Mock draft dodging

I signed on for gymrome's TSN Mock Draft, to take care of the Vikings' business a few weeks ago. I know that a while back, before free agency, I suggested against a defensive end in the first round, thinking that the team was well enough set at the position and that we had needs elsewhere. Now that those needs have been largely addressed -- most notably at wide receiver and safety, I'm starting to think defensive end might be the best option, especially if the team fails to land a significant free agent in the draft. Wide receiver is almost a non-issue now (and almost looks deep), and Madieu Williams has shored up the safety position.

I still think the offensive line could use an upgrade on the right side, the tight ends could be improved, and quarterback is obviously an issue, though unless Brian Brohm falls in our lap, there probably won't be a first-round talent at the position available, and there could be some decent talent (like Joe Flacco or Andre Woodson) available in the second. Anyway, I've posted a poll to the right to get feedback on how you think the Vikings' #1 pick should be spent. Give me some advice, people. Your mock future depends on it!

* For reasons not entirely clear, the Vikings re-signed Robert Ferguson to a one-year deal worth, according to the link, "approximately $1 million, with a possible $500,000 to $600,000 in incentives." Considering that Ferguson will enter the season as no better than the team's number-four wide receiver -- likely behind Bernard Berrian, Bobby Wade, and Sidney Rice -- and with Aundrae Allison at least likely to figure into the mix near the bottom of the wide-receiver depth chart, it's a bit of an odd move. I suppose someone has to drop passes now that Troy Williamson is gone.

* And just because your team went 1-15 doesn't mean other teams don't want your players. He's no Zach Thomas, but linebacker Derrick Pope is apparently a pretty good special-teams player, and the Vikings inked him to a one-year contract last week. Rufus Alexander, a sixth-round draft pick from 2007 was also expected to contribute on special teams before suffering a season-ending injury in preseason, so the Vikings have essentially added two potentially solid special teams players for 2008. The team ranked 23rd in the league last year on opponents' punt returns and 13th in kickoff returns -- not too awful when you consider that we face Devin Hester twice a year -- so there's room for improvement.

Minnesota's other NFL team

There's a new movie coming out next month about the very early days of the NFL. It's called Leatherheads, and it stars George Clooney and Renee Zellweger. The synopsis from IMdB reads:

A romantic comedy set in the world of 1920s football, where the owner of a professional team drafts a strait-laced college sensation, only to watch his new coach fall for his fiancée.

Now, I'm not one for romantic comedy, but romantic comedy combined with 1920s professional football? That I could go for. (And on a side note, why does Renee Zellweger always wind up in the pro-football-romantic-comedy movies?)

I try not to read spoilers about a movie that I plan to see before it comes out, so I don't know what team Clooney will play for. It's possible that it will be a team that will be familiar to everyone today, like the Green Bay Packers or New York Giants. To lend it a more exotic feel, it might be a team virtually unknown today, like the Dayton Triangles, Providence Steam Roller, or the powerhouse Canton Bulldogs, who went 26-2-6 from 1921-23 while winning two NFL titles. Looking at the IMdB page, some of the teams mentioned appear to be fictional, so it's possible they won't use real teams at all. That said, my hope is that the movie will center around, or at least feature in some way, one of the most interesting and unique teams ever to play pro football: "The Iron Men of the North," a.k.a. the Duluth Eskimos.

The Eskimos weren't the first NFL team in Minnesota, or even the first in Duluth. The Minneapolis Marines operated, in some capacity, from 1905 to 1924. (The NFL was founded in 1920.) Then came the Duluth Kelleys, which operated from 1923 to 1925 (so that for two seasons, there were actually two NFL teams in Minnesota -- take that, New York!), before giving way to the Eskimos, who operated in 1926 and 1927.

With no less talents than future Pro Football Hall-of-Famers Ernie Nevers (who still holds the record for most points scored in a game, with 40), Walt Kiesling, and Johnny "Blood" McNally on the roster, the Eskimos called Duluth home in name only -- of the team's 29 games (exhibition and league, as in those days, teams often played against non-NFL foes), 28 were on the road. A look at the team's 1926 schedule -- which likely only includes games against NFL teams, which counted in the standings -- shows how brutal the schedule was.

