What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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.

***Official Minnesota Vikings Draft Thread*** (1 Viewer)

I know their are alot of Vikings fans on this board so lets all contribute to this thread. I'll start us off.I would like our first round to play out like this:1.07 Derrick Johnson1.18 Troy Williamson/Mark Claytonor1.07 Mike Williams1.18 David Pollack/Erasmus JamesI also would love to get Matt Jones in the second round. I think he would be well worth the risk. Thoughts?

 

FunkyPlutos

Footballguy
I like scenario two of yours better (with Pollack). Although I like the ESPN mock even better where we get PacMan and Williamson. Pac Man is a great corner, but he also has the return skills. With so many teams playing 3 WRs it can never hurt to have 3 stud corners (did I say that about the Vikings!!)Is it Saturday yet??!!!

 

BlueOnion

Footballguy
So many different ways the draft can go...Here are my wish lists:

Assumptions

- Braylon Edwards is gone before 1.07

Scenario A) Big 3 RB is available

1.07 - (Ronnie Brown \\ Cadillac \\ Cedric Benson)

1.18 - Troy Williamson \\ Mark Clayton

Scenario B) Big 3 RB not available

1.07 - Troy Williamson

1.18 - Erasmus James

Scenario C) Big 3 RB not available nor Williamson

1.07 - Derrick Johnson

1.18 - Erasmus James

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bull Dozier

Footballguy
So many different ways the draft can go...Here are my wish lists:

Assumptions

- Braylon Edwards is gone before 1.07

Scenario A) Big 3 RB is available

1.07 - (Ronnie Brown \\ Cadillac \\ Cedric Benson)

1.18 - Troy Williamson

Scenario B) Big 3 RB not available

1.07 - Troy Williamson

1.18 - Erasmus James

Scenario C) Big 3 RB not available nor Williamson

1.07 - Derrick Johnson

1.18 - Erasmus James
Why would they ever take Williamson at 7 if he would/could be available at 18? That's a move the Bengals would do.As to the other posters idea of taking Pac Man at 7, why draft for depth at 7 when there are a number of players that can make a bigger impact? While there doesn't appear to be any franchise cornerstones in this draft there are definite immediate, or close to immediate, starters that improve the starting lineup.

 

reg

Mod in training
From what I have heard lately Williamson might not be around @ 18. Listened to some Wetzler guy who runs some scouting service. He said that three teams above the Vikings (@7 :eek: ) are looking at him.

 

BlueOnion

Footballguy
Why would they ever take Williamson at 7 if he would/could be available at 18? That's a move the Bengals would do.
Because I think the whole concept of 'maximizing your value' in the draft is so overblown. Media-moguls and couch potatoes have overblown this concept. There must have been a handful of teams who were high on Kevin Williams and deemed him 'over-valued' to be drafted in the top-10. I am sure those teams would trade their 'value pick' for Kevin Williams now.It is important to draft the best player available, regardless if you think you can get him later; there are no guarantees. This is an unspoken rule in the NFL and more teams fall victim to it than is actually publicized. I have never once heard a team say, "We really wanted player X, but thought we could trade down and still get him. Team Y suprised us and took our player that we thought would slip, so even though nobody out there can see it, we really have a lot of egg on our face."

 

BigJim®

Footballguy
From what I have heard lately Williamson might not be around @ 18. Listened to some Wetzler guy who runs some scouting service. He said that three teams above the Vikings (@7 :eek: ) are looking at him.
Are you talking about Marty Wexler III, the guy on with Barreiro yesterday, who said they can tell a player is an "E-9" future Hall of Famer based on a combination of the letters in his name and his date of birth, and that they are actively pursuing implanting computer chips into college kids to track their whereabouts? Uhh, I don't want to be the one to tell you this, but you may want to consider that guy is a play character a la Gerbshmidt. But no, that small detail aside I do not believe Williamson makes it past 1.14.

