Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Locker at 12?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Locker at 12 is the worst situation we could be in. Rick Spielman will surely be fired when Locker doesn't do **** and he flakes on his later round picks ... AGAIN.


    The Vikings should be drafting safe/BPA this year. We can't afford to **** up any further or we'll be what Detroit was for the last 10 years... playing catch up.

    Originally posted by SwAg Dynasty View Post
    It's definitely an intriguing idea. I will have to agree with the Viking fan that said if Locker busts it's a retarded pick, but if they hit it's worth it. That's how it is with every pick, but it's always a little bit more extreme when you are playing the hit-or-miss game with a QB, which is essentially the franchise. I like Locker, I don't know that I would take him at 10 or 12, but toward the end of the 1st Round, if you believe in him, why not take a shot? If Tim Tebow can be a 1st Round pick and Alex Smith can go 1st Overall (more recently, if Cam Newton or Blaine Gabbert can go 1st Overall), why can't Jake Locker go in the 1st Round?
    he's not gonna hit, have you seen the inconsistency he displays? that's TJack all over again, not even kidding. You would think Zygi would say "**** that, I already dealt with that scrub TJack being inconsistent and bad, just take the best guy available" ... one can hope.

    Comment


    • #17
      I mean there are people talking about Locker going at 8th overall to the Titans.

      I actually think the Titans make more sense then the Vikings. Because the Titans have to know that the Vikings are at least considering Locker, which means they may have to sit tight at 8 and take him. Perceived enormous reach or not.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by vikingsteve26 View Post
        Locker at 12 is the worst situation we could be in. Rick Spielman will surely be fired when Locker doesn't do **** and he flakes on his later round picks ... AGAIN.


        The Vikings should be drafting safe/BPA this year. We can't afford to **** up any further or we'll be what Detroit was for the last 10 years... playing catch up.
        You realize that drafting safe/BPA without having a good quarterback will always mean you'll be at best average in the current NFL? Look at the Miami Dolphins they have been pretty average the last few years (even the 10-6 team got badly exposed immediately in the playoffs) do you think they wouldn't switch Ryan for Long now? Ryan is a good quarterback but Long is an elite LT yet it wouldn't take them even a second to make their mind up. I know hindsight makes it easier to use this example but I think taking a chance on a Quarterback needs to be done these days. Granted, if he doesn't work out you'll be a very bad team for a few years but if he does work out you give yourself a chance at contending every year for 10 years.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by cutty View Post
          Obviously there's a lot of bad with Locker, he had an awful season and its all well documented

          Although, his tape against USC = a #1 overall pick in almost any draft in the last 10 years. I put it up with Stafford's game against LSU as a junior - the pocket was non-existent, the receivers were well covered, and the only way to stay in the game was for the Quarterback to make throws that he had no business making. No matter what team Locker goes to, he's going to have a better protection than he did last year at UW
          That's what everyone said when he went to the Senior Bowl and then he bombed it.
          http://bloochat.com/walterfootball <------------- WF.CHAT HERE

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by mdb17 View Post
            You realize that drafting safe/BPA without having a good quarterback will always mean you'll be at best average in the current NFL? Look at the Miami Dolphins they have been pretty average the last few years (even the 10-6 team got badly exposed immediately in the playoffs) do you think they wouldn't switch Ryan for Long now? Ryan is a good quarterback but Long is an elite LT yet it wouldn't take them even a second to make their mind up. I know hindsight makes it easier to use this example but I think taking a chance on a Quarterback needs to be done these days. Granted, if he doesn't work out you'll be a very bad team for a few years but if he does work out you give yourself a chance at contending every year for 10 years.
            It's just for one year. To draft a QB this year is stupid... there are no elite QB prospects and we're picking at 12, which is a bad spot for drafting a QB in the first round unless someone falls. If this were another year and we were looking at non-project, pro-ready, consistent QBs then I'd go with a QB at 12, sure. But none of these QBs are elite, pro-ready, non-projects. To draft him at 12 means he will start in 2011. He will fail... BADLY, if starting in 2011. You don't draft a guy at 12 and then have him sit on the bench, which is what everyone wants Locker to do. It's just dumb.

            Originally posted by Red-headed step-child View Post
            That's what everyone said when he went to the Senior Bowl and then he bombed it.
            Exactly. He's as inconsistent as they come, a surefire bust and reach if taken at 12. Round 4+? Sure! But not 12th overall.
            Last edited by vikingsteve26; 04-11-2011, 11:12 AM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Red-headed step-child View Post
              That's what everyone said when he went to the Senior Bowl and then he bombed it.
              He threw 10 passes, it's not really a part of my evaluation

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by vikingsteve26 View Post
                It's just for one year. To draft a QB this year is stupid... there are no elite QB prospects and we're picking at 12, which is a bad spot for drafting a QB in the first round unless someone falls.
                Surely with another BPA/Safe draft you'll likely be picking around the same spot next year too? You won't get a QB then next year either and you'll be in the Buffalo Bills scenario that was happened over the last 5-10 years.

