In Tarvaris Jackson's short, three-year career as an NFL quarterback, he's rarely been good, occasionally been okay and frequently been mediocre-to-awful. Yet, the Vikings coaching staff - and Brad Childress in particular - has mostly stood by him, assuring Viking fans he's working hard to become the competent quarterback they think he can be.
So what do we make of this?
When a respected veteran like Pat Williams calls you out for not working hard enough, it's time to re-assess your commitment to your craft. It also makes you wonder if Jackson will ever realize what it takes to even be an average NFL quarterback if he needs to be reminded constantly by an All-Pro of this fact and he still doesn't heed the advice.
I may have doubts about Sage Rosenfels' ability to avoid throwing interceptions. But I have no doubt he will put in the work required to be a starting NFL quarterback. Which means Sage Rosenfels should win the starting job this summer over Jackson. And that makes me smile a bit.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Gone fishing
Actually, I've gone camping, but either way, it's going to be tough to get anything up on this blog for the next six days while I'm on a mini-vacation.
The big issue for the Vikings now, of course, is the Williams Star Caps case. The Vikes lost round two of this battle to the NFL.
Despite the arguments being made that Kevin and Pat Williams have a good chance to beat a potential four-game suspension, I think a suspension is what they will get.
No other profound thoughts on this issue right now, just more hoping for the best. And the best is to have the Williamses on the field for 16 regular season games in 2009.
The big issue for the Vikings now, of course, is the Williams Star Caps case. The Vikes lost round two of this battle to the NFL.
Despite the arguments being made that Kevin and Pat Williams have a good chance to beat a potential four-game suspension, I think a suspension is what they will get.
No other profound thoughts on this issue right now, just more hoping for the best. And the best is to have the Williamses on the field for 16 regular season games in 2009.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Sentimentality is for suckers
I’ve admired coach Andy Reid and the Philadelphia Eagles organization for a long time. No, they haven’t won a Super Bowl since Reid took over as head coach, but the team has a .600 winning percentage and it's been to the playoffs seven times during the 10 years he's coached the Eagles. This is a well-coached team and a well-run franchise.
One the things the Eagles do particularly well is not let feelings cloud business decisions. As Brian Dawkins and Tra Thomas found out, no matter how popular or tenured a player is, if the Eagles think your best days are behind you, they’ll let some other team overpay for you – and do so with no regrets.
I bring up the Eagles because the Vikings find themselves in similar territory with cornerback Antoine Winfield. He’s a popular guy and has been one of the Vikings best players. But he's also in the final year of his contract and he’ll be 33 when the 2010 season begins – an age where few NFL cornerbacks not named Darrell Green remain productive.
Winfield’s agent recently announced that contract extension talks with the Vikings have broken down. There's now a real chance the Vikings could lose Winfield – just like they lost Matt Birk this winter – to free agency in 2010. So the thought of losing a player like Winfield should be worrisome, except it’s not.
I don't want Winfield to go. I enjoy his playing style, how he knifes his 180-pound body through traffic and takes down ball carriers who outweigh him by 40-plus pounds. He's been excellent in every one of his five seasons with the Vikes. But it was only last year that the Vikings pass defence became top notch. And that improvement probably had less to do with Winfield's excellent play than with the addition of Jared Allen and the emergence of an actual Vikings pass rush. Cornerbacks – no matter how good they are – can only cover a receiver for so long before that receiver gets open.
So while Winfield is one of my all-time favourite Vikings and I would like the team to re-sign him, two years is about the maximum they should go. Don’t get caught doing what the Broncos did. Better that money be spent on keeping a Ray Edwards – if he takes his play to the next level – or a Brian Robison or a Chad Greenway, players who can keep the Vikings front seven and pass rush strong beyond 2010. Better to do that than pay a player too much money and for too many years based more on what's he done for you rather than what he's going to do for you.
And I pass along this little story by Football Outsiders founder Aaron Schatz because it's got a couple of interesting nuggets about the Vikings in it.
Interesting nugget #1: League insiders think Favre will play for Minnesota in 2009.
Interesting nugget #2: Brad Childress might be a funny guy.
I've suspected this might be the case for over a year now. When Childress arrived in 2006, he was billed by owner Zygi Wilf as some kind of dour creature – an unfunny disciplinarian. But I think as he's grown more comfortable in his role as a head coach and a public figure, he's let his personality and humour (Canadian spelling alert!) show a bit (remember his comment this year after beating the Bears about having a vodka as big as Judd Zulgad's head?) I don't know if this matters. But I don't dislike Childress personally, I just dislike how he coaches sometimes.
One the things the Eagles do particularly well is not let feelings cloud business decisions. As Brian Dawkins and Tra Thomas found out, no matter how popular or tenured a player is, if the Eagles think your best days are behind you, they’ll let some other team overpay for you – and do so with no regrets.
I bring up the Eagles because the Vikings find themselves in similar territory with cornerback Antoine Winfield. He’s a popular guy and has been one of the Vikings best players. But he's also in the final year of his contract and he’ll be 33 when the 2010 season begins – an age where few NFL cornerbacks not named Darrell Green remain productive.
Winfield’s agent recently announced that contract extension talks with the Vikings have broken down. There's now a real chance the Vikings could lose Winfield – just like they lost Matt Birk this winter – to free agency in 2010. So the thought of losing a player like Winfield should be worrisome, except it’s not.
I don't want Winfield to go. I enjoy his playing style, how he knifes his 180-pound body through traffic and takes down ball carriers who outweigh him by 40-plus pounds. He's been excellent in every one of his five seasons with the Vikes. But it was only last year that the Vikings pass defence became top notch. And that improvement probably had less to do with Winfield's excellent play than with the addition of Jared Allen and the emergence of an actual Vikings pass rush. Cornerbacks – no matter how good they are – can only cover a receiver for so long before that receiver gets open.
