The Vikings will likely draft a wide receiver, but who?

[Mothman]

Re: Carroo: http://www.app.com/story/sports/college ... /79679222/

If true, he seems to have a clear character.

Thanks for the link. I have to say, my doubts remain. After reading this article (that was linked to in the article above) and this one, I came away with the impression that he ultimately got away with a mistake rather than being innocent.

I'm sure the Vikes will dig into it thoroughly if they're interested in him and, of course, if he did what he was accused of doing, there's always the chance that he learned from it and will avoid stupid mistakes in the future.

[Texas Vike]

Here's a great resource for just about any comparison of the top draft-eligible receivers you can think of: http://www.thebackyardbanter.com/recept ... sults.html

Enjoyed this read immensely.

[dead_poet]

Enjoyed this read immensely.

More Doctson fuel

[dead_poet]

Thanks for the link. I have to say, my doubts remain. After reading this article (that was linked to in the article above) and this one, I came away with the impression that he ultimately got away with a mistake rather than being innocent.

I'm sure the Vikes will dig into it thoroughly if they're interested in him and, of course, if he did what he was accused of doing, there's always the chance that he learned from it and will avoid stupid mistakes in the future.

Yep. Just depends on the reality. I'm not sure he had any other prior incidents. If true, I'd pass as well (well, until very late anyway)

[Mothman]

Yep. Just depends on the reality. I'm not sure he had any other prior incidents. If true, I'd pass as well (well, until very late anyway)

I think his record is clean beyond this one incident.

[fiestavike]

I think his record is clean beyond this one incident.

Enough with Carroo, lets get back to Cordarelle Patterson now!

[mansquatch]

Adding WR talent doesn't necessarily mean "adding WR talent in the first round" but if they're not going to make better, more extensive use of Patterson they definitely need to add more talent at the position (and they may need to anyway). It may not provide a lot of "juice" on paper, when viewed as an isolated move, but they need to get more out of their passing game. They aren't going to change the QB so Bridgewater has to play better and they need to upgrade around him. They've made changes on the OL and hopefully, there are more to come. That's probably where they can create the biggest improvement but WR is clearly another area where they need more plays made and more playmaking ability. Diggs got off to a great 4 game start that fans over the moon but his production the rest of the season was pretty pedestrian.

i don't think there's a "must take" position for the Vikings in R1 but there are several areas of the team that clearly need improvement and WR definitely falls into that category.

To me this all gets back to the original conundrum we contemplated all last season: What ails the passing game most? Poor WR play, poor OL play, or poor QB play? All three were issues, but is it a case where fixing one would result in much better performance from the other two?

I’m not looking to rehash that debate, but it is relevant to the discussion. The Vikes currently have added a guard in Boone who by all measures should be a step up from Harris/Fusco. Rumors are that Fusco was hurt or still recovering last season, so it can be reasonably expected that his play will improve. (not sure what that means in aggregate) Also, we can expect (right now) to have both Loadholt and Sullivan back which are upgrades over Berger and especially Clemmings. So on paper at least we have 4/5 of the line as being “better” than last season. I think there will be some growing pains for Boone, there always are for OL, but the line last year was just awful, so we can safely expect this unit to better . Call it a case of there being nowhere to go but up.

As an aside, Turner was quoted towards the end of the season as saying that Teddy’s elusiveness saved the line at least 20 sacks. Also, how many plays did we see where Teddy ran to the sideline and just dumped the ball because the protection was a disaster? My recollection was at least 2-3 a game. Now this likely won’t ALL go away, but I think we can expect it to be significantly reduced. So if we get rid of say 30 plays where the QB is in trouble from the onset, does that equal probably 2 opportunities per game on passing downs that we didn’t have before. One might say that equals another 150-200 yards of passing, of course it would also extend drives so it could be more. (or less.) To me this was obviously the biggest pain of the three, but how much more does it get us by being fixed? I think it will be more than my 150 yards in a season theory above, but how much more?

This is a hard question to answer. Last year they didn’t have a good line, so the plays they could and did call were in all likelihood different than what they would have called had they had our new and improved 2016 line. (Giving them the benefit of the doubt for now.) So in that hypothetical, would Wallace have had better numbers? The Front Office didn’t seem to think so, they cut him loose. So is there a big drop off from him to say CP84 or CJ in the new and improved protection regime? Were the plays we had to run last season detrimental to the game of those players? (Maybe Norv isn’t so bad?) All of these questions and the team’s position on them add up to how much the team needs improvement at WR.

