| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Do the Vikings have to draft Claiborne now? |
| No |
|
79% |
[ 57 ] |
| Yes |
|
20% |
[ 15 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 72 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Vikefan79
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 25063
Location: Atlanta
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:10 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
Peterson was a great athlete but as far as the CB position is played I think Claiborne did it better.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Snake Plissken
Joined: 04 Apr 2005
Posts: 1406
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Frank Costello wrote: | | Frank Costello wrote: | Bob Sansevere: Rick Spielman appears to like Mo Claborne over Matt Kalil
| Quote: | Last time I ran into Vikings general manager Rick Spielman, he quizzed me. He asked if I knew the starting left tackles for the Green Bay Packers and New York Giants. I shrugged. He wanted to make the point that a left tackle doesn't have to be an all-pro or even well-known for a team to be successful.
Here's the flaw in his thinking: The quarterbacks for the Packers and Giants are either all-pro (Aaron Rodgers) or all-pro caliber (Eli Manning). Teams with elite quarterbacks don't need an all-pro at left tackle. Teams with an inexperienced quarterback, like the Vikings, have a much better chance of success when surrounded by all-pro level players, particularly at left tackle.
The discussion came about because Spielman didn't seem to agree with a column I wrote saying he might be in need of a CAT scan if he passes up Southern California left tackle Matt Kalil with the third overall pick in the NFL draft.
It could just be a smokescreen that Spielman isn't gushing about the prospect of drafting a potential all-pro who could be a fixture at left tackle for the next decade. Then again, why a smokescreen is needed when the first two picks already are decided is baffling.
After listening to the Spielman spiel, this much appears certain: If he keeps the third pick and passes on Kalil, Spielman will draft LSU cornerback Mo Claiborne. He raved more about Claiborne than Kalil. |
http://www.twincities.com/vikings/ci_20208169/bob-sansevere-rick-spielman-appears-like-mo-claborne?source=rss |
This one 79? |
Why a possible smokescreen? If you want Kalil and/or want to trade down, you make it look like you want the guy(s) other teams want -- not too hard to figure out.
The last paragraph isn't too revealing -- IF they don't take Kalil, they will take Claiborne.  
_________________
To give anything less than your best is to sacrific the gift - Steve Prefontaine |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Flounda
Joined: 14 Mar 2012
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| I'm not sold that it is a smokescreen, but if it is, then I am pretty confident that it is for the Buccaneers, so the Bucs would trade up to get Claiborne then we would still get Matt Kalil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
disaacs
Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 19963
Location: Brownbackistan
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Frank Costello wrote: | | Like I said, if he had gushed about Kalil, what would you have said then? Smoke screen? It goes both ways. |
Absolutely I would have. You can't believe anything that comes out of his mouth at this point. It does work both ways, I don't disagree.
I find that suggesting that a Kalil-supporter doesn't have the integrity to be impartial enough to think that it could also be a smokescreen if he were gushing about Kalil is rather presumptuous.
_________________
Thx to Uncle Buck! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Purple Faithful
Joined: 11 Mar 2009
Posts: 2688
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Kalil would be there at 5, so it makes sense.
_________________
Remember when the Vikings passed on Dan Marino because we had Tommy Kramer? ahhh, good times.
2012 Viking Fan:
Draft like Jimmie Johnson=bad (2 QB's)
Draft like Jerry Jones=good (take an OT top10) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PurpleMugen
Joined: 05 Feb 2008
Posts: 3590
Location: Rutgers University
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Purple Faithful wrote: | | Kalil would be there at 5, so it makes sense. |
He would. No one is going to be trading up for him.
_________________
Peppers90 on the sig. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
this providence
Joined: 28 Dec 2006
Posts: 10962
Location: Ugh.
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| PurpleMugen wrote: | | Purple Faithful wrote: | | Kalil would be there at 5, so it makes sense. |
He would. No one is going to be trading up for him. |
Sort of contradicts those saying he's the 2nd or 3rd best prospect, or that LT is such a vital position doesn't it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frank Costello
Joined: 01 Mar 2009
Posts: 8815
Location: in 2009, Vikings>Saints
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| this providence wrote: | | PurpleMugen wrote: | | Purple Faithful wrote: | | Kalil would be there at 5, so it makes sense. |
He would. No one is going to be trading up for him. |
Sort of contradicts those saying he's the 2nd or 3rd best prospect, or that LT is such a vital position doesn't it? |
Spielman asking him who the starting LTs were for the Packers and Giants is all the proof I need. We just gotta wait 5 and a half long weeks to dish out this warm yummy crow soup!
_________________
Welcome to Minnesota, Greg Jennings.
President of the Sammy Watkins fan club. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PurpleMugen
Joined: 05 Feb 2008
Posts: 3590
Location: Rutgers University
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| this providence wrote: | | PurpleMugen wrote: | | Purple Faithful wrote: | | Kalil would be there at 5, so it makes sense. |
He would. No one is going to be trading up for him. |
Sort of contradicts those saying he's the 2nd or 3rd best prospect, or that LT is such a vital position doesn't it? |
Indeed it does.
_________________
Peppers90 on the sig. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wcblack34
Joined: 21 Jan 2005
Posts: 3970
Location: Anywhere but Wisconsin.
