NFL Offseason 2013

03/14/2013 3:40 pm
Rate this Blog
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Get your NFL fix if you need it.
scott.jpgScott - On your mark...get set...Terrible!
03/14/2013 @ 03:51:27 PM
 Quote this comment
So starting yesterday a rumor started that the Packers were negotiating a contract with Steven Jackson. This started because Adam Schefter actually tweeted that he had signed, but then deleted the tweet. Well, twitter sort of blew up a bit, and suddenly everyone was getting giddy about this, even for all the uncertainty. A writer from the GB Press Gazette then tweeted that the two sides were talking, which even though he clarified that he literally only meant "talking", this seemed to fuel the fire that the announcement was simply a formality, and people were simply waiting for the official statement. (and twitter seemed to be updating constantly on my phone today under the search "Steven Jackson", not sure how that happened) Well, today Jackson signed with the Falcons. My reaction to that is sort of the same as what my reaction would have been if he signed with the Packers. When I was thinking that Jackson was going to be a Packer, my thoughts ranged from "i've always liked him", and "he's a really powerful runner" and "he always seems to go down hard" to "well, he's 30 years old" and "would he fit in the Packers system" and whatnot. I was well aware of the upsides and the downsides of spending on a running back when offensively the Packers have done OK without a feature back of Jackson's caliber. So long story short, while the news that he isn't a Packer is a little disappointing if only because of the hype that I created, I imagine that in the long run it's probably better to not have spent too much on a 30 year old (probably somewhat beat up) running back given some of the other needs that the Packers have. Personally, the Packers are a pretty well run organization, and I have a tendency to let them make the calls (heck, they didn't win a Super Bowl because of terrible upper management).

(the point of this whole story isnt' necessarily to be the ultimate analysis on the wisdom/lackthereof of signing/not signing Jackson, but rather a narrative of what one fan went through chasing the wind)

In other news, the Vikings have signed Matt Cassell. And Greg Jennings is maybe pulling a James Jones by visiting the Vikings today?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
sarah.jpgSarah - So's your face
03/14/2013 @ 08:57:04 PM
 Quote this comment
Pass
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - 3618 Posts
03/14/2013 @ 09:59:38 PM
 Quote this comment
Steven Jackson, meh. How about some defense?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!?
03/15/2013 @ 07:13:34 PM
 Quote this comment
Put the team on my back do.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Resident Tech Support
03/16/2013 @ 09:39:24 AM
 Quote this comment
I wonder what future Vikings the Packers are going to draft this year. But I kid.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist
03/18/2013 @ 01:04:55 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, here's what I don't understand about the Packers. And chortle all you want about criticizing their roster building. They, like many teams, "build through the draft". They get more credit for it than usual because they almost never sign a free agent, but it's unclear if that's a chicken or egg result.

The main "point" of building through the draft is hoping to have a window where you pool enough young cheap talent to push you over the top. The main point of "never signing free agents" is that you are more apt to be able to resign your guys. Except the Packers routinely let those guys walk with 5 good years of playing left too, sometimes cutting them even before that point because they can't afford the salary they already agreed to.

Aaron Rodgers is playing for half of what he could be making, someone decided AJ Hawk was worth 7 mil a year, and your 8th highest paid player is Mason Crosby. Which is all to say, if the Packers are so awesome at building a roster of interchangeable cheap talent, why are they butting up against the cap year in year out despite zero (maybe .5) of the monster deals you have to give your own stars to keep from walking, of the variety Rodgers and Matthews are due soon. Where the crap is their money going? You had to ditch Woodson, hope DD retired, and watch Jennings walk away empty handed, just to sneak under by enough to sign this years draft picks, barring restructurings.

Everyone makes fun of the Vikings for "stealing" all the Packers' talent, but maybe those people should wonder why the Packers can never afford them, and the Vikings can, despite the highest paid running back ever, resigning everyone they wanted, except Winfield, who could be back, and, on top of everything else, actually have room to pay Jared Allen that last year of the contact no team ever can afford (17 million). Yes, the Packers never "make the big FA splash", but they almost never could if they wanted to, so it's kind of inaccurate to call that part the key to a brilliant master plan.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 4 times, last at 03/18/2013 1:42:26 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
03/18/2013 @ 02:35:16 PM
 Quote this comment
I think the Packers saw that their group of wide receivers was pretty good without Jennings, and he the amount they were willing to pay a wide receiver who has missed almost 50% of the last 20+ games might not produce $9 million of additional production. The Packers DID offer Jennings over $10 million per year at some point last year, when Jennings was looking for $15 million. When the wide receiver market dried up, the Packers dropped what they were willing to pay down to a reported 6 or 7 million, and probably weren't willing to give him 5 years, considering that even without him their WR position is still their strength. Would they be good with him? No doubt. I think there is room to critique the move not to offer him a little more.

On the flip side, the Packers have pending contract extension in the immediate future for Aaron Rodgers and Clay Matthews (and Raji, apparently). They restructed AJ Hawk's contract giving him a significant pay cut, so that frees up some cap space too. (I know you mentioned this, but it's worth noting, especially since every team has to make room for this type of thing at one point another).

I don't think it's fair, or accurate, to say that the Packers can "never afford them" (referring to their own players). I'm not saying that every move and every contract that Thompson has signed has been one for the textbooks (AJ Hawk is not worth what they have paid him), but I myself think it would be sort of silly to fork nearly $50 million to a guy when you have other, less expensive options that are a) younger, and b) probalby just as good or close to it. I can see it making sense for the Vikings, since they are thin at WR, but it wouldn't have made sense, in my opinion, for the Packers to do it. So I'm not suggesting that the Vikings are suckers or anything, I was moreso commenting on the noteworthy trend that the Vikings have had a number of high profile Packer players on their roster.

Whatever formula Thompson is using (and everyone has their weaknesses), they have won a Super Bowl under that formula, and have averaged over 11 wins per year over the past 6 seasons. So they are doing soemthing right. I'll judge the success of a GM by wins and championships before I count the number of big stars he managed to pull in. Maybe the reason they are "always butting up against the cap despite zero of the monster deals you have to give your own stars" is because he generally knows when to pay up for someone, and knows when to cut a guy loose. Again, obviously not every decision has been spectacular, but I think letting Greg Jennings go falls under the latter*, and I for one am not all that upset about it.

I don't know if ultimately I'm making a point for or against whether or not Thompson should be credited with being smart by not signing big FAs, so if we're talking past each other I'll admit that right now. I suppose you could boil down your comments and mine by saying "The Packers build through the draft and are very selective in terms of big free agent signings", or "The Packers build through the draft, leaving little room for big FA signings." Or maybe your version would look more like "The Packers waste all their money on lesser talent and can never afford to sign their own players let alone the one big time free agent that would put them over the top, but they also draft players like every other team". emoticon (I think that's my emoticon, I can't quite remember)

*edit, I wrote former when I meant latter, which obviously changes the entire meaning of the sentence. So note the change.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this at 03/18/2013 2:48:58 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
03/18/2013 @ 02:40:38 PM
 Quote this comment
I realize that I dedicdted a majority of my post to the Greg Jennings deal, and that Jeremy seemed to be talking mainly about free agency in general, but since his comment seemed to be inspired by my snarky, if not accurate, if not exaggerated, if not tongue-in-cheek comment about the Packers drafting future Vikings players, I figured I would address it from that angle.

I think it would be more accurate to say that the overall philosophy the Packers employ makes it so that the need to sign the big name free agents isn't that important. So the reason it may appear that they "almost never could if they wanted to" might actually be that they indeed don't want to. If they aren't trying to sign free agents, then they won't leave money available to do it. On the surface, that seems like a pretty efficient way to run things.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this 3 times, last at 03/18/2013 2:46:31 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
03/18/2013 @ 02:55:37 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, it's not like you're the lone person to point that out. But no, for the most part I wasn't talking about Jennings in particular. Though, as I hinted at, it's a little unfair to "cost benefit" letting Jennings walk, and passing on other free agents, as if it was/is any kind of plan. For the most part they couldn't have kept him if they wanted to. They've needed to do something at running back for what now, like 4 seasons, and keep having to take fliers on guys they hope to be adequate.

They've won, yes, but that doesn't really say they've won because of, or in spite of, the "plan". A plan which, BTW, 90% of the league holds to, they can just also sign free agents.

But all of that is besides the point, because my point was mainly just a "seriously, where is all their money going?" The Vikings have 3 players that make more or roughly the same as Aaron Rodgers, who is due to earn Joe Flacco style money in the next year or two. If they can't afford to throw enough money at Steven Jackson to hook him, where is Clay Matthews and Rodgers money going to come from?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 03/18/2013 2:57:00 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
03/18/2013 @ 03:00:53 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, that's probably a good question, but I'm sure it's going somewhere. And whether or not you can make a conclusive assertion that they are the plan is the cause of the results, the fact is they are winning, so something is working. And I would bet that part of what is working is how the front office manages things, whether or not what exactly that is is discernable to the general public. It might be worth actually looking into from an objective point of view.

To the Jackson point, I don't think it's just a case of "aww shucks we couldn't afford him". How much really should a team pony up for a 32 year old running back that just got release by the Rams, when you aren't much of a running team anyway (not that they Packers don't need a running back, but perhaps they don't need a $5 million a year guy, especially when that guy will be 35(ancient in running back years) when the contract is up). I'm not saying he's not a good player, but there's a valuation process that isn't just about cap space.

To the Jennings point, it might not necessarily be just a matter of "they couldn't afford him", but rather Jennings is probably nominally better than James Jones has become, isn't as versitle as Randall Cobb who will probably be better than Jennings was even by next year, and Jordy Nelson who is pretty good himself. Maybe the plan was in the works 2 years ago when they signed Jones for 3 more years. Maybe they had plans all along to let Jennings part, and so there would be no need to make sure there is money available for when his contract is up.

