Vikings Message Board.Com

Purple bruise wrote:I saw too many games where Greenway whiffed on tackles last year and was very poor in pass coverage. That being said, Greenway was/is one of my all-time Viking favorites.

We shouldn't forget that he played most of the season with a fractured wrist. I imagine that had some impact on his tackling efficiency.

It hurts me to say it as an Iowa Hawkeyes fan, but if Greenway will not restructure he should be cut. I understand those saying it was his injury, not enough help, or the scheme fit. He is no doubt a solid linebacker but to be paid that kind of money he needs to be a big play maker and he is not. He'll get an occasional sack or pick but so do players payed half what he makes. He's an extreme liability in coverage. And the way i see it Linebackers have the least specialized talents of all the positions in football. Basically it comes down to Run and Tackle (block shedding, catching, and vision are just bonus). Now if Greenways tackles were devastating hits I'd be OK with his contract, but they aren't he simply just brings down the ball carrier. All this makes me think we could replace him and save money without taking too big of a hit to our overall defensive play.

Loki wrote:It hurts me to say it as an Iowa Hawkeyes fan, but if Greenway will not restructure he should be cut. I understand those saying it was his injury, not enough help, or the scheme fit. He is no doubt a solid linebacker but to be paid that kind of money he needs to be a big play maker and he is not. He'll get an occasional sack or pick but so do players payed half what he makes. He's an extreme liability in coverage. And the way i see it Linebackers have the least specialized talents of all the positions in football. Basically it comes down to Run and Tackle (block shedding, catching, and vision are just bonus). Now if Greenways tackles were devastating hits I'd be OK with his contract, but they aren't he simply just brings down the ball carrier. All this makes me think we could replace him and save money without taking too big of a hit to our overall defensive play.

If they had somebody waiting in the wings, I'd be more on board. But who would replace him? Larry Dean? Gerald Hodges? There's such a black hole at LB right now. I don't see how we wouldn't be significantly worse off by releasing him and replacing him with someone that's several steps below him. Now, I suppose I could make more of a case IF his contract was preventing us from signing, say, Melton. But as it stands, I don't think that's the case. We're not in such a dire financial situation. Cutting him might save us some $, but what difference does that make if we're worse off as a team without him?

lol don't some nfl teams employ guys at PFF for grading?

Kinda disappointed that we let Melton walk. I know he is coming off injury but I'd trust him more than Floyd starting.

King James wrote:Kinda disappointed that we let Melton walk. I know he is coming off injury but I'd trust him more than Floyd starting.

Why?? Floyd will settle in only his second year and be a great tackle for many years to come...just watch and see.

Mothman wrote: "1 or 2 guys" implies the Vikings drafted, at most, 4 good players in the last two years. Is that what you believe? Do you think the Vikings have come away with only 2-4 good players out of the 19 they selected in the last two years, because that's what you're implying.

Using your philosophy, we should take all of our picks, move up to #1 and take whomever we damn please. We would sure show them.

Purple bruise wrote: Why?? Floyd will settle in only his second year and be a great tackle for many years to come...just watch and see.

I'm just not convinced that he's ready for the starter roll yet. He may prove me wrong, I hope he proves me wrong. I just think him rotating with Melton would be a little better.

NextQuestion wrote:lol don't some nfl teams employ guys at PFF for grading?

Supposedly... it doesn't mean they take PFF's analysis as gospel. I imagine it's just another perspective for them, one they find useful.

Look, before this heads way down the PFF credibility road, here's why I said they lack credibility when assessing LB play. It's straight from PFF's website. Other than the question at the beginning, I've added the bold emphasis:

3) How do you know exactly what a player’s job is on any given play and whether negatives were his fault?

• Coverage

Assignments in coverage can be a more difficult matter, specifically in the middle of the field when applied to LBs and safeties. Because when a TE, HB or WR finds a seam, the determination of whose responsibility that is becomes trickier. Some other analysts have decided to apportion the yardage out amongst the players involved, but frankly we don’t believe this is worth the effort. In addition, if it’s a touchdown, do you award half a TD? Because of the inherent issues with the statistics mentioned above we just go for the simple approach and take the closest player when the ball is thrown, understanding inaccuracy is built in.