For me at least, the answer on all this is I don’t know. There are so many unknowns in this thing that is really hard to perceive value relative to other position groups. This is a case where I’d love a chance to privately interview Spielman and get a sense of how he analyzes these variables and what sorts of metrics he, his staff, and the coaches use to figure out what makes sense for the team. For me this is a fascinating puzzle. They have to evaluate need not on just what they saw last year, but also on what they think the improvements to the OL will mean for them in terms of opening up the playbook next season and then try to decide if they need additional pieces or not?

At least from my arm chair point of view, the decision is fascinatingly complex. Sorry the wall of text, but I think this question deserves it. There is a lot of unknown and interaction going on in this topic.

[fiestavike]

To me this all gets back to the original conundrum we contemplated all last season: What ails the passing game most? Poor WR play, poor OL play, or poor QB play? All three were issues, but is it a case where fixing one would result in much better performance from the other two?

I’m not looking to rehash that debate, but it is relevant to the discussion. The Vikes currently have added a guard in Boone who by all measures should be a step up from Harris/Fusco. Rumors are that Fusco was hurt or still recovering last season, so it can be reasonably expected that his play will improve. (not sure what that means in aggregate) Also, we can expect (right now) to have both Loadholt and Sullivan back which are upgrades over Berger and especially Clemmings. So on paper at least we have 4/5 of the line as being “better” than last season. I think there will be some growing pains for Boone, there always are for OL, but the line last year was just awful, so we can safely expect this unit to better . Call it a case of there being nowhere to go but up.

As an aside, Turner was quoted towards the end of the season as saying that Teddy’s elusiveness saved the line at least 20 sacks. Also, how many plays did we see where Teddy ran to the sideline and just dumped the ball because the protection was a disaster? My recollection was at least 2-3 a game. Now this likely won’t ALL go away, but I think we can expect it to be significantly reduced. So if we get rid of say 30 plays where the QB is in trouble from the onset, does that equal probably 2 opportunities per game on passing downs that we didn’t have before. One might say that equals another 150-200 yards of passing, of course it would also extend drives so it could be more. (or less.) To me this was obviously the biggest pain of the three, but how much more does it get us by being fixed? I think it will be more than my 150 yards in a season theory above, but how much more?

This is a hard question to answer. Last year they didn’t have a good line, so the plays they could and did call were in all likelihood different than what they would have called had they had our new and improved 2016 line. (Giving them the benefit of the doubt for now.) So in that hypothetical, would Wallace have had better numbers? The Front Office didn’t seem to think so, they cut him loose. So is there a big drop off from him to say CP84 or CJ in the new and improved protection regime? Were the plays we had to run last season detrimental to the game of those players? (Maybe Norv isn’t so bad?) All of these questions and the team’s position on them add up to how much the team needs improvement at WR.

For me at least, the answer on all this is I don’t know. There are so many unknowns in this thing that is really hard to perceive value relative to other position groups. This is a case where I’d love a chance to privately interview Spielman and get a sense of how he analyzes these variables and what sorts of metrics he, his staff, and the coaches use to figure out what makes sense for the team. For me this is a fascinating puzzle. They have to evaluate need not on just what they saw last year, but also on what they think the improvements to the OL will mean for them in terms of opening up the playbook next season and then try to decide if they need additional pieces or not?

At least from my arm chair point of view, the decision is fascinatingly complex. Sorry the wall of text, but I think this question deserves it. There is a lot of unknown and interaction going on in this topic.

I suspect its more complex from the fan's perspective than it is from the coaches perspective. All we can see is what they did and how effective or ineffective it was. They know what they wanted to do and weren't able to do, and probably what positions need to be addressed in order to enable them to do the things they wanted to do.

I don't think the calculations about x number of plays where things don't totally break down enabling y number of yards and z number of greater production are that informative. A better performance from the line might enable x greater number of pass attempts and a greater number of pressures out of an even greater number of snaps for a lower overall pressure rate, etc. on and on and on. But all this is approaching it from the wrong end. Execution is what matters and the production (that we all want to see) comes out in the wash one way or the other. The bottom line, in my opinion, is that the offense was crippled by certain limitations. Whatever limitations exist at WR and at QB (and there are some) were rendered mysterious and unknowable, since those players to a large degree weren't put in a position to even have those weaknesses exposed. They also weren't put in a position to have more than a fraction of their strengths realized. Maybe we'll fix the line and find that Bridgewater's ceiling is no higher than his floor. I wouldn't bet on it but its possible.

