Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him

A forum for the hard core Minnesota Vikings fan. Discuss upcoming games, opponents, trades, draft or what ever is on the minds of Viking fans!

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
chicagopurple
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1498
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:45 am
x 88

Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him

Post by chicagopurple »

Also, keep in mind that WR and Cover Guys are considered the position that have the longest steepest learning curve in the NFL. I would give them till their 3rd season before I give up on them. Its just an incredibly more complex position to mature into from College ball to the pro's.
User avatar
CbusVikesFan
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1395
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2012 8:07 pm
Location: Columbus, Ohio

Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him

Post by CbusVikesFan »

He drew comparisons to Hopkins and Bryant. They arent Stefon Diggs type route runners but they have the body control, ball skills and strengths to go get it. Look at what scouts said about Hopkins and Bryant. It's almost identical to Treadwell. "They need to learn how to get off press, improve routes, etc." I dont buy the whole drop thing until I see more of him at the NFL level. However, those that say they'd rather have Will Fuller, that guy had arguably the worst hands in the entire draft. A "Mike Wallace" type body catcher that had hands of stone.

Either way, many fans loved this pick. Now all of the sudden because he isnt playing much his rookie year, he's an automatic bust. I feel like too many people dont even understand what the word bust means. And it sure as hell isn't used on many guys in their first year. Especially when you dont have much to judge them by.[/quote]
Php,
I never said Treadwell was a bust. Project player for sure. And as I stated before, I'm TIRED OF PROJECT PLAYERS! In the time it takes these players to develop, many other players were passed up and would have been more serviceable than the guys we draft. If a first round pick is spent on a player, I expect that you should be able to plug this dude in from day one. Especially if you moved up to draft him. That kind of reaching should pay huge dividends right away. Has that worked to our advantage yet?
Image
Don't hate on my Buckeyes. Some of the best Vikings went to Ohio State.
Including now, HOF WR #80 Cris Carter
Pondering Her Percy
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9241
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Location: Watertown, NY
x 1117

Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him

Post by Pondering Her Percy »

Mothman wrote: I know it bothers you when people refer to Treadwell as a bust and I agree with you that it's too early to put that label on him but referring to him as a project is quite different than referring to him as a bust and he's clearly become a project.
So was Trae Waynes a project then too?? Because he took the same path Treadwell did his rookie year. If Zimmer doesnt NEED to play a rookie then he's not going to. With Thielen and Patterson playing the way they've been, it's really not necessary. I dont remember people saying Trae Waynes was a "project" last year. But I do remember more than half this board calling him a bust just because Marcus Peters was doing something and he wasnt.

It's literally no different then Treadwell if you ask me. Guys see other rookie WRs out there making plays and Treadwell isnt. So that forces everyone to say he's a bust or a "project". I dont really buy it. Just like I didnt buy it with Waynes last year. And that has showed this year. He's to the point now where he seems to be in there much more than Newman and playing at a fairly high level.

But since Zimmer mentioned that Treadwell was thinking too much and ran a wrong route or two when he was out there classifies him as a "project" now??? Didnt he say last year that Waynes was thinking too much and his play was also due to lack of experience in the system?? I'm about 99% positive he did. Nobody from what I remember deemed him as a project last year. It was all bust, bust, bust. With Treadwell it's more of the same along with the project tag now. Sorry but I'll believe it when I see it.
The saddest thing in life is wasted talent and the choices you make will shape your life forever.
-Chazz Palminteri
Pondering Her Percy
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9241
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Location: Watertown, NY
x 1117

Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him

Post by Pondering Her Percy »

CbusVikesFan wrote: Php,
I never said Treadwell was a bust. Project player for sure. And as I stated before, I'm TIRED OF PROJECT PLAYERS! In the time it takes these players to develop, many other players were passed up and would have been more serviceable than the guys we draft. If a first round pick is spent on a player, I expect that you should be able to plug this dude in from day one. Especially if you moved up to draft him. That kind of reaching should pay huge dividends right away. Has that worked to our advantage yet?
Then WHO do you draft?? Dont dare say OL because there wasnt much if any sitting at 23. Doctson, Coleman and Fuller were gone. Doctson has been hurt all year, Coleman and Fuller quieted down an awful lot after the first few weeks. Please enlighten me! Did you expect Patterson to turn it around like he did this year? Or Thielen to play the way he has?? Or Charles Johnson to be anything more than below average?? I'll answer that for you, NO. We needed a WR at that point. And by no means do I believe Treadwell was a "project" coming out. It's easy for you to sit there and say he is because he hasnt played but you arent looking at the big picture as to why he hasnt played as much. And thats Patterson, Thielen and Zimmers mentality.

It's also easy to say you wanted Shepard because he's probably the best rookie WR out there right now. Did you truly believe that was going to happen before the draft hit?? I highly doubt it. So please spare me.

You also mention that a first round pick should play right away. No. Thats not how it works. That happens with alot of teams over the years. I'm guessing you were on the Waynes is a bust bandwagon as well. How did that turn out? But since he didnt play enough last year he must've been a project. Why force him into action when you have guys in front of him that can do just as much or more?? To kill his confidence?? I sure hope not.
The saddest thing in life is wasted talent and the choices you make will shape your life forever.
-Chazz Palminteri
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him

Post by Mothman »

Yeesh... I'll be extra careful not to use the "P word" again. I didn't realize it was considered a pejorative. From now on, I will refer to Treadwell and other players in a similar situation as "Playing Time-Challenged Rookies In Clear Need Of Further Development" or PTCRICNOFDs. :tongue:
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him

Post by Mothman »

Pondering Her Percy wrote:Then WHO do you draft?? Dont dare say OL because there wasnt much if any sitting at 23.
Yeah! Don't you dare, Steve! ;)

Joshua Garnett was sitting right there and went just a few picks later. Jason Spriggs and Cody Whitehair were available too. If they felt that pick was too high for one of them, perhaps they could have managed a trade down.

