Talk Vikes and Other MN Sports Talk Vikes and Other MN Sports

Forums  Register  Login  My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums 

Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ  Ticket List  Log Out

RE: 2017 Training Camp

 
Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [The Minnesota Vikings] >> Vikes Talk >> RE: 2017 Training Camp Page: <<   < prev  24 25 26 [27] 28   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/10/2017 12:11:44 AM   
JT2

 

Posts: 12699
Joined: 2/15/2011
From: United States
Status: offline
Arguably, the three best RB's in the league right now are above that sweet spot.

< Message edited by JT2 -- 8/10/2017 12:13:18 AM >
Post #: 651
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/10/2017 1:39:46 AM   
Ian Joseph


Posts: 15423
Joined: 7/15/2007
From: Los Angeles, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

quote:

ORIGINAL: drviking

RosterWatch‏Verified account @RosterWatch 5h5 hours ago

CPatterson just told the fans to "Shut the F**K Up" after an absolutely terrible drop downfield from Carr for a would be TD #RaiderNation


I think Patterson still has a good side (as well as a dark side) but I'm betting that he was more angry with himself.


Him being angry with himself is irrelevant if he's saying that to the crowd, where ANYBODY can hear him. That conduct doesn't fly.

Its a bad look for him.

_____________________________

Hate the message, not the messenger.

Enjoy the process; crave the goal.

Believe.
Post #: 652
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/10/2017 2:00:34 AM   
JT2

 

Posts: 12699
Joined: 2/15/2011
From: United States
Status: offline
"Flash" is an athletic freak. Unfortunately, he's also an idiot.
Post #: 653
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/10/2017 4:26:35 AM   
Thomas O. Eliason


Posts: 18199
Joined: 11/4/2007
From: Milky Way
Status: offline
quote:

As far as being less visible to the defenders, why not have 5'-2" RB's dominating the league?

Midgets !

_____________________________

PPE II baby
Post #: 654
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/10/2017 5:35:08 AM   
Bruce Johnson

 

Posts: 12412
Joined: 8/27/2007
Status: offline
Today's running backs are getting shorter. http://www.footballperspective.com/running-backs-getting-shorter-and-heavier/

_____________________________

I do think it is wonderful that football can bring people together from different persuasions. We need more of that and less of what divides us.
Post #: 655
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/10/2017 8:13:46 AM   
Bill Jandro

 

Posts: 13592
Joined: 8/13/2007
Status: online
Has Reiff been practicing or just working on the side?

I know he is a vet and probably doesn't need a lot of time to get up to speed but starting to worry.

One good aspect of his injury is that Hill has got a lot of reps

_____________________________

MLB---Choose well and Championships will follow
Post #: 656
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/10/2017 9:07:56 AM   
kurt bilben


Posts: 18450
Joined: 7/28/2007
From: socal as well
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Jandro

Has Reiff been practicing or just working on the side?

I know he is a vet and probably doesn't need a lot of time to get up to speed but starting to worry.

One good aspect of his injury is that Hill has got a lot of reps



Well hell Bill it appears he may be significantly better off then he would be with that "Hip injury" that you kept telling us about that is actually a back "twinge".

He practiced the last day I believe, and prolly doesn't need to go until the 3rd preseason game.

It is good Hill is getting some reps, and he's a guy I'll be spotlighting tonight.

Patience my friend patience.
Post #: 657
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/10/2017 11:33:29 AM   
kgdabom

 

Posts: 20234
Joined: 7/29/2007
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: JT2

Like I said, far too many exceptions to this ideal RB height. You say Payton, I say Brown. You say Sanders, I say Dickerson. You say Tomlinson, I say Allen. You say Faulk, I say Harris. You say Thomas, I say Simpson, etc...

I don't think height, or lack of it, matters that much. Far more important is foot speed, explosion, low center of gravity and strength. Sure, generally speaking, smaller guys tend to have better foot speed, but that's not automatic either.

As far as being less visible to the defenders, why not have 5'-2" RB's dominating the league?

Arm length aids in blocking, receiving and ball security.