I don't disregard everything the site has to say. They do some good work but by their own admission, their methodology for analyzing coverage is inaccurate and it's based on an admittedly simple factor: the closest player when the ball is thrown.

There's also this:

13) Do you use coaches’ film, or TV broadcasts for your analysis? How can you see what players are lined up where?

We use TV broadcasts for both the analysis and the player participation data. We’ve been asked a lot how therefore is it possible to determine who was on the field in every position through TV pictures. Surely that just isn’t possible? Well, just because something is not easy doesn’t mean it is impossible. Firstly, the high definition picture from which we work is excellent, and that gives us the best starting point outside of coaches’ film, which isn’t attainable outside of NFL offices.

They're amateurs doing guesswork based off TV broadcasts. Consequently, I think their analysis should be taken with more than just a grain of salt.

frosted21 wrote: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... ttle-trip/

It does appear he's generated some buzz. Us, Seattle, Dallas, and Chicago - perhaps others. Your concerns are valid about his health. I just think landing him would be huge for us, and I think it would help Floyd out in the long term, giving him some more time to develop as he spends this year in a timeshare of sorts rotating with Melton.

I hope we still have a chance. Melton is/was a Pro Bowl caliber defensive tackle. You can never have too many talented players.

Spielman might have let him walk out the door without a contract for a reason. http://m.startribune.com/?id=250206801

KSViking wrote:Using your philosophy, we should take all of our picks, move up to #1 and take whomever we damn please. We would sure show them.

You're avoiding the question and what you suggest above isn't even close to my philosophy.

Look, I get it. If they have 12 picks, you want them to select 12 players. If they have 8 picks, you want them to select 8 players, or at least you'd prefer them to sit tight in each round and select from the talent that falls to them rather than moving up to get a player they particularly like.

The fact remains that, despite your comment that the Vikings need a lot of good players this year, not 1 or 2 guys, Spielman's approach to the last two drafts has yielded more than the 1 or 2 good players per draft that you implied.

@Vikings: The #Vikings have re-signed WR Jerome Simpson. http://bit.ly/1cZruzR pic.twitter.com/gVvxwlP4bm

@Andrew_Krammer 40s
Simpson should be no more than the 4th option next season, second split end on the team behind Cordarrelle. Sures up WR corps

Pondering Her Percy wrote:
Spielman might have let him walk out the door without a contract for a reason. http://m.startribune.com/?id=250206801

That news was posted back when they first announced his visit. My guess is that Melton wants to get a nice contract, but everyone is probably offering him a 1 or 2 year prove it contract. Since he isn't getting what he wants, he will probably visit several teams, and take whatever the best deal is. Im sure he saw what we just gave Joseph and thought hey, Im worth at least what he is.

Mothman wrote: You're avoiding the question and what you suggest above isn't even close to my philosophy.

Look, I get it. If they have 12 picks, you want them to select 12 players. If they have 8 picks, you want them to select 8 players, or at least you'd prefer them to sit tight in each round and select from the talent that falls to them rather than moving up to get a player they particularly like.

The fact remains that, despite your comment that the Vikings need a lot of good players this year, not 1 or 2 guys, Spielman's approach to the last two drafts has yielded more than the 1 or 2 good players per draft that you implied.

I had a big post all written up, but decided it wasn't worth the argument. So, Ill shorten it quite a bit. The past 2 years, We had an extra 1st round pick for Percy, and we ended up with Cordarrelle. Albeit, it wasn't with THAT pick, but the 2 players are pretty much a wash if you want to consider letting one of your most dynamic players go, and getting one in the draft in return. The year prior to that, we had 3 supplemental draft picks. 2 4th rounds and I think a 7th? We don't have any of those luxuries this year. I didn't mind moving up for Harrison Smith, because we lost 1 of the 4 4th round picks we had that year. We did lose the highest pick of those, but oh well. Last year, we didn't get 3 1st round picks by giving up 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 7th. We got 1 1st round pick. I'm not against moving back and getting good value picks for a move, and Im not against moving up, if we don't lose too much to do so.