From October 3 to November 28, a span of 56 days, the team played 12 games, all of them on the road, including a brutal week in early October, where they played four games in a week, from the 7th to the 14th. Remember, too, that these totals include games against NFL teams -- according to some sources, the Eskimos played 29 games in 117 days in 1926 -- about one every four days -- with 27 of those games being on the road. Unfortunately for the Eskimos, the innovation of bye weeks were still 64 years distant.

But hey, at least the money was good, at least if you were Ernie Nevers. As the star of the team, he made about $50,000, through a combination of salary and gate receipts. The other 15 players on the team? They received just $75 per game for their many bumps and bruises. If ever a group of players needed Drew Rosenhaus, it was here.

Despite all the hardships, the team managed a respectible 6-5-3 record in NFL games. The 1927 season, however, wasn't nearly as successful. After finishing a 1-8 campaign with a 27-14 loss to the Chicago Bears, and with Nevers leaving the team, owner Ole Haugsrud sold the team but got an unusual concession from the NFL: They promised him that, if the NFL ever returned to Minnesota, he would get the first crack at being the owner of the new franchise. Fast forward 30-some years and there's the 60-year-old Haugsrud, on the scene when the NFL does, in fact, return to Minnesota in the form of the Vikings. And Haugsrud would remain a 10% owner of the team until his death in 1976.

The Duluth Eskimos, like the Kelleys and the Minneapolis Marines before them, stand as little more than an interesting footnote in the history of the NFL. I hope that Leatherheads, even if it doesn't feature the Eskimos directly, makes some allusion to the standards and practices of the NFL in the 20s, bizarre as they would seem today.

In defense of #4

Yes, I'm going to write a pro-Brett Favre post. No, April Fool's Day isn't for another two weeks. Of course, I can't do it without tearing down another Packer legend, so some law of the universe is at least preserved.

ESPN's Sal Paolantonio wrote an article last week explaining how Favre was, essentially, mediocre for the last 10 years of his career but got a free pass from media and fans because of his early success, his durability, and his general manliness. He could throw three interceptions in the first half, but as long as he threw a game-winning touchdown pass at the end (remember, you can't have exciting come-from-behind victories if you aren't behind in the first place), he was celebrated as the best thing to hit Wisconsin since cheese. He uses terms like "blind adulation" and "immune to criticism" to describe the attitudes toward Favre. On these points, I agree with Sal.

Then, about 2/3 of the way through the article, he starts making some unusual claims: namely that Favre was not only not the greatest quarterback of all time, but that he wasn't even the best Packer quarterback ever. Instead, he thinks Bart Starr, due largely to his performance in the postseason, deserves that honor. To which I have to say -- wha?

We'll put aside raw numbers as a comparison. Bart Starr never would have had the opportunity to throw for 61,655 yards and 442 touchdowns. Favre's longevity and durability should count for something, though, as should his 253-158 edge in starts over Starr. Most of Sal's (sorry, but I don't want to type "Paolantonio" over and over in this post) arguments, though, use rating stats as comparison, as they rightly should. Unfortunately, many of them don't hold water when taken in context.

(I'll be referring to, and getting much of my data from Favre's and Starr's respective pages on pro-football-reference.com, as well as the Green Bay Packers franchise page. You might find it useful to have those pages open in tabs as you follow along, as I do while writing.)

Sal says:

"Favre isn't even the greatest quarterback in the history of the Packers. It's not even close. Bart Starr won five NFL championships -- four more than Favre -- and retired as the NFL's most accurate passer."

Starr played in an era before free agency, when teams had much more control over their player movement and a dynasty like the Packers was easier to hold together. Plus, the Packers of the 60s only had 12-14 other teams (except in 1966 and beyond, when the AFL is taken into account) to compete with for the title, compared to the 27 to 31 Favre's Packers had to compete with.

As for the "retired as the NFL's most accurate passer" comment -- well, good for him. Dan Marino automatically becomes better than Favre because he retired as the NFL's leader in every significant passing category. You might debate Favre vs. Marino, if you wished, but in no way should the argument be automatically in Marino's favre -- er, favor. Otherwise, Roger Connor, who retired in 1920 with an MLB-record 138 home runs, is better than Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, and Barry Bonds.