Because most people 5'2" or less are not just short, but they are too small weight and strength wise. I think a 5'2" 230 pounds of rock sold muscle RB that runs a 4.2 40 would dominate the league.

_____________________________

"So let it be written.
So let it be done."
Post #: 658
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/10/2017 12:01:18 PM   
Phil Riewer


Posts: 14784
Joined: 8/24/2007
From: MN
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: JT2

Like I said, far too many exceptions to this ideal RB height. You say Payton, I say Brown. You say Sanders, I say Dickerson. You say Tomlinson, I say Allen. You say Faulk, I say Harris. You say Thomas, I say Simpson, etc...

I don't think height, or lack of it, matters that much. Far more important is foot speed, explosion, low center of gravity and strength. Sure, generally speaking, smaller guys tend to have better foot speed, but that's not automatic either.

As far as being less visible to the defenders, why not have 5'-2" RB's dominating the league?

Arm length aids in blocking, receiving and ball security.

Because most people 5'2" or less are not just short, but they are too small weight and strength wise. I think a 5'2" 230 pounds of rock sold muscle RB that runs a 4.2 40 would dominate the league.


Sproles?

_____________________________

SSG Riewer, Greg A Co 2/136 CAB
KIA 23 March 2007 Habbaniyah Iraq
Post #: 659
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/10/2017 12:02:00 PM   
jbusse

 

Posts: 442
Joined: 9/11/2013
From: Atlanta, GA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Jandro

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

Checking the Viking.com website roster, it looks like Cook is listed as two inches taller (5'11" vs 5'9") and eight pounds heavier than McKinnon. (213 vs 205)

http://www.vikings.com/team/roster.html


I'm also guessing Cook isn't made of tissue paper and duct tape.

McKinnon reminds me a whole lot of Mike Mamula.


I know it is hind sight but why did Spielman pick a qb to play rb in the 3rd rd?????

I like Jet but he couldn't have possibly rated as a 3rd rd pick when guys like Howard and Johnson (whom actually played rb) went in the 4 & 5th rd.

McKinnon has been relatively successful compared to two other higher-profile 2014 3rd round running backs, Tre Mason and Dri Archer. Got to give Spielman some credit for picking one of the better ones at that point in time.
Post #: 660
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/10/2017 12:25:25 PM   
Trekgeekscott


Posts: 35173
Joined: 7/16/2007
From: United Federation of Planets
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JT2

Like I said, far too many exceptions to this ideal RB height. You say Payton, I say Brown. You say Sanders, I say Dickerson. You say Tomlinson, I say Allen. You say Faulk, I say Harris. You say Thomas, I say Simpson, etc...

I don't think height, or lack of it, matters that much. Far more important is foot speed, explosion, low center of gravity and strength. Sure, generally speaking, smaller guys tend to have better foot speed, but that's not automatic either.

As far as being less visible to the defenders, why not have 5'-2" RB's dominating the league?

Arm length aids in blocking, receiving and ball security.


I think you are missing a very important aspect of a very good RB and that is superior vision. They see the hole sometimes before it forms and they use the foot speed, explosion, low center of gravity and strength to run through it. Micheal Bennett has all the things you mention but had no vision...thus happened a lot. He looked like he had no idea where to run.

_____________________________

All of us are entitled to our own opinion. None of us are entitled to our own facts. - Alan Page
Post #: 661
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/10/2017 12:46:33 PM   
drviking


Posts: 35316
Joined: 7/17/2007
From: South Dakota
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: JT2

Like I said, far too many exceptions to this ideal RB height. You say Payton, I say Brown. You say Sanders, I say Dickerson. You say Tomlinson, I say Allen. You say Faulk, I say Harris. You say Thomas, I say Simpson, etc...

I don't think height, or lack of it, matters that much. Far more important is foot speed, explosion, low center of gravity and strength. Sure, generally speaking, smaller guys tend to have better foot speed, but that's not automatic either.

As far as being less visible to the defenders, why not have 5'-2" RB's dominating the league?

Arm length aids in blocking, receiving and ball security.

Because most people 5'2" or less are not just short, but they are too small weight and strength wise. I think a 5'2" 230 pounds of rock sold muscle RB that runs a 4.2 40 would dominate the league.


