Jump to content


Veteran Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

106 Veteran
  1. The Curious Case of OLB Bud Dupree

    Bud has, and always has had, a great burst, but that's about all he has. That's how I see him. Not a fan at all. But with that burst, of course there's potential to make a play on any given snap. Problem is he doesn't do it often enough.
  2. What I would've done

    I like that draft a lot. A heck of a lot more than what we actually got.
  3. What I would've done

    I agree. STs demon, ILB, nickel backer. That’s what I see Sutton’s future as
  4. What I would've done

    I took them as late as I could get them. Mack was a throw-in. I almost didn't take him there either to be honest. I thought about Vosean Joseph, the Penn State corner instead, Matt Gay, Ben Burr-Kirven, and Darius Slayton as well. Teams typically pass on guys that much for a reason (that we don't typically know about). Mack Wilson doesn't impress me much, and Pratt was taller, faster, just as heavy, and as a former S he should cover better. That was my thought process. Getting a coverage guy at ILB with more range and speed. As far as total hindsite, these were guys I liked prior to the draft, and this just shuffles around the draft order. I still don't know if I'm OTC if I could pass on Greedy Williams though. That would be tough. But supply and demand. No more elite OLB prospects after Sweat, but there were a few CBs with the same or better potential than Greedy.
  5. Well I'm basing it off him looking very pedestrian as a rookie, and not liking what I saw when I tuned into OK State games to scout Rudolph. I liked Rudolph a heck of a lot more than Washington. I have big reservations about both. I thought Washington was a big reach and a bad pick last year. He did nothing to change my mind, but I hope he comes around and proves me wrong. Well, truth be told, my memory of Brown as a rookie is pretty fuzzy, but it seems like he was more explosive than Johnson even back then. I just hope Johnson isn't a tool like Brown turned into. I saw him morphing into a tool more and more each of the last 3+ seasons. I thought he was a great, stand up guy until his antics started overshadowing his talent.
  6. I saw a lot more quickness and explosion when I watched the arrogant piece of crap than I do with Johnson. Hopefully Johnson proves to be a good one. They drafted a dud last year in Washington, and I wonder if they did the same thing this year. I hope not.
  7. What I would've done

