Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
As a Bears fan, I have 100% more confidence in Kwesi than Poles.
Pretty sure the Wilfs gave him his marching orders and told him we want to win now. Probably a mistake. When (if) it fails they better admit their mistake and let the new GM and coach finally build their team.Donnybrook said:
I won't judge Poles yet, other than to say he's pretty boring so far. Hopefully he has a plan, it will just take someone smarter than me to figure out what it is.travdogg said:
This is not a bad idea at all, if there is no sure fire player, and a way to get added early round picks (read: Not six 7th rounders, Spielman).
On the surface, this seems like the type of mauler I think this team needs (even the pass protect weakness doesn't read that bad). Tackle/guard flexibility seems like a plus, and if he is 63 on the big board, maybe ability to maneuver to late 2nd?
Sorry the thread died on this question.
I’ve seen others with this take, and it surprises me. I’m a fan of most moves. Getting some selective FAs like J Hicks, DT Sullivan, Z Smith seem like decent adds. Getting Peterson back is a positive. Ridding of Barr and Pierce is fat trimming. Cousins was good value and a workable off-ramp. I’m just not sure what you could realistically see out there for this team to do.
Well maybe I'm wrong, sure hope so. Having Hunter back healthy will be a huge improvement for sure and perhaps cleaning house on the coaches is good from that perspective as well.
Wouldn't hanging 1st round hats on the CB position be more of the same for you... the outside in approach? It would be for me.
For a team built differently from the Vikes, I can see the allure. What doesn't make sense is the draft/cap capital this team puts into QB/WR/RB when it has an OL that can't protect longer than 2.5 seconds and struggles opening running lanes. It's not built to get the most from those talents.
To me that would be a luxury pick and the Vikings aren't in a position to use a top 12 pick on a luxury. Improve the trenches and everything else improves. That's where I would go........or trade back if there isn't anybody that meets those specifications and worth a top 12 pick.
I don’t at all disagree. This team desperately needs line help, specifically OL. But if they went with Williams, I guess I wouldn’t be disappointed. I think he’s that much of a difference maker. I guess I’m just a bit more scared of someone like Stingley panning out than I am of Williams.
It would be more of the same I agree but corner is their biggest need because of the failed picks recently of Highes and Gladney.
Right, because we're in a never ending cycle of acting like CB is the problem, and it can never be solved - unless we draft a guy with a cape capable of man coverage for 6 seconds. We just draft CB after CB under that disillusion.
Or teams just throw 3 step drops all the time because they cant cover it.BigJim® said:
Let's agree to disagree. I'm pretty sure Pat Peterson *can* do just about anything. It's just a reality they have been operating in a system that dictates soft coverage, playing the man as opposed to the ball, and are doing it forever whenever there is no QB pressure. I honestly believe a lot of the historic stink associated with this unit is the scheme requires them all to be Deion Sanders for it to work. It's Zimmer's curse having once been blessed coaching Deion... he thought it could work for anyone. First rounder after first rounder, proven wrong.
The 5th year option for Bradbury would 13 million, which would make him the 3rd highest paid Center in the NFL, behind only Kelce and Ragnow, which would obviously be silly to pick up.
Thank god it’s a crazy option $. Cole replaced him fine last year. If he’s tradable today as a former 1st talent, I’d take almost anything. Addition by subtraction.
I have seen him go in that general time frame for mocks. If he is as good as they say I think it's well worth it.
Fair enough. That's what makes the draft exciting. The FMIA mock had Linderbaum @ 1.24. So did another in the main draft thread. Then again, Prisco has him as early as I've seen @ 1.14. Looks like value charts say for 1.12 is (1200) and -> 1.18 (900)-1.22 (780). If they love him, tossing value charts aside may make sense. However, to get a 3rd + 4th and still land the guy, that's winning the big picture draft game if they can get to a slot where other prospects they like will be there as a plan B (and they still have the added ammo).
I wouldn't go that far. That's too high to take a Center, and I don't think Bradbury sucks, he's just not worth anywhere near 13 million, nor was he ever worth the 1st round pick. But if he were a 2nd or even better 3rd round pick, I'd be pretty happy with his play.
That may be true about Stingley but I don't think it's worth a top 12 pick at CB. I think pass rush can help CB play and I don't think the Vikes are as bad at CB as the consensus. I think scheme and lack of pass rush accentuated the bad DB play and really gave them no chance last year. Better scheme, pass rush (Hunter and Smith should be night and day vs last year) will be a bigger help to the DB's than drafting someone at 12. Again, just my non-draft expert opinion. I think you can find DB's later that can do the job well enough using that high of draft capital is a waste.
Why can't they have a better pass rush, and an elite CB? Statistically, its easier to find quality OL play later in drafts than quality DB play.
I can certainly understand that. If it means anything, I thought Waynes and Gladney were bad picks at the time, I did like Hughes though.
I'm surprised you'd be happy with his play if he'd been a later pick. You must be a fan of the no pockets for immobile QBs scheme. I mean, a guy has to be able to do the job regardless of where he was picked, and he can't. JMHO, that he's so easily overwhelmed makes our guards suffer as well.
Ha! I am a Bears fan, but I try and stay as impartial as possible. Frankly, most of my friends are Vikings fans so I empathize a lot with Vikings fans, and ultimately only really root against the Packers.
Yeah, just ribbing you a bit. I know you to be unbiased. I think you overrate Bradbury though, significantly. I don't think he's good at anything. I think the Vikes OL, in general, gets too much credit for run blocking. When the Vikes need 1-2 yards, they almost always fail running up the middle. That is the situation that tells me whether a guy can run block. The middle of this line is incapable of driving forward.
I dont want to go there again. Oh man it's been a bad decade and counting really since Jeff Christie since they have been able to find and develop late round offensive linemen into quality players.
I agree with you that if Hunter and Smith play at a level they have in the past (I'm more optimistic about Hunter than Smith doing so) that it will make a huge difference.
To be fair, Linderbaum is twice the prospect Bradbury ever was. But yeah, Linderbaum probably shouldn't be taken at 12. Maybe if there is a trade down.
I'm saying not at all. We don't solve for weakness @ center by drafting the next guy who comes along who's best comparable is the guy we're trying to solve for. I don't want Vikes' guards to be dedicating 15% of their energy to cover for an undersized center. I want a center who can hold his own, and maybe, just maybe, be strong enough to help guards.
In a theoretical sense or in this case? It wasn't my self-written player profile that called him undersized but agile, and susceptible of being manhandled. I mean, for a guy who wants to break from the past you seem to be advocating status quo grabbing undersized agility - which perpetuates problems against the same fronts we've struggled against and inability to create a pocket for an immobile QB.Biabreakable said:
