quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

quote:

ORIGINAL: marty

If the #2 CB is any good, he gets plenty of INTs, and seldom gives up big cushions leading to easy conversions.

Unlike Waynes 1 INT, and allowing too many conversions.

Marty you are way off base here. Zimmer's DBs don't take those risks very often to step in front of a pass and pick it off. It's been that way for his entire time here. You don't see it very often. Rhodes doesn't have a lot of INTs, Neither does Waynes, or Alexander or Hill. Hughes had one before blowing his knee. Zimmers DBs are focused on covering their guy contesting passes and if the guy catches the ball getting them to the ground without runs after catches.

In this last game vs the Dolphins their top two WRs hardly caught anything were rarely targeted and there is a reason for that. Blanket coverage by Rhodes and Waynes. They are both very good. Waynes has been for the past three years one of the best tacklers at his position.

I would love to see more INTs from these guys but I've come to accept that this is not what Zimmer preaches. Waynes is nearly always right on his guy. and his guy if they make a catch NEVER gets any YAC. Waynes is very good for a number 2, would probably be a number 1 on many teams. And the only reason we are discussing him leaving is simply put, we have an improving Alexander, and talented youngsters in Hughes and Hill. We can let him go and still have pretty good coverage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pager

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

quote:

ORIGINAL: marty

If the #2 CB is any good, he gets plenty of INTs, and seldom gives up big cushions leading to easy conversions.

Unlike Waynes 1 INT, and allowing too many conversions.

Marty you are way off base here. Zimmer's DBs don't take those risks very often to step in front of a pass and pick it off. It's been that way for his entire time here. You don't see it very often. Rhodes doesn't have a lot of INTs, Neither does Waynes, or Alexander or Hill. Hughes had one before blowing his knee. Zimmers DBs are focused on covering their guy contesting passes and if the guy catches the ball getting them to the ground without runs after catches.

In this last game vs the Dolphins their top two WRs hardly caught anything were rarely targeted and there is a reason for that. Blanket coverage by Rhodes and Waynes. They are both very good. Waynes has been for the past three years one of the best tacklers at his position.

I would love to see more INTs from these guys but I've come to accept that this is not what Zimmer preaches. Waynes is nearly always right on his guy. and his guy if they make a catch NEVER gets any YAC. Waynes is very good for a number 2, would probably be a number 1 on many teams. And the only reason we are discussing him leaving is simply put, we have an improving Alexander, and talented youngsters in Hughes and Hill. We can let him go and still have pretty good coverage.

You and TJ are wasting your energy. No amount of logic will dissuade some of the posters on here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

I'll call Rhodes better, but not WAY better. PFF underrates him, but first team All-Pro was a bit generous IMO. Rhodes and Waynes are both cover corners who are good at coverage, challenging the run, breaking up passes and a little weak at intercepting the ball.

I think Waynes gets beat more often, but has enough speed to compensate most times. He still isn't great at locating the ball.

Mostly I don't think Waynes prevents throws like Rhodes does. And Rhodes is much more often tasked with defending the opponent's best WR.

I think he's significantly better. He's a legit #1 CB that many had as the best CB in the league last year. Waynes is a solid #2 CB.

Waynes has emerged as a solid tackler. I do believe he is an asset to the defense.

Of course he's an asset. He's a good player.

But where are you getting the money to sign him from?

Is having two really expensive CBs PLUS starting quality depth behind them more important than having a serviceable O-Line?

How about more important than a modern TE? Or a viable 3rd WR?

How about more important than having only Kendricks as a proven LBer (almost no way we can resign Waynes and Barr)?

Because you need three quality corner starters and it's not unusual for one of them to be down, so quality depth is a must in a passers league.

That doesn't address the queston at all though. What positions are you stealing from to overload on CB?

For example, Rhodes, Alexander, Hughes and Hill are all better CBs compared to ANYTHING we have at Guard.

Is Waynes more important to you than Barr? Richardson? Because you can likely only keep one of those 3.

Is 5 solid CBs better than no solid OGs?

