and the Vikes are a lot better. If Rodger's goes down at all the Pack are in huge trouble, but the same can be said about Peterson and the Vikes, just not to the same extent.

[LABS4ME]

I obviously need to stop by a couple more kool-aid stands...

I had no idea one player can win a team 11 games! This makes me Glad one of the average receivers from the Packers is a Viking... Maybe that will bring the Vikings down to the Packers level... Surprising how the Vikings jump at the chance to pick up all the average players that become free agents from the Packers...

I think I will leave this thread to all the chuggers... I'll go back to reality based threads...

Good Luck!

Ken

[LMITOUT]

[Scott K]

I would have to agree that the Packers without Rodgers, is lucky to be .500, the Vikings without Ponder, is a better team.

[JP Z]

4WE, you are correct. I think Cassel could be a good quarterback for us. I'm thinking unless Ponder has an amazing start like he had last year by week 4 we will have a new quarterback at the reins.

[CaptainMusky]

Labs, granted I am a Vikings fan, but I really dont see the comment about aside from QB the Vikings have more talent across the board being that much of a stretch. It might be close, but if Rodgers had an O-line like we have he would be unstoppable. The Packers have been make-shifting blockers for him for several years, I dont see that changing this year.

D-line could be a wash, we each have a stud, and rounded out with serviceable guys.

Receiver I would agree goes to Packers, but Rodgers makes more of what he has, not to take away from Nelson or Cobb or whoever, but you could probably put Juice out there and have Rodgers throwing to him and end up with good numbers.

TE we obviously have a huge lead on that and RB isnt even close (just like QB your way).

Your run defense is suspect, we are middle of the road for both pass and run defense which was a big step forward on the pass defense last year, but losing Winfield hurts, hoping Rhodes steps in.

[LABS4ME]

Capt... I agree with what you are saying... Sounds fairly equal. If as a fan someone wants to give the nod to their team, I get it... It was the MUCH better statement that had me scratching my head... Much better last year? they didn't win the division, much better this year? based on what? Unproven draftees?

Take away Rogers and yep, totally different team. Take away Peterson and yep, totally different team. Both would struggle to reach .500. Again showing they are fairly equal. You cannot put this years draftees into the equation... thye have yet to prove they can transition to the NFL.

Good Luck!

Ken

[CaptainMusky]

One thing I do think however is that if you remove Rodgers it would have a more dramatic affect on the packers than if the vikes removed Peterson. Not taking anything away from Peterson because he pretty much single handedly helped the team in many situations, but I think even a Packers RB behind the Vike's O-line could have gotten 1000 yards last year. Just opinion. :-)

[LABS4ME]

BIG difference between a RB with 1000 yards and one with 2100 yards. He WAS your offense. 1000 yard rusher will not on his own carry a team, nor decide games.

A rarity these days to have a focal point on rushing, and the inverse to the Packers... but in the end passing or rushing, yards are yards.

[grizrunner]

I obviously need to stop by a couple more kool-aid stands...

I had no idea one player can win a team 11 games! This makes me Glad one of the average receivers from the Packers is a Viking... Maybe that will bring the Vikings down to the Packers level... Surprising how the Vikings jump at the chance to pick up all the average players that become free agents from the Packers...

I think I will leave this thread to all the chuggers... I'll go back to reality based threads...

Good Luck!

Ken

I would like to see your list of all the average Packers that the Vikings jumped on.