I have a feeling that the Packers will be ok when it comes to figuring out how to sign Rodgers and Mathews, adn that their money is overall being spent well. And there must be something well said about the fact that the Packers end up with so many desirable players (and front office personnel) that often end up on other teams.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this 2 times, last at 03/18/2013 3:13:01 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist
03/18/2013 @ 03:11:59 PM
 Quote this comment
Personally I think (and hope emoticonemoticonemoticon) It's a sign that the Packers aren't as "cheap and young" as everyone assumes. They probably have a lot of medium level contacts, which might mean Rodgers and Matthews have to come at the expense of much of the team. As oft sighted as AJ Hawk's contract is, he's not THAT overpaid. There's no 2 guys on your roster where 30 million opens up.

Edit: Basically I'm sick of it being implied that signing the occasional free agent is "doing it wrong" when it could just as easily mean you're doing the "right way" better, at least from a cap perspective. emoticon
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 03/18/2013 3:15:50 pm
scott.jpgScott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it.
03/18/2013 @ 03:20:25 PM
 Quote this comment
I'm not sure that 30 million need to open up. Rodgers will make $10 million this year. If Rodgers gets a Joe Flacco contract, his cap hit would increase by $10 million, and clay matthews would probaby go from current 3 million per year to maybe $10 million, so $7 million increase. That's $17 million in increases. That's not nothing, but it's nothing that can't be overcome. the packers at this exact moment are $18 million under the cap. They gave Hawk a big pay cut that hasn't been made official yet, so the cap number will increase. You need $4-$5 million approx for draft picks. Obviously they'll have to move some stuff around, but I don't think they'll have to move heaven and earth to do it.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
03/18/2013 @ 03:32:33 PM
 Quote this comment
Looks like Flacco back loaded his deal a bit for the cap. He's only 14 million for a couple years, but his cap hit jumps to 28,550,000 in 2016 and 31 mil the next year. Also, because this is the NFL, and it's Joe Freaking Flacco, you'll probably have to out do that deal some.

Matthews could want to try and set the bar at linebacker too, but will probably do the take-less-to-get-some-now thing. 10-11 is probably a fair guess.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
03/18/2013 @ 03:35:13 PM
 Quote this comment
THis is cherry picked a little bit, but you mentioned Mason crosby is the Packekrs 8 highest paid player. That's correct, but their 8th highest paid player is getting paid under $3 million. The vikings (only as an example, not a valid comparison since it's just one team) are paying their 8th highest paid player $5 million. I'm not sure what that means. Maybe they do have more mid range contracts. But maybe that's not a bad thing, I really don't know. Maybe it means it's harder to dump cap space. But maybe it also means your less likely to be burned (as much) by any one player that turns into a bust.

Or because Rodgers is just that wonderful, he'll take the home town discount. But probably not, I'm looking at http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/baltimore-ravens/ so all I saw was that his contract averages $20 million. But you're right, it's usually not an even split.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this at 03/18/2013 3:36:14 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - I believe virtually everything I read.
03/18/2013 @ 03:41:52 PM
 Quote this comment
You guys probably would be that lucky.

Yeah, I didn't mean to imply Crosby was getting paid a lot, the point was "you don't have any lofty numbers, yet, and 8 players in and you're already to your kicker (making a couple mil)". Just another way of wondering where in the hell the money is going.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Resident Tech Support
03/21/2013 @ 08:34:45 AM
 Quote this comment
I think the whole point about the decision not to resign Jennings, or more to the point of the philosophy of not going after free agents is that because they put their focus on other things, they end up not having as much room to make the moves that people then either complain about or give credit to. It's possible they neither deserve the criticism nor the praise for their cautiousness in free agency. Afterall, if my hypothesis is correct, they aren't necessarily "making a decision" not to go after free agents, since their philosophy doesn't have that aspect as a priority in the first place, and they structure their roster accordingly. If I buy a nice house and then sort of live paycheck to paycheck, and then I end up having to buy used cars, someone might say that I'm not being smart with my money because I don't have enough money to buy a nice car, when they have a less expensive house and a new car every couple of years. Perhaps I've put priority in having a nicer house and I've learned how to get by with having to make some car repairs every once in a while. I didn't just up and make the decision "I'm not going to by a new car this time". The decision was made years ago when I bought the house and now my lifestyle dictates (to a certain degree) what decision I make going forward.

Regarding Jennings, my guess is that the decision to not re-sign him (or the overall terms about how high they may have been willing to go) was probably made more than a year ago, possibly more, or possibly Ted Thompson has a limit for how much he's willing to pay any wide receiver, period. Whether this is a strength or not, but Ted Thompson seems to think that the wide receiver position is particularly fungible, and it's evident by the fact that they have been so incredibly deep at that position for years. Making the decision not to sign Jennings (or not to offer him anything about a certain number) might have been set in motion not in February 2013, but possibly in the mindset that says decent wide receivers aren't that hard to come by, so we aren't going to worry about making sure we have room to pay a guy $10 million per year.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this 2 times, last at 03/21/2013 9:19:03 am
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?"
03/21/2013 @ 09:57:33 AM
 Quote this comment
I guess the way I look at it would be like if you and I both won some thing that gave us 60,000 a year to live on, and lets say for the sake of argument that was all we could work with, and we pretty much had to spend it.

You drive around beaters, I drive around a nice car, and everyone who knows us both frequently talks about how "responsible" you are and how I'm a spendthrift that should take a page out of your book. However, this wouldn't necessarily be a very fair assessment of the real situation for a couple reasons.

a) Maybe your beater is indicative of mismanaged money elsewhere, or at the very least, is a matter of circumstance. If once all your money was allocated to non-car things all you could afford to spend on a car was $1100, then it's, at the very least, not a sign of you "being responsible" because you couldn't have afforded a better car if you wanted one. So, you're getting credit for being "responsible" for not doing something you couldn't have.

b) Maybe my flashy car is an indicator that I did better in other places. If we have similar houses, both maxed out contributions to our retirement accounts, etc etc, and I had enough money left over to afford a flashy car, and there's little benefit for me, in this scenario, to not spend it, then how is it indicative of "doing something wrong?" I'm getting looked down upon for being irresponsible when in reality I just had more leftover after doing all the things those people would call "responsible".
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 03/21/2013 10:04:53 am
scott.jpgScott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it.
03/21/2013 @ 11:24:34 AM
 Quote this comment
well, I think using beaters is probably exaggerating a little bit, but I get your overall point. There's nothing inherently more responsible in abstaining from free agents as a general philosophy, it's just different. Reluctance in free agency is as much a result of a philosophy as it is an actual strategy. For example, if the Packers in their draft first, develop from within strategy were terrible in the draft and never developed their own players, they would consistently be a bad team and probably spend less money on their own crappy players and eventually have more money to spend on high profile free agents. Is there a track record that one method produces more consistent results with less risk? Maybe, maybe not, I actually don't know. My guess would be yes simply because building through the draft is less expensive per player, but I don't have any data to back that up. I can go on some assumptions and some little information that I do have about a handful of past super bowl winners or a couple of franchises that have been fairly successful in the recent past.

But to talk about the risk factor (and let's assume insurance isn't an option, because the NFL doesn't really insurance for free agents), if I crash my beater car, I'm only out $1,100, and likely can figure out a way to replace it with an equivalently priced car, not sacricing all that much elsewhere. If you crash your $20,000 car, the liklihood that you can replace it with an equivalent is questionable, and the fact that you had a $20,000 car in the first place probably means that you already sacrificed in a number of other places (not necessarily irresonsibly, but there's almost no doubt that putting 30% of your yearly allotment of money towards a car means that there are probably other areas where you decided to not spend as much). It's not automatic, but it can be reasonably assumed.

Your overall point makes sense. The Packers are generally thought of as having one of the better run front offices in football from lots of angles. The people who make these analyses (and I'm not assuming that everyone is unbiased in their thinking), the Packers generally aren't being overly irresonsible in the way that they spend money. Your beef shouldn't necessarily be that the Packers (and they aren't the only team that uses this philosophy) are seen as some ultra-responsible team because of the lack of free agent signings, but rather that it shouldn't be assumed that dabling in free agency isn't in itself irresonsible. I would assume however, that for the most part people already take this into consideration. Team A that has a history of being bad and signs 3 or 4 big time free agents (like, say, Miami this year)isn't considered a poorly managed team simply because they made some huge, risky purchases; they are considered a poorly managed team because of a lot of other factors (including poor performance on the field), and then when something like this offseason happens, it seems like just another example of a team looking for a quick fix at a high price with a high amount of risk assumed. Team B that is reluctant to dive into big name free agents, but has a history of being on top of their division or better aren't seen as responsible simply because they don't go with big name free agents, but rather because they are always on top of their division. Sure, you can find examples of free agent signing teams that succeed and drafting teams that fail, but I think it is more consistent that teams that don't go big in free agency for whatever reason are generally more consistently successful than teams that do. When someone is successful, you look at what they are doing and how they go about staying good.

I suppose my issue (and it isn't really an issue) is that you're frustrated because the Packers are seen as this ultra-responsible team because it's assumed that high-profile free agent signing is looked at as being somewhat irresonsible, but then you seem to then assume that the Packers must in fact be acting irresonsibly because they don't sign free agents because they CAN'T. So you're bothered by someone assuming one thing, but then seem to assume the opposite with hypothetical "what ifs" as your reasoning. The question should really be "what do successful teams do that helps them be so successful", and then find patterns that way. While there's nothing inherently irresponible about going after free agents, I do believe there is some evidence to suggest that successful teams that generally don't aren't doing so because they are financially irresponsible, but rather because of a different strategy. Afterall, they must be doing something right.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on?
03/21/2013 @ 12:08:17 PM
 Quote this comment
Here's another subject that I wasn't sure if I should start another blog about it, or just include it here.

Is the reaction to the new rule change about offensive players (mostly running backs) not being able to use the crown of their helmet to inflict a blow to a would be tackler a bit overblown? It seems to me that people might be overreacting. For one thing, the majority of hits inflicted by an Adrien Peterson or other running back that seeks out contact rather than trying to avoid it are perfectly fine, from my understanding. The point is that they don't want a player (any player) to lower their head in such a way that they are now using their helmet (the crown, specifically) to dole out their punishments. It seems to me that it would cover a very small portion of plays, and most of the plays where people seem to think it might cover probably wouldn't be called. It's usually pretty easy to tell if a player is intentionally using his helmet as the tool for hitting or if a player is putting himself in position to absorb or dole out a hit.

