CaP'N GRuNGe Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 I have a feeling they are going to take Mallett and he's going to suck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearBroncos Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 Ponder is a bad fit for MIN. They need a QB who can stretch the field vertically and that is one of Ponder's weaknesses. Square peg/Round hole And Cam will fill that need? I mean he has the arm, but accuracy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 (edited) I have a feeling they are going to take Mallett and he's going to suck. Mallett probably isn't the best fit either. He' definitely got the vertical game, but he panics and his play deteriorates quickly under pressure. I'm not sure MIN's O-line could protct him well enough to allow him to be effective most of the time and to get the deep routes run. They need a mobile QB with the chops to throw deep. Gabbert would probably be their best option, the Newton, and then as difficult as it is to believe Locker. Gabbert & Newton will be gone. That leaves Locker, who couldn't throw straight into college windows and somehow people expect him to fit throws accurately into the much smaller pro windows. If they're fixed on going QB, they are going to need to trade up. Edited April 6, 2011 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearBroncos Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 I have a feeling they are going to take Mallett and he's going to suck. I think Mallet value is falling quickly. Even if they did, they could fill some other gaps and hold out until the 3rd for Mallet Wait, that's reserved for Moss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearBroncos Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 Mallett probably isn't the best fit either. He' definitely got the vertical game, but he panics and his play deteriorates quickly under pressure. I'm not sure MIN's O-line could protct him well enough to allow him to be effective most of the time and to get the deep routes run. They need a mobile QB with the chops to throw deep. Gabbert would probably be their best option, the Newton, and then as difficult as it is to believe Locker. Gabbert & Newton will be gone. That leaves Locker, who couldn't throw straight into college windows and somehow people expect him to fit throws accurately into the much smaller pro windows. If they're fixed on going QB, they are going to need to trade up. I think Gabbert goes before the 12th, however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted April 6, 2011 Author Share Posted April 6, 2011 Ponder is a bad fit for MIN. They need a QB who can stretch the field vertically and that is one of Ponder's weaknesses. Square peg/Round hole Man he gets a bad rap for having a "weak" arm. If you watched the combine, Ponder was probably the best QB out of them all when doing the down field drills. More than likely, the Pistol ran at Florida St. is the main contributor. He was never counted on going deep in that offense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 Locker Vising MinnesotaI haven't read the link, but I read a handful of articles on online Minnesota newspapers that said the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 (edited) Man he gets a bad rap for having a "weak" arm. If you watched the combine, Ponder was probably the best QB out of them all when doing the down field drills. More than likely, the Pistol ran at Florida St. is the main contributor. He was never counted on going deep in that offense. I didn't say his arm was weak. His short to intermediate routes, including the intermediate out, are thrown with authority. But his deep ball suffers and his accuracy isn't want it needs to be when he's throwing the ball 40 yds downfield. The kid needs to work in a WCO. His 15 yd slant gets there in a hurry and in good position, and gives the receiver an opportunity to create YAC. Edited April 6, 2011 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 I didn't say his arm was weak. His short to intermediate routes, including the intermediate out, are thrown with authority. But his deep ball suffers and his accuracy isn't want it needs to be when he's throwing the ball 40 yds downfield. The kid needs to work in a WCO. His 15 yd slant gets there in a hurry and in good position, and gives the receiver an opportunity to create YAC. Last I heard, MN was a WCO and it didn't sound like Musgrave was going to shake that up TOO much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted April 6, 2011 Author Share Posted April 6, 2011 The kid needs to work in a WCO. His 15 yd slant gets there in a hurry and in good position, and gives the receiver an opportunity to create YAC. Agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 NFL Network now speculating that the Vikes will be trading the #12 pick to the Eagles for Kolb. His low salary a key factor in the deal (rather than pay a 1st rounder who might be a bust hugh dollars)...the other the fact that the one or two QBs they would take a chance on will be gone: The NFL Network is speculating that the Vikings will try to trade for Philadelphia Eagles backup quarterback Kevin Kolb. That long has been speculated locally. Enticing for the Vikings could be Kolb's salary, which is just $1.4 million this year. Kolb, 26, probably would cost the Vikings their first-round draft pick (No. 12 overall), but that should be no problem, especially if they determine that none of the quarterbacks expected to be available when they draft can have immediate impact. The Vikings might even be able to get a mid-round draft pick in return with Kolb. Or the Vikings could offer their first-round draft pick in 2012 for Kolb. Pioneer Press Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyBalata Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 Reason #1 that no way the Vikes have plans to trade for Kolb. Pioneer Press Reason #2 that no way the Vikes have plans to trade for Kolb. By Charley Walters Reason #3......the labor dispute will not be settled by the draft so no players can be traded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Scorp Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 Charely Walters doesn't appear ignorant, he is ignorant. Perez Hilton has more street cred than Charley