(And...completion percentage? You think Chad Pennington is the greatest QB of all time?)

"Oh, you say Starr was surrounded by a Hall of Fame roster with a legendary coach."

Yes, I do. I'm going to establish Starr's "glory years" as 1960 to 1967. The Packers won five NFL titles (including two Super Bowls) in that period, and Starr started all but nine games for his team over that span. I could conceivably add a few years on either end of that spectrum, but Sal's argument largely revolves around Starr's postseason prowess, and this time frame includes seven of Starr's most active nine years as a passer.

For those eight years, here are the Packers' rank in defensive points allowed:

2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 3

And in yards:

7, 6, 2, 2, 1, 3, 3, 1

And their rushing game, in yards:

2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 10, 8, 2

A few blips there, but otherwise -- pretty freaking awesome. There were fewer teams back then (13 in 1960, 14 from 1961-1965, 15 in 1966, and 16 in 1967), but that's still awfully good.

And what was Starr doing this whole time? Passing less than just about any starting QB in the league. The most passes he attempted in a season was 295, in 1961. And, as this page will show you, no team passed less than the Packers that year. The team also ranked last in passing attempts in 1962, 1964, 1965, and 1966, Starr's #2, #3, #4, and #5 most active years. Even Ryan Leaf could hand off.

So yes, Sal, Starr was surrounded by tremendous talent, and, for the most part, he let them do their job.

Then we get into the crux of Sal's argument, centering around Starr's postseason heroics:

"But Starr still is the NFL record holder with a 104.8 career playoff passer rating, nearly 20 points higher than Favre's. That wasn't Vince Lombardi or Ray Nitschke throwing those passes for Starr, whose career postseason passer rating, by the way, is 38 points higher than Johnny Unitas'."

PFR only has data from a few of Starr's playoff games, so I'll have to take Sal at his word. And a 104.8 rating is awfully impressive. Next, however, we get into a really sticky part of the argument:

"Favre's career playoff record was 12-10. Starr's was 9-1 -- without the benefit of wild-card games."

Seems innocent enough. Starr won 90% of his playoff games, while Favre barely won more than 50%, and only won more games with "the benefit of wild-card games." Ah, but it's the wild-card games that likely doomed Favre to a mediocre win-loss record.

Except for 1967, when Starr played, only two NFL teams made the playoffs (barring at tie in the standings). Thus, those teams tended to be very, very good. From 1960 to 1967, the average Packer team was about 10-3-1. There were no mediocre-to-bad NFL teams in the playoffs, as there are today, when 8-8 or 9-7 teams can slide in, usually to a first-round exit.

In fact, four of Favre's teams were 10-6 or worse going into the playoffs, and all eventually lost. Had there been a wild card in Starr's day, his 11-2-1 1963 squad would have definitely made the playoffs (they were second to the 11-1-2 Bears), and that 8-5-1 1964 team would have been tied with the Vikings (with whom they split the season series) for the fourth-best record in the league, so they might have made it. Who's to say how they would have fared, but it's not impossible to think that the Packers would have lost both games, tarnishing Starr's lovely record to a slightly more manageable 9-3. Still very good, but still.

And, of course, with more playoff rounds and games comes a greater chance for defeat. Favre's Packers, while favored a good deal of the time in the playoffs, still lost. If Starr's Packers had had to play an extra game or two in the postseason each year, how many would they have lost? If anything, the lack of wild-card games helps Starr's record look good; it definitely doesn't hurt it.

Putting playoff wins aside, we come to this:

"Favre threw 28 interceptions in 22 playoff games. Starr threw three in 10. Think about that -- just three picks in 213 postseason attempts."

Impressive, but again, Starr didn't need to throw for 300+ yards a game for his team to win. He had that incredible defense and running game most of the time. In the three playoff games PFR does have for Starr, he threw 23, 24, and 24 passes. In Favre's 22 playoff games, he threw fewer than 23 passes once (though there's still no defending this game). Then there's the whole issue of a small sample size (213 passes), or do you think David Garrard will only throw interceptions on 1% of his passes next year, too?