Anyway, like I said, fans can debate until the cows come home, but I would imagine that this coaching staff has a pretty clear idea of where they fell short on the player performance side and what consequences that had for them. Fix those problems, and other problems will become more obvious (there are always problems) but they are likely to be a different set of problems entirely.

I suppose I see what you mean that its a puzzle to comprehend the whole thing. It is, but it isn't a puzzle -- in fact I don't think anyone on this board disagrees -- that offensive line stunk. It needs to be priority one. As the coaches are able to utilize a proactive game plan instead of a reactive one, I think the pieces of that puzzle, and which pieces are missing will become more clear. For the time being the arguments strike me as taking place in the dark, beyond what we as fans can see or know...and I don't think anyone has changed anyone else's mind regarding anything. Sorry for the rant, but I think your excellent post highlighted some of the subjects I've been finding frustrating.

[mondry]

To me this all gets back to the original conundrum we contemplated all last season: What ails the passing game most? Poor WR play, poor OL play, or poor QB play? All three were issues, but is it a case where fixing one would result in much better performance from the other two?

I’m not looking to rehash that debate, but it is relevant to the discussion. The Vikes currently have added a guard in Boone who by all measures should be a step up from Harris/Fusco. Rumors are that Fusco was hurt or still recovering last season, so it can be reasonably expected that his play will improve. (not sure what that means in aggregate) Also, we can expect (right now) to have both Loadholt and Sullivan back which are upgrades over Berger and especially Clemmings. So on paper at least we have 4/5 of the line as being “better” than last season. I think there will be some growing pains for Boone, there always are for OL, but the line last year was just awful, so we can safely expect this unit to better . Call it a case of there being nowhere to go but up.

As an aside, Turner was quoted towards the end of the season as saying that Teddy’s elusiveness saved the line at least 20 sacks. Also, how many plays did we see where Teddy ran to the sideline and just dumped the ball because the protection was a disaster? My recollection was at least 2-3 a game. Now this likely won’t ALL go away, but I think we can expect it to be significantly reduced. So if we get rid of say 30 plays where the QB is in trouble from the onset, does that equal probably 2 opportunities per game on passing downs that we didn’t have before. One might say that equals another 150-200 yards of passing, of course it would also extend drives so it could be more. (or less.) To me this was obviously the biggest pain of the three, but how much more does it get us by being fixed? I think it will be more than my 150 yards in a season theory above, but how much more?

This is a hard question to answer. Last year they didn’t have a good line, so the plays they could and did call were in all likelihood different than what they would have called had they had our new and improved 2016 line. (Giving them the benefit of the doubt for now.) So in that hypothetical, would Wallace have had better numbers? The Front Office didn’t seem to think so, they cut him loose. So is there a big drop off from him to say CP84 or CJ in the new and improved protection regime? Were the plays we had to run last season detrimental to the game of those players? (Maybe Norv isn’t so bad?) All of these questions and the team’s position on them add up to how much the team needs improvement at WR.

For me at least, the answer on all this is I don’t know. There are so many unknowns in this thing that is really hard to perceive value relative to other position groups. This is a case where I’d love a chance to privately interview Spielman and get a sense of how he analyzes these variables and what sorts of metrics he, his staff, and the coaches use to figure out what makes sense for the team. For me this is a fascinating puzzle. They have to evaluate need not on just what they saw last year, but also on what they think the improvements to the OL will mean for them in terms of opening up the playbook next season and then try to decide if they need additional pieces or not?

At least from my arm chair point of view, the decision is fascinatingly complex. Sorry the wall of text, but I think this question deserves it. There is a lot of unknown and interaction going on in this topic.

I understand where you're coming from and it definitely makes sense but at the same time, we can get better at both or multiple positions, I don't really see an either or thing so thus I don't really see the need to try and figure out WHAT we need the most if that makes sense.