So while Winfield is one of my all-time favourite Vikings and I would like the team to re-sign him, two years is about the maximum they should go. Don’t get caught doing what the Broncos did. Better that money be spent on keeping a Ray Edwards – if he takes his play to the next level – or a Brian Robison or a Chad Greenway, players who can keep the Vikings front seven and pass rush strong beyond 2010. Better to do that than pay a player too much money and for too many years based more on what's he done for you rather than what he's going to do for you.
And I pass along this little story by Football Outsiders founder Aaron Schatz because it's got a couple of interesting nuggets about the Vikings in it.
Interesting nugget #1: League insiders think Favre will play for Minnesota in 2009.
Interesting nugget #2: Brad Childress might be a funny guy.
I've suspected this might be the case for over a year now. When Childress arrived in 2006, he was billed by owner Zygi Wilf as some kind of dour creature – an unfunny disciplinarian. But I think as he's grown more comfortable in his role as a head coach and a public figure, he's let his personality and humour (Canadian spelling alert!) show a bit (remember his comment this year after beating the Bears about having a vodka as big as Judd Zulgad's head?) I don't know if this matters. But I don't dislike Childress personally, I just dislike how he coaches sometimes.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Number crunching
Today I’m going to talk about quarterbacks – again.
What I’m not going to get into is who I think should be the Vikings starting quarterback in 2009. What I am going to get into is some basic statistical benchmarks any Viking starting quarterback has to reach to give the team a decent chance of challenging – and winning – a Super Bowl.
But first, some context. Since the NFL changed its rules to outlaw the outright mugging of wide receivers and tight ends on pass routes in 1977 and 1978, quarterback passing numbers have gone way up. And because of the influence of Bill Walsh and the success of the San Francisco 49ers – starting with their first Super Bowl win in 1981 – the West Coast offence Walsh helped create has set a new standard that quarterbacks are expected to meet. Passing for 3,000 yards is a given. Completing at least 60 per cent of your passes a must. And in a perfect West Coast offence world, your ratio of touchdown passes to interceptions should roughly be 2:1.
The Vikings under Brad Childress run a version of Walsh's West Coast offence. But if Walsh were alive today, he'd be appalled that the term was applied to what the Vikings have been running under Childress. That’s how poorly the unit has looked most of the time.
Now some of the blame for that goes to the unimpressive group of wide receivers we've had. Some of the blame goes to an offensive line that struggles to pass block. But a lot of the blame falls at the feet of a collection of quarterbacks - from Brad Johnson to Tarvaris Jackson to Gus Frerotte – who haven't been able to get the job done.
This year, the Vikings could have Jackson back as the number one guy. Or it could be Sage Rosenfels. Or it might even be the retired (for now) Brett Favre. So what kind of numbers will the starter have to produce to get the Vikings within sniffing range of Super Bowl contention?
To get an idea, I compiled the averages in completion percentage, passing yards, touchdowns and interceptions since 1981 of the quarterbacks on Super Bowl-winning teams. Those averages are: 61.5; 3,090; 21.8; 11
Now here are the averages in those categories posted by Viking quarterbacks during Brad Childress' three-year reign: 59.4; 3,185; 15.7; 17
That’s not as large a discrepancy as I thought there would be. And as bad as we think the Vikes quarterback play has been under Childress – and it’s been pretty bad – in completion percentage and passing yards, the Vikings are close to where they need to be.
But Viking quarterbacks have thrown too many interceptions and too few touchdown passes the past three seasons. If the Vikes want to make the playoffs again and be more than a one-and-done team, that will have to change. No NFL team has won a Super Bowl with a quarterback who threw more interceptions than touchdowns since the New York Giants' Phil Simms did it in 1986. And the last team to accomplish that feat before the Giants was Pittsburgh – in 1974. So it doesn't happen very often.
At least the Vikings appear to be going in the right direction. In 2006, Viking quarterbacks threw 13 touchdown passes and 20 interceptions. In 2007 it was 12 TD passes and 14 INTs. In 2008 the tally was 22 TDs and 17 INTS – even with interception machine Gus Frerotte starting 11 games.
If Tarvaris Jackson or Sage Rosenfels can edge that completion percentage up around 62 per cent, throw for about 3,000 yards and add a couple of touchdown passes and subtract four or five interceptions from the 2008 totals, voila, the Vikings could very well be Super Bowl bound. Of course, that’s a big “if.”
And for those who are hoping the Vikings can get Brett Favre to make another comeback, here are his averages in the aforementioned statistical categories the past three seasons: 62.7; 3,837; 22.6; 18.3
Those seem like pretty decent numbers, certainly good enough to take a team with a very good running game and a very good defence deep in the playoffs. But note that in three of his last four seasons, Favre has thrown at least as many interceptions as touchdown passes. And if reducing the number of interceptions our quarterbacks throw is critical to the Vikes playing in January and February, then Favre’s probably not our guy.
More bad news
If the Vikings do convince #4 to come out of retirement and sign with the team, let it be known that no NFL team has ever won a Super Bowl with a 40-year-old starting quarterback (Favre turns 40 in October). John Elway was the oldest QB to help his team win a Super Bowl. He was 38 when Denver won it all in 1998. Remember that season, Viking fans?
Anyway, this might be just another stupid statistic. But still, in 44 seasons – a 40-year-old starting quarterback playing for a Super Bowl winner – it’s never happened.
Meanwhile, ESPN’s Kevin Seifert points out that Favre has been brutal down the stretch since 2005. This suggests that as Favre has reached his mid-to-late 30s, his body wears down as the year goes on. So despite his Hall of Fame credentials and reputation for producing in the clutch, Vikings fans might not be able to depend on him to play well in a game outdoors (or indoors) in late December and January.
Non-Viking quarterback/Favre stuff
There was no court decision on the disputed suspensions of Kevin and Pat Williams on Thursday. That could happen next week.