In my mind, Starr fits the profile of the very good, but not great, quarterback who had a great team around him and played well enough not to screw it up, while also providing enough key moments in big games to cement his legend. I also fit Terry Bradshaw and Troy Aikman, neither spectacular passers, into that category. All of these men had excellent supporting staffs and didn't make the key mistakes that cost their team the game -- good qualities, to be sure, but only useful to a team that has other ways to win.

Brett Favre was overhyped, of that there's really no doubt. Then again, in today's celebrity culture, it's little surprise that a good-looking, rugged, down-to-earth guy who experiences early success and overcomes a multitude of personal tragedies would be the poster child for his league for over a decade and, thus, receive a free pass from much of the criticism that would else be levied against him. And -- confession time here -- I have to admit that I'd probably like to just hang out and have a beer with the guy. He may or may not have been the greatest quarterback ever, but I'll take him over Bart Starr any day.

Are we done with the love? Good. I feel like I need a shower.

Mo < Moore

Sad as I am about Mewelde Moore leaving the Vikings for Pittsburgh, the team shed no tears, immediately replacing Moore with former 49er Maurice Hicks. To which at least one fan (this one) has to say: Why bother?

Hicks will fill in as the #3 running back and occasional kick returner (if the team can tear themselves away from using Bobby Wade and Adrian Peterson on returns), the same role Moore filled with the team. Make a quick comparison of Hicks' and Moore's statistics, though, and it's clear the Steelers wound up with the better player:

Each player entered the league in 2004.

Age
Moore: 25
Hicks: 29

Career Rushing Yards
Moore: 1,285
Hicks: 869

Career Yards per Carry
Moore: 4.9
Hicks: 4.2

Career Receiving Yards
Moore: 1,093
Hicks: 424

Career Receptions
Moore: 116
Hicks: 55

Career Yards per Reception
Moore: 9.4
Hicks: 7.7

Career Punt Return Average
Moore: 10.4 (2 touchdowns)
Hicks: Never returned a punt

Career Kick Return Average
Hicks: 22.7
Moore: 19.3

I've no idea of their respective pass-blocking capabilities, but if the rate at which 49er quarterbacks get sacked is any indication, I'd give Moore the edge in that category, too.

So, for 3.4 yards extra per kick return -- and the team has Aundrae Allison, at least, to take over those primary duties -- the Vikings yield ground in virtually every other category while also signing a player who's four years older. And unless Hicks suddenly decides to field punts, this probably means another year of watching Bobby Wade rack up his impressive 7 yards per punt return. Thrilling.

I'm still waiting to hear why the team was always so unwilling to utilize Moore and instead fill his role with subpar players. Not knowing any better -- and my apologies to Mewelde if this is untrue -- one has to surmise that he was a tremendous a-hole, team cancer, bad influence, or some other negative locker-room presence that the team disassociated itself from him whenever possible.

* Two former Vikings found homes this week. Tony Richardson, who, at 36, still says he has "some gas in the wheel," inked a one-year deal with the Jets, while Tank Williams, who never could escape the injury bug with the team, signed a one-year deal with the Patriots. Both men lost their jobs (or in the case of Williams, the chance to compete for a job) to recently signed free agents Thomas Tapeh and Madieu Williams, respectively.

They join Dwight Smith (Lions) and Spencer Johnson (Bills) in the ranks of ex-Vikings. This page also says Dontarrious Thomas has joined the 49ers, which is news to me -- I didn't even know Thomas was with the team in '07.

* The Vikings continue to look for a free-agent defensive end, but it seems that as soon as they target a player, he's snapped up with another team. Justin Smith (49ers), Jevon Kearse (Titans), and Antwan Odom (Bengals) all were rumored at one time to be in discussion with the Vikings before signing with their new teams (or, in the case of Kearse, his new old team).

Looking over this list, there doesn't appear to be too many attractive prospects for employment, at least not in the long term. Veterans like Mike Rucker and N.D. Kalu might sign one- or two-year deals on the cheap, but would they really be any better than the Brian Robison or Ray Edwards (assuming Kenichi Udeze and Erasmus James are out of the picture)?