Related to this, it seems high time that offensive players are held to the same standard as defensive players, not just in terms of safety, but rather fairness. If a defensive player so much as brushes his hand over the facemask of a ball carrier, it's likely a 15 yard penalty. A ball carrier, however, can, in the event of a stiff-arm, practically drag a defender down by the facemask and it's almost never called, if it's even illegal in the first place. So if a defender can't lower his helmet to hit a player, then an offensive players shouldn't be able to do it either.

Thoughts?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?"
03/22/2013 @ 02:55:08 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 11:24:34 AM
I suppose my issue (and it isn't really an issue) is that you're frustrated because the Packers are seen as this ultra-responsible team because it's assumed that high-profile free agent signing is looked at as being somewhat irresonsible, but then you seem to then assume that the Packers must in fact be acting irresonsibly because they don't sign free agents because they CAN'T. So you're bothered by someone assuming one thing, but then seem to assume the opposite with hypothetical "what ifs" as your reasoning. The question should really be "what do successful teams do that helps them be so successful", and then find patterns that way. While there's nothing inherently irresponible about going after free agents, I do believe there is some evidence to suggest that successful teams that generally don't aren't doing so because they are financially irresponsible, but rather because of a different strategy. Afterall, they must be doing something right.


I wasn't assuming anything about what the Packers are/aren't doing. I just pointed out that the possibility exists. Also, no, it's not true that they "must be" doing something right.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
03/22/2013 @ 03:00:10 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 12:08:17 PM
Here's another subject that I wasn't sure if I should start another blog about it, or just include it here.

Is the reaction to the new rule change about offensive players (mostly running backs) not being able to use the crown of their helmet to inflict a blow to a would be tackler a bit overblown? It seems to me that people might be overreacting. For one thing, the majority of hits inflicted by an Adrien Peterson or other running back that seeks out contact rather than trying to avoid it are perfectly fine, from my understanding. The point is that they don't want a player (any player) to lower their head in such a way that they are now using their helmet (the crown, specifically) to dole out their punishments. It seems to me that it would cover a very small portion of plays, and most of the plays where people seem to think it might cover probably wouldn't be called. It's usually pretty easy to tell if a player is intentionally using his helmet as the tool for hitting or if a player is putting himself in position to absorb or dole out a hit.

Related to this, it seems high time that offensive players are held to the same standard as defensive players, not just in terms of safety, but rather fairness. If a defensive player so much as brushes his hand over the facemask of a ball carrier, it's likely a 15 yard penalty. A ball carrier, however, can, in the event of a stiff-arm, practically drag a defender down by the facemask and it's almost never called, if it's even illegal in the first place. So if a defender can't lower his helmet to hit a player, then an offensive players shouldn't be able to do it either.

Thoughts?


Even if they aren't supposed to call it in certain situations doesn't mean they won't. It will be their new toy. Not to mention one more judgement call on things guys largely can't help, and if doing everything in their power to avoid are trading the small chance of a concussion for a larger chance at other injuries.

They didn't do this because it's obvious. Or a good idea. Or will make the game better. They did it because the lawyers wanted to reduce their liability.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 03/22/2013 3:04:43 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - I believe virtually everything I read.
03/28/2013 @ 01:33:14 PM
 Quote this comment
Vikings are going to unveil new uniforms on 4/25 at their draft party. No word yet on if they're going to be new new, or just a significant enough to contrive an unveiling, change.

Here's to hoping they ditch the 2 tone collar, if not the differently colored collar at all.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 03/28/2013 1:35:03 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
03/28/2013 @ 03:07:57 PM
 Quote this comment
I saw they modified the logo slightly, almost unnoticeable unless someone points it out to you. Personally, I liked the Vikings uniforms before they made the change.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
03/29/2013 @ 02:50:37 PM
 Quote this comment
There are many Vikings fans who hate the new logo, which I really don't get. If they aren't side by side you can barely tell, and I don't know if a lot of uses stuck 110% to the "official" one all the time anyway. I think you saw it used in many place without the "hatching" on the horns, for instance, especially after the horns on the helmets changed. And obviously the slight color change was subject to the medium it was on anyway.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
04/04/2013 @ 11:27:44 AM
 Quote this comment
IMG_0491.JPG
[Click to Enlarge]


I've seen this image leaked.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
04/05/2013 @ 06:03:10 PM
 Quote this comment
That wasn't really a "leak". Just one of many fan things people liked. We've already seen enough to know it wont be that.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
04/05/2013 @ 09:17:37 PM
 Quote this comment
Oh, you're probably right. I saw the "close-up" of the word Vikings right below the collar, which this image doesn't have.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children.
04/08/2013 @ 04:24:17 PM
 Quote this comment
Shade of purple is wrong, and if there are numbers on the shoulders on the new ones they'll be smaller than they are now.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 04/08/2013 4:25:00 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
04/08/2013 @ 04:58:59 PM
 Quote this comment
vikings%20uniform%20mock%20up%20002.jpg

This fan took some liberties with the number and pants "horns" or whatever, but at least in the shade, collar, and immediate area to the left and right of the collar they'll look more like this.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 04/17/2013 3:25:01 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - I believe virtually everything I read.
04/08/2013 @ 05:08:53 PM
 Quote this comment
MKADRza.jpg

Why I said "if there are numbers on the shoulders on the new ones they'll be smaller than they are now"
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings
04/17/2013 @ 02:47:24 PM
 Quote this comment
Clay sticking around for a while.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
04/17/2013 @ 03:24:24 PM
 Quote this comment
Now Rodgers just has to sign his reported deal for infinity dollars.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
flower .jpgPackOne - At the Dollhouse in Ft. Lauderdale.
04/22/2013 @ 05:05:36 PM
 Quote this comment
Packers are 9-7 at best this year. The championship core is gone and never got replaced. You can't rely on rookies to make an impact right away, but Ted insists on it. Perhaps he'll get lucky again, but this team is mildy veiled as rebuilding if you ask me.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - You've got to trust your instinct, and let go of regret
04/24/2013 @ 09:49:22 PM
 Quote this comment
http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/story/_/id/9208257/barry-sanders-wins-madden-25-cover-vote-adrian-peterson-minnesota-vikings

Bwaahaahaa. That makes no sense at all.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it.
04/26/2013 @ 08:12:05 AM
 Quote this comment
When I was actually watching the NFL draft, I was watching the NFL network, not ESPN. I really don't have much to complain about with how the NFL network went about covering things. I didn't get the usual "we are so important" taste in my mouth after having watched ESPN cover anything regarding the NFL.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - On your mark...get set...Terrible!
04/26/2013 @ 09:17:11 AM
 Quote this comment
I'm trying to find ways to make fun the Vikings for their draft day performance, but I can't find the words. Perhaps that's because the word might be "genius".

Upon further review, I may have found something to rip them for: if by your selfish attempt to better your team with a 3rd first round pick you somehow enabled the patriots to come away with 4 miracle game changing players that allow them to dominate another 10 years, you'll never hear the end of it from me. There, how's that?

There's also this gem: attempting to improve the passing game by giving Ponder more receivers is like trying to put lipstick on a pig. Right? RIGHT?

Ok, I can't. If I were a Vikings fan, I'd be pretty satisfied. One, getting 3 first round draft picks. And 2, for doing away with their old uniforms and going back to something a little bit more traditional.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this 2 times, last at 04/26/2013 9:20:36 am
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
04/26/2013 @ 10:40:55 AM
 Quote this comment
I like liked their current old uniforms, but I really like these too on the players, but there is an aspect that annoys me.

Nike, for reasons I find upsetting, switched around the fabric (this wasn't new), but with no more side panels, there's no more mesh anywhere on the replica version. (There is the "sweatbox" that only needs to be there because they need the jersey to breate better than the solid fabric they switched it to for no reason does, and other sections on the real ones.)

It's all solid fabric on the replica versions, and the jerseys themselves are "simpler", which in the end leaves them looking very much like $100 J-Shirts.* Also, since the jerseys are more or less designed to be sleeveless, the replicas move the stripes way down the sleeve (even though Ponder wore a version with sleeves that didn't move the stripes) which means the top stripes' "viking ship effect" is larger, but more importantly, is not really what the actual uniforms do. I'm hoping the more premium versions of the jersey correct this.

* I doubt we're alone in this in the post-nike world, it's probably even the norm, but I don't like it.


Edit: Upon further review, I guess they do have mesh sides on the replicas, but I saw about 200 of them last night and didn't notice that, the dominating look is solid fabric.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 5 times, last at 04/26/2013 11:28:22 am
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Robots don't say 'ye'
04/26/2013 @ 10:45:27 AM
 Quote this comment
http://www.vikings.com/media-vault/photo-gallery/New-Vikings-Uniforms-Close-Up-Images/6668447e-2237-41b8-84d2-51e9b000d9a7#2b87143f-7210-4397-9517-e783d4064b18

vs

http://www.vikingsfanshop.com/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=5730&catID=578

I don't exactly love the "real" version of the "with sleeves" either (https://twitter.com/DaveDuyLe/status/327563224553766914/photo/1) but the replicas should match what they actually are.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 2 times, last at 04/26/2013 11:28:13 am
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - As Seen On The Internet
04/26/2013 @ 11:06:31 AM
 Quote this comment
As for the draft, I won't pretend I know anything about these players, but they got a guy that no one would have batted an eye at going top 3 at 23, and then 2 other value-for-the-spot picks, all at positions of need. Hard to be too upset with that.

As for the "kings ransom" people keep talking about re: the trade, they actually gave up more points wise to move up last year to get Harrison Smith. They gave up only slightly more in points than they got. the 7th was a handful of spots away from undrafted free agency, they have a second 4th, and they obviously got a pick back, so for all intents and purposes they gave their later 3rd and later 4th to move up almost a whole round and get a guy they needed. By getting him in the first round they can sign him to 1 more year on his rookie deal as well.