But if the suspensions are upheld, I don’t think it's the end of 2009 for the Vikings, despite what others are going to say and write. If there's a four-game stretch the Vikes can afford to be without a couple of keys players, it's the first four of the 2009 season, when they're playing Cleveland, Detroit, San Francisco and the Packers (in the Metrodome).
And if the Vikings lose the Williamses and come out of that stretch at least 3-2, the suspensions might actually be good for both players, particularly the ageing Big Pat. Four games off could keep both players fresh later in the season. While their opponents are sore, tired and breaking down from the stress of a physical 16 game season, the Williams boys could be healthier, stronger and better than the opponents they are facing during the playoff stretch.
Finally, you learn all kinds of interesting stuff when you do a little statistical research for a post like this. For instance, you learn how bad quarterback play was back in the day.
In 1967 Green Bay managed to go 9-4-1 and win two playoff games and a Super Bowl even though Bart Starr completed just 54.8 per cent of his passes, threw for 1,823 yards and had nine touchdown passes and 17 interceptions.
In 1968 Joe Namath led the New York Jets to an 11-3 record and a Super Bowl victory despite completing only 49.2 per cent of his passes and throwing 15 TDs and 17 interceptions (he did throw for 3,147 yards though, a very high total in those days).
Those kind of numbers today would not only keep you far away from any Pro Bowl, you’d lose your job. Unless, of course, you were quarterbacking the Vikings from 2006-2008.
What I’m not going to get into is who I think should be the Vikings starting quarterback in 2009. What I am going to get into is some basic statistical benchmarks any Viking starting quarterback has to reach to give the team a decent chance of challenging – and winning – a Super Bowl.
But first, some context. Since the NFL changed its rules to outlaw the outright mugging of wide receivers and tight ends on pass routes in 1977 and 1978, quarterback passing numbers have gone way up. And because of the influence of Bill Walsh and the success of the San Francisco 49ers – starting with their first Super Bowl win in 1981 – the West Coast offence Walsh helped create has set a new standard that quarterbacks are expected to meet. Passing for 3,000 yards is a given. Completing at least 60 per cent of your passes a must. And in a perfect West Coast offence world, your ratio of touchdown passes to interceptions should roughly be 2:1.
The Vikings under Brad Childress run a version of Walsh's West Coast offence. But if Walsh were alive today, he'd be appalled that the term was applied to what the Vikings have been running under Childress. That’s how poorly the unit has looked most of the time.
Now some of the blame for that goes to the unimpressive group of wide receivers we've had. Some of the blame goes to an offensive line that struggles to pass block. But a lot of the blame falls at the feet of a collection of quarterbacks - from Brad Johnson to Tarvaris Jackson to Gus Frerotte – who haven't been able to get the job done.
This year, the Vikings could have Jackson back as the number one guy. Or it could be Sage Rosenfels. Or it might even be the retired (for now) Brett Favre. So what kind of numbers will the starter have to produce to get the Vikings within sniffing range of Super Bowl contention?
To get an idea, I compiled the averages in completion percentage, passing yards, touchdowns and interceptions since 1981 of the quarterbacks on Super Bowl-winning teams. Those averages are: 61.5; 3,090; 21.8; 11
Now here are the averages in those categories posted by Viking quarterbacks during Brad Childress' three-year reign: 59.4; 3,185; 15.7; 17
That’s not as large a discrepancy as I thought there would be. And as bad as we think the Vikes quarterback play has been under Childress – and it’s been pretty bad – in completion percentage and passing yards, the Vikings are close to where they need to be.
But Viking quarterbacks have thrown too many interceptions and too few touchdown passes the past three seasons. If the Vikes want to make the playoffs again and be more than a one-and-done team, that will have to change. No NFL team has won a Super Bowl with a quarterback who threw more interceptions than touchdowns since the New York Giants' Phil Simms did it in 1986. And the last team to accomplish that feat before the Giants was Pittsburgh – in 1974. So it doesn't happen very often.
At least the Vikings appear to be going in the right direction. In 2006, Viking quarterbacks threw 13 touchdown passes and 20 interceptions. In 2007 it was 12 TD passes and 14 INTs. In 2008 the tally was 22 TDs and 17 INTS – even with interception machine Gus Frerotte starting 11 games.
If Tarvaris Jackson or Sage Rosenfels can edge that completion percentage up around 62 per cent, throw for about 3,000 yards and add a couple of touchdown passes and subtract four or five interceptions from the 2008 totals, voila, the Vikings could very well be Super Bowl bound. Of course, that’s a big “if.”
And for those who are hoping the Vikings can get Brett Favre to make another comeback, here are his averages in the aforementioned statistical categories the past three seasons: 62.7; 3,837; 22.6; 18.3
Those seem like pretty decent numbers, certainly good enough to take a team with a very good running game and a very good defence deep in the playoffs. But note that in three of his last four seasons, Favre has thrown at least as many interceptions as touchdown passes. And if reducing the number of interceptions our quarterbacks throw is critical to the Vikes playing in January and February, then Favre’s probably not our guy.
More bad news
If the Vikings do convince #4 to come out of retirement and sign with the team, let it be known that no NFL team has ever won a Super Bowl with a 40-year-old starting quarterback (Favre turns 40 in October). John Elway was the oldest QB to help his team win a Super Bowl. He was 38 when Denver won it all in 1998. Remember that season, Viking fans?
Anyway, this might be just another stupid statistic. But still, in 44 seasons – a 40-year-old starting quarterback playing for a Super Bowl winner – it’s never happened.
Meanwhile, ESPN’s Kevin Seifert points out that Favre has been brutal down the stretch since 2005. This suggests that as Favre has reached his mid-to-late 30s, his body wears down as the year goes on. So despite his Hall of Fame credentials and reputation for producing in the clutch, Vikings fans might not be able to depend on him to play well in a game outdoors (or indoors) in late December and January.
