Vikings Message Board.Com

Mothman wrote: Yes.

In other words, they should explore all of their options.

And therein lies the problem. We've been "exploring our options" at QB for about 5-6 years now, and nothing has pointed to our lack of success over that time more than the lack of a consistently good QB. Do we want the team to get on a Super Bowl path or do we want a team that can simply make the playoffs? The former requires either Trent Dilfer or a top-10 QB. The latter says "let's beef up our defense and stick with Mediocre Mike at QB".

And for anyone who thinks Newton, Kapernick, Wilson et al do not have a HUGE impact on how the other units on their teams perform, IMO, are not really paying attention. Comparing Wilson to Ponder is scarytown.

I fully expect Cassell to opt out of this circus unless he really digs the new HC and OC. That's a big if I think, since I am sure he is not pining to finish his career outdoors in the Land of a Thousand Frozen Lakes. Ponder, if not contractually done, is certainly mentally done with this team. And at this point Josh Freeman is just a little bit more certain to be a good NFL QB than me.

"Explore options"? Sheesh, we don't need an overhaul at QB? I mean it's one thing to get a "Cassell-like" FA QB to sign. It's another thing to go out and get three to fill the depth chart.

The only real options I see are to pay real and foremost attention in the draft (trade up, trade down, stay put, take QB in 1st early, take QB in 1st late, whatever) AND maybe taking a QB late AND finding a vet if Cassell is gone.

Pondering Her Percy wrote: you really think Mauti, Hodges or Cole (who actually played pretty solid) couldn't start for us?? Especially under a guy like Zimmer??

I'm not sure how much difference Zimmer would make in relation to those players starting and playing well. I think Cole is probably a marginal starter under any head coach, although perhaps I'm wrong about that. Hodges has done nothing in the pros to suggest he should be a starter. Mauti flashed in the preseason and in college, he obviously looked like he could become a quality NFL LB but he still has to prove it, whether it's Zimmer coaching him or someone else. The Vikes should be cautious about counting on a player with Mauti's injury history to be a solution as a starter, although like many, I have high hopes for him.

The bottom line is none of those 3 players have proven themselves to be dependable, starting quality NFL LBs yet.

There are some needs on defense, but some are acting like we need to clear house and start from scratch.

I'm not sure I've seen anybody go to that extreme but it does seem clear an overhaul is needed. I don't think that word necessarily implies that they need all new personnel, just significant change. That could and probably will include starting some young players they've been developing on their roster, which is obviously what you're suggesting.

The bottom line is the Vikings have less than a handful of proven starters signed to their defense: Smith, Greenway, Robison, Rhodes and Floyd. It's debatable to even call the last two "proven" starters yet, although they're going to start and their performances as rookies were encouraging.

Griffen might be back and he might be a good starter but he's never had that role as a pro so who knows? Starting at RDE (if that's where he plays) would be considerably different than the role he's played so far. Either way, even if he stays, he'd be a new starter and personally, I'd see that as part of an "overhaul".

Everybody else is either depth or a question mark. The Vikes defense needs a LOT of work.

I'm simply saying, we have more in place than some think. I also think that many will be surprised with what a new coach can do (I'm banking on Zimmer here). A guy that knows how to properly utilize his players and makes the most out what he has. Also, I think you will be surprised with what a new scheme can do as well. The article that Texas Vike posted in the coaching thread explains the same thing.

I don't think a new scheme will make much difference without more talent but I expect the team to focus on adding talent to the defense this offseason, especially if they hire a head coach with a defensive background. They might have more in place than we think. that's certainly the optimistic way to look at it.

psjordan wrote:And therein lies the problem. We've been "exploring our options" at QB for about 5-6 years now, and nothing has pointed to our lack of success over that time more than the lack of a consistently good QB. Do we want the team to get on a Super Bowl path or do we want a team that can simply make the playoffs? The former requires either Trent Dilfer or a top-10 QB. The latter says "let's beef up our defense and stick with Mediocre Mike at QB".

And for anyone who thinks Newton, Kapernick, Wilson et al do not have a HUGE impact on how the other units on their teams perform, IMO, are not really paying attention. Comparing Wilson to Ponder is scarytown.

I fully expect Cassell to opt out of this circus unless he really digs the new HC and OC. That's a big if I think, since I am sure he is not pining to finish his career outdoors in the Land of a Thousand Frozen Lakes. Ponder, if not contractually done, is certainly mentally done with this team. And at this point Josh Freeman is just a little bit more certain to be a good NFL QB than me.

"Explore options"? Sheesh, we don't need an overhaul at QB? I mean it's one thing to get a "Cassell-like" FA QB to sign. It's another thing to go out and get three to fill the depth chart.

The only real options I see are to pay real and foremost attention in the draft (trade up, trade down, stay put, take QB in 1st early, take QB in 1st late, whatever) AND maybe taking a QB late AND finding a vet if Cassell is gone.

Nice rant!