Guard is the easiest position to fill. They can do it by either free agency or the draft. I would like to see both. Looks like we will have higher draft pick selections this year, too.

If its so easy to fill, why haven't we had a good one in years?

And Guards cost money too. Especially good ones.

I'd love to keep all our good players too, but its not a reasonable take. We can't put all our money into depth at a position of strength while we ignore positions of weakness.

And that's just OG. What about 3rd WR? a modern TE? Possibly LBer and/or DT?

I'm trying to remember who the highest drafted guard has been for the team. I don't believe we have drafted a guard in any of the first three rounds since is it Randall McDaniel? There must be someone more recently. Help me out.

I do believe we paid top money for Remmers, but his first season with us was at tackle. Excluding him, who was the last guard who was a starter on another team that we acquired in free agency? Was it the player we acquired from Seattle in the "poison pill" deal? I'm probably forgetting some obscure player. Maybe you can help me out.

My point is that we simply have not invested serious assets at the guard position. We used a third round pick at center and an end of the second round pick for our rookie tackle. Of course there are reasons for that. One is that cornerback is a more critical position in today's game.

I would like the team to acquire another wide receiver and tight end. I advocated for it in the last draft. We did pick up a tight end later in the draft, but we failed to draft a single receiver to my dismay.

CB is not more critical than O-Line...

And your post just reinforced how hard it is to get good Guards. And how much you have to be willing to pay to get them.

Rhodes is a #1 CB. Alexander has become a top nickle. Hill has shown he can step in and get the job done. Hughes will compete for a starting job next year. That's 4 good corners, with 2 really good candidates to fill that #2 corner position. The Vikings will have an outstanding defensive backfield with or without Waynes. To pay top dollar for the luxury of a 5th starting caliber CB, while other positions badly need to be upgraded just defies logic and common sense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

I'll call Rhodes better, but not WAY better. PFF underrates him, but first team All-Pro was a bit generous IMO. Rhodes and Waynes are both cover corners who are good at coverage, challenging the run, breaking up passes and a little weak at intercepting the ball.

I think Waynes gets beat more often, but has enough speed to compensate most times. He still isn't great at locating the ball.

Mostly I don't think Waynes prevents throws like Rhodes does. And Rhodes is much more often tasked with defending the opponent's best WR.

I think he's significantly better. He's a legit #1 CB that many had as the best CB in the league last year. Waynes is a solid #2 CB.

Waynes has emerged as a solid tackler. I do believe he is an asset to the defense.

Of course he's an asset. He's a good player.

But where are you getting the money to sign him from?

Is having two really expensive CBs PLUS starting quality depth behind them more important than having a serviceable O-Line?

How about more important than a modern TE? Or a viable 3rd WR?

How about more important than having only Kendricks as a proven LBer (almost no way we can resign Waynes and Barr)?

Because you need three quality corner starters and it's not unusual for one of them to be down, so quality depth is a must in a passers league.

That doesn't address the queston at all though. What positions are you stealing from to overload on CB?

For example, Rhodes, Alexander, Hughes and Hill are all better CBs compared to ANYTHING we have at Guard.

Is Waynes more important to you than Barr? Richardson? Because you can likely only keep one of those 3.

Is 5 solid CBs better than no solid OGs?

Guard is the easiest position to fill. They can do it by either free agency or the draft. I would like to see both. Looks like we will have higher draft pick selections this year, too.

If its so easy to fill, why haven't we had a good one in years?

And Guards cost money too. Especially good ones.

I'd love to keep all our good players too, but its not a reasonable take. We can't put all our money into depth at a position of strength while we ignore positions of weakness.

And that's just OG. What about 3rd WR? a modern TE? Possibly LBer and/or DT?

I'm trying to remember who the highest drafted guard has been for the team. I don't believe we have drafted a guard in any of the first three rounds since is it Randall McDaniel? There must be someone more recently. Help me out.