A few weeks ago, I said the Vikings had greater needs than defensive end in the draft. Even now, I think the right side of the offensive line should be a priority, not to mention the quarterback situation (which probably won't be addressed in the first round, no matter what), but with two of the team's major needs (safety and wide receiver) accounted for in free agency, defensive end might not be a bad choice for the team's first pick.

A sad day for the NFC North

And so it came to pass in the first week of March that the player, born of the south but adopted by the north, left his frigid surrogate home for greener pastures. Oft loved by his fans (though also scorned by some), he leaves behind a legacy that will be difficult to duplicate, and, while his accomplishments can be read by anyone with access to a stat book, his true value to his team may never be known.

I'm referring, of course, to Mewelde Moore leaving the Vikings and signing a three-year deal with the Steelers. Who did you think I was talking about?

(And yes, I know that Moore's signing and that other piece of news weren't on the same day, but they were within 24 hours of each other. Close 'nuff.)

For whatever reason, Mewelde Moore never caught on to a regular role with the Vikings, who were always looking to replace him. Despite rushing for 662 yards in his second season with the team, management went out and obtained Chester Taylor in free agency the following year. While there is some question as to whether the diminutive (5'11") Moore could handle the beating of being a regular back (despite weighing a sturdy 210 pounds), it's puzzling and, at times, infuriating, to wonder why the team didn't use the talents that he did have, primarily as a receiver/third-down back and punt returner.

It was understandable after the drafting of Adrian Peterson that Moore would never be more than a third-stringer with the Vikings. However, both Peterson and Taylor missed significant time with injuries in 2007, and, with the team concerned about both the overuse of the rookie Peterson and the veteran Taylor, who broke down late in 2006, Moore still couldn't catch on except in the occasional two-minute drill. He registered a carry in just six games in 2007 and only had 20 on the season to go with six receptions while being inactive for four games. This from a player who averaged over 35 catches a season in his previous three years with the team. It wouldn't be much of an exaggeration to suggest that Moore might have been better than some of the team's wide receivers.

And it's not as if he failed to perform when given the chance. Moore owns a career 4.9 yards/carry average, and, while a good chunk of that is the result of draw plays and other situations where the opposing team might be lax against the run, he managed a reasonable 4.3 yards/carry in his one season as a semi-primary running back (2005). He also averaged 9.4 yards on 116 career receptions, more than Marshall Faulk (9.0) and Brian Westbrook (9.2) for their careers.

The ultimate case of wasting Moore's talent, however, has to be in the team's unwillingness to utilize him as a punt returner. Moore only got to bring back 13 punts in 2007, for a 10.0-yard average. For his career, he sports a 10.4-yard average and has two punt-return TDs to his name. That 10.4 figure places him in a tie for seventh among active players yet Vikings coaches inexplicably preferred Bobby Wade in that role for much of the season. Wade averaged 7.0 yards per return and had more returns than Moore (16 to 13). His career punt-return numbers prior to 2007 weren't too bad, but why use your #1 receiver in such a role when your #3 running back is available (not to mention better)? Between that move and Adrian Peterson running back kickoffs when Troy Williamson and Aundrae Allison were available, I was almost hoping for a special-teams injury to a valuable player to knock the coaching staff upside the head.

Finally, when it looked like Moore -- who obviously had no future with the team -- was on the trading block back in October, it seemed that the team might at least manage to get a mid-round draft pick for him. But the team held out for a higher pick (if the Star-Tribune story is accurate) and got nothing for a player who was so valuable that he got 10 more touches the rest of the season. I won't say that a player like Moore is going to lead his team to the Super Bowl, but for all the work and hours and effort that coaches purportedly put into filling out their game plans, it seems absurd that they would fail to take advantage of such an obvious asset.

Congratulations to the Steelers, who got a player that his team didn't want and congrats to Mewelde, who might finally have the chance to show off his prodigious talent.

Does Bernard Berrian have "hands of Williamson"?

To look at the comments regarding the Bernard Berrian signing, they seem to exhibit one of two opinions:

a) This is a great move for the Vikings that will vitalize a moribund passing game; or
b) Bernard Berrian couldn't catch a cold in International Falls in January.