So would unicorns

_____________________________

"Only one thing left to do..."
Post #: 662
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/10/2017 1:37:05 PM   
kgdabom

 

Posts: 20234
Joined: 7/29/2007
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: JT2

Like I said, far too many exceptions to this ideal RB height. You say Payton, I say Brown. You say Sanders, I say Dickerson. You say Tomlinson, I say Allen. You say Faulk, I say Harris. You say Thomas, I say Simpson, etc...

I don't think height, or lack of it, matters that much. Far more important is foot speed, explosion, low center of gravity and strength. Sure, generally speaking, smaller guys tend to have better foot speed, but that's not automatic either.

As far as being less visible to the defenders, why not have 5'-2" RB's dominating the league?

Arm length aids in blocking, receiving and ball security.

Because most people 5'2" or less are not just short, but they are too small weight and strength wise. I think a 5'2" 230 pounds of rock sold muscle RB that runs a 4.2 40 would dominate the league.


Sproles?

LOL he might be the closest thing to that description, but no not 230 and no 4.2.

_____________________________

"So let it be written.
So let it be done."
Post #: 663
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/10/2017 1:38:30 PM   
kgdabom

 

Posts: 20234
Joined: 7/29/2007
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: drviking

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: JT2

Like I said, far too many exceptions to this ideal RB height. You say Payton, I say Brown. You say Sanders, I say Dickerson. You say Tomlinson, I say Allen. You say Faulk, I say Harris. You say Thomas, I say Simpson, etc...

I don't think height, or lack of it, matters that much. Far more important is foot speed, explosion, low center of gravity and strength. Sure, generally speaking, smaller guys tend to have better foot speed, but that's not automatic either.

As far as being less visible to the defenders, why not have 5'-2" RB's dominating the league?

Arm length aids in blocking, receiving and ball security.

Because most people 5'2" or less are not just short, but they are too small weight and strength wise. I think a 5'2" 230 pounds of rock sold muscle RB that runs a 4.2 40 would dominate the league.


So would unicorns

So far Moritz Boehringer has not dominated the league.

_____________________________

"So let it be written.
So let it be done."
Post #: 664
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/10/2017 1:45:36 PM   
Bruce Johnson

 

Posts: 12412
Joined: 8/27/2007
Status: offline
Seven of the top 20 prospects in Walter Football running back rankings (for the 20017 draft) are 6'0" or more, but you don't see any above 6'1" I concede that the sweet spot is really a "sweet range", a rather narrow one, from about 5'9 to 6'1". I can admit when I'm wrong. I really wanted to believe the 5'10" sweet spot theory because that's what Cook is. I still think he will be special.

http://walterfootball.com/draft2017RB.php

< Message edited by Bruce Johnson -- 8/10/2017 1:57:18 PM >


_____________________________

I do think it is wonderful that football can bring people together from different persuasions. We need more of that and less of what divides us.
Post #: 665
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/10/2017 2:54:27 PM   
ratoppenheimer


Posts: 6686
Joined: 12/9/2007
From: girona, catalonia...in exile
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

Seven of the top 20 prospects in Walter Football running back rankings (for the 20017 draft) are 6'0" or more, but you don't see any above 6'1" I concede that the sweet spot is really a "sweet range", a rather narrow one, from about 5'9 to 6'1". I can admit when I'm wrong. I really wanted to believe the 5'10" sweet spot theory because that's what Cook is. I still think he will be special.

http://walterfootball.com/draft2017RB.php



cook is 5111....

_____________________________

the journey...is paradise.
Post #: 666
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/10/2017 3:17:40 PM   
Trekgeekscott


Posts: 35173
Joined: 7/16/2007
From: United Federation of Planets
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

Seven of the top 20 prospects in Walter Football running back rankings (for the 20017 draft) are 6'0" or more, but you don't see any above 6'1" I concede that the sweet spot is really a "sweet range", a rather narrow one, from about 5'9 to 6'1". I can admit when I'm wrong. I really wanted to believe the 5'10" sweet spot theory because that's what Cook is. I still think he will be special.

http://walterfootball.com/draft2017RB.php




If he is special, it truly wont matter how tall he is...