 

BlueOnion

Footballguy
Mock drafts are coming out of the wood work that have Troy Williamson going in the top-10. Driving in today, Mike and Mike were going over the ESPN Mock draft they were involved in and Williamson went #7 to Minnesota.

I am somewhat partial because I have been promoting "Williamson to the Vikings" for a few weeks now. Just last week, I stated I was almost sure Williamson will go higher than Williams. We'll see.

Edited to Add - BigJim, before I start my day, can you give me an idea of which way you are leaning today; friendly or agitated? ;)

[TapperVideoGame] Taps beer, slide beer down bar. It's Friday! [/TapperVideoGame]

:banned:

 
Last edited by a moderator:

-OZ-

Footballguy
Curious, if Williamson is gone by the 1.18, is Clayton still around?I realize he isn't the tall, strong WR preferred by Culpepper - or we assume to be. But with Burleson and M-Rob already there, Clayton might be a good fit at the 18. Assuming of course they don't take a WR at 7.If it were my call - DJ @ 7, Clayton or Williamson @ 18.

 

reg

Mod in training
From what I have heard lately Williamson might not be around @ 18.  Listened to some Wetzler guy who runs some scouting service.  He said that three teams above the Vikings (@7  :eek: ) are looking at him.
Are you talking about Marty Wexler III, the guy on with Barreiro yesterday, who said they can tell a player is an "E-9" future Hall of Famer based on a combination of the letters in his name and his date of birth, and that they are actively pursuing implanting computer chips into college kids to track their whereabouts? Uhh, I don't want to be the one to tell you this, but you may want to consider that guy is a play character a la Gerbshmidt. But no, that small detail aside I do not believe Williamson makes it past 1.14.
Ahhh he sounded like quite the quack, but I didn't know that. Thanks for the info. :) :lmao:
 

BlueOnion

Footballguy
:RingingPhone:

"Hey guys, its the ***Official Miami Dolphins Draft Thread***. They want to know if we want to trade our 1.07, 1.18 for their 1.02 and a bag of doritos. What should I tell them?"

 

BigJim®

Footballguy
:RingingPhone:

"Hey guys, its the ***Official Miami Dolphins Draft Thread***. They want to know if we want to trade our 1.07, 1.18 for their 1.02 and a bag of doritos. What should I tell them?"
Tell them we're going to call our confirmation into the commissioner's line, hang up, then start laughing.
 
On mike and Mike this morning Kiper, Clayton and Mort along with Mike and Mike has Vikings going Williamson at #7 even if Mike Williams is still available.Interesting.

 

Bull Dozier

Footballguy
Why would they ever take Williamson at 7 if he would/could be available at 18?  That's a move the Bengals would do.
Because I think the whole concept of 'maximizing your value' in the draft is so overblown. Media-moguls and couch potatoes have overblown this concept. There must have been a handful of teams who were high on Kevin Williams and deemed him 'over-valued' to be drafted in the top-10. I am sure those teams would trade their 'value pick' for Kevin Williams now.It is important to draft the best player available, regardless if you think you can get him later; there are no guarantees. This is an unspoken rule in the NFL and more teams fall victim to it than is actually publicized. I have never once heard a team say, "We really wanted player X, but thought we could trade down and still get him. Team Y suprised us and took our player that we thought would slip, so even though nobody out there can see it, we really have a lot of egg on our face."
Well, if I theoretically think Williamson doesn't provide value picking him at #7, it means that there are better players left on the board, and thus, it doesn't make sense to pick him if you're going with a BPA drafting theory.Plus, if you think that Williamson will be drafted top 10 (as you have posted recently) it doesn't make sense to mock it out as the Vikes pick him at 18. Might as well mock the Vikes going Braylon Edwards at 7 and Ronnie Brown at 18. You can't have it both ways.