Non-Viking quarterback/Favre stuff
There was no court decision on the disputed suspensions of Kevin and Pat Williams on Thursday. That could happen next week.
But if the suspensions are upheld, I don’t think it's the end of 2009 for the Vikings, despite what others are going to say and write. If there's a four-game stretch the Vikes can afford to be without a couple of keys players, it's the first four of the 2009 season, when they're playing Cleveland, Detroit, San Francisco and the Packers (in the Metrodome).
And if the Vikings lose the Williamses and come out of that stretch at least 3-2, the suspensions might actually be good for both players, particularly the ageing Big Pat. Four games off could keep both players fresh later in the season. While their opponents are sore, tired and breaking down from the stress of a physical 16 game season, the Williams boys could be healthier, stronger and better than the opponents they are facing during the playoff stretch.
Finally, you learn all kinds of interesting stuff when you do a little statistical research for a post like this. For instance, you learn how bad quarterback play was back in the day.
In 1967 Green Bay managed to go 9-4-1 and win two playoff games and a Super Bowl even though Bart Starr completed just 54.8 per cent of his passes, threw for 1,823 yards and had nine touchdown passes and 17 interceptions.
In 1968 Joe Namath led the New York Jets to an 11-3 record and a Super Bowl victory despite completing only 49.2 per cent of his passes and throwing 15 TDs and 17 interceptions (he did throw for 3,147 yards though, a very high total in those days).
Those kind of numbers today would not only keep you far away from any Pro Bowl, you’d lose your job. Unless, of course, you were quarterbacking the Vikings from 2006-2008.
Saturday, May 09, 2009
Brett Favre and Reggie White
What’s really bothered me about the whole Brett Favre-might-be-a-Viking saga is not that the story changes hourly, it’s listening to Packer fans who think Vikings fans should apologize for the fact the team’s coaching staff – or at least Brad Childress – has to resort to signing their divisional rival’s ex-franchise quarterback and soon-to-be ex-franchise icon in an effort to make the team a Super Bowl contender and possibly, finally, a Super Bowl winner.
As a Vikes fan, this isn’t a dream scenario – signing Favre in hopes he’ll lead us to the NFL’s Holy Grail. However, while I might not agree with it or particularly like it, I don’t feel dirty or ashamed about what the Vikings are allegedly trying to do. And I don’t think other Vikings fans need to feel that way either, or to take any b.s. from arrogant Packer fans over this.
That’s because this is what NFL teams do. When they have weaknesses, they add players – sometimes very good players with long and storied histories with other clubs – to strengthen those weaknesses. Packer fans might be shocked to hear this, but, even their team does this from time-to-time.
For example, you might remember a guy named Reggie White. A pretty good player – only went to 13 Pro Bowls in 15 seasons. Today a lot of fans associate him with Green Bay. But he was a Philadelphia Eagle before he became a Packer. White played eight seasons in Philly. He made the Pro Bowl seven times and was the best player on some very talented Eagle teams in the late 80s and early 90s. He was also an extremely popular guy in Philly and the leader of that franchise.
And then when he became a free agent in 1993, he signed with the Packers. The year before White arrived in Green Bay, the Packers defence was 18th in the NFL in points allowed. In 1996, when the Packers won their third Super Bowl, the defence gave up the fewest points in the NFL. It’s doubtful the Packers would have won that third title without such an improvement in its defensive play. It’s also doubtful the unit would have improved as much as it did without the presence of White.
Yet you’ll never hear any shame in a Packer fan’s voice when they talk about Reggie White. And what's to be ashamed of? The Packers knew back then its defence had to get better if the team was going to win a Super Bowl, Lucky for them, the best defensive lineman in the game was available, they offered him a bunch of money and signed him. They tried to get better.
Which is exactly what the Vikings are trying to do with Favre. Yeah, the situation isn't exactly the same. But essentially the Vikings are doing what the Packers did in 1993 with White - identify a weakness, target a player who’s not on your roster that could improve that weakness and get him on your team. There’s nothing shameful about it. It’s what professional sports franchises do.
So if some Packer fan tries to give you the gears about the Vikings wooing Favre, just bring up Reggie White.
As a Vikes fan, this isn’t a dream scenario – signing Favre in hopes he’ll lead us to the NFL’s Holy Grail. However, while I might not agree with it or particularly like it, I don’t feel dirty or ashamed about what the Vikings are allegedly trying to do. And I don’t think other Vikings fans need to feel that way either, or to take any b.s. from arrogant Packer fans over this.
That’s because this is what NFL teams do. When they have weaknesses, they add players – sometimes very good players with long and storied histories with other clubs – to strengthen those weaknesses. Packer fans might be shocked to hear this, but, even their team does this from time-to-time.
For example, you might remember a guy named Reggie White. A pretty good player – only went to 13 Pro Bowls in 15 seasons. Today a lot of fans associate him with Green Bay. But he was a Philadelphia Eagle before he became a Packer. White played eight seasons in Philly. He made the Pro Bowl seven times and was the best player on some very talented Eagle teams in the late 80s and early 90s. He was also an extremely popular guy in Philly and the leader of that franchise.
And then when he became a free agent in 1993, he signed with the Packers. The year before White arrived in Green Bay, the Packers defence was 18th in the NFL in points allowed. In 1996, when the Packers won their third Super Bowl, the defence gave up the fewest points in the NFL. It’s doubtful the Packers would have won that third title without such an improvement in its defensive play. It’s also doubtful the unit would have improved as much as it did without the presence of White.
Yet you’ll never hear any shame in a Packer fan’s voice when they talk about Reggie White. And what's to be ashamed of? The Packers knew back then its defence had to get better if the team was going to win a Super Bowl, Lucky for them, the best defensive lineman in the game was available, they offered him a bunch of money and signed him. They tried to get better.
Which is exactly what the Vikings are trying to do with Favre. Yeah, the situation isn't exactly the same. But essentially the Vikings are doing what the Packers did in 1993 with White - identify a weakness, target a player who’s not on your roster that could improve that weakness and get him on your team. There’s nothing shameful about it. It’s what professional sports franchises do.
So if some Packer fan tries to give you the gears about the Vikings wooing Favre, just bring up Reggie White.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Is this finally it?
I'd just like a resolution to this Favre thing and perhaps this is it.
Access Vikings reports that Brett Favre has told the Vikings he will stay retired, which explains why Childress was spotted at the Vikings headquarters today when he was supposed to be in Mississippi, sharing tea and Bubba Gump shrimp with the Vikings old tormentor. (Do they eat lots of shrimp there? Or am I confusing Mississippi eating habits with Louisiana?)
I had talked myself into Sage Rosenfels last week after my disappointment over the Vikings not trading for Jay Cutler finally wore off. The past two days I've been talking myself into Favre. Initially I wasn't thrilled with the idea, but I've been coming around to it. Now I have to talk myself into Rosenfels again, which shouldn't be too hard, as I've already done it once.
Access Vikings reports that Brett Favre has told the Vikings he will stay retired, which explains why Childress was spotted at the Vikings headquarters today when he was supposed to be in Mississippi, sharing tea and Bubba Gump shrimp with the Vikings old tormentor. (Do they eat lots of shrimp there? Or am I confusing Mississippi eating habits with Louisiana?)
I had talked myself into Sage Rosenfels last week after my disappointment over the Vikings not trading for Jay Cutler finally wore off. The past two days I've been talking myself into Favre. Initially I wasn't thrilled with the idea, but I've been coming around to it. Now I have to talk myself into Rosenfels again, which shouldn't be too hard, as I've already done it once.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Here's a guy who doesn't think much about signing Favre
I hope readers aren't getting tired of me linking to Mike Lombardi's posts. But I can't help but highlight this piece on the Brett Favre situation.
The Vikings are not a team Lombardi mentions on a regular basis. That's both good and bad. Like most football writers, he tends to focus his attention on the team's whose coaching staffs and management he admires (New England) and the ones that he does not admire (Oakland). The glut of NFL teams in the grey area usually escape his notice and I think he views the Vikings management and coaching staff as slightly below average-to average in talent and performance.
But Lombardi has certainly caught on that Brad Childress and company don't seem to know how to fix the team's problems at quarterback. And he's right to wonder why the Vikings were turned off by how Jay Cutler's character and makeup would affect the team and yet they are seriously entertaining signing Favre – a move that could see them granting special allowances to Favre (such as training this spring at home rather than at Winter Park) that they wouldn't grant any other player. How is that good for team chemistry?
And now that the Vikings draft is over and we know what the Bears gave up to get Cutler (basically Kyle Orton, 2009's 1st and 3rd round picks and 2010's first round pick), are the Vikings better off with Tarvaris Jackson, Sage Rosenfels or an almost 40-year-old Brett Favre, plus Percy Harvin, Asher Allen and their 2010 first round pick? Or would they be better off with Jay Cutler and no Harvin, no Allen, no 2010 first rounder and maybe no Rosenfels or some other Viking regular like, say, Chad Greenway?
I wish Cutler was wearing purple. And I wish Childress wasn't having private sitdowns with Brett Favre at secret locations in an effort to improve the Vikes quarterback position.
The Vikings are not a team Lombardi mentions on a regular basis. That's both good and bad. Like most football writers, he tends to focus his attention on the team's whose coaching staffs and management he admires (New England) and the ones that he does not admire (Oakland). The glut of NFL teams in the grey area usually escape his notice and I think he views the Vikings management and coaching staff as slightly below average-to average in talent and performance.
But Lombardi has certainly caught on that Brad Childress and company don't seem to know how to fix the team's problems at quarterback. And he's right to wonder why the Vikings were turned off by how Jay Cutler's character and makeup would affect the team and yet they are seriously entertaining signing Favre – a move that could see them granting special allowances to Favre (such as training this spring at home rather than at Winter Park) that they wouldn't grant any other player. How is that good for team chemistry?
And now that the Vikings draft is over and we know what the Bears gave up to get Cutler (basically Kyle Orton, 2009's 1st and 3rd round picks and 2010's first round pick), are the Vikings better off with Tarvaris Jackson, Sage Rosenfels or an almost 40-year-old Brett Favre, plus Percy Harvin, Asher Allen and their 2010 first round pick? Or would they be better off with Jay Cutler and no Harvin, no Allen, no 2010 first rounder and maybe no Rosenfels or some other Viking regular like, say, Chad Greenway?
I wish Cutler was wearing purple. And I wish Childress wasn't having private sitdowns with Brett Favre at secret locations in an effort to improve the Vikes quarterback position.
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Brett, leave me alone
With the draft over, I had designs of slipping into a leisurely routine – posting once or twice a week for the next three months. But Brett Favre and Brad Childress won't let me do it.
Here are a couple of perspectives on the Favre situation from ESPN's Kevin Seifert and Scouts Inc.'s Matt Williamson.
Both Seifert and Williamson make some good points. But here is what I'd like Williamson to explain to me. He says the Vikings don't need a gunslinger like Favre. He says the team needs to ride its defence, its offensive line and Adrian Peterson to the Super Bowl. The quarterback? All he has to do is not make mistakes, not screw it up.
But isn't this the same story we've heard for three seasons now? And where has that got the Vikings, exactly? It's gotten them a .500 record, one divisional title and one playoff game. The Vikings need more than a caretaker at quarterback. And Williamson doesn't like Favre, and he doesn't like Sage Rosenfels, so is he saying Tarvaris Jackson is the answer? Did he see Jackson play in the playoff loss to Philadelphia, where Jackson not only made mistakes but also didn't make any big plays. Everybody seems to know who isn't right to quarterback the Vikings. But they don't seem to know who is right.
But I think I know. The only problem is he's now playing in Chicago.
Here are a couple of perspectives on the Favre situation from ESPN's Kevin Seifert and Scouts Inc.'s Matt Williamson.
Both Seifert and Williamson make some good points. But here is what I'd like Williamson to explain to me. He says the Vikings don't need a gunslinger like Favre. He says the team needs to ride its defence, its offensive line and Adrian Peterson to the Super Bowl. The quarterback? All he has to do is not make mistakes, not screw it up.
But isn't this the same story we've heard for three seasons now? And where has that got the Vikings, exactly? It's gotten them a .500 record, one divisional title and one playoff game. The Vikings need more than a caretaker at quarterback. And Williamson doesn't like Favre, and he doesn't like Sage Rosenfels, so is he saying Tarvaris Jackson is the answer? Did he see Jackson play in the playoff loss to Philadelphia, where Jackson not only made mistakes but also didn't make any big plays. Everybody seems to know who isn't right to quarterback the Vikings. But they don't seem to know who is right.
But I think I know. The only problem is he's now playing in Chicago.
Sunday, May 03, 2009
The Vikings 2009 draft – one scout's perspective
I was unimpressed with the Vikings draft last week. But I realize I'm just a guy with a blog and some time on his hands. What do I know? So I decided to solicit the opinion of someone who actually knows something about this subject.
Wes Bunting's pre-draft and post-draft stuff at the National Football Post this winter and spring has been informative and entertaining. That's why I wanted to get his take on the Vikings draft last weekend. After a couple of e-mails, Bunting was nice enough to do a phone interview and answer a few of my questions (Hey – actual sports journalism happening here!) about the players the Vikings picked.
Bunting's a interesting story. He's a Raiders fan from Philly who decided to get into scouting in 2002. He made that decision after watching the Raiders select Philip Buchanon and Napoleon Harris – two first round draft picks who would help the Raiders on their run to the ’02 Super Bowl (which they lost). Bunting wondered why every team couldn't be as successful at the draft as the Raiders were that year. Obviously, things have changed a bit in Oakland since then.
Bunting's gone on to be a college scouting expert for NFLSMACKDOWN.com, and NFLDRAFTSCOUT.com. He's worked for Tony Pauline of SI.com and for Scout.com. He scored an internship with the Baltimore Ravens scouting department in 2008 and now he's the National Footbal Post's director of college scouting. He's also been interviewed by the Boston Globe, and on ESPN Radio and Sirius Satellite Radio about the draft.
Bunting's knows college football and he knows college football players. So it was encouraging to hear that he was a lot more jazzed about what the Vikings did at the draft last weekend than I was.
Percy Harvin over Michael Oher – you’re thoughts?
Wes Bunting: Harvin adds such a dynamic to that offence. The Vikings really struggled last year in those awkward situations – those third-and-four, third-and-five, third-and-six situations – because they didn’t have that one guy that could consistently beat press coverage and get initial separation. That’s what I think Harvin is going to do. Plus, he gives them so much versatility. You can line him up in the backfield. You can motion him in the slot. I don’t think he’ll ever be that number one wideout that can go outside and beat press coverage. But he gives Brad Childress and that offence so much versatility. Harvin’s going to have a ton of chances to make a man miss and create a big play after the catch.
(D.C's note: I interviewed Bunting before Harvin was a no-show for the Vikings weekend mini-camp. When I e-mailed him to ask if he wanted to re-consider his assessment of Harvin, this is what he wrote.
"Not going to alter it, the Vikings knew what they were getting into, and if they can keep Harvin on the field, I think he will be dynamic. However, if they didn't do the necessary homework on his background, that's where it could get them in trouble.)
Will Childress know what to do with Harvin?
WB: That’s a bit of a concern, but he’s just too talented. All you’ve got to do is get the ball in his hands. And Childress has got a bit of a bum rap in my opinion. I’m from Philly and when he was with the Eagles, I thought he did a pretty nice job. I think they can use Harvin like the Eagles use Brian Westbrook with some bubble screens. They can split Harvin out wide. He’s a mismatch nightmare. If you think he was fast in the swamp, wait till he hits the turf in the Metrodome. I think he’s going to be a real good player.
Phil Loadholt – slow-footed bust or our starting right tackle for the next decade?
WB: I would have said slow-footed bust after I went down to the Senior Bowl this year and watched him really struggle. But from all the reports and indications I’ve gotten, he’s put a lot of work in – working on his footwork and technique and he lost a little weight. In the Vikings power run scheme he’s an ideal fit. And some of his deficiencies in pass protection can be masked.
He’s a hard-working kid and a pretty smart tackle. He has the body. And he’s not being thrown into a situation where they are expecting him to be a left tackle. He’s a right tackle only prospect. That scares some people when you pick a right tackle only prospect. But he couldn’t have went to a better offence than the Vikings.
Asher Allen – what did the Vikings get here?
WB: What they got is a corner who can play on an island. This guy’s been playing outside of the boundary since his sophomore year. He’s been able to lock down some of the best players in the SEC. He’s comfortable in space, he has good ball skills, he’s fluid, he’s got quick feet and can get in and out of his breaks and click and close on the football. I think since he’s a bit undersized, he’ll struggle in press coverage. But in that Cover Two scheme that the Vikings like to play, where he’s so comfortable in space and has such good ball skills, I think he’s a pretty sound player. It wouldn’t surprise me to see Allen start in a year. He can definitely come in and contribute in nickel and dime situations at the worst.
Jasper Brinkley - you had him as a second or third round talent. The Vikings got him in the fifth round. Did the Vikes get a bit of a steal here?
WB: I like Brinkley. I had him rated a bit higher than most. He’s a big, physical inside linebacker and it’s no secret the Vikings like their linebackers big. I think Brinkley will fit right in. He’s a downhill, attacking guy. He may struggle a bit versus the pass. However, he’s real fluid for a guy his size. He’s a gifted athlete. I think they can work some schemes around him, which, typically, they don’t like to do with rookies. But as he matures in the position, I think they can put him in positions that will enhance his abilities in pass coverage.