And, somewhat predictably, most of the "a" responses seem to come from Vikings fans while most of the "b" responses come from Bears fans. The comments on SN.com's story about the signing fall pretty handily along these lines. Having not watched a tremendous amount of Berrian's play, it seems that a lot of Bears' fans' rancor comes from Berrian dropping a few crucial balls, with the most damning testimony saying that he's no step up from stonehands Troy Williamson, in terms of the ability to catch the ball. The only good thing most people can agree on is that Berrian is an upgrade over the receivers the Vikings currently have, which is faint praise indeed.

Of course, fans always remember anecdotal evidence more than they do overall performance -- catch 10 passes in a game, great, but drop that go-ahead TD in the fourth quarter and you're a bum. It could be that Berrian's had a game or two like that, souring many Bears fans on him and, despite their lack of depth at the position (Devin Hester and...uh...), not raising too many concerns about the signing.

It's tough to use anything but anecdotal evidence to rate a player's "hands"; the closest we can get is probably target stats, an imprecise measurement that simply divides the number of catches made by a receiver by the number of times a pass was thrown to him. Sounds good, until you look at some of the flaws.

Notably, deep threats are likely to have a worse target percentage than short receivers. It's harder to reel in a 50-yard bomb than it is to catch a 5-yard out. A top-of-the-line receiver might also get doubled more if he doesn't have a good complementary receiver to take some of the pressure off.

There are other issues, too. Say Receiver A has 60 catches on 120 targets (50%) and Receiver B has 60 on 100 (60%). This doesn't automatically mean that B is better than A. Receiver A might also have gotten open more often, making him a more frequent target of his quarterback. Receiver B's quarterback might also have been better than A's, aiming more accurate passes his way. Finally, target stats are also completely unofficial, and compilation numbers can vary depending on the source.

Some of these concerns can be reduced a bit, at least in terms of comparing Williamson to Berrian. Both are fast receivers and are considered "deep threats" and neither had particularly good quarterbacking. Also, neither man was his team's primary receiver so they probably weren't doubled a tremendous amount of the time.

With all that in mind, and with all the dubiousness of targetting stats laid before us, take a look at this page. You'll have to select "Week: YTD" and "Year: 2007" to see the target stats for 2007. Once you've done that, you can do a basic comparison of Berrian and Williamson (or any other receiver). Here are the numbers:

Bernard Berrian
Targets: 112
Receptions: 69
Percentage: 62%

Troy Williamson
Targets: 40
Receptions: 19
Percentage: 47%

As mentioned above, compilation of target stats is iffy, which is clear to see here -- Berrian had 71 receptions in 2007, while Williamson had 18. Even taking that inaccuracy into account, and assuming that the target numbers are off a little, it's clear that Berrian caught a significantly higher percentage of passes that were sent his way in 2007.

As for the other Viking receivers, Bobby Wade managed a 69% conversion rate in 2007, Sidney Rice 63%, and Robert Ferguson 54%. Berrian's Bears teammate, Muhsin Muhammed, managed only a 53% conversion rate. Other notable receivers who had a target percentage equal to or worse than Berrian in 2007 include Randy Moss, Chad Johnson, Steve Smith, Terrell Owens, Braylon Edwards, and Plaxico Burress. Several of those men suffer from the "no real #2" issue mentioned above, and all were at least their teams' primary deep threat, but was it really that different for Berrian?

I've also managed to find some 2006 target numbers that paint Berrian in a less positive light, with only a 50.5% conversion rate (compared to Williamson's 48.7%), and if you select "2005" on the FootballDiehards page, you'll see Berrian with a 52% rate (on only 13 catches) and Williamson at 46% (on 24 catches). Adding it all up gives you a 55.9% (133-238) for Berrian and 47.7% (80-168) for Williamson. On the bright side, Berrian showed improvement in 2007, while Williamson never showed even a remote uptick in percentage over his three years with the Vikings, and Berrian posted higher percentages than Williamson every year. In short, I don't think that Bernard Berrian will make anyone forget Cris Carter's amazing, highlight-reel catches, but he won't be as bad as Williamson, either.

Vikings get Berrian (oh, and Tapeh)

The Vikings made another big free-agent splash this weekend, inking Bernard Berrian, probably the top wide-receiver available in free agency, to a six-year, $42 million dollar deal, with $16 million of it guaranteed. This is the deal so far in free agency and it will, for better or worse, make a major impact on the team for years to come.