 

BlueOnion

Footballguy
Well, if I theoretically think Williamson doesn't provide value picking him at #7, it means that there are better players left on the board, and thus, it doesn't make sense to pick him if you're going with a BPA drafting theory.
Concur.
Plus, if you think that Williamson will be drafted top 10 (as you have posted recently) it doesn't make sense to mock it out as the Vikes pick him at 18. Might as well mock the Vikes going Braylon Edwards at 7 and Ronnie Brown at 18. You can't have it both ways.
Truthfully, I don't know what is going to happen and it sounds like I am in the minority when it comes to Williamson's stock. If Williamson slips to #18, then obviously I would not consider it a value pick as much as a steal pick.It makes you feel better, I will had Clayton as an either or in those scenarios.

 

Otis

Footballguy
:intheyear2000:

The Vikings first pick will be Edwards or M.Williams.

:intheyear2000:

Ok, seriously.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

tietzjd

Footballguy
Starting to get the Vibe that Vikings will take Williamson not sure I agree with that pick at 7. I think they can can get him later and stock up a little.Even saw a mock today where we pass up both edwards and williams for willamson! :eek: :eek:

 

BlueOnion

Footballguy
As to the other posters idea of taking Pac Man at 7, why draft for depth at 7 when there are a number of players that can make a bigger impact? While there doesn't appear to be any franchise cornerstones in this draft there are definite immediate, or close to immediate, starters that improve the starting lineup.
I don't know if anybody in the draft would immediately start for the Vikings; with the exception of a running back but even then it would be sometime around week 2 or 3.Even Braylon, Williams and Williamson will be at best a #3 wide receiver for a year or two.

 

Andy Dufresne

Footballguy
:RingingPhone:

"Hey guys, its the ***Official Miami Dolphins Draft Thread***. They want to know if we want to trade our 1.07, 1.18 for their 1.02 and a bag of doritos. What should I tell them?"
What flavor?
 

Bull Dozier

Footballguy
Well, if I theoretically think Williamson doesn't provide value picking him at #7, it means that there are better players left on the board, and thus, it doesn't make sense to pick him if you're going with a BPA drafting theory.
Concur.
Plus, if you think that Williamson will be drafted top 10 (as you have posted recently) it doesn't make sense to mock it out as the Vikes pick him at 18.  Might as well mock the Vikes going Braylon Edwards at 7 and Ronnie Brown at 18.  You can't have it both ways.
Truthfully, I don't know what is going to happen and it sounds like I am in the minority when it comes to Williamson's stock. If Williamson slips to #18, then obviously I would not consider it a value pick as much as a steal pick.It makes you feel better, I will had Clayton as an either or in those scenarios.
Agreed on both counts. I just don't think that given recent rumourings that it make much sense to mock Williamson out at 18. Otherwise, :thumbup:
 

Bull Dozier

Footballguy
As to the other posters idea of taking Pac Man at 7, why draft for depth at 7 when there are a number of players that can make a bigger impact?  While there doesn't appear to be any franchise cornerstones in this draft there are definite immediate, or close to immediate, starters that improve the starting lineup.
I don't know if anybody in the draft would immediately start for the Vikings; with the exception of a running back but even then it would be sometime around week 2 or 3.Even Braylon, Williams and Williamson will be at best a #3 wide receiver for a year or two.
Depends. Are any of the big 3-4 receivers the real deal (we know what a crap shoot they can be)? If they are, I wouldn't be surprised to see one we ended up with beating out the motivationally impaired Marcus Robinson in camp. Obviously a couple of the RBs could start over who we have now. And I think a couple of the DE-LB hybrids could make a big impact, if not by starting, then by getting a lot of situational PT (moreso than a rookie nickleback).
 

reg

Mod in training
Mike Morris says Williamson @ 7 and Pollack @ 18.Hasn't he been dead on the past few years?