We could debate if the Vikings are "a player or two away" or not, but 11 guys weren't making this team either. Though there's some merit to the Patriots idea of "get a lot of lottery tickets and you might get lucky" there's also the down side of "yes, but you're just going to cut half of them (or guys you got doing the same thing last year) in 3 months."

They didn't mortgage their future to go up to 6 and grab a WR that has to be Julio Jones like the Falcons did when they went up to get whoever it was when they made that big move. emoticon They swapped points for points, still have plenty of picks left, no future picks gambled, and got a cap friendlier pick to boot.

Edit: People at the draft party weren't all that pleased when they saw what we gave up, but on the other hand they forgot to factor in that we were in the mid twenties in each round again, not the top of the rounds.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 04/26/2013 11:10:34 am
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
04/26/2013 @ 11:50:43 AM
 Quote this comment
I think the Vikings came out very well. 3 first round draft picks without giving up draft picks in future years, while still holding on to a handful of other draft picks this year? That almost sounds like cheating. If anyone is worried about what they gave it, that's just nonsense. One of the main reasons teams accumulate gobs of draft picks is so that they have the ability to make deals like this without mortgaginig their futures. Any player in any round can be a bust, but all things being equal, the Vikings had to be the winner in round 1.

Regarding Floyd, I don't know anything about him either. Some were saying that the reason he may have dropped might have had more to do with the rush of offensive linemen that were falling and teams not wanting to miss out than anything to do with his abilities or pre-draft status. I personally was hoping the Vikings would nab Manti Te'o just to I could make fun of them for it later on.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
04/26/2013 @ 12:00:41 PM
 Quote this comment
Regarding the uniforms, I'm still not a fan of the way the sleevelessness looks, even on the players (and this isn't just the Vikings, I'm pretty sure every team has this design now). I mean, it's not terrible, but it looks awkward, especially on the underside of the players arms. It looks like the jersey was made with no cutouts and the player just had to tear a hole in the side of the jersey from the inside. Maybe it helps with performance, I'm not sure. But I still haven't gotten used to it yet.

As far as the Vikings new uniforms, what I like about them is the simplicity of the color schemes. This might just be my arbitrary personal taste, but I'm not a fan of the jersey designs that have too much going on (think Bills, or last years Vikings, or Seahawks). The Seahawks were probably the best of these three, and they seem so out there that maybe they work. But truly I like the simplicity of the Packers, or Giants, or 49ers (or now the Vikings).

Maybe I'll try to claim that that says something about me as a fan or why that makes my team superior, or something, but I like to think it sends a message that a team doesn't need to sell their image with a flashy, visual design subject to change, but rather with the strong demeanor of a team that makes its identity by those that have come before and those that carry on that legacy from the past. And for what its worth, maybe now I will put the Vikings back in the latter category, since they are sort of returning more to the spirit of uniforms past. {/endsoapbox}
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this 2 times, last at 04/26/2013 12:01:54 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children.
04/26/2013 @ 12:33:24 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 11:50:43 AM
I think the Vikings came out very well. 3 first round draft picks without giving up draft picks in future years, while still holding on to a handful of other draft picks this year? That almost sounds like cheating. If anyone is worried about what they gave it, that's just nonsense. One of the main reasons teams accumulate gobs of draft picks is so that they have the ability to make deals like this without mortgaginig their futures. Any player in any round can be a bust, but all things being equal, the Vikings had to be the winner in round 1.


That's what we kept saying. The only reason to build up this much currency is to spend it, and they still have a 4th rounder like 20 picks higher than their own for trading with the Lions last year falling back a bit in the 5th round, or something like that. Being able to use those deals to move up later is half the reason.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - Ignorance is bliss to those uneducated
04/26/2013 @ 12:53:00 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 11:06:31 AM
They swapped points for points, still have plenty of picks left, no future picks gambled, and got a cap friendlier pick to boot.


I'm not positive about this, but hasn't the rookie pay scale more or less "fixed" the early 1st round pick salary issues?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
04/26/2013 @ 01:15:54 PM
 Quote this comment
I was thinking that too. All rookies sign a 4 year contract now. Teams have the option of of optioning for a fifth year for their first round picks (which they can decide on after the 3rd year). I'm not sure what Jeremy meant by "crap friendly pick", since they are going to have to pay all their first rounders like first rounders. Explain yourself.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
04/26/2013 @ 02:52:28 PM
 Quote this comment
The pay scale between pick 29 early 2nd probably isn't much different, but they can pay them slave wages for 5 years instead of only 4.

They'll have to pay Patterson more than whomever they picked at their normal second round slot, but they can pay him rookie money for one year longer than whomever they would have gotten in the 2nd round. So, if both of those guys went on to be stars, one of them is going to get his big pay day a year earlier.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 04/26/2013 2:54:39 pm
matt.jpgMatt - Ombudsman
04/26/2013 @ 02:55:18 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:33:24 PM
That's what we kept saying. The only reason to build up this much currency is to spend it, and they still have a 4th rounder like 20 picks higher than their own for trading with the Lions last year falling back a bit in the 5th round, or something like that. Being able to use those deals to move up later is half the reason.


The Lions' fourth rounder (#102) was what they traded. The Vikings kept their own 4th (#120).
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
04/26/2013 @ 02:57:50 PM
 Quote this comment
http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2013/4/25/4268340/2013-nfl-draft-minnesota-vikings-trade-up-cordarrelle-patterson

Also they clarified at the draft party. But they could have been wrong too.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - Ombudsman
04/26/2013 @ 03:11:57 PM
 Quote this comment
ESPN and NFL.com both have the Patriots with the earlier 4th rounder (#102) on their draft trackers.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
04/26/2013 @ 03:25:14 PM
 Quote this comment
Hmm. Well, either way. They either have the better pick, or only gave up the extra pick. emoticon
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
04/26/2013 @ 05:24:31 PM
 Quote this comment
Speaking of infinity dollars, Rodgers cap hit never exceeds $21 million for the duration of the deal. Flacco's deal includes a year of $28+ million and a year of $31+ million.

I can't confirm the rumors that the contract includes a rider for how to handle his transition to the Vikings after his contract expires.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this 2 times, last at 04/26/2013 5:26:43 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!?
04/29/2013 @ 01:31:54 PM
 Quote this comment
Here's one last angle on the whole "giving up the farm" for the extra #1 pick criticism:

Let's say, at the last second, the Patriots pulled out and drafted a guy at that pick. Would they have been criticized for "spending too much" on that guy? Cause really, isn't this the same thing? Does "the picks in hand" really change the situation that much?

Furthermore, assuming you can find a trade partner, by that reasoning, isn't EVER actually spending a first round pick then also irresponsible? Whoever picked just before the Pats might have even been able to do this, or even better. For the Vikings, was trading up to 29 really more "irresponsible" than actually spending #25 instead of trading down?*

* Edit: Or, at the very least, if using the pick value chart to move up into the end of round 1 is ill advised "putting all the eggs in one basket" then shouldn't it be equally ill advised to ever spend an end of round one pick without at least trying to shop it around? If that's the "going rate" for those picks, then everyone is spending it.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 3 times, last at 04/29/2013 2:20:39 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
04/29/2013 @ 02:26:31 PM
 Quote this comment
That seems like a strange point to make, even it on some level it makes sense. So we're talking buyers and sellers, but then again, just because someone is buying and someone sells doesn't mean that the buyer didn't spend too much compared to the profit to be made/lost by the seller. In other words, the Patriots had the pick, and the Vikings made them an extremely generous offer. The suggestion would then be that the Patriots had an offer for 4 other draft picks if they gave up that pick. If some guy offers me $5,000 for my car when I assume it's only worth $4,000, I might be foolish for passing up that offer (I'm going to assume that the buyer (the vikings) had to have given a little more than the pick was worth otherwise why would the Patriots make the deal?). On the other hand, I'm not the one making the offer. Maybe my assessment of the value is slightly different than the person making the trade. Also, the Patriots DIDN'T reject the offer, so it's sort of moot; perhaps they made the deal because they thought it was a crazy awesome offer.

To your question of whether it's irresponsible to EVER use your 1st round pick in light of this situation, it isn't everyday that a team offers another team 4 draft picks for one pick. One thing I read about this draft is that the difference in the level of talent between the 20th ranked player and the 60th or so ranked player wasn't that great; it was a little more level than usual. So to that, the Patriots may have realized the potential of getting more 2nd rounders in addition to all the other picks and that they weren't giving up much with their first round pick in order to get an addtional 2nd round pick.

In a vacuum, you might be right. Some of the analysis I read about this draft (before the draft), however, suggests that in this particular case the Vikings may have spent more than they needed to or should have for the pick, since they could have gotten equivalent value staying put in the second round; that is unless they were targeting this receiver specifically, then their thinking might be analyzed differently and rightfully so. That being said, it's hard to argue that they sold the farm either. The consensus seemed to suggest that this was a somewhat mediocre draft in terms of talent. At certain point, take what you can get, I guess. It takes 3 or 4 years to really determine how successful any given draft is/was anyway.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this 4 times, last at 04/29/2013 2:30:59 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
04/29/2013 @ 02:45:56 PM
 Quote this comment
Basically I think what I'm seeing about people expressing the Vikings move as at least risky is that they spent those picks and then drafted a guy that , as one writer put it, "generated plenty of divergent viewpoints during the pre-draft evaluation process."* The concept itself might not be crazy, but the guy they drafted might have been a risky pick to give up what they did to get him. I haven't seen anyone who is making the claim that universally it was a dumb move to trade 4 picks for a late first round pick (frankly, I thought it was genius at the time), but that given some of the specifics about the move, it can be justifiably classified as "risky".

Edit: but the fact that Vikings still ended up with 9 draft picks should lend itself to the "risk" being somewhat minimal. They didn't give up THAT much to move into pick #29. The wisdom of how they used that pick is probably a separate debate, one to which I'm probably not smart enough to contribute.

