March 31st, 2011 
Adam Warwas 
Posted in A look at what our friends are saying around the web:
- Former Vikings defensive end is disappointed that the NFL denied him benefits through their disability program despite his fight with leukemia.
- When it comes to quarterback Jake Locker, the Vikings must feel confident in their evaluation and where he sits on their draft board.
- Bryant McKinnie and Adrian Peterson have returned from their charity trip to Africa.
- I have a feeling Christian Ponder could be the next Vikings quarterback, but not everyone is so sure.
- The Vikings have open auditions for their Cheerleader squad, and there will be an MVC team regardless of a lockout.
- An update on the Vikings stadium situation and a recap of recent events surrounding the team.
- A quick profile of Jake Locker who some believe the Vikings will target on Draft weekend.
- It looks like the Vikings first pick of the Draft may be on hand to shake hands with Roger.
- Three reasons for the Vikings to NOT draft a quarterback this year. I can come up with about three billion reasons that they should, though.
- NEWS FLASH: The Vikings are looking into quarterback prospects this offseason.
- An interesting glimpse into the Vikings history using compensatory draft picks.
- Shawn Zobel talks in depth about the Vikings draft strategy this year.
Adam- Stadium talk is really heating up. Day-by-day it seems to get hotter. What kind of ‘legs’ do you think any of this has? I’m kind of weary, but Mondale’s confidence gives me a little hope, I guess…You?
The battle is looming. won’t pretend to know the ins and outs of the political world, especially in MN, but right now I would say the Vikings have a better chance of staying in MN than moving elsewhere… that’s just a guess though.
Adam, the VA had all the points I agree with and have been thinking about for a while. I am a Webb fan, but that aside, you said you have “3 billion” reasons why. So, I’ll call you to the floor. It would extremely interest me if you gave counter-arguments to the 3 original points, and maybe a couple points of your own. That would be a great piece. The QB is the hottest topic in the lockout doldrums, so why not kick the hornet’s nest a little?
I won’t dedicate a whole thread to me contending VA’s article. And we’ll have plenty more QB talk in coming weeks/months. So here is the short of it:
1. The Vikings being an “old” team should actually be even more reason to draft a QB. Having vets like Hutch and Shank around a young kid should only help the development. VA’s argument here assumes that a rookie QB would be a day one starter. I assume a rookie QB would not be a day one starter.
2. “Cherry picking” success stories is no different than “cherry picking” failures, something which VA has done plenty of in the recent past (we all have). Again, this point assumes a rookie QB is thrown to the wolves from the get go. Also, there is not much reason to expect that the Vikings cannot have a top 5 defense and elite running game next year, which he seems to dismiss as impossible.
3. Joe Webb’s presence on the roster is no reason not to draft a quarterback. Heck, Peyton Manning’s presence on a roster is no reason not to draft a QB. Same for Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Phillip Rivers, etc. How many QB’s played every snap last year? How played in every game? How many started every game? Some could argue that your backup QB is just as important as your starting QB, and that you can never have enough good ones. To me, thinking that the locker room would be shattered if Webb isn’t handed the starting job is ludicrus.
In the end, I think Vikings fans are gun shy about drafting a QB because of past embarassments, but now is the time to look forward and create a new identity… not a time to linger on past misses. VA’s article would be better described as three reasons not to start a rookie quarterback in 2011… instead of three reasons not to draft one.
And, in fairness, I admit that I mis-characterized the article a bit. It really is three reasons not to hand the job to a rookie… which makes more sense.
Thannks Adam.
Geez that story on Udeze is sad. Dude worked his tail off to get back on the field after his bout with leukemia. I would think he should be able to get disability even though it wasnt football related.
Yes, it is a sad example. However, the way unions work is that if you do something for one guy then a “precedent” is set and every union member gets the same treatment. Give Udeze special treatment for a non-football related condition and all of the sudden you have to provide treatment for ALL non-football related conditions. I have to be honest that I wasn’t too terribly shocked by Seifert’s report. Glad to see the Vikes did right, though.
Adam-
If one was going to throw a rookie to the wolves, then wouldn’t having a veteran line/recievers/rb/etc… in place, like you said, be an optimal situation? not that i think we’ll do that. i’m good with ponder or dalton as long as we add a guy like hasselbeck or palmer for a 2-3 yr grooming process…