 

BlueOnion

Footballguy
Depends. Are any of the big 3-4 receivers the real deal (we know what a crap shoot they can be)? If they are, I wouldn't be surprised to see one we ended up with beating out the motivationally impaired Marcus Robinson in camp. Obviously a couple of the RBs could start over who we have now. And I think a couple of the DE-LB hybrids could make a big impact, if not by starting, then by getting a lot of situational PT (moreso than a rookie nickleback).
Marcus Robinson is subject to lose his job if somebody comes in a little more hungry than he is. But I still have a lot of hope for Travis Taylor; he has the physical intangibles, 6 years experience and seems very hungry to prove himself.
 

Vikes Fan

Footballguy
Mike Morris says Williamson @ 7 and Pollack @ 18.

Hasn't he been dead on the past few years?
I was going to post this too! Yes, Morris is plugged in somehow and has been right the last three years. He says Williamson and Pollack. Interesting. Do you think they would chant Williams name and then boo at the Winterpark Draft party like they did with Suggs and KW?

 

BlueOnion

Footballguy
For the record, I have been promoting Williamson at #7 for some time, but this is hardly truth. The Vikings (or another team) could be leaking information in hopes of improving their options at trading down. :tinfoilhat:

 

snogger

Footballguy
As to the other posters idea of taking Pac Man at 7, why draft for depth at 7 when there are a number of players that can make a bigger impact? While there doesn't appear to be any franchise cornerstones in this draft there are definite immediate, or close to immediate, starters that improve the starting lineup.
I don't know if anybody in the draft would immediately start for the Vikings; with the exception of a running back but even then it would be sometime around week 2 or 3.Even Braylon, Williams and Williamson will be at best a #3 wide receiver for a year or two.
Maybe this year, but not next.. Also I could easily see once of them being the #2 before we reach the Half way point of this season.. I'm not sold on Robinson as our #2. If Luck plays any part in it he "Might" play in 12 games this year. I'm guessing the over/under to be 10.

Not sure if Travis Taylor would be ready to step up to the #2 slot since everything I've read has teh Vikes saying is fits in perfectly as a #3.

If the Vikes got REAL lucky and got Edwards, than I'd say it's better than 60% chance he is the #3 WR and possibly even sharing #2 starting role with Robinson at the beginning of the season.

Mike William is destined to be a #2 WR. Good Possesion WR, no break away speed though. Easily could take over the #2 position from Robinson before The end of the season.

Williamson?? Think he might be backing up Travis Taylor at the start of the season.. Has Burner Speed, but supposivly needs to improve as an intermediate route running.

 

Davej626

5.56 solves all
Its the Friday before the draft. Lets all take a breath and calm down. It will all be clear inside of 48hours. Breath with me...breath in..breath out..ahhhhh...peace and calm...repeat..

 

Andy Dufresne

Footballguy
I was listening to the Fan's mock this morning. When the Superstar took Williamson rather than Williams, I found myself disappointed.I just think you score more points on the football field with Williams on the roster. What I mean is that they're playing football, not running track.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

BlueOnion

Footballguy
I was listening to the Fan's mock this morning. When the Superstar took Williamson rather than Williams, I found myself disappointed.

I just think you score more points on the football field with Williams on the roster. What I mean is that they're playing football, not running track.
Personally, I think Mike Williams will be at best a #2 wide receiver in the NFL. Truthfully, that is what I believe.Williamson, although not as refined as Williams has a higher ceiling and more immediate impact. Minnesota traded Moss and will probably drop Campbell; Williamson at least brings deep threat speed to the team.

 

Andy Dufresne

Footballguy
I was listening to the Fan's mock this morning.  When the Superstar took Williamson rather than Williams, I found myself disappointed.

I just think you score more points on the football field with Williams on the roster.  What I mean is that they're playing football, not running track.
Personally, I think Mike Williams will be at best a #2 wide receiver in the NFL. Truthfully, that is what I believe.Williamson, although not as refined as Williams has a higher ceiling and more immediate impact. Minnesota traded Moss and will probably drop Campbell; Williamson at least brings deep threat speed to the team.
I think the lesson we've all learned during this entire debate is that for the 2005 draft, the #7 spot was a really crappy spot to be. Just out of reach of what you really want, but too high to take the other guys.
 

BlueOnion

Footballguy
I think the lesson we've all learned during this entire debate is that for the 2005 draft, the #7 spot was a really crappy spot to be. Just out of reach of what you really want, but too high to take the other guys.
We'll see, in all likelyhood somebody will drop to #7 that another team desperately wants. Maybe Minnesota can capitalize on the opportunity...maybe. Or maybe a guy we really covet slips to us at #7.Having options is hardly a bad situation to be in.

 

Andy Dufresne

Footballguy
I think the lesson we've all learned during this entire debate is that for the 2005 draft, the #7 spot was a really crappy spot to be.  Just out of reach of what you really want, but too high to take the other guys.
We'll see, in all likelyhood somebody will drop to #7 that another team desperately wants. Maybe Minnesota can capitalize on the opportunity...maybe. Or maybe a guy we really covet slips to us at #7.Having options is hardly a bad situation to be in.
1) "In all likelyhood somebody will drop to #7 that another team desperately wants." - I can't image who that would be.2) "Or maybe a guy we really covet slips to us at #7." - The only guy that fits this category is Edwards. And he will NOT be there at #7.

 

Bull Dozier

Footballguy
I was listening to the Fan's mock this morning. When the Superstar took Williamson rather than Williams, I found myself disappointed.

I just think you score more points on the football field with Williams on the roster. What I mean is that they're playing football, not running track.
If we still had Moss, and needed a receiver, I'd agree with you, Williams appears to be the safest pick. With Burleson on the other side, Williams doesn't open up the offense. Now, if the rumors are true that they are going to a conservative offensive gameplan, things are different, but with their offensive talent level, I don't see any logic to that rumor.
 

BlueOnion

Footballguy
If we still had Moss, and needed a receiver, I'd agree with you, Williams appears to be the safest pick. With Burleson on the other side, Williams doesn't open up the offense. Now, if the rumors are true that they are going to a conservative offensive gameplan, things are different, but with their offensive talent level, I don't see any logic to that rumor.
:thumbup: If you are going with a strong running game, why couple that with a slow possession receiver? Both scenarios invite the safeties to play closer to the line of scrimmage and impede each other.Good running teams need speed on the outside to keep the safeties out of the 'box'.

 

BlueOnion

Footballguy
I'm fine with Williamson at #7. It just seems high for him, that's all.
I agree with you Andy, it definitely seems a little high as well. But if that is the guy the Vikings want, they really need to pull the trigger. I am still very open to this just being a big smoke-screen in an attempt to trade down.
 

Funkley

Collar: Up
What looks to be screwing things up for the Vikings is that Rodgers might be falling. Needed two QB's to go top 6. I'm with you Andy, I was disappointed when Williamson went over Williams this morning.

 

Andy Dufresne

Footballguy
I'm fine with Williamson at #7.  It just seems high for him, that's all.
I agree with you Andy, it definitely seems a little high as well. But if that is the guy the Vikings want, they really need to pull the trigger. I am still very open to this just being a big smoke-screen in an attempt to trade down.
Trading down is the best option, IMO. Good luck with that, though. I'd be fine moving down a couple spots, taking someone like Williamson/Ware/Merriman a couple spots later and targeting Clayton with the #18.

 

BlueOnion

Footballguy
Wanted to add the folloing comments about the post #7 picks and the likelihood Williamson is selected after which.8) Arizona - Not taking Williamson9) Washington - Possibly10) Detroit - Not taking Williamson11) Dallas - Not taking Williamson12) San Diego - Likely13) Houston - Possibly14) Carolina - Possibly15) Kansas City - Possibly16) New Orleans - Unlikely17) Cincinnati - UnlikelyFor trading down, the hot spots are (and my thoughts):8) If a big 3 running back is available, he wil be selected by the Cardinals12) If Williamson is on the board, San Diego will probably take him

 

Vikes Fan

Footballguy
Wanted to add the folloing comments about the post #7 picks and the likelihood Williamson is selected after which.