What I do know is that we CAN get better at WR so that's what matters to me. IF the BPA is a WR then they should do it. If it's a lineman then do that. I think that is the best approach because like you said in your post, we don't really KNOW how much improving one area over the other would help. Maybe having a really solid possession WR like Doctson helps Teddy and the O-line because he has a reliable target he can go to under pressure helps the most since Mike Wallace was almost a non factor in those pressure heavy situations.

[fiestavike]

I understand where you're coming from and it definitely makes sense but at the same time, we can get better at both or multiple positions, I don't really see an either or thing so thus I don't really see the need to try and figure out WHAT we need the most if that makes sense.

What I do know is that we CAN get better at WR so that's what matters to me. IF the BPA is a WR then they should do it. If it's a lineman then do that. I think that is the best approach because like you said in your post, we don't really KNOW how much improving one area over the other would help. Maybe having a really solid possession WR like Doctson helps Teddy and the O-line because he has a reliable target he can go to under pressure helps the most since Mike Wallace was almost a non factor in those pressure heavy situations.

I agree, there is room to get better everywhere. As I said in some other thread, there comes a point for a quality football team where adding another quality player begins a near exponential improvement (theoretically, your Doctson v Wallace example might be such a case), but there is also that point for a football team where adding a quality player has almost no effect (a terrible team, like Cleveland for example, or given the offensive line woes in MN last year where Wallace was rendered useless) because the deficiencies are so pronounced. Defensively, one might look at the S position and see the potential for one addition to make an impact that is amplified beyond whatever specific improvement can be measured by any statistical measure. Its the point where player x starts to make the rest of the team better, and you get into a feedback system where each part makes every other part better.

My vies: a) they need to fix the line. b) they need to add better players to any/every other position.

[losperros]

More Doctson fuel

For R1, yes. But it's also Carroo fuel if the Vikings pick a WR in R2 or R3.

[Texas Vike]

More Doctson fuel

Yeah, it was a given that I'd like it, right? But even beyond that, I really enjoyed how detailed the analysis was. It also put some other guys on my radar.

[dead_poet]

Yeah, it was a given that I'd like it, right? But even beyond that, I really enjoyed how detailed the analysis was. It also put some other guys on my radar.

Yeah, it's one of my favorite offseason/draft pieces. He should probably charge for it.

[dead_poet]

For R1, yes. But it's also Carroo fuel if the Vikings pick a WR in R2 or R3.

Character pending, absolutely.

[Pondering Her Percy]

I disagree. We have needed a safety and Oline upgrade longer then the WR's. Mike Wallace was a bust, I dont want another FA bust. Diggs was a 5th rd. pick, maybe lightning with strike twice. And maybe Kyle can do more as a receiver instead of blocking. He's a darn good block, better then Kalil even.

I'd be quite upset if we go in hoping we can find another WR like Diggs in the 5th. Those aren't easy to find and rarely are there any sitting there. We have upgraded our line but this is a deep oline class and you can find very good OL in the middle rounds still. There isn't a safety that warrants a first round pick in this draft. So yes, this is why I think WR is a big need. 2nd round at the latest IMO. We have a young QB. You have to give him some weapons on the outside.

Look at how he played in college when Parker was his go-to guy. Big jump ball WR that can make the big play and a guy he trusts and has good chemistry with. Diggs can make some big plays but he isn't a huge redzone target and isn't a jump ball WR. I would say we lost our minds if we took a WR any later than the 2nd. I really don't want to sit around and hope some 4th rounder develops into something good. Teddy needs weapons and needs that big guy on the outside that fits Turners offense (Vincent Jackson, Josh Gordon, etc.) Our alternative to that is Charles Johnson and that doesnt cut it IMO.

Whoever said we don't need to go WR if BOTH Treadwell and Doctson are there is out of their tree! Treadwell was the nations best WR. Just like I thought the same when Hopkins came out and we passed on him and he's putting up huge numbers with a bunch of delinquents at QB. We can't afford to pass on another guy like that IMO and both Treadwell and Doctson are being compared to him due to their "non-blazing speed", catching ability and route running.

DIggs could be considered a number 1 but is much better suited as a #2 with a big complement on the outside with him and Wright in the slot. That sounds a hell of a lot better than the guys we have thats for sure.

Everyone is so worried about catching another Patterson in the first but Patterson was a gadget guy from the start, dumber than a box of rocks and only played 1 season of legit college ball. Treadwell has been consistently good for a few years now and Doctson is arguably the best deep ball WR in the country. It's a no brainer IMO