_____________________________

All of us are entitled to our own opinion. None of us are entitled to our own facts. - Alan Page
Post #: 667
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/10/2017 4:46:17 PM   
thebigo


Posts: 24569
Joined: 7/14/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ratoppenheimer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

Seven of the top 20 prospects in Walter Football running back rankings (for the 20017 draft) are 6'0" or more, but you don't see any above 6'1" I concede that the sweet spot is really a "sweet range", a rather narrow one, from about 5'9 to 6'1". I can admit when I'm wrong. I really wanted to believe the 5'10" sweet spot theory because that's what Cook is. I still think he will be special.

http://walterfootball.com/draft2017RB.php



cook is 5111....


That's almost as tall as... Denver.
Post #: 668
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/10/2017 5:32:18 PM   
drviking


Posts: 35316
Joined: 7/17/2007
From: South Dakota
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: ratoppenheimer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

Seven of the top 20 prospects in Walter Football running back rankings (for the 20017 draft) are 6'0" or more, but you don't see any above 6'1" I concede that the sweet spot is really a "sweet range", a rather narrow one, from about 5'9 to 6'1". I can admit when I'm wrong. I really wanted to believe the 5'10" sweet spot theory because that's what Cook is. I still think he will be special.

http://walterfootball.com/draft2017RB.php



cook is 5111....


That's almost as tall as... Denver.


John Denver?

_____________________________

"Only one thing left to do..."
Post #: 669
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/10/2017 5:45:30 PM   
kevinemmer


Posts: 3933
Joined: 7/16/2007
From: Bozeman, MT
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JT2

Like I said, far too many exceptions to this ideal RB height. You say Payton, I say Brown. You say Sanders, I say Dickerson. You say Tomlinson, I say Allen. You say Faulk, I say Harris. You say Thomas, I say Simpson, etc...

I don't think height, or lack of it, matters that much. Far more important is foot speed, explosion, low center of gravity and strength. Sure, generally speaking, smaller guys tend to have better foot speed, but that's not automatic either.

As far as being less visible to the defenders, why not have 5'-2" RB's dominating the league?

Arm length aids in blocking, receiving and ball security.


Not to mention Ye Old Stiff-arm!

_____________________________

Fix it Zimmer!!
Post #: 670
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/11/2017 12:36:42 PM   
Guest
I think we can unpin this now that camp is over.

_____________________________

I am collecting for the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society in memory of my fiance who passed away on 9/9/2006. If anyone would like to donate just go to http://pages.lightthenight.org/mn/TwinCiti09/SMiller Any and all donations will be greatly appreciated.
  Post #: 671
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/11/2017 7:41:23 PM   
Tom Sykes


Posts: 2088
Joined: 7/27/2007
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Art

I think we can unpin this now that camp is over.

Totally agree that nobody and I mean absolutely nobody is going to visit this topic anymore.
Post #: 672
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/11/2017 7:47:28 PM   
thebigo


Posts: 24569
Joined: 7/14/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Sykes

quote:

ORIGINAL: Art

I think we can unpin this now that camp is over.

Totally agree that nobody and I mean absolutely nobody is going to visit this topic anymore.


You got that shit right.
Post #: 673
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/11/2017 7:59:03 PM   
Tom Sykes


Posts: 2088
Joined: 7/27/2007
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline
Yeah it would take a great big mean-ass fool to keep posting here.

< Message edited by Tom Sykes -- 8/11/2017 8:08:16 PM >
Post #: 674
RE: 2017 Training Camp - 8/11/2017 8:01:41 PM   
Bruce Johnson

 

Posts: 12412
Joined: 8/27/2007
Status: offline
It's kind of sad- kind of like saying goodbye to Mankato for the last time.

_____________________________

I do think it is wonderful that football can bring people together from different persuasions. We need more of that and less of what divides us.
Post #: 675
Page:   <<   < prev  24 25 26 [27] 28   next >   >>
All Forums >> [The Minnesota Vikings] >> Vikes Talk >> RE: 2017 Training Camp Page: <<   < prev  24 25 26 [27] 28   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode