Danielle Hunter: The New Face of the Franchise

seems rather premature,  he has started all of 1 game.  Maybe if his production meets expectations he will be in the running, but its really hard to put him in the conversation at the moment IMO. I am guessing that less than a quarter of the Vikings fans would recognize his face, let alone fans of other teams.

Yeah, the author definitely took a different approach...but, give him a 20 sack season, NFL Defensive Player of the Year, and a Super Bowl MVP, he'll get there...

@"BarrNone55" said: Yeah, the author definitely took a different approach...but, give him a 20 sack season, NFL Defensive Player or the Year, and a Super Bowl MVP, he'll get there...

why only 20?  you expecting him to get hurt or something?

I didn't want to look like a homer.

This does beg the question as to who the face of the franchise will be with Peterson gone?  Be nice if a QB could play the role. Been too long since that's happened. 

Zimmer? Maybe, probably is the guy for now. 

Cook? Yah, I could see that too. 

@"purplefaithful" said: This does beg the question as to who the face of the franchise will be with Peterson gone?  Be nice if a QB could play the role. Been too long since that's happened. 

Zimmer? Maybe, probably is the guy for now. 

Cook? Yah, I could see that too. 

I think it's Bradford. With a training camp, a running game, a bit more protection, and a little more time with his receivers, Bradford is going to remind everyone why he was a #1 overall pick. So many writers call him an "average" QB, not taking into consideration the chaos he's been placed into so many times. I remember watching him in 2013 when he finally got some continuity. And, yes, he was hurt AGAIN that year, and played only 7 games, but for those 7 games in 2013 there wasn't a QB in the NFL playing better. 

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"purplefaithful" said: This does beg the question as to who the face of the franchise will be with Peterson gone?  Be nice if a QB could play the role. Been too long since that's happened. 

Zimmer? Maybe, probably is the guy for now. 

Cook? Yah, I could see that too. 

Why does the franchise need a face?  Zim does the talking on the important stuff and we have plenty of players that can do sound bites so I say we are fine without that main persona.

@"BarrNone55" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"purplefaithful" said: This does beg the question as to who the face of the franchise will be with Peterson gone?  Be nice if a QB could play the role. Been too long since that's happened. 

Zimmer? Maybe, probably is the guy for now. 

Cook? Yah, I could see that too. 

Why does the franchise need a face?  Zim does the talking on the important stuff and we have plenty of players that can do sound bites so I say we are fine without that main persona.

You want the franchise to be a Face Less Man?

Shame...shame...shame...

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"purplefaithful" said: This does beg the question as to who the face of the franchise will be with Peterson gone?  Be nice if a QB could play the role. Been too long since that's happened. 

Zimmer? Maybe, probably is the guy for now. 

Cook? Yah, I could see that too. 

Why does the franchise need a face?  Zim does the talking on the important stuff and we have plenty of players that can do sound bites so I say we are fine without that main persona.

IMO, your team will only be so good if the 'face' of your franchise isn't a QB. I think the Vikings were sliding toward that with Teddy, but then the devastating injury. That was so Minnesota Vikings. Cursed. 

Our defense is designed to be a team defense, not one that funnels the glory stats to one player.  I think he'll have an uphill battle standing out against his peers in our system.

Count me in the group that thinks we don't need a guy to place all our hopes and dreams into.  I just want a team that is full of above average guys that is relentless and resiliant.  I think Cook is the most likely guy to draw attention to himself.  Bradford could have a great season, but he's a blend into the background kind of guy.

@"MaroonBells" said: I think it's Bradford. With a training camp, a running game, a bit more protection, and a little more time with his receivers, Bradford is going to remind everyone why he was a #1 overall pick. So many writers call him an "average" QB, not taking into consideration the chaos he's been placed into so many times. I remember watching him in 2013 when he finally got some continuity. And, yes, he was hurt AGAIN that year, and played only 7 games, but for those 7 games in 2013 there wasn't a QB in the NFL playing better. 

When you think of the great Vikings teams of the past you do not necessarily think of anyone particular player do you?  When I think of it I think of the Purple People Eaters.  Or the 98 Vikings with that explosive offense,  some might think of Moss and Carter, but when you think back you have to think of how good that entire Offense was.  That is what I would like see. 

@"SDCAVIKESFAN" said: When you think of the great Vikings teams of the past you do not necessarily think of anyone particular player do you?  When I think of it I think of the Purple People Eaters.  Or the 98 Vikings with that explosive offense,  some might think of Moss and Carter, but when you think back you have to think of how good that entire Offense was.  That is what I would like see. 

I don't know.... I think when people think of the 1998 Vikings they think of Randy Moss first IMO. Randy Moss was the face of that team and in 98

@"Canthony" said:

@"SDCAVIKESFAN" said: When you think of the great Vikings teams of the past you do not necessarily think of anyone particular player do you?  When I think of it I think of the Purple People Eaters.  Or the 98 Vikings with that explosive offense,  some might think of Moss and Carter, but when you think back you have to think of how good that entire Offense was.  That is what I would like see. 

I don't know.... I think when people think of the 1998 Vikings they think of Randy Moss first IMO. Randy Moss was the face of that team and in 98

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"Canthony" said:

@"SDCAVIKESFAN" said: When you think of the great Vikings teams of the past you do not necessarily think of anyone particular player do you?  When I think of it I think of the Purple People Eaters.  Or the 98 Vikings with that explosive offense,  some might think of Moss and Carter, but when you think back you have to think of how good that entire Offense was.  That is what I would like see. 

I don't know.... I think when people think of the 1998 Vikings they think of Randy Moss first IMO. Randy Moss was the face of that team and in 98

in hindsight maybe,  but at the time he was just another stick of dynamite in the blasting trailer.  he wasnt giving press conferences or even the go to guy for the media,  he was a quick sound bite and that was really it from what I recall.

@"medaille" said: Our defense is designed to be a team defense, not one that funnels the glory stats to one player.  I think he'll have an uphill battle standing out against his peers in our system.

Count me in the group that thinks we don't need a guy to place all our hopes and dreams into.  I just want a team that is full of above average guys that is relentless and resiliant.  I think Cook is the most likely guy to draw attention to himself.  Bradford could have a great season, but he's a blend into the background kind of guy.

And I agree that Bradford could be, but doesn't seem that comfortable around the camera. 

@"greediron" said:

@"medaille" said: Our defense is designed to be a team defense, not one that funnels the glory stats to one player.  I think he'll have an uphill battle standing out against his peers in our system.

Count me in the group that thinks we don't need a guy to place all our hopes and dreams into.  I just want a team that is full of above average guys that is relentless and resiliant.  I think Cook is the most likely guy to draw attention to himself.  Bradford could have a great season, but he's a blend into the background kind of guy.

Agreed.  The D isn't going to have a stat guy.  Everyone needs to do their job and that means no glory hounds.

And I agree that Bradford could be, but doesn't seem that comfortable around the camera. 

@"greediron" said:

@"medaille" said: Our defense is designed to be a team defense, not one that funnels the glory stats to one player.  I think he'll have an uphill battle standing out against his peers in our system.

Count me in the group that thinks we don't need a guy to place all our hopes and dreams into.  I just want a team that is full of above average guys that is relentless and resiliant.  I think Cook is the most likely guy to draw attention to himself.  Bradford could have a great season, but he's a blend into the background kind of guy.

Agreed.  The D isn't going to have a stat guy.  Everyone needs to do their job and that means no glory hounds.

And I agree that Bradford could be, but doesn't seem that comfortable around the camera.