Walters. I really think if the Vikings want Ponder or Locker they can trade back and pick up a 2nd day pick. IF they can't do that look for them to take a DE/DT or O-lineman in the first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 Charely Walters doesn't appear ignorant, he is ignorant. Perez Hilton has more street cred than Charley Walters. I really think if the Vikings want Ponder or Locker they can trade back and pick up a 2nd day pick. IF they can't do that look for them to take a DE/DT or O-lineman in the first. Everything in this post is 100% correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 Reason #3......the labor dispute will not be settled by the draft so no players can be traded. if the Vikes have their eyes set on Kolb, they can use their 2011 draft pick on a player they want, then send a conditional 2012 #1 pick to the Eagles later this summer (or whenever the CBA is signed) for Kolb. I think the point the author is making is that the Vikes may have their sights set on Kolb (knowing they likely won't get their guy in the draft). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j2v Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Minnesota's #12 is worth 1200 according to the chart. New England's #28 (660) and #33 (580) are worth a combined 1240. If a guy like Quinn or Watts is there it makes sense for the Patriots; with those picks Minnesota should get a quarterback (Ponder or Locker at #28) and the safety they so desperately need (Moore at #33). And they'd still have #43 for a WR like Hankerson or Doss if Rice leaves, or help for their o-line to keep Ponder from getting re-injured. Another option: MIN's #12 (1200) for NE's #17 (950) and #60 (300). At 17 Locker or Ponder is more palatable, if you're worried about one or both being gone before the end of R1. Then you have two R2 picks to fill other needs. Or: MIN's #12 (1200) and #43 (470) for SD's #18 (900), #50 (400), #82 (180), and #89 (145). The Chargers don't have many needs and would move up in both the first and second rounds PLUS still hold their own R2 pick at #61; MIN gets its quarterback for less of a reach at 18, then has three Day Two picks to fill other needs. Minny's trade options with that pick all depend on who falls out of the top 10. I could see teams trading up for Tyson Smith, JJ Watt, or Robert Quinn, all of whom could still be on the board at 12. If the Vikings can't swing a trade and aren't willing to live with Dalton or Stanzi in R2, then maybe they start thinking about moving next year's first round pick for Kolb. 2V Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 Vikings are going to stay at 12 and take Mallett Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j2v Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Vikings are going to stay at 12 and take Mallett You may be at least partially right. Shawn Zobel of Draft HQ tweeted today that he's been told the Vikings are targeting a DE/BPA at 12 and then will "do what it takes" to move back up to get Mallett. That may be easier said than done; even if you package MIN's 2(43), 4(106), and 5(139) you can still only get to the top of the second round--and I don't know that New England wants to add more picks. To get Mallett the Vikings may need to get ahead of Seattle at 25. Unless they're parting with next year's picks, or they trade back from 12 and pick up more second-day selections, I don't know if they have the ammo to make such a move. 2V Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 You may be at least partially right. Shawn Zobel of Draft HQ tweeted today that he's been told the Vikings are targeting a DE/BPA at 12 and then will "do what it takes" to move back up to get Mallett. That may be easier said than done; even if you package MIN's 2(43), 4(106), and 5(139) you can still only get to the top of the second round--and I don't know that New England wants to add more picks. To get Mallett the Vikings may need to get ahead of Seattle at 25. Unless they're parting with next year's picks, or they trade back from 12 and pick up more second-day selections, I don't know if they have the ammo to make such a move. 2V next year's first and this years 4th or something like that could do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 next year's first and this years 4th or something like that could do it. Given the Vikings prospects for 2011, wouldn't a 2012 first rounder potentially be in the single digits? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Given the Vikings prospects for 2011, wouldn't a 2012 first rounder potentially be in the single digits? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Given the Vikings prospects for 2011, wouldn't a 2012 first rounder potentially be in the single digits? How about Andrew Luck at #1... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 You know what's funny (sad funny) is that this is supposed to be one of the weakest draft classes for QB's in a while, and we will probably see 4 and maybe 5 QB's drafed in the 1st round. What does that tell you about the state of that position in the league right now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 You know what's funny (sad funny) is that this is supposed to be one of the weakest draft classes for QB's in a while, and we will probably see 4 and maybe 5 QB's drafed in the 1st round. What does that tell you about the state of that position in the league right now? When you intentionally modify the league to accomodate an imbalance to passing offense this is what happens. Franchise QBs become a much more valuable commodity that cause teams to take greater risks to acquire one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 You know what's funny (sad funny) is that this is supposed to be one of the weakest draft classes for QB's in a while, and we will probably see 4 and maybe 5 QB's drafed in the 1st round. What does that tell you about the state of that position in the league right now? I think the problem (if it is one) is twofold: There are a very few god-like QBs that are HoF locks, they are so good. The NFL has biased the game in favor of offense in general and passing in particular, so, given that emphasis, the dearth of god-like QBs has been more sharply exposed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.