*In other words, they spent a decent amount on a guy that had no clear consensus. Maybe the Vikings thought otherwise.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this 5 times, last at 04/29/2013 3:07:29 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
04/29/2013 @ 03:07:20 PM
 Quote this comment
First off, I think we're implying some level of unprecedented-ness here that isn't the case. Seems to me this is a pretty mundane draft trade.

But, like I said, the Vikings gave this up for #29, so they obviously would have traded this for 1-28. Didn't the Broncos, at least thought experiment wise, spend 4 picks for their guy at #28?

Also, I'm really not even getting to who they picked, he might be worth #29, or not, that's kind of irrelevant to this point.

1) There is a pick point system, and it was fairly even. So, if this was in any way lopsided, the the point system needs adjusting. If you're setting prices on antiques, and a clock is widely accepted as being worth $500, and 4 other things total up to a widely agreed value of $510, and two collectors swap those items, and those same people who set the values look at that trade and think one side or the other got fleeced, then that's a pretty good indicator their values are wrong.

2) If what you have is redeemable for x, then, on some level, you're spending x. As far as I'm concerned you can't be any more critical to the Vikings for trading up than you are of any of the teams before that for not trading down. It would be a little like getting concert tickets for $20, then laughing at all the suckers spending $500 on stubhub for similar sections to yours. In a lot of ways you're spending $500 to go to the concert too

Edit: And no shit the Patriots went through with the offer, but, hypothetically, if they pulled out and spent pick #29 on a player, how do you think that would that be viewed?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 2 times, last at 04/29/2013 3:09:27 pm
scott.jpgScott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it.
04/29/2013 @ 03:15:10 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 03:07:20 PM
Also, I'm really not even getting to who they picked, he might be worth #29, or not, that's kind of irrelevant to this point.


The reason I think it is at least a little bit relevant is because the writers that are raising questions about it aren't simply questioning the trade, but rather the trade and then the results of the trade. I'm not going to make any comment about whether the guy was worthy or not. But I haven't seen too much regarding this being dumb or not soley based on the initial trade of 1 pick for 4 aspect of it. Have you? Or I should say, can you post some of the links? Or is this just coming from message boards and fans kneejerk reaction and whatnot?

Also, this is the first time in over 10 years a team has had 3 first rounders. So at least from one angle there is some level of unprecedented-ness

Also, did the Broncos trade for the number 28 pick? I don't see mention of it on NFL.com's draft tracker.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this 3 times, last at 04/29/2013 3:18:26 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist
04/29/2013 @ 03:30:59 PM
 Quote this comment
No, the Broncos didn't trade for #28. They didn't TRADE number #28 either, and obviously there was this "massive payday" out there for them, so, isn't not getting 4 picks* that were sitting out there, and actually spending #28, at least conceptually, almost just as risky/eggs-in-one-baskety/etc as using those to move up to #29?

*Probably important to remember too that one of the 4 picks was a late 7th rounder a handful of guys before undrafted free agency**

**Which the Vikings got back later.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 5 times, last at 04/29/2013 3:42:05 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
04/30/2013 @ 08:24:01 AM
 Quote this comment
For what it's worth, the Broncos had one pick in each round. Maybe they really wanted sly williams. Maybe they didn't see the value the same as the patriots did. To some degree, it isn't the same deal for every team, the same way that me paying $20 for a concert isn't really like paying $500 just because everyone else was paying $500. If I really want to see the concert, and I found tickets for $20, the fact that didn't up and sell those tickets for $500 doesn't mean that I'm really out $500. Because I never had that money to begin with (so money in hand is somewhat important, otherwise that's where greed rears it's ugly head), and I would have missed out on the concert if I did (maybe I brought my son who really really really wanted to see the concert and I would have had to explain to him that even though we only forked over $20, we could have made $500 and then he could buy something else, but not see the thing he really really wanted to see that didn't cost hardly anything in the first place). Frankly, that would be a somewhat depressing way to live life, always thinking that you could have had more than you got (I'm not sure if this applies to the draft anymore, or maybe i'm classically taking the analogy too far).

But on another angle, this was a largely uneventful draft with no big names, no hyped stars, no Lebron Jameses or Andrew Lucks. Heck, two offensive linemen were selected 1-2. The Vikings made the biggest trade on a nationally televised draft that separated its first round from the rest of the rounds, and then talking heads have 4 hours during the broadcasts to overanalyze everything, and writers have all weekend to assign winners and losers. It's no surprise that the Vikings, having made the biggest deal on the first night, would be the story that people are analyzing. There wasn't much else to talk about with this draft! Besides, Mel Kiper and a bunch of other draft graders gave the Vikings a B on the draft; NFL.com gave them an A*. So clearly no one is being too hard on the Vikings.

Are people really hitting the Vikings that hard for their draft? Because I'm really not seeing it, at least not too much. Or is it just some fans?

*http://fanballot.nfl.com/ This is the fan ballot. I'm not sure this is a good indicator, seeing that the Vikings got a B in the 2nd and 3rd rounds, even though they didn't make a selection in either of those rounds.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this 3 times, last at 04/30/2013 8:28:52 am
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - Nutcan.com's MBL
04/30/2013 @ 06:45:36 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 08:24:01 AM
the same way that me paying $20 for a concert isn't really like paying $500 just because everyone else was paying $500. If I really want to see the concert, and I found tickets for $20, the fact that didn't up and sell those tickets for $500 doesn't mean that I'm really out $500. Because I never had that money to begin with


You're sort of right, and sort of wrong here. You are, essentially, out the $500 (see: opportunity cost), which is fine, because, at that point, you value the concert more than an additional $500.

But you're right that it isn't the same situation as just paying out $500 for the concert in the first place. Let's say you budget $200 for entertainment per month. Even if you really wanted to go to the concert, it might not be worth it to use up 2.5 months of your budget for one thing. But, if you found tickets for $20, you can go to the concert and still have almost all of your budget for the next few months. It's therefore easier to forgo that extra $500 because, it really is extra money that you don't have to take out of your budget. In other words, even if you value the concert that same in each situation, the true costs in each situation are different enough to where you might make a different choice in each case. /economics

Now, to tie this to the draft. There are opportunity costs in trading up, trading down, and even staying put. Since teams value players and draft picks differently, and have different starting situations, different teams will do different things in similar situations. In the end it all comes down to who is best at evaluating talent, and therefore, who has calculated the costs and benefits of each decision more accurately. We can take educated guesses at what was right or wrong, but we can't know for sure, at least for awhile.

Now, dealing with the Vikings specifically, coming into the draft they had 4 main needs that most outsiders agreed upon. In no particular order, they needed a WR, a DT, a CB and a MLB. From what I've read, the Vikings arrange their draft board into tiers of players (Tier I, Tier II, etc.). Apparently, the Vikings had only one guy listed as a Tier I prospect (not sure who it was). For the Tier II players (who are considered difference makers), the Vikings had DT Shariff Floyd, CB Xavier Rhodes, and WR Cordarelle Patterson, among others (Tavon Austin was the only other WR in Tier II, and was already off the board). They apparently did not have any MLB prospects in Tier II. So the Vikings were able to fill 3 out of their 4 biggest needs with players from the top of their board. Yeah, trading up to get Patterson meant that they lessened their ability to fill their need at MLB, but if they didn't feel there were any difference makers at MLB this year, I'm more than fine with them going after the last difference maker available at a position of need. Especially since Rick Spielman has done a pretty good job lately at getting players through the draft, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on his ability to evaluate talent.

One more thing, if you haven't seen this highlight reel of Cordarelle Patterson, you should take a look.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjxkQXlCAfE
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i
05/03/2013 @ 09:10:36 AM
 Quote this comment
My fav thing about his highlight reels is that there is a reverse or 2 where he was clearly looking to pass, and didn't. I suppose it could mean he's a ball hog, but it seems that all to often when non qb's get the green light to throw a pass they throw a pass, regardless of what is/isn't open.

The thing I don't like about them, and maybe this is just their offense, is that he's almost never hauling in anything down the field behind anyone.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
05/03/2013 @ 09:37:11 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 09:10:36 AM

The thing I don't like about them, and maybe this is just their offense, is that he's almost never hauling in anything down the field behind anyone.


Doesn't this make him a perfect fit for the Vikings offense? emoticon
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
05/03/2013 @ 09:48:17 AM
 Quote this comment
It will change once Simpson gets back.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
matt.jpgMatt - Ombudsman
05/03/2013 @ 05:53:15 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 09:10:36 AM
The thing I don't like about them, and maybe this is just their offense, is that he's almost never hauling in anything down the field behind anyone.


Yeah, I think a one part of that could be that the Vols had a good WR named Justin Hunter (highlights) as well. Hunter (who was drafted by the Titans with the 2nd pick of the 2nd round), seems to be a prototypical outside receiver, able to run the vertical/deep routes. While Patterson also has the size and speed to play that role, he's also very raw and inexperienced. I'm assuming that the more polished and experienced Hunter, got most of the deep routes last year for the Vols, while they used Patterson in the "get him the ball and let him make his own play" role that the Vikings will probably use him in, at least until he becomes more a more polished route runner.

Not that he won't get some looks down field with the Vikings. With Jennings and Peterson and Rudolph all on the field with him, I assume he'll be able to get behind the defense at times, all the while, making things happen in the return game and with the manufactured touches similar to what Harvin got the past few years.

Some of the other receivers could have helped a little more in the deep game, this year, which the Vikings desperately need. None of them, however, have the skills and ceiling of Patterson, and that's the risk the Vikings took with him. I'm hoping they made the right move, and that they have a good plan on how to use his abilities in ways to help now, while still molding him into an elite vertical WR for the future.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Matt edited this at 05/03/2013 5:55:05 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i
05/06/2013 @ 11:12:56 AM
 Quote this comment
Reddit held a big ongoing "if you had to pick a team to root for" tournament, and the Vikings won. So, there's that. We did it.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
avatar2345.jpgPackOne - Well use me, use me, 'caus you ain't that average groupie.
05/09/2013 @ 06:57:11 AM
 Quote this comment
Change the thread name to: Vikings Talk 2013.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - On your mark...get set...Terrible!
07/19/2013 @ 09:34:52 AM
 Quote this comment
The Packers now have the 3rd largest stadium in the NFL. And I'm (or my wife is) that much closer to having our name called for season tickets. It's like I can already taste them!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Super Chocolate Bear
07/19/2013 @ 10:55:50 AM
 Quote this comment
PackOne Wrote - 04/22/2013 @ 05:05:36 PM
Packers are 9-7 at best this year. The championship core is gone and never got replaced. You can't rely on rookies to make an impact right away, but Ted insists on it. Perhaps he'll get lucky again, but this team is mildy veiled as rebuilding if you ask me.


PackOne Wrote - 05/09/2013 @ 06:57:11 AM
Change the thread name to: Vikings Talk 2013.


I see that this comment got mostly buried by uniform/draft talk. I think it would be fair to conclude that their window is, at the very least, starting to close, with finally having to pony up some monster dough to your stars. Also the NFC North could very well be the best division in football. I also think most power rankings have the Packers ranked absurdly high. ESPN has them at 5, with the Vikings at #17. I mostly understand the Vikings still being viewed as a middle of the road team, or at the very least an "untrusted" team, and there's not too many specific points of argument there. The Rams are the only real "what? really?" just ahead of them. the Colts as a top 10 team might be overly generous, but I don't think you could argue them down 7 spots. However, the Packers at #5? Please. The Vikings and Packers were separated by one game last year. The Vikings wouldn't have even needed week 17 to win the North last year if it wasn't for the Packers' winning in Lambeau on Ponders' worst game as a pro, and a complete boning on a nullified INT. That doesn't seem like it should be 12 slots worth of difference when things seem to point to one team on the downswing (to whatever degree) and one on the "window opening" side.*

All that said, 9-7 "at best" is probably overly harsh. They're still the team to beat in the NFC North until someone proves otherwise, and the NFC North could have 3 teams in the running for the playoffs, and our "bad" team is more inexplicably bad these days than bad bad. Would the Lions going 9-7 this year really be that crazy? Where as a lot of divisions have a team that's just bad bad. (Of course we could look collectively worse by all beating up on each other.) I'd still consider 11-5 their jumping off point.

*My other problem with that ranking is that if the Vikings didn't move from pre draft to post draft, no one should have. They had 3 number one picks at positions of need. The Packers move up a spot among the already elite teams because of a late second pick where, even if he does well enough, you're out the opportunity cost of the ball in Rodgers' hands on every increased running attempt. Conversely 3 number one picks, one of whom could have gone #3 overall with no one batting an eye, isn't enough to leapfrog the Rams, whom the Vikings beat the crap out of just last year?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 7 times, last at 07/19/2013 2:22:27 pm
2887.gifAlex - But let history remember, that as free men, we chose to make it so!
07/19/2013 @ 06:03:34 PM
 Quote this comment
Power rankings this time of year seems dumb anyway (Eagles last year?), but Rams over Vikings seems dumber. I'm not even going to click on the link to see how that's explained.

I don't feel the Packers did enough to improve the defense to be ranked quite that high. But actual running backs should improve the offense without necessarily increasing the number of running attempts. If they can get from 3.9 YPC to 4.3 YPC I'm assuming that's a few extra first downs, a few less nickel/dime packages, and a few more points on the board or at least TOP to keep the defense off the field.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
07/19/2013 @ 09:14:40 PM
 Quote this comment
I mean, I know they're meaningless in the grand scheme of things, but they speak to where the media perceives the teams. They have the Ravens at 8 because they've lost players, but there seems to be no amount of players/change that will effect their perception of the Packers as an elite team.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - You've got to trust your instinct, and let go of regret
07/22/2013 @ 01:06:44 PM
 Quote this comment
Probably a conspiracy to drive them up for gambling purposes as they're a team that consistently gets over valued by the public.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it.
07/23/2013 @ 09:55:21 AM
 Quote this comment
Having a top ranked QB will boost any team's standing with analysts. I think that's where it comes from. People tend to think that having a weak defense can be overcome by an elite QB. Heck, the Packers went 15-1 with the worst defense in the history of the league 2 years ago. I don't think it's as big of a media endictment as Jeremy is making it out to be, but it's still probably a rosier than necessary picture. Or is it?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
07/26/2013 @ 10:52:50 AM
 Quote this comment
When Gregg Jennings went to the Vikings, I thought to my self, "the Vikings are getting one of the NFL's all around good guys." I still think that for the most part, but he seems to be showing a side that he never showed while playing for the Packers. He mentioned on First Take last week that part of the reason he wanted to leave Green Bay was because the receiver talent in Green Bay was essentially reducing his role to that of "one of the guys". In reality, they had 4 guys who were pretty much equals last year in terms of talent. Jennings felt that he wanted to "be the guy", which meant going to a different team. I don't really have a problem with that at all. He's already won a Super Bowl, and now he wants to see if he can be known as a good receiver on his own, without having an elite QB to be given the credit. What also seems to be coming out, though, is an apparent unknown rift with Rodgers. He has made some comments that make it seem that he didn't like Rodgers' leadership, or that he thought Rodgers' abilities were masked by having good receivers around him. While that might all have some truth to it, who actually says that? Even McCarthy was asked about Jennings' comments yesterday, and basically avoided the question with a jab "when guys put that purple on, something happens to them." It'll be interesting to see if any of this plays out as the season approaches. But the things I liked about Jennings as a Packer seem to be getting overshadowed a little bit by some of the almost bridge burning comments he's been making lately. If anything, he's giving a guy (Rodgers) who will take even the slightest jab and turn that into motivation plenty of material with which to brew up some shoulder chips.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i
07/27/2013 @ 01:44:48 PM
 Quote this comment
I got the impression that he got annoyed by the fact that Rodgers gets 125% of the credit for the passing game, and has gotten so much praise that now he's treated as (or worse, considers himself) unassailable.

I'm a bit surprised Jennings is saying it, as opposed to canned-athlete-answers, but both of those things seem pretty obvious/reasonable feelings if one was in that situation, and it's also seems reasonable to conclude that is indeed the reality of the situation.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 07/27/2013 1:54:19 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
07/27/2013 @ 03:12:01 PM
 Quote this comment
In my opinion, Jennings comes off as a cry baby, and that's a lot coming me who never speaks ill against players with Wisconsin ties. Apparently Fraizer is going to have a talk with Jennings about his comments, basically to put an end to it. When asked which qb he liked better once, Driver said he liked both, but Rodgers got him a Super Bowl, so he liked him better. I don't know what to read of the whole situation. It's nothing new that qbs get all the credit. I think Jennings wanted to go somewhere where they had a nobody at qb to show what he is capable of. Minnesota was indeed a good fit for him. As positive of a guy as he always seemed to be, I almost wonder now that his true feelings are out if he would have become a distraction in the packers lockerroom or on the field ha he stayed on in a role of just being one of the equally talented and targeted receivers. We'll never know.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this at 07/27/2013 3:13:38 pm
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - Ombudsman
07/27/2013 @ 05:02:31 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 03:12:01 PM
As positive of a guy as he always seemed to be, I almost wonder now that his true feelings are out if he would have become a distraction in the packers lockerroom or on the field ha he stayed on in a role of just being one of the equally talented and targeted receivers. We'll never know.


Of course, if what Jennings said is true, then wouldn't Rodgers be a bit of a locker room distraction?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
07/29/2013 @ 08:46:58 AM
 Quote this comment
Well, if he is, he's the least distracting disctraction in the history of distractions. It's also worth noting the high road Rodgers took address questions about the matter on the first day of camp. If Rodgers was a locker room distraction, he more likely would have stood his ground and called Jennings out in an effort to defend his own reputation. But he didn't. He did everything he could to avoid this becoming a distraction, and it makes Jennings comments seem all the more petty. It almost seems like he is trying to get a reaction, which is probably why even the Vikings head coach decided it was time to tell his new receiver to knock it off.

Even James Jones, who referred to Jennings as "still my dog", said "But the comments he made were not cool at all." Jones more or less played the comments down.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this 3 times, last at 07/29/2013 9:08:50 am
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
07/29/2013 @ 09:05:06 AM
 Quote this comment
Here's the initial Greg Jennings interview

From the sounds of it, he isn't even that upset with Rodgers, except that he basically focuses his frustration on Rodgers. But also, I think his perceptions are just flatout wrong about how the team is perceived even in Green Bay.

If Jennings hadn’t tired of Rod­gers specifically, he certainly had his fill of the environment in Green Bay, wondering if the ubiquitous Rodgers lovefest had created a narrative that de-emphasized the strength of the group. This isn't a quote from jennings, but something the writer surmised. Basically, I don't think this is accurate at all, at least not within the "environment in Green Bay", as least not as far as the local fans are concerned. While Packer fans are no dummies and realize that having an elite quarterback is the biggest piece of a championship puzzle, most of us have for a long time now loved to brag about how great of a receiving corps we have. In my opinion, nobody in Green Bay looks at Donald Driver and says "he's lucky he had 2 great QBs otherwise he would have been a bum". No, in fact it is quite the opposite. Endear yourself to the fans, and the fans will endear themselves to you. Based on some of this, Jennings frustration with Green Bay and his subsequent explanation seems a little misguided, unless his only motiviation was simply to prove something to HIMSELF. As far as the Packers and the fans were concerned, in my opinion, he had nothing to prove.

Look, I still like Jennings, and I have no anomosity towards him. I just see his comments about his former team being not much more than a player lamenting a team that might be moving on, and then forming those lamentations into a diatribe of child-like, somewhat unfounded (even if there might be a shred of truth to the whole thing) finger pointing.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this 2 times, last at 07/29/2013 9:10:17 am
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - I hate our freedoms
07/29/2013 @ 12:16:57 PM
 Quote this comment
I don't know about that. They're the Green Bay Aaron Rodgers' to virtually the entire media, and probably 90% of the NFL fanbase.

If you actually read Jennings' comments it's really not even clear to what extent he even thinks it's anyone's "fault", vs what just is. Being a bit player in the Aaron Rodgers show could get old, even if Rodgers isn't doing anything to foster it.

