Quote:
imagine this, the Vikings trade what they got for Percy and move up in the draft to get Cordarelle Patterson from Tennessee. Now they got rid of a short, fast, talented player who didn’t want to be here for a rookie who is big, fast, and uber talented. Than they take the money they would would have spent on Percy and sign Mike Wallace or Greg Jennings. All of a sudden our team could have one of the better WR duos in the league. This scenerio is very possible, at least drafting the rookie anyways. Lets let this offseason play out before we judge the move completely. For the record, you don’t have to know much about football to know that if you have a player that is only going to stay for 1 more year at best its always a good move to trade him for a 1rst round pick
I love this scenario. The Vikes won’t be getting Mike Wallace, but Jennings is totally possible.
Also, there are at least 5 recievers that have far better than average potential and that will almost certainly be available without the Vikes having to trade up. Patterson will be gone and I’d be nervous about trying to trade up just to get him because there’s probably 2 or more other teams that are thinking the exact same thing.
Even if the Vikes got Jennings, I still think they should draft two recievers with the first 2 picks. Maybe you CAN have too many good recievers, but I’d like someone to tell me where that’s acually happened AND been a bad thing?
Can you imagine the chaos the Vikes could cause with Jennings, somebody like Patterson, and then a third option and then, oh, just for fun there’s Adrian in the backfield but unlike last season it’s a much more balanced attack. Very tough for the defense to cheat on a setup like that and bias toward the run like they did on us all last year.
Bottom line is 2013 is a GREAT year if you’re a team shopping for a reciever. Good for Seattle for making a move, but that doesn’t mean the Vikes come out behind on the deal.
Grouse