I do believe we paid top money for Remmers, but his first season with us was at tackle. Excluding him, who was the last guard who was a starter on another team that we acquired in free agency? Was it the player we acquired from Seattle in the "poison pill" deal? I'm probably forgetting some obscure player. Maybe you can help me out.

My point is that we simply have not invested serious assets at the guard position. We used a third round pick at center and an end of the second round pick for our rookie tackle. Of course there are reasons for that. One is that cornerback is a more critical position in today's game.

I would like the team to acquire another wide receiver and tight end. I advocated for it in the last draft. We did pick up a tight end later in the draft, but we failed to draft a single receiver to my dismay.

CB is not more critical than O-Line...

And your post just reinforced how hard it is to get good Guards. And how much you have to be willing to pay to get them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

I'll call Rhodes better, but not WAY better. PFF underrates him, but first team All-Pro was a bit generous IMO. Rhodes and Waynes are both cover corners who are good at coverage, challenging the run, breaking up passes and a little weak at intercepting the ball.

I think Waynes gets beat more often, but has enough speed to compensate most times. He still isn't great at locating the ball.

Mostly I don't think Waynes prevents throws like Rhodes does. And Rhodes is much more often tasked with defending the opponent's best WR.

I think he's significantly better. He's a legit #1 CB that many had as the best CB in the league last year. Waynes is a solid #2 CB.

Waynes has emerged as a solid tackler. I do believe he is an asset to the defense.

Of course he's an asset. He's a good player.

But where are you getting the money to sign him from?

Is having two really expensive CBs PLUS starting quality depth behind them more important than having a serviceable O-Line?

How about more important than a modern TE? Or a viable 3rd WR?

How about more important than having only Kendricks as a proven LBer (almost no way we can resign Waynes and Barr)?

Because you need three quality corner starters and it's not unusual for one of them to be down, so quality depth is a must in a passers league.

That doesn't address the queston at all though. What positions are you stealing from to overload on CB?

For example, Rhodes, Alexander, Hughes and Hill are all better CBs compared to ANYTHING we have at Guard.

Is Waynes more important to you than Barr? Richardson? Because you can likely only keep one of those 3.

Is 5 solid CBs better than no solid OGs?

Guard is the easiest position to fill. They can do it by either free agency or the draft. I would like to see both. Looks like we will have higher draft pick selections this year, too.

If its so easy to fill, why haven't we had a good one in years?

And Guards cost money too. Especially good ones.

I'd love to keep all our good players too, but its not a reasonable take. We can't put all our money into depth at a position of strength while we ignore positions of weakness.

And that's just OG. What about 3rd WR? a modern TE? Possibly LBer and/or DT?

I'm trying to remember who the highest drafted guard has been for the team. I don't believe we have drafted a guard in any of the first three rounds since is it Randall McDaniel? There must be someone more recently. Help me out.

I do believe we paid top money for Remmers, but his first season with us was at tackle. Excluding him, who was the last guard who was a starter on another team that we acquired in free agency? Was it the player we acquired from Seattle in the "poison pill" deal? I'm probably forgetting some obscure player. Maybe you can help me out.

My point is that we simply have not invested serious assets at the guard position. We used a third round pick at center and an end of the second round pick for our rookie tackle. Of course there are reasons for that. One is that cornerback is a more critical position in today's game.

I would like the team to acquire another wide receiver and tight end. I advocated for it in the last draft. We did pick up a tight end later in the draft, but we failed to draft a single receiver to my dismay.

CB is not more critical than O-Line...

And your post just reinforced how hard it is to get good Guards. And how much you have to be willing to pay to get them.

Rhodes is a #1 CB. Alexander has become a top nickle. Hill has shown he can step in and get the job done. Hughes will compete for a starting job next year. That's 4 good corners, with 2 really good candidates to fill that #2 corner position. The Vikings will have an outstanding defensive backfield with or without Waynes. To pay top dollar for the luxury of a 5th starting caliber CB, while other positions badly need to be upgraded just defies logic and common sense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: marty

Rhodes and Waynes play in the same system.

When I see Rhodes way off a guy, it seems like he blew it. For Waynes it's more his norm.