                If the Vikings feel Locker is a franchise QB you have to take him. If that is the evaluation they come to then they will either flourish or flounder because of that decision. Playing the 'wait and see' game at QB to me looks like a team without a plan or strategy. To me that is worse than making a brave (possibly stupid) decision because you haven't made a decision at all.

                If the case is that the Vikings do not feel he is a franchise QB then I understanding playing 'wait and see'. They should not feel pressurized into taking a QB they do feel 100% confident in.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by mdb17 View Post
                  Surely with another BPA/Safe draft you'll likely be picking around the same spot next year too? You won't get a QB then next year either and you'll be in the Buffalo Bills scenario that was happened over the last 5-10 years.

                  If the Vikings feel Locker is a franchise QB you have to take him. If that is the evaluation they come to then they will either flourish or flounder because of that decision. Playing the 'wait and see' game at QB to me looks like a team without a plan or strategy. To me that is worse than making a brave (possibly stupid) decision because you haven't made a decision at all.

                  If the case is that the Vikings do not feel he is a franchise QB then I understanding playing 'wait and see'. They should not feel pressurized into taking a QB they do feel 100% confident in.
                  Did you miss the part where I said it's just for one year? This QB class sucks. God dammit, read the post. These guys aren't Sam Bradford, Ben Roethlisberger, Philip Rivers, Andrew Luck, etc... those guys are worth 1st round draft picks. Jake Locker is inconsistent. Those QBs I mentioned before were not inconsistent. Inconsistent players shouldn't be taken in the first round. You don't take a QB in the first unless you are SURE he is going to hit. You might disagree with that, but why would you EVER risk it if you weren't sure? As if this team isn't in a bad enough place with the lack of a new place to play in 2012.


                  Just remember, if they take him at 12, and he busts, we all said "I told you so." Then the Vikings will go back to their dumbass "hey let's draft our starter in the 6th round!" bull**** that they used for the last 50 years.
                  Last edited by vikingsteve26; 04-11-2011, 11:22 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I think it would be foolish, but then again my Broncos drafted Tebow in the first...

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by cutty View Post
                      He threw 10 passes, it's not really a part of my evaluation
                      There was also practice.

                      I find that anytime people base their evaluations on how bad a guy's team was it never works.
                      http://bloochat.com/walterfootball <------------- WF.CHAT HERE

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by vikingsteve26 View Post
                        Did you miss the part where I said it's just for one year? This QB class sucks. God dammit, read the post. These guys aren't Sam Bradford, Ben Roethlisberger, Philip Rivers, Andrew Luck, etc... those guys are worth 1st round draft picks. Jake Locker is inconsistent. Those QBs I mentioned before were not inconsistent. Inconsistent players shouldn't be taken in the first round.


                        Just remember, if they take him at 12, and he busts, we all said "I told you so." Then the Vikings will go back to their dumbass "hey let's draft our starter in the 6th round!" bull**** that they used for the last 50 years.
                        I didn't miss the part when you said one year. That's why I referred to the Buffalo Bills problems getting a franchise quarterback. They haven't either gotten lucky with a mid-late round guy or been so bad they've gotten a top prospect at the position. Do you think the Vikings will be one of the 5 worst teams in the NFL next year? That is the most likely way they have a chance of getting a franchise QB.

                        Then again you clearly didn't read what I said properly at all then. Talk about being very hypocritical. Just because it is a bad year for Quarterbacks does not mean the Vikings don't think that Locker is a franchise QB. You don't think he is. There is a huge difference there.
                        Last edited by mdb17; 04-11-2011, 11:48 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Red-headed step-child View Post
                          There was also practice.

                          I find that anytime people base their evaluations on how bad a guy's team was it never works.
                          I don't base evaluations on his teammates, but they do influence his play. You get to see how Locker plays under fire - and we're talking about a pass-rush that gets through before he even finishes his drop.

                          The only reason I ever bring up the bad supporting cast is to basically say that I Wins and Losses are a non-factor with Locker. Josh Freeman was in a somewhat similar situation, but his problem was lack of receivers so it was more of a stats thing

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I actually tend to agree with Steve here. Normally if there's a QB on the board I would say you have to go and get one, but this isn't the year to do that. Locker is an intriguing talent, but I think he would be a serious reach at 12. If ever there was a year to sit and wait on QBs, it's this one.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by hunterm View Post
                              I actually tend to agree with Steve here. Normally if there's a QB on the board I would say you have to go and get one, but this isn't the year to do that. Locker is an intriguing talent, but I think he would be a serious reach at 12. If ever there was a year to sit and wait on QBs, it's this one.
                              Surely if you felt that Locker was a franchise QB (which I know you don't) then you take though at 12 right?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by mdb17 View Post
                                Surely if you felt that Locker was a franchise QB (which I know you don't) then you take though at 12 right?
                                For sure.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X