But he’s at his best sniffing out plays, attacking downhill and just getting after the ball and shooting gaps. He’s a guy – worst-case scenario – who will help out on special teams this year. But I could definitely see him playing on first and second-down situations, attacking the A-gaps.
What about Jamarca Sanford?
WB: I watched him at the Cotton Bowl versus Texas Tech and this guy takes some of the worst angles of any safety I’ve seen in the entire nation. He completely whiffed on [undrafted Texas Tech quarterback] Graham Harrell in the open field. I mean, give me a break. But he ran a lot better at the Ole’ Miss pro day than expected. He was like a 4.38 guy. So he’s got straight-line speed. But he’s not real instinctive. He is kind of physical when he does makes contact but I can’t see him really contributing.
I think it was his 40 time that intrigued some scouts and got them thinking maybe they can turn him into a player. But instincts are so key in that Cover Two scheme – reading and reacting and closing on the ball. I think that’s where Sanford is going to struggle. I don’t see him consistently making plays against the run or pass. He’ll whiff on guys. Best-case scenario, he’s a special teams guy and I wouldn’t be surprised to see him get cut in training camp.
Most draft experts seem unimpressed with the Vikings draft. What’s your call?
WB: I’m never a guy who is going to give out grades before these guys hit training camp or anything. But Harvin, that guy’s a playmaker. He’s going to be a difference-maker in the Vikings offence.
Loadholt – if he pans out and I think he will – that’s a great fit for them at right tackle. You have a starter there. I think Asher Allen can develop into a starter at some point. So that’s three starters in the first three rounds, which is pretty good. Brinkley is a key special teams guy and provides some Mike [middle linebacker] depth. He fits into what Vikings want with that big linebacking corps. He can play strongside or inside as well. He’s a guy who will make the team and give them some nice depth behind what you already have. Seventh round picks – you’re struggling to hit on one of those. That’s a tough thing to do. I don’t think Sanford makes the team.
Were there any guys – besides Oher – that the Vikings had the chance to draft and didn’t and maybe you think they should have?
WB: That’s a tough one. The thing that stood out to me is they needed to find a tackle. William Beatty was on the board. But I don’t think he’s a great fit for the right tackle position. He’s more of a left tackle. He’s a long-armed guy. I gave them Eben Britton [in Bunting's mock drafts] a couple of times. I think he’s going to be a really fine player in Jacksonville. But with a talent like Harvin on the board, Britton is more of a late first round-to-second round guy, which is right where he went. I think the Vikings had Loadholt pegged as their second round guy. They did their homework and that’s who they wanted. Then they got good value in Asher Allen. And I like Jasper Brinkley. I have no qualms with what they did.
Wes Bunting's pre-draft and post-draft stuff at the National Football Post this winter and spring has been informative and entertaining. That's why I wanted to get his take on the Vikings draft last weekend. After a couple of e-mails, Bunting was nice enough to do a phone interview and answer a few of my questions (Hey – actual sports journalism happening here!) about the players the Vikings picked.
Bunting's a interesting story. He's a Raiders fan from Philly who decided to get into scouting in 2002. He made that decision after watching the Raiders select Philip Buchanon and Napoleon Harris – two first round draft picks who would help the Raiders on their run to the ’02 Super Bowl (which they lost). Bunting wondered why every team couldn't be as successful at the draft as the Raiders were that year. Obviously, things have changed a bit in Oakland since then.
Bunting's gone on to be a college scouting expert for NFLSMACKDOWN.com, and NFLDRAFTSCOUT.com. He's worked for Tony Pauline of SI.com and for Scout.com. He scored an internship with the Baltimore Ravens scouting department in 2008 and now he's the National Footbal Post's director of college scouting. He's also been interviewed by the Boston Globe, and on ESPN Radio and Sirius Satellite Radio about the draft.
Bunting's knows college football and he knows college football players. So it was encouraging to hear that he was a lot more jazzed about what the Vikings did at the draft last weekend than I was.
Percy Harvin over Michael Oher – you’re thoughts?
Wes Bunting: Harvin adds such a dynamic to that offence. The Vikings really struggled last year in those awkward situations – those third-and-four, third-and-five, third-and-six situations – because they didn’t have that one guy that could consistently beat press coverage and get initial separation. That’s what I think Harvin is going to do. Plus, he gives them so much versatility. You can line him up in the backfield. You can motion him in the slot. I don’t think he’ll ever be that number one wideout that can go outside and beat press coverage. But he gives Brad Childress and that offence so much versatility. Harvin’s going to have a ton of chances to make a man miss and create a big play after the catch.
(D.C's note: I interviewed Bunting before Harvin was a no-show for the Vikings weekend mini-camp. When I e-mailed him to ask if he wanted to re-consider his assessment of Harvin, this is what he wrote.
"Not going to alter it, the Vikings knew what they were getting into, and if they can keep Harvin on the field, I think he will be dynamic. However, if they didn't do the necessary homework on his background, that's where it could get them in trouble.)
Will Childress know what to do with Harvin?
WB: That’s a bit of a concern, but he’s just too talented. All you’ve got to do is get the ball in his hands. And Childress has got a bit of a bum rap in my opinion. I’m from Philly and when he was with the Eagles, I thought he did a pretty nice job. I think they can use Harvin like the Eagles use Brian Westbrook with some bubble screens. They can split Harvin out wide. He’s a mismatch nightmare. If you think he was fast in the swamp, wait till he hits the turf in the Metrodome. I think he’s going to be a real good player.
Phil Loadholt – slow-footed bust or our starting right tackle for the next decade?
WB: I would have said slow-footed bust after I went down to the Senior Bowl this year and watched him really struggle. But from all the reports and indications I’ve gotten, he’s put a lot of work in – working on his footwork and technique and he lost a little weight. In the Vikings power run scheme he’s an ideal fit. And some of his deficiencies in pass protection can be masked.