. And I am not sure where you keep coming up with this soft cushion allowing easy 3rd down conversions nonsense. You do realize that the Vikings D is # 1 in 3rd down conversion don't you? This doesn't happen if you have a CB who allows them so easily.

If they get a sack on 3rd down because of quick pressure up front, and the QB didn't have time, or didn't notice the guy Waynes was covering was very open, it doesn't mean Waynes had good coverage.

I don't think Waynes is significantly better than last year. If they get into the playoffs, I think a good QB like Brees will have plenty of completions, and probably the crucial ones, to the WR that Waynes is trying to cover.

quote:

ORIGINAL: marty

The Vikes were lucky they had the Saints at home, and that wasn't a playoff game. It was the pass rush the key.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

quote:

ORIGINAL: marty

The Vikes were lucky they had the Saints at home, and that wasn't a playoff game. It was the pass rush the key.

Something else you seem to be missing is a lot of the times this year the pass rush is getting home because of the incredibly good coverage our guys, Including Waynes have been providing. Every heard of coverage sacks? Of the 9 sacks on Tannehill nearly half if not more than half were coverage sacks.

Now I am not going to concede that defense starts at the corners to Hoiseth, but I will say that having good corners on your D certainly helps. and we have them, INCLUDING WAYNES.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

quote:

ORIGINAL: marty

The Vikes were lucky they had the Saints at home, and that wasn't a playoff game. It was the pass rush the key.

Something else you seem to be missing is a lot of the times this year the pass rush is getting home because of the incredibly good coverage our guys, Including Waynes have been providing. Every heard of coverage sacks? Of the 9 sacks on Tannehill nearly half if not more than half were coverage sacks.

Now I am not going to concede that defense starts at the corners to Hoiseth, but I will say that having good corners on your D certainly helps. and we have them, INCLUDING WAYNES.

Scott, as Pager pointed out, Marty is impervious to facts or statistics. There is nothing in the game films or statistics that back up what is saying about Waynes, but he will continue to say it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: marty

Rhodes and Waynes play in the same system.

When I see Rhodes way off a guy, it seems like he blew it. For Waynes it's more his norm.

. And I am not sure where you keep coming up with this soft cushion allowing easy 3rd down conversions nonsense. You do realize that the Vikings D is # 1 in 3rd down conversion don't you? This doesn't happen if you have a CB who allows them so easily.

If they get a sack on 3rd down because of quick pressure up front, and the QB didn't have time, or didn't notice the guy Waynes was covering was very open, it doesn't mean Waynes had good coverage.

I don't think Waynes is significantly better than last year. If they get into the playoffs, I think a good QB like Brees will have plenty of completions, and probably the crucial ones, to the WR that Waynes is trying to cover.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

quote:

ORIGINAL: marty

The Vikes were lucky they had the Saints at home, and that wasn't a playoff game. It was the pass rush the key.

Something else you seem to be missing is a lot of the times this year the pass rush is getting home because of the incredibly good coverage our guys, Including Waynes have been providing. Every heard of coverage sacks? Of the 9 sacks on Tannehill nearly half if not more than half were coverage sacks.

Now I am not going to concede that defense starts at the corners to Hoiseth, but I will say that having good corners on your D certainly helps. and we have them, INCLUDING WAYNES.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeff Jesser

Barr is a bizarro case IMO. When Zimmer uses him the right way our D is dominant. When he doesn't and we play passive, he goes incognito and we get 'normal'. It's weird as hell. Why not attack all the time like we did last week?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Todd M

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeff Jesser

Barr is a bizarro case IMO. When Zimmer uses him the right way our D is dominant. When he doesn't and we play passive, he goes incognito and we get 'normal'. It's weird as hell. Why not attack all the time like we did last week?

My guess is Zim will press the edges but refuses to live out on the edge. He has to be pushed to do it. I too would rather go balls to the walls and live with the results even when we got burned. **** we've lived with a VERY poor prevent in Zim's time...what we want and the risk associated isn't worse than seeing that.