8) Arizona - Not taking Williamson

9) Washington - Possibly

10) Detroit - Not taking Williamson

11) Dallas - Not taking Williamson

12) San Diego - Likely

13) Houston - Possibly

14) Carolina - Possibly

15) Kansas City - Possibly

16) New Orleans - Unlikely

17) Cincinnati - Unlikely

For trading down, the hot spots are (and my thoughts):

8) If a big 3 running back is available, he wil be selected by the Cardinals

12) If Williamson is on the board, San Diego will probably take him
Good take Onion. I really worry suddenly about Washington. I think the only thing that would prevent them from taking Williamson is if either Rolle or Pac Man falls in their laps, and something tells me with Rogers possible free fall that neither guy will be around for Washington.
 

Hov34

Eephus's Great Great Great Love Child
I was listening to the Fan's mock this morning. When the Superstar took Williamson rather than Williams, I found myself disappointed.

I just think you score more points on the football field with Williams on the roster. What I mean is that they're playing football, not running track.
I agree, if Tice and Co. want a ball control 12 minute dirve type of team it makes sense to get a guy like Mike Williams, NOT Troy Williamson.We've had difficulty in the Red-Zone getting touchdowns - Not with BMW, Fade to Mike with a 5 ft. 9 180 lbs. DB on him = 6

They way I want it:

1.07 Mike Williams

1.18 Erasmus James

Then in the 2nd round (as much as I hate to take a kicker in the 2nd round) take Nuegent, because I don't see him lasting until our 3rd (unless we trade up to late 2nd round very early 3rd...)

 

Vikes Fan

Footballguy
I was listening to the Fan's mock this morning.  When the Superstar took Williamson rather than Williams, I found myself disappointed.

I just think you score more points on the football field with Williams on the roster.  What I mean is that they're playing football, not running track.
I agree, if Tice and Co. want a ball control 12 minute dirve type of team it makes sense to get a guy like Mike Williams, NOT Troy Williamson.We've had difficulty in the Red-Zone getting touchdowns - Not with BMW, Fade to Mike with a 5 ft. 9 180 lbs. DB on him = 6

They way I want it:

1.07 Mike Williams

1.18 Erasmus James

Then in the 2nd round (as much as I hate to take a kicker in the 2nd round) take Nuegent, because I don't see him lasting until our 3rd (unless we trade up to late 2nd round very early 3rd...)
I agree. I like this too, and I WOULD take Nuegent in the 2nd as well!
 

BlueOnion

Footballguy
Then in the 2nd round (as much as I hate to take a kicker in the 2nd round) take Nuegent, because I don't see him lasting until our 3rd (unless we trade up to late 2nd round very early 3rd...)
:goodposting: To really add new 'value' to this thread, we should open the thread up to our second round 'wish list'.
 

Bull Dozier

Footballguy
We've had difficulty in the Red-Zone getting touchdowns - Not with BMW, Fade to Mike with a 5 ft. 9 180 lbs. DB on him = 6
I couldn't find any red zone stats, but have we had problems? That hasn't been my impression of late.
 

jurb26

Footballguy
Well it sure seems like this whole Williamson to Minn thing has begun to take off. Can't say I'm not happy about that. :D

 

reg

Mod in training
We've had difficulty in the Red-Zone getting touchdowns - Not with BMW, Fade to Mike with a 5 ft. 9 180 lbs. DB on him = 6
I couldn't find any red zone stats, but have we had problems? That hasn't been my impression of late.
59 attempts7 rush TD's

26 pass TD's

13 FG's

13 denials

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top