Though you could point out Rodgers does little to squelch it either. Even now, with his "high road" response, wouldn't that be the perfect time to say something like "Obviously I know I've been blessed with a great receiving corps. You can't have passing without receiving." If you wanted to be cynical you could point out that even when addressing the fact that he's (at least supposedly) been accused of keeping the spotlight on himself too much, he kept the spotlight on himself.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
07/29/2013 @ 01:29:27 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:16:57 PM

Though you could point out Rodgers does little to squelch it either. Even now, with his "high road" response, wouldn't that be the perfect time to say something like "Obviously I know I've been blessed with a great receiving corps. You can't have passing without receiving." If you wanted to be cynical you could point out that even when addressing the fact that he's (at least supposedly) been accused of keeping the spotlight on himself too much, he kept the spotlight on himself.


All a response like that would do is keep the story going, and encourage reporters to continue asking questions to Rodgers and other members of the receiving corps and other players. And especially since the source of the story is coming from someone who isn't a Packer, anymore, and thus can make such comments without the need to address the targets of his accusations, the best thing is to basically ignore it. Rodgers was asked about it, so he has to answer it, but he answered it in such a way as to not add fuel to the fire. Basically, he chose not to respond, and so essentially (and hopefully), killed the story. Even Mike McCarthy answered basically the same way. As head coach, he maybe has a little more of a dipliomatic role, he chose to say "greg is and was a great player", but joked that putting on the purple makes people crazy.

They are not the Green Bay Rodgers' in Wisconsin. They might be moreso outside of the fanbase (no moreso than the Patriots are the New England Bradys, or the colts were the Indianapolis Mannings. But I also don't really agree with that either; the Packers receiving corps has been recognized for several years now as being the best in the NFL by pretty much everyone), but who the heck cares? Driver didn't seem to care, and Jennings would probably have surpassed Driver statistically had he stayed in Green Bay. Maybe Jennings did care, and perhaps that's ok, but if his goal was to burn bridges on his way out, objective achieved. It's like he's upset that he played with a good quarterback. And it's not like he doesn't get any credit. He's been to 2 pro bowls, so he's obviously been recongnized league wide as an elite receiver. (Rodgers has only been to one more pro bowl that Jennings, for comparison)

Like I mentioned before, if Jennings wanted to go somewhere to make a name for himself where people can't credit an elite QB for the success of Greg Jennings, then fine, I have no problem with that. But at least wait until you're retired (or at least until you've played a game with your new team) before you start talking ill about a former QB whom you've received 72% of your touchdown passes, 75% of your yards, etc, and thus, helped make you the beneficiary of a multi-year, multi-million dollar contract. I think Jennings may have done more long term damage to his reputation and endearment among Packer fans than even Favre may have done (afterall, Green Bay Fans are slowly re-endearing themselves with the former gunslinger). When you have a coach of a rival team telling his own player to shut up about his former team, that isn't a recipe for a whole lot of goodwill from the former fans.

Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:16:57 PM

If you actually read Jennings' comments it's really not even clear to what extent he even thinks it's anyone's "fault", vs what just is. Being a bit player in the Aaron Rodgers show could get old, even if Rodgers isn't doing anything to foster it


“A lot of times when you have a guy who creates that spotlight for himself and establishes that and takes a lot of that, it becomes so-and-so and the team,” he said.

It seems to me like Jennings thinks Aaron Rodgers created Aaron Rodgers.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this 2 times, last at 07/29/2013 1:49:13 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
07/29/2013 @ 01:56:31 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 01:29:27 PM
the Packers receiving corps has been recognized for several years now as being the best in the NFL by pretty much everyone


What else are the voices telling you?

I'm not sure I would qualify 4 paragraphs worth of response to it any kind of ignoring it.

Maybe Jennings is in a situation where he felt he can finally say something a lot of people had been feeling privately. He had also made comments alluding to the fact that everyone felt like they were "walking on eggshells" in the GB locker room.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
07/29/2013 @ 02:10:56 PM
 Quote this comment
Up until this offseason, is there a better receiving corps in the league? Or if they're not "the best" they're at least "one of the best."

As far as the 4 paragraphs worth of ignoring it, are you talking about me? Because I don't think Aaron Rodgers has to answer for comments made from a fan on a hardly read sports blog site. (besides, it's been a slow news offseason, and we need something to spice up this site a little bit). *

Like I mentioned, there might be some truth to it (the "egg shells" comment was apparently more about the managerial philosophy--aka, McCarthy's way of doing things; something McCarthy has already addressed with some positive responses this season--than it was about player leadership; winning a Super Bowl must really make people uptight). But like I also said, wait until you're a) retired, or b) have played at least one game with your new team before trashing the guy that helped make you who you are as a player, especially if you have to face that team twice a year. The diplomacy of Greg Jennings is apparently not a well-honed skill.

*edit: Rodgers response was 8 sentences long
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this 6 times, last at 07/29/2013 2:30:12 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
07/29/2013 @ 02:36:36 PM
 Quote this comment
Atlanta? The Giants? Megatron and anyone else that's ambulatory with two hands? The Cowboys?

I mean, I'll "allow" "one of the best" but that's a far cry from "has been recognized for several years now as being the best in the NFL by pretty much everyone" emoticon

I meant that Rodgers' "non response" was 4 paragraphs of that "high road" article, and that's even assuming that was all of it. I wouldn't exactly call that ignoring it. Ignoring it is "next question please" emoticon

I'm not sure how either of those conditions makes it better. If he waits until he's retired, then he didn't "do" anything. As it stands this is subtle yet not so subtle way for him to say "Hey, Aaron, maybe throw your receiving corp a shoutout once in a blue moon.", or, "take stock of your relationships there". If he waits for retirement he no longer has any knowledge of the situation in the locker room, and it would be sandbagging for the sake of it at that point. Maybe it is indeed 90% sour grapes, but good can come of it for his friends/recently-ex-teammates if there's any truth at all. It's like any relationship, even if you know the person appreciates you, you'd like to hear them say it once a decade. Especially if virtually every single person outside the group is heaping 98% of the credit on one person. (Even if we all know it's true.)

Could you elaborate on your feelings as to why "playing a game" with the Vikings first would change things?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 2 times, last at 07/29/2013 2:44:35 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
07/29/2013 @ 02:46:13 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 02:36:36 PM
Atlanta? The Giants? Megatron and anyone else that's ambulatory with two hands? The Cowboys?

I mean, I'll "allow" "one of the best" but that's a far cry from "has been recognized for several years now as being the best in the NFL by pretty much everyone"


I put links to three straight years from one site ranking the Packers receivers 2nd, 7th, and 3rd. So my superlative of "best" maybe was high, but my "several years" qualifier was right on. (the "7th" year was the year the Packers nearly set an NFL record for offensive production)

Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 02:36:36 PM

Could you elaborate on your feelings as to why "playing a game" with the Vikings first would change things?

His reason for leaving had a large part to do with trying to prove that's he's good without having "you've got a good qb behind you." If that's true, I would think you'd want to wait until you actually proved that a little bit before burning the bridge with your former team. Maybe he isn't that good. I happen to think that he is and that he could make most quarterbacks look like pro bowlers, but it would sound less like sour grapes and more like "this is why I left" if he actually had some post-team success behind him.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this at 07/29/2013 2:49:59 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
07/29/2013 @ 02:49:08 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, Rodgers had to "respond", but he responded by stating in a somewhat lenghty if not just unwell spoken way of explaining his non-response. He was never like "i'm taking the high road", which is usually code for "I'm not taking the high road". He just took a long time to say he wasn't going to respond, along expressing his commitment to concern himself with matters involving his own team.

Ultimately, good reasons or not, Jennings has hurt his standing with Packer fans. And when you have to dive head long into the comments to figure out if he ISN'T talking smack, then the fans are fairly justified in thinking that he meant it the way they took it. That's basically all I'm saying.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this at 07/29/2013 2:52:03 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - I hate our freedoms
07/29/2013 @ 03:10:17 PM
 Quote this comment
I only called it "that 'high road' article" because that's how you linked it.

I'm not really sure there's much that can prove anything by way of this whole thing. Speak to, maybe, but he's not really right or wrong based on what happens now. Aaron does a poor job sharing/deflecting credit, which his teammates have taken notice of (or he thinks of himself as or is treated as "his shit doesn't stink" in any dispute), or that's not true, independent of if Jennings can "prove" he can "do it alone".

Besides which, if he succeeds here, maybe Ponder or the rest of the team jelled. I'm not sure why we're at the point where we've decided Ponder can't be a good/great QB. The Vikings won 7 more games last year than the year before, Ponder was one of the most efficient qbs in the league for 8 of the games. Like any young QB he was inconsistent and had some of the worst games in the other 4, but I'm not sure why that's all anyone remembers. And he did half of that with one of the games' best, and the teams only real, WR on the sidelines. He's basically a dead average QB right now....but I'm not really sure why that's a bad thing. Where should he be? Top 5 in first season as the starter on a 3-13 team, or time to cut bait?

People are anointing guys like Tannehill a the "real deal" up and comer, and writing Ponder off, despite the fact that if you, you know, look at how they did, Ponder was unarguably better, probably with less. (Granted with 1 more year of service and a few "tossed to the wolves" type starts under his belt.) Cutler seems to get endlessly held up as a guy who just needs a couple more tweaks to his situation, but Ponder had a better QBR than and essentially equal rating to Cutler last year, and Cutler can just chuck it anywhere near Brandon Marshall 2-3 times a game.

Edit: As for his "standing with Packer fans" considering 90% of my facebook feed declared things like "You're dead to me, I hope you get hit by a bus." I'm not sure he's terribly worried there.

Edit Edit: Not to mention, he didn't really "choose" the Vikings over the Packers in any real sense. He might have chosen them over some teams, and there might have been some number the Packers would keep him at, but for the most part he's not a Packer because they couldn't afford him. He can rationalize all he wants about "wanting to prove this/that" with the QBs (and maybe he DOES want to prove that) but that's not really the "why" in any of this.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 8 times, last at 07/29/2013 4:09:23 pm
2887.gifAlex - 3618 Posts
07/29/2013 @ 08:35:52 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 03:10:17 PM
Cutler seems to get endlessly held up as a guy who just needs a couple more tweaks to his situation, but Ponder had a better QBR than and essentially equal rating to Cutler last year, and Cutler can just chuck it anywhere near Brandon Marshall 2-3 times a game.