    Given how the draft fell, this is what I would've done. A trade up when Greedy fell to the mid 2nd would've been tempting if not for DK Metcalf also being available. 1. Montez Sweat, OLB, Mississippi State - too much potential to pass up here & frees up cap space by allowing you to cut Dupree next year. Greedy Williams was tempting here, but I like a few mid round CBs more than I like the other OLBs. 2. DK Metcalf, WR, Ole Miss - same as with sweat (Juan Thornhill was temping here) 3. Germaine Pratt, LB, NC State - athletic linebacker, without giving up so many picks 3. Chauncey Gardner-Johnson, S, Florida - a S/CB that can cover in the slot as well. Very dynamic athlete with lots of quick twitch. (Dawson Knox, Hakeem Butler and Miles Boykin were tempting) 4. Isaiah Johnson, CB, Houston - my favorite CB prospect in the draft. raw, but checks every box unlike everyone else who lacks size or athleticism 5. Mack Wilson, LB, Alabama - getting another coverage linebacker here 6. Corey Ballentine, CB, Washburn - he checks all the boxes as a nickel corner or to match up against smaller, shiftier WRs. Sutton Smith was a bit tempting. 6. Rodney Anderson, RB, Oklahoma - an athletic RB that is injury prone, but as a situational/rotational guy that's not as bad 6. Jalen Jelks, OLB, Oregon - another developmental prospect here. I think he has the quickness and length to develop into a good one 7. Isaac Nauta, TE, Georgia - If they want a 4.9 TE, might as well go with this guy. I liked him when I saw him play. UDFA: Emmanuel Hall, WR, Mizzou - I can't believe he went undrafted. He's basically Mike Wallace 2.0 UDFA: Drew Lewis, LB, Colorado - Undersized but very athletic LB that ran a 4.52 at his pro day. He flashed with big play ability. UDFA: Chris Johnson, S, Northern Alabama - a small school safety with a high ceiling. 6'3" 200, 4.40 speedUDFA: Beau Benzschawel, OL, Wisconsin - depth that needs more strengthUDFA: Brandon Knight, OL, Indiana - same as BeuaUDFA: David Sills V, WR, West Virginia - red zone jump ball targetUDFA: Nick Fitzgerald, QB, Mississippi State - athletic QB that could develop into a 3rd stringerUDFA: Chase Hansen, S/LB, Utah - a tweener for subpackagesUDFA: Evan Worthington, S/LB, Colorado - he really impressed me at times with flashes.UDFA: Elijah Holyfield, RB, Georgia - a very violent runner for the tough yardsUDFA: Antoine Wesley, WR, Texas Tech - a long, lanky WR that absolutely dominated the only Tech game I watched liveUDFA: Gerald Willis, DT, Miami - good DL coach can get him to play to his strengthsUDFA: Mitch Hyatt, OG, Clemson - depth
  8. I'm giving it a C. ONE defensive back in the entire draft? ONE WR that I had to say "who the heck is this guy" when they drafted him. He's small and slow. A TE that runs a 4.9? A RB that is slower than molasses? Maybe those guys will turn out to be good, but I'm just indifferent towards it for the most part. Hopefully they're better than they appear without being too familiar with a lot of them. The only reason I'm giving it a C is because Bush should help the coverage across the middle a lot and Layne might be ok.
  9. Well, I've watched plenty of great centers play every Sunday for the last 30 years. A great center makes a huge impact on an offense. The Vikings have had their share of good ones. The difference is palpable when you go from good to bad, or from bad to good. Birk, Christy, Sullivan was ok, etc. I don't dispute that it's harder to find a great LT. Supply and demand is why they're paid more, and thus valuable. Not because they're significantly more important. I think a lot of that depends on scheme too. It would be a fairer comparison to ask if he'd hold up against Dexter Lawrence or Christian Wilkins (rookie DTs drafted close to where he was), rather than an NFL star or even just one like Clark that has had 3 years in an NFL strength training program & 3 years of NFL coaching. I have no idea there. This type of OL isn't really designed to block 1 on 1. It's zone blocking which means combo blocks. So you also have to account for the schematic fit. It's designed so athletic guys like him can get to the 2nd level and spring a back for a big play, and that's what he'll be great at. So we'll just have to wait and see. As I said before, I see a lack of power from him, but he's also a converted TE and hopefully he'll develop a better anchor in the NFL. I was impressed with O'Neill's right away, so maybe some technique/strength training worked wonders for him right away.
  10. The Vikings used to be know for having a great OL. So "historically" isn't the right word here. Lately. Not historically.
  11. Bradbury has a very high ceiling. If you don't see that, you haven't watched him play yet. The only knock on him is the anchor, and I had the same reservations about O'Neill last year and he was much better than I expected. I think that C is just as important as LT. He makes all the calls. What is the most disruptive thing you can get for an offense? Pressure up the gut. You can always slide a RB or TE over to help a T. If a C gets beat, it's over. A RB or FB or anyone else in the middle isn't going to stop a DT (or blitzing LB/S) that immediately burns the C. That is the most disruptive thing for a QB, no pocket to step up into. That also kills your running game. Now that they've FINALLY transitioned away from the Adrian Peterson type offense that invited every team to constantly blitz up the gut since he couldn't function out of the shotgun and wasn't a receiver, they can build an offense the right way. The right way is where you can do anything and everything with any personnel you have in there. Teams have to respect your passing more and will get torched if they blitz the A gaps. No one is going to stop Aaron Donald 1 on 1. I'm for taking OL in 1 no matter which one they are. It's just a question of early 1 or late 1. If they're good enough, take them. I would've been all over Big Q last year if I had a top 5 pick. Best player in the draft. As for Dillard vs Bradbury, I liked Dillard too. OG/C was just a bigger need. Bradbury is safer.
  12. I think CB is going to be a pick soon. Rumors of trading Waynes, Hill is in trouble, and last year's #1 is rehabbing a knee. Rhodes is getting older. Zimmer has an affinity for corners as well. The Bengals sure had a habit of taking them early and often when he was there anyway, and the Vikings seemed to have increased their CB drafting frequency since he went to MN as well. My ideal next 3 rounds for the Vikes, trying to be fairly realistic about availability (using NFL.com's rankings of the best still available): 50. Dalton Risner, OL - versatility is the key here. rated #42. 81. Jace Sternberger, TE - a more dynamic receiving TE than the Vikes currently have. rated #85 120. Isaiah Johnson, CB - a big, but raw CB with perfect measurables (he might go in 2 or 3 instead of here.....but he is rated #122) I wouldn't rule out Miles Sanders either. Latavius Murray was the best RB on the Vikes last year, so he'll need to be adequately replaced unless I missed a FA signing.
  13. For what it's worth, this is a dream pick for the Vikings IMO. I had him #3 on my wish list, or maybe more like 2b, behind only Nick Bosa and TJ Hockenson. Bosa wasn't an option obviously, and Hockenson was until recently talked about as a guy going in the mid-first. He would've been like a 6th OL, plus a great receiving TE. Bradbury fills a bigger need though. I watched Bradbury quite a bit this year, and he really impressed me. His movement skills are top notch. The style of OL that the Broncos and Texans employed with Kubiak need guys like him, Elf and O'Neill, so it was a no brainer. Bradbury was my favorite OL in the entire draft. The Washington State LT would be my #2. Lindstrom and Risner were next. I was shocked to see Lindstrom go 14, so I was thinking exactly like Zimmer was quoted as saying, basically on pins and needles hoping that Bradbury would get to 18. I know absolutely nothing about Kline, so I'm still wondering if Risner should be the target in 2 if he's available. It would be nice if the Vikes would get their OL back up to the caliber it used to be known for years ago. If Kline is any good it's on it's way there. If not, better be drafting someone like Risner who can play 4 positions on the OL.
  14. Not accurate: High paid LT, 3rd round LG, 1st round C, high paid RG, 2nd round RT So yes, they tend to ignore the OL until the last 3 drafts when it was in absolute shambles. They didn't burn a 1 on Reiff any more than they burned anything except cap space on the new RG. They SHOULD have drafted him instead of Kalil, and then you'd be accurate. I thought this was a grand slam and the most obvious pick possible. I was just hoping Zimmer wouldn't screw it up and take a CB or DE again. Like last year when they should've taken OL in 1, and instead took a 4th CB. They passed on some quality OL last year. They should've doubled up OL in 1-2.
  15. Trading 2 3rds for pick 47

    That's what I'm thinking. The only problem is no WR or much depth until 4, but 2 potential studs at need positions is huge. Much better than just depth.