As I mentioned in Friday's post, Berrian is the top wide receiver available despite not yet registering a 1,000-year season in his career. Also, at 27, he's a touch older than one would like and may not have the durability to finish out his contract in productive fashion. And he's only had three 100-yard games in his career yet will be paid like one of the top wide receivers in the league.

Now I'll find some good news. First of all, Berrian will be a major improvement over any of the wideouts the Vikings currently employ, though that's not too difficult. His 71 catches last year are 17 more than the top Viking receive (Bobby Wade) from 2007 and even his 51 grabs in 2006 would have nearly put him at #1 on the Vikings' 2006 squad (Travis Taylor, 57). And all this comes with a quarterback situation that, at the least, was as confused and disjointed as the Vikings' over the last two years.

And Berrian has speed. His career 14.6 yards per reception for his career shows that, and, even though he only managed 13.4 last year, that still would have ranked him #1 on the 2007 Vikings among players with at least 20 catches. I know what you're saying now: "Hey, wasn't Troy Williamson fast?" Yes he was, to the tune of a 13.5 yard-per-catch average, a full yard less than Berrian. And, while I can't comment on precisely how good Berrian's hands are, I don't recall seeing too many highlights (or lowlights) of him making crucial drops on easy passes. In his three years with the Vikings, Williamson made 79 catches, only 8 more than Berrian had in 2007 alone.

There's little question that Berrian is good; the debate centers around on whether he's that good. Is he worth $7 million/year? On the bright side, this is the NFL, so there's always wiggle room on that front. Only $16 million of the deal is guaranteed, so, if Berrian flops, the team won't be on the hook for too much money. Plus, the team had the cap room, so why not use it?

Finally, it could be argued that no team needed a big-time wide receiver than the Vikings. Berrian won't transform the team into the next coming of the Greatest Show on Turf but if teams have to respect his speed and deep-play threat, that should open up more holes for Adrian Peterson and Chester Taylor and teams won't be able to crowd the box to stuff either player. It's still questionable as to whether Tarvaris Jackson will be able to get the ball to Berrian with any consistency, but it sure beats throwing deep to Williamson and Robert Ferguson.

In the end, the Vikings probably did overpay for Berrian's services. Even if he plays out his entire contract, he's unlikely to put up Pro Bowl-caliber numbers for much of that stretch. But by addressing the team's #1 off-season weakness while not significantly impacting the team's ability to pursue other free agents (and sign draft picks), Zygi Wilf and the rest of Vikings management has to be applauded for at least taking what appear to be the right steps.

* In less splashy news, the Vikings also signed former Golden Gopher fullback Thomas Tapeh, late of the Philadelphia Eagles, to a five-year, $6 million deal on Friday. Tapeh will probably take over lead-blocking chores from Tony Richardson, who is an unrestricted free agent. Tapeh, who used to open holes for Marion Barber in college and for Brian Westbrook in the pros, is also eight years younger than Richardson and, while not the same caliber of receiver, might actually be a better runner and blocker, at least at this stage of their respective careers.

I like this move. It giving the team a hometown talent (sort of -- Tapeh was born in Liberia) for the fans to cheer and pairs Adrian Peterson up with a man who can (hopefully) serve as his "bodyguard" for years to come, like Lorenzo Neal and LaDainian Tomlinson of the Chargers. While consistency on the offensive line is important, I think that the camaraderie of a fullback and tailback is often overlooked in the NFL. For the tailback, it helps to know what the man in front of you is capable of and how he'll block for you, and for the fullback, it helps to work with the same kind of back, day in and day out, so you'll know when he likes to cut it in, when he likes to bounce it outside, and so on. The Vikings needed to find a replacement for the aging Richardson and in doing so, found a very good blockade-runner for their most valuable player, at a reasonable price.

* And in case you missed it, Randy Moss is entertaining offers from anyone -- and wants to reunite with Daunte Culpepper. The Bears are minus their top two wide receivers (Berrian and Muhsin Muhammed) and don't have any long-term plans at quarterback. Do ya think? Nahhhh...