Hey, I'm looking forward to 5 more INTs a year from Cutler to the Packers for a long time to come. Stop giving the Bear's management ideas.

Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 03:10:17 PM
I'm not sure why we're at the point where we've decided Ponder can't be a good/great QB.


Because Jaws says so

27. Christian Ponder
Previous: 23

I was encouraged by the improvement I saw last season from Ponder and I think he starts 2013 on the upswing. While his mobility allows him to make plays with his legs, he can still improve as a pocket passer. And even with Adrian Peterson, Ponder was not efficient off play-action. To me, the key is timing. He's just a hair late on some throws, leaving the ball into coverage rather than the open window. I'd like to see him be more effective with the deep ball, which would open up the field for Peterson. Last season, he had only 28 completions of 20 yards or more -– by far the fewest of any 16-game starter. He has the arm strength to do better.

Cutler was ranked 14th btw, bwwaaahaaaha.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Super Chocolate Bear
07/31/2013 @ 12:34:26 AM
 Quote this comment
It might be chicken and egg on the deep balls, but the Vikings also attempt like 1 every other game. Ponder can't complete passes he isn't asked to make.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 07/31/2013 12:34:53 am
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
07/31/2013 @ 08:16:52 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:34:26 AM
It might be chicken and egg...


They don't ask him to make throws they know he can't make?

Here's a comparison of 3 NFC North QBs on balls thrown that travel more than 20 yards.
Ponder: 7-34 for 21%
Cutler: 19-65 for 29%
Rodgers: 21-54 for 39% (as an additional line of comparison, in 2011, Rodgers was 30-57 for 53%)

So while Ponder clearly throws fewer long balls and so can't complete passes he isn't asked to make, his percentage on balls he does throw over 20 yards is significantly lower than the other two here (I'm not going to take the time to calculate league average, so if someone has the time or know-how, feel free). Given his percentage, Ponder would complete 11 passes if he had the same number of "asked"s as Rodgers. So you might be right that a stat like that is incomplete, but it isn't like there is nothing there worth mentioning.

Although, to be fair, I really don't know why Cutler is thought of so highly. Last season, he had 6 games with a QB rating under 40, and 2 games with a qb rating under 10. Ponders worst game was 35. When Cutler sucks, he's the suckiest suck whoever sucked.(for comparison, and because I can, Rodgers only had 3 games with a rating below 90.)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this 2 times, last at 07/31/2013 8:35:38 am
scott.jpgScott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings
07/31/2013 @ 08:20:24 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 07/29/2013 @ 03:10:17 PM
Edit: As for his "standing with Packer fans" considering 90% of my facebook feed declared things like "You're dead to me, I hope you get hit by a bus." I'm not sure he's terribly worried there.


Right up there with Republicans that actually think Obama is a Muslim and Democrats that think Bush is a Nazi? Twitter is an upstanding source for judging negative reactions of constituents.

Jeremy Wrote - 07/29/2013 @ 03:10:17 PM

I'm not really sure there's much that can prove anything by way of this whole thing. Speak to, maybe, but he's not really right or wrong based on what happens now. Aaron does a poor job sharing/deflecting credit, which his teammates have taken notice of (or he thinks of himself as or is treated as "his shit doesn't stink" in any dispute), or that's not true, independent of if Jennings can "prove" he can "do it alone".


My point is that it doesn't matter if any of it is true or not. Greg Jennings comes off as a distruntled employee (one who won a Super Bowl and went to 2 pro bowls, mind you) tossing barbs back at his former employee out in the public square. He didn't come across as showing a whole lot of class, in my opinion. And as much as twitter can show the ugly side of any fanbase, I am certainly not one of those types of fans, and this is coming from me (and I'll bet the majority of fans for any fanbase are closer to me--somewhat level-headed and respectfull--than the "I hope you die" crowd"). And let's remember, I was rooting for my arch rival team to go the Super Bowl a few years back because a former quarterback of my team was playing for said rival*. So clearly I'm someone that looks past most wrongs of joining the enemy. But when you start throwing jabs at your former team, you start to lose the support of guys like me.

*I could go list a whole handful of players that left the Packers to play for the Vikings who I have no anomosity towards whatsoever. Jennings is really the first player who has left that has made me think this way.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this at 07/31/2013 8:29:40 am
scott.jpgScott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it.
07/31/2013 @ 11:32:03 AM
 Quote this comment
Even the godfather of Jennings' daughter thinks Jennings was out of line.

"It was a brotherhood here -- him and Aaron especially for seven years, me and him for six. When you leave you don't talk about your brother like that." - James Jones

Further in the article:
And the reason Jennings didn't stick around? The Packers are good at drafting wideouts. See: Jones, Jordy Nelson and Randall Cobb, all of whom now look like absolute draft steals for Ted Thompson.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this 2 times, last at 07/31/2013 11:33:19 am
2887.gifAlex - 3618 Posts
07/31/2013 @ 01:21:53 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 08:16:52 AM

Ponder: 7-34 for 21%
Cutler: 19-65 for 29%
Rodgers: 21-54 for 39% (as an additional line of comparison, in 2011, Rodgers was 30-57 for 53%)


Stafford: 20-71 for 28%

fixed
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
matt.jpgMatt - Nutcan.com's MBL
07/31/2013 @ 02:28:20 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 08:16:52 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:34:26 AM
It might be chicken and egg...


They don't ask him to make throws they know he can't make?

Here's a comparison of 3 NFC North QBs on balls thrown that travel more than 20 yards.
Ponder: 7-34 for 21%
Cutler: 19-65 for 29%
Rodgers: 21-54 for 39% (as an additional line of comparison, in 2011, Rodgers was 30-57 for 53%)

So while Ponder clearly throws fewer long balls and so can't complete passes he isn't asked to make, his percentage on balls he does throw over 20 yards is significantly lower than the other two here (I'm not going to take the time to calculate league average, so if someone has the time or know-how, feel free). Given his percentage, Ponder would complete 11 passes if he had the same number of "asked"s as Rodgers. So you might be right that a stat like that is incomplete, but it isn't like there is nothing there worth mentioning.


There are too many problems with using that stat to make a definitive conclusion about the talent level of a QB. I think part of the reason the Vikings didn't throw deep was because they had no WR who could actually get open on the deep routes with any sort of regularity. That can also affect then, the passes he did throw. How many of those passes were thrown when the situation dictated him needing to throw a deep pass, but the receiver wasn't open? The fact is that Ponder didn't have the receiving weapons that the other QBs in the division had, and the one weapon he did have (Harvin) was best suited for the short stuff that he could turn into big gains after the catch.

I'm not trying to say that Ponder is without fault here, even considering his lack of weapons, he was way too inconsistent last year, but I think its too early to just write him off as no good. Its too early and we haven't really seen him with good receivers yet. This year he does, we'll see how it goes.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - On your mark...get set...Terrible!
07/31/2013 @ 03:06:42 PM
 Quote this comment
Matt Wrote - Today @ 02:28:20 PM


There are too many problems with using that stat to make a definitive conclusion about the talent level of a QB.


Well, I wish I would have addressed this in my orginal post whether or not I was using it as a definitive conclusion.

Scott Wrote - Today @ 08:16:52 AM
So you might be right that a stat like that is incomplete, but it isn't like there is nothing there worth mentioning.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this at 07/31/2013 3:11:12 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
07/31/2013 @ 03:14:20 PM
 Quote this comment
Matt Wrote - Today @ 02:28:20 PM

I'm not trying to say that Ponder is without fault here, even considering his lack of weapons, he was way too inconsistent last year, but I think its too early to just write him off as no good. Its too early and we haven't really seen him with good receivers yet. This year he does, we'll see how it goes.


This is exactly what Jennings claimed was his reasoning for going to Minnesota. It wasn't pundits saying that Jennings chose the Vikings because he wanted to prove himself with an unproven QB. It was Jennings saying almost this exact same thing.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children.
08/02/2013 @ 05:15:43 PM
 Quote this comment
I'm not even really so sure "this is the year the excuses stop" as far as the WR corps goes. We swapped Harvin for Jennings, which is a pretty big downgrade overall. It might work out better because they're kind of apples and oranges type of wideouts, but on sheer talent that's a downgrade. Then we added a rookie who, if the pundits are to be believed, has a ceiling so high you can't even see it without use of the Hubble telescope, but isn't expected to step into a major role in the receiving game yet.

As for those stats, yes, he had the smallest percentage, but a) they probably tend to be a higher percentage of "desperation" situations (aka If the Vikings are throwing long they probably HAVE to more than other teams. As opposed to a purer "when it's there". (Which Matt hinted at.) b) When you're talking about a sample size of 34 2-3 more completions puts him on par in that stat. So, you're really splitting hairs if Ponder is the redheaded step child of the division of QBs because he "can only complete the short ones" if 2 more long completions equal things out there.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it.
08/05/2013 @ 12:24:37 PM
 Quote this comment
Big downgrade? Perhaps there's reason to believe it's a downgrade, but Jennings is no slouch, and Harvin is no superman (even if that was his nickname in college).
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
08/08/2013 @ 07:19:15 PM
 Quote this comment
Harvin was on the MVP shortlist before getting hurt last year. Jennings is no slouch, but Harvin is in another tier of players, at least at this point. Harvin is also one of the games' best return guys. But like I said, they're asked to do such different things, it's kind of hard to really compare them.

Also, to be fair I said "pretty big" not Big

emoticon
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 4 times, last at 08/08/2013 7:20:33 pm
Leave a Comment of your very own
Name:
Comment:
Verify this code
Verify the Code in this box, or sign in, to post a comment.
click me!
There's an emoticon for how you feel!
click me!
My Files
Sign up, or login, to be able to upload files for Nutcan.com users to see.