He’s a hard-working kid and a pretty smart tackle. He has the body. And he’s not being thrown into a situation where they are expecting him to be a left tackle. He’s a right tackle only prospect. That scares some people when you pick a right tackle only prospect. But he couldn’t have went to a better offence than the Vikings.
Asher Allen – what did the Vikings get here?
WB: What they got is a corner who can play on an island. This guy’s been playing outside of the boundary since his sophomore year. He’s been able to lock down some of the best players in the SEC. He’s comfortable in space, he has good ball skills, he’s fluid, he’s got quick feet and can get in and out of his breaks and click and close on the football. I think since he’s a bit undersized, he’ll struggle in press coverage. But in that Cover Two scheme that the Vikings like to play, where he’s so comfortable in space and has such good ball skills, I think he’s a pretty sound player. It wouldn’t surprise me to see Allen start in a year. He can definitely come in and contribute in nickel and dime situations at the worst.
Jasper Brinkley - you had him as a second or third round talent. The Vikings got him in the fifth round. Did the Vikes get a bit of a steal here?
WB: I like Brinkley. I had him rated a bit higher than most. He’s a big, physical inside linebacker and it’s no secret the Vikings like their linebackers big. I think Brinkley will fit right in. He’s a downhill, attacking guy. He may struggle a bit versus the pass. However, he’s real fluid for a guy his size. He’s a gifted athlete. I think they can work some schemes around him, which, typically, they don’t like to do with rookies. But as he matures in the position, I think they can put him in positions that will enhance his abilities in pass coverage.
But he’s at his best sniffing out plays, attacking downhill and just getting after the ball and shooting gaps. He’s a guy – worst-case scenario – who will help out on special teams this year. But I could definitely see him playing on first and second-down situations, attacking the A-gaps.
What about Jamarca Sanford?
WB: I watched him at the Cotton Bowl versus Texas Tech and this guy takes some of the worst angles of any safety I’ve seen in the entire nation. He completely whiffed on [undrafted Texas Tech quarterback] Graham Harrell in the open field. I mean, give me a break. But he ran a lot better at the Ole’ Miss pro day than expected. He was like a 4.38 guy. So he’s got straight-line speed. But he’s not real instinctive. He is kind of physical when he does makes contact but I can’t see him really contributing.
I think it was his 40 time that intrigued some scouts and got them thinking maybe they can turn him into a player. But instincts are so key in that Cover Two scheme – reading and reacting and closing on the ball. I think that’s where Sanford is going to struggle. I don’t see him consistently making plays against the run or pass. He’ll whiff on guys. Best-case scenario, he’s a special teams guy and I wouldn’t be surprised to see him get cut in training camp.
Most draft experts seem unimpressed with the Vikings draft. What’s your call?
WB: I’m never a guy who is going to give out grades before these guys hit training camp or anything. But Harvin, that guy’s a playmaker. He’s going to be a difference-maker in the Vikings offence.
Loadholt – if he pans out and I think he will – that’s a great fit for them at right tackle. You have a starter there. I think Asher Allen can develop into a starter at some point. So that’s three starters in the first three rounds, which is pretty good. Brinkley is a key special teams guy and provides some Mike [middle linebacker] depth. He fits into what Vikings want with that big linebacking corps. He can play strongside or inside as well. He’s a guy who will make the team and give them some nice depth behind what you already have. Seventh round picks – you’re struggling to hit on one of those. That’s a tough thing to do. I don’t think Sanford makes the team.
Were there any guys – besides Oher – that the Vikings had the chance to draft and didn’t and maybe you think they should have?
WB: That’s a tough one. The thing that stood out to me is they needed to find a tackle. William Beatty was on the board. But I don’t think he’s a great fit for the right tackle position. He’s more of a left tackle. He’s a long-armed guy. I gave them Eben Britton [in Bunting's mock drafts] a couple of times. I think he’s going to be a really fine player in Jacksonville. But with a talent like Harvin on the board, Britton is more of a late first round-to-second round guy, which is right where he went. I think the Vikings had Loadholt pegged as their second round guy. They did their homework and that’s who they wanted. Then they got good value in Asher Allen. And I like Jasper Brinkley. I have no qualms with what they did.
Friday, May 01, 2009
Is that alarm bells I'm hearing?
Percy Harvin is a no-show at the Vikings three-day mini-camp.
Harvin's good buddy Brad Childress plans to reveal all at a news conference at 3 p.m.
It could be nothing. Or it could be something. Pro Football Talk is already insinuating it's something.
How about that Phil Loadholt pick?
Harvin Update!
Access Vikings reports that Childress says Harvin has been hospitalized with severe dehydration and won't participate at all in this weekend's mini-camp.
It's a believable story, I guess. But it's also a bizarre start to Harvin's Viking career and given the blemishes of his past, Harvin's doubters won't be buying this explanation. I don't know if I do, either.
Also, Brad Childress talks about Brett Favre (but doesn't say much – although I'd say it's noteworthy he didn't come out and say, 'We're not interested in Brett Favre.' The beat goes on.)
Harvin's good buddy Brad Childress plans to reveal all at a news conference at 3 p.m.
It could be nothing. Or it could be something. Pro Football Talk is already insinuating it's something.
How about that Phil Loadholt pick?
Harvin Update!
Access Vikings reports that Childress says Harvin has been hospitalized with severe dehydration and won't participate at all in this weekend's mini-camp.
It's a believable story, I guess. But it's also a bizarre start to Harvin's Viking career and given the blemishes of his past, Harvin's doubters won't be buying this explanation. I don't know if I do, either.
Also, Brad Childress talks about Brett Favre (but doesn't say much – although I'd say it's noteworthy he didn't come out and say, 'We're not interested in Brett Favre.' The beat goes on.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