Do I think we got more than 2-4 good players over the past 2 years. I think if you take away the 1st round for Percy Harvin, since we gave away a good player to get one. And if we didn't have the supplemental picks the year before. No, we are pretty close to averaging 2 good players per year. The kicker, even though it was a good pick, I don't really count either for various reasons. So what did we end up over the past 2 years.

1 23 Sharrif Floyd DT Florida ---- Jury is out
1 25 Xavier Rhodes CB Florida State --- Good Player
1 29 Cordarrelle Patterson WR Tennessee --- Good Player/Lost good player in Percy (a Wash)
4 120 Gerald Hodges OLB Penn State --- Jury is out
5 155 Jeff Locke P UCLA - Average Punter
6 196 Jeff Baca OG UCLA --- Developing
7 213 Michael Mauti ILB Penn State --- Nothing yet
7 214 Travis Bond OG North Carolina -- Who is this guy?
7 229 Everett Dawkins DT Florida State Nothing

1 4 Matt Kalil T USC --- Good Player
1 29 Harrison Smith DB Notre Dame --- Good Player
3 66 Josh Robinson CB Central Florida --- Possible Bust
4 118 Jarius Wright WR Arkansas -- Average WR
4 128 Rhett Ellison TE USC --- Blocking TE Will give you him as Good. Supplemental/Compensatory Pick
4 134 Greg Childs WR Arkansas --- Never Played, had potential -- Supplemental/Compensatory Pick as well
5 139 Robert Blanton CB Notre Dame --- Backup/ST
6 175 Blair Walsh K Georgia --- Kicker
7 210 Audie Cole LB North Carolina State --- Was cut from team, but came back and started.. Don't know what to say here
7 219 Trevor Guyton DT California --- Crap

KSViking wrote:I had a big post all written up, but decided it wasn't worth the argument. So, Ill shorten it quite a bit. The past 2 years, We had an extra 1st round pick for Percy, and we ended up with Cordarrelle. Albeit, it wasn't with THAT pick, but the 2 players are pretty much a wash if you want to consider letting one of your most dynamic players go, and getting one in the draft in return. The year prior to that, we had 3 supplemental draft picks. 2 4th rounds and I think a 7th? We don't have any of those luxuries this year. I didn't mind moving up for Harrison Smith, because we lost 1 of the 4 4th round picks we had that year. We did lose the highest pick of those, but oh well. Last year, we didn't get 3 1st round picks by giving up 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 7th. We got 1 1st round pick. I'm not against moving back and getting good value picks for a move, and Im not against moving up, if we don't lose too much to do so.

... and I assume you consider the price in the Patterson trade too much. That's reasonable but honestly, so was the trade. It was almost exactly "chart value" for the pick and Patterson is clearly a unique and explosive player, not the type of player you always get a shot at, particularly if you sit and wait patiently for him to fall to you.

Do I think we got more than 2-4 good players over the past 2 years. I think if you take away the 1st round for Percy Harvin, since we gave away a good player to get one. And if we didn't have the supplemental picks the year before.

Ah, but they had the supplemental picks and they were undoubtedly a part of Spielman's thought process when drafting.

No, we are pretty close to averaging 2 good players per year.

You're rationalizing a conclusion, discounting Walsh because he's a kicker, Locke and Wright because they're "average", Patterson because he was a wash with the pick obtained for Harvin, etc. and you're excluding the possibility that players you listed as "jury is out" can become good players.

"Good player" is a somewhat subjective designation but "player" isn't and kickers and punters are players that have value to a team and impact games. Walsh had a record-breaking rookie season, helped the team win several games and went to the pro Bowl but he doesn't qualify as a good player obtained via the draft a good player because he's a kicker? That's ridiculous. It's a huge stretch to say the Vikings have only come away with 4 good players in the last two drafts from a list that includes Kalil, Smith, Patterson, Floyd, Rhodes, Walsh, Locke, Wright and Ellison and also includes a number of players who could still end up making significant contributions to the team in the future.