Now, wherein lies the problem? I'm not sure what you found so objectionable. When I wrote "explore all of their options" I meant explore ALL of their options, which would include the "only real options" you listed above. In other words, I acknowledge how much they need a QB and they should leave no stone unturned in trying to find a solution to that problem but as we saw with Ponder, forcing the issue in the first round just because a solution is needed doesn't necessarily provide a solution.

They should draft a QB at some point this year but they should also consider free agents, trading, looking outside of the NFL and the NCAA... whatever it takes to find an answer. That said, it may not be a problem they can solve in 2014. There's plenty of work to do on the rest of the team and they'll obviously need a good team to get on that Super Bowl path you mentioned, not just a good QB.

Mothman wrote: but they should also consider ... looking outside of the NFL and the NCAA.

Oooooh - you may have just nailed it - someone get Chris Berman on the line and find out who the stud CFL QB was this year!!! Or think Trestman would tell us?

Actually, I would really like that idea considering our being outdoors for a few seasons and our history with other CFL QB's!

Mothman wrote:Nice rant!

Oh and did I mention that trading for Michael Vick is starting to look pretty good to me?!?!?

I think MGMT (GM and HC) will be key in whether or not Cassel stays. We are the same QB boat as most of the teams who do not have that Franchise guy. I just hope we can find a way out of the hole. Unfortunately so do all the other teams who have crap at QB...

psjordan wrote: Oooooh - you may have just nailed it - someone get Chris Berman on the line and find out who the stud CFL QB was this year!!! Or think Trestman would tell us?

Actually, I would really like that idea considering our being outdoors for a few seasons and our history with other CFL QB's!

I'm so desperate for the Vikings to find a good starting QB that I actually did some research on it.

As far as I can tell, the top QBs in the CFL are (in no particular order):

Travis Lulay
Ricky Ray
Antony Calvillo

Lulay is 30, Ray is 34 and Calvillo (Trestman's old CFL QB) is now over 40.

Oh and did I mention that trading for Michael Vick is starting to look pretty good to me?!?!?

Shame on you!

Vikes need to hang on to Cassel even if he's the back up. Ponder is absolutely done in MN.

the OLB from UCLA, Barr, would be $$$$

Vick needs to go to a bigger market. He'd be HATED here.

80 PurplePride 84 wrote:Vick's a FA, we don't have to trade for him.

I'd rather re-sign Freeman and give him a shot than go the Vick route.

I'd rather be shot than watch Freeman take another snap.

VikingLord wrote: I'd rather be shot than watch Freeman take another snap.

I'd stand behind you. Maybe they could kill us both with one bullet.

Vick is a sick sociopath. I wouldnt stop to help him if he was lying on the side of the road. If Vick is the BEST that the Vikings can do, they are a sad excuse for a football team.

Why are we even discussing Vick coming here? He is obviously at the end of his career (as a starter at least) and like chicagopurple said, he is a terrible person. We need a long term answer, not another washed up veteran.

Demi wrote:Why should I think they could? They have about 2 NFL starts between the three of them. They were mid to late round picks. And I haven't heard anything to make me think they could.

Cole was made the starter and Henderson was moved back to WILL this season and Cole played very well when in the game. Not sure why you can't see him as a starter??

Demi wrote:Ok, now we're assuming? Assume we resign two while you're at it. And we don't need anyone on the dline. Hell assume we fill every defensive need in free agency and the draft and our current roster and we're set!

I guess I see now why you don't think we need an overhaul...a lot of assuming and believing. Not a lick of knowing...

You just can't comment without being a smart ### can you? Obviously I am assuming....who isn't assuming things going into next year??? Who ACTUALLY knows who is going to start next year?? Nobody....so I guess there isn't a "lick of knowing" when it comes to you too either. However, I think they are very realistic possibilities. Cincinnati's defense is loaded with late round/undrafted guys that Zimmer has made the most of. Their starting/contributing LB's include 1 2nd rounder and a handful of undrafted guys. That doesn't just happen.....it comes with good coaching and players being put into a position to succeed. If you payed any attention to guys like Hodges and Mauti in college then you might actually understand where I am coming from. But obviously you have no clue.

We have very young LBs on this team that I think could all come in and play. Are you really going to sit there and say "oh they probably sucked because Frazier never gave them a shot?" We all know he couldn't see talent if it slapped him in the face. I'm not saying these guys will come in and be studs but they definitely have the potential.

Demi wrote: One special teams level backup quality who blows angles and misses tackles way too often.

and this pertains to who??

i think the sad reality is there isn't a quarterback in this draft that has "franchise" written on them. maybe manziel, but if we went all in on him and he didn't pan out we would be in a monumental hole. i wouldn't mind a defensive pick in the first round either, but if we don't somehow address the qb position effectively lombardi couldn't win with this team.

Eli wrote: I'd stand behind you. Maybe they could kill us both with one bullet.

If Freeman was doing the shooting you'd both be safe assuming he shoots as accurately as he throws a pass...