There are almost always other options. It's not like they were required to draft Treadwell, although he could turn out to be a very good player for them in the long run. Only time will tell.
User avatar
CbusVikesFan
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1395
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2012 8:07 pm
Location: Columbus, Ohio

Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him

Post by CbusVikesFan »

Mothman wrote: Yeah! Don't you dare, Steve! ;)

Joshua Garnett was sitting right there and went just a few picks later. Jason Spriggs and Cody Whitehair were available too. If they felt that pick was too high for one of them, perhaps they could have managed a trade down.

There are almost always other options. It's not like they were required to draft Treadwell, although he could turn out to be a very good player for them in the long run. Only time will tell.
YEAH! WHAT JIM SAID. Because frankly, he says it a heck of a lot better than I do.
And as far as Waynes goes, no I didn't think he was a bust from the start and I knew that he would ride the bench. I was hoping for not as long as he did but having 2) 1st round picks spent on Wr's and it has been more wait and see than bragging about how good the pick was/is should not be acceptable.
Image
Don't hate on my Buckeyes. Some of the best Vikings went to Ohio State.
Including now, HOF WR #80 Cris Carter
User avatar
chicagopurple
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1498
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:45 am
x 88

Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him

Post by chicagopurple »

Cody Whitehair is the real deal.....he is better then anyone on our team and has plenty more learning and potential. A total lost opportunity by Spielman.....
User avatar
CbusVikesFan
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1395
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2012 8:07 pm
Location: Columbus, Ohio

Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him

Post by CbusVikesFan »

chicagopurple wrote:Cody Whitehair is the real deal.....he is better then anyone on our team and has plenty more learning and potential. A total lost opportunity by Spielman.....
Exactly my point. This would have been more acceptable. He would have been a boon.
Image
Don't hate on my Buckeyes. Some of the best Vikings went to Ohio State.
Including now, HOF WR #80 Cris Carter
User avatar
VikingPaul73
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3371
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 5:07 pm
x 141

Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him

Post by VikingPaul73 »

Mothman wrote:Yeesh... I'll be extra careful not to use the "P word" again. I didn't realize it was considered a pejorative. From now on, I will refer to Treadwell and other players in a similar situation as "Playing Time-Challenged Rookies In Clear Need Of Further Development" or PTCRICNOFDs. :tongue:
:rofl:

Can we get a pronunciation?? Phonetics matter!!
losperros
Commissioner
Posts: 10041
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2003 9:47 am
Location: Burbank, California

Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him

Post by losperros »

Mothman wrote:Joshua Garnett was sitting right there and went just a few picks later. Jason Spriggs and Cody Whitehair were available too. If they felt that pick was too high for one of them, perhaps they could have managed a trade down.

There are almost always other options. It's not like they were required to draft Treadwell, although he could turn out to be a very good player for them in the long run. Only time will tell.
Hindsight is always perfect but looking back it's frustrating the Vikings didn't take one of the OL players you mentioned. How could the Vikings feel so secure about their offensive line? It doesn't make sense to me.
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him

Post by Mothman »

VikingPaul73 wrote: :rofl:

Can we get a pronunciation?? Phonetics matter!!
It's pronounced "Pete Crick No Fuds". :)
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him

Post by Mothman »

losperros wrote: Hindsight is always perfect but looking back it's frustrating the Vikings didn't take one of the OL players you mentioned. How could the Vikings feel so secure about their offensive line? It doesn't make sense to me.

It doesn't make sense to me either. I was steamed when they didn't select an o-lineman until the third day of the draft.
Cliff
Site Admin
Posts: 9489
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:51 pm
Location: Kentucky
x 432

Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him

Post by Cliff »

Mothman wrote:Yeesh... I'll be extra careful not to use the "P word" again. I didn't realize it was considered a pejorative. From now on, I will refer to Treadwell and other players in a similar situation as "Playing Time-Challenged Rookies In Clear Need Of Further Development" or PTCRICNOFDs. :tongue:
Is project not negative in this context? I thought it meant that a player was very "rough" and needed extra work and attention to overcome a significant downside but with a high ceiling. I don't think Treadwell qualifies, that's all.
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him

Post by Mothman »

Cliff wrote: Is project not negative in this context? I thought it meant that a player was very "rough" and needed extra work and attention to overcome a significant downside but with a high ceiling. I don't think Treadwell qualifies, that's all.

I understand. I was just trying to lighten the mood since it was getting a bit intense (after you posted, not in your post).

We're just using the word "project" differently. I don't attach a particularly negative connotation to the word myself. As I see it, project players can be as worthy of a draft pick as players who are further along in their development and they can pay big dividends down the road. To me, the main downside in such cases is the additional time it takes to develop the player but they don't necessarily have to be a "boom or bust" type with a significant downside.

Others may disagree with this take on the term but I think there's a spectrum along which a player can be considered a project. On that spectrum, there are short term projects and long term projects and I say that recognizing most rookies face some learning curve. I'm trying to differentiate between rookies who can step in and make an immediate impact with significant playing time and a rookie like Treadwell, who truly seems to need the development time before making much of an on-field contribution. All rookies face a learning curve but I think we can agree it's steeper for some than others. I think Treadwell is a short term project. Barring an unexpected explosion in playing time and productivity from him in December, it sure doesn't look to me like he's going to offer much return on investment in his first season.
Post Reply