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| PurpleMugen wrote: | | this providence wrote: | | PurpleMugen wrote: | | Purple Faithful wrote: | | Kalil would be there at 5, so it makes sense. |
He would. No one is going to be trading up for him. |
Sort of contradicts those saying he's the 2nd or 3rd best prospect, or that LT is such a vital position doesn't it? |
Indeed it does. |
Not really, it speaks more to the needs of the teams within striking distance of the top 5 picks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
this providence
Joined: 28 Dec 2006
Posts: 10962
Location: Ugh.
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| wcblack34 wrote: | | Not really, it speaks more to the needs of the teams within striking distance of the top 5 picks. |
If he was really a once in a decade type of prospect that some claim him to be and LT was really a position that some make it out to be, teams would be chomping at the bit to trade up to get him where ever they are in the draft. Much like Washington moving up for RGIII. And when you consider the Vikings are literally begging to move down and there's been zero interest in the pick, with some even going so far as to wonder if a team would trade up for an average QB prospect like Tannehill at #3, it further reinforces my opinion on the player and position. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Purple Faithful
Joined: 11 Mar 2009
Posts: 2688
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| wcblack34 wrote: | | PurpleMugen wrote: | | this providence wrote: | | PurpleMugen wrote: | | Purple Faithful wrote: | | Kalil would be there at 5, so it makes sense. |
He would. No one is going to be trading up for him. |
Sort of contradicts those saying he's the 2nd or 3rd best prospect, or that LT is such a vital position doesn't it? |
Indeed it does. |
Not really, it speaks more to the needs of the teams within striking distance of the top 5 picks. |
This. I do not think Kalil is a top 3 worthy pick, but Aaron Rodgers falling to whereever he was selected doesn't mean he wasn't worthy of the #1 overall selection. I'd also then see what Jacksonville might pay to move up to 5. They really need a playmaker on offense & if they didn't trade up with Cleveland, we could maybe let them select him here for another rd 2 pick. If we have 3 rd 2's, we'd have to hit on one of them, wouldn't we? 
_________________
Remember when the Vikings passed on Dan Marino because we had Tommy Kramer? ahhh, good times.
2012 Viking Fan:
Draft like Jimmie Johnson=bad (2 QB's)
Draft like Jerry Jones=good (take an OT top10) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wcblack34
Joined: 21 Jan 2005
Posts: 3970
Location: Anywhere but Wisconsin.
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| this providence wrote: | | wcblack34 wrote: | | Not really, it speaks more to the needs of the teams within striking distance of the top 5 picks. |
If he was really a once in a decade type of prospect that some claim him to be and LT was really a position that some make it out to be, teams would be chomping at the bit to trade up to get him where ever they are in the draft. Much like Washington moving up for RGIII. And when you consider the Vikings are literally begging to move down and there's been zero interest in the pick, with some even going so far as to wonder if a team would trade up for an average QB prospect like Tannehill at #3, it further reinforces my opinion on the player and position. |
First of all, you don't know what kind of interest has been generated. Chatter will likely pick up closer to draft day after Pro-days and individual workouts have been conducted.
Secondly:
Cleveland - Joe Thomas
Tampa - Donald Penn
St. Louis - Roger Saffold
Jacksonville - Eugene Monroe
Miami - Jake Long
Carolina - Jordan Gross
Buffalo - Could use a tackle
Kansas City - Brandon Albert
Seattle - Russel Okung
Arizona - Could use a tackle
Dallas - Doug Free (though Tyron Smith will likely take over at LT)
Philadelphia - Jason Peters
New York Jets - D’Brickashaw Ferguson
Cincinnati - Andrew Whitworth
San Diego - Jared Gaither
Those are the LT's from picks 4-18. St. Louis, Buffalo, and Arizona are the only teams for whom it would make sense to move up for a LT, because the other teams are already pretty much set at the position.
Finally, the lack of interest which you claim would also cast the same exact doubt on Blackmon and Claiborne, because if nobody is calling to trade up, they obviously don't think much of those two either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Purple Faithful
Joined: 11 Mar 2009
Posts: 2688
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
^ You think kalil is in the joe thomas/jake long catagory, then, & would take kalil @3 with this team's holes? If your guy Webb starts, the DE's have to (attempt to) contain first & foremost, eliminating the need for Jake Long.
_________________
Remember when the Vikings passed on Dan Marino because we had Tommy Kramer? ahhh, good times.
2012 Viking Fan:
Draft like Jimmie Johnson=bad (2 QB's)
Draft like Jerry Jones=good (take an OT top10) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
this providence
Joined: 28 Dec 2006
Posts: 10962
Location: Ugh.
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Funny to see the list. Wonder why those teams are drafting where they are after selecting those tackles where they did...
| wcblack wrote: | | Finally, the lack of interest which you claim would also cast the same exact doubt on Blackmon and Claiborne, because if nobody is calling to trade up, they obviously don't think much of those two either. |
Indeed. Like I've said repeatedly this offseason, this draft is so poor at the top. Especially with the more bandied about players. Would still much prefer to take a difference making player than a tackle, though. Claiborne, Blackmon, Floyd, DeCastro, Brockers, and Coples would all be players I'd take in advance of Kalil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
