The Instigator
bsufan101
Pro (for)
Tied
7 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Con (against)
Tied
7 Points

THW make Ian Johnson the third string RB!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/11/2009 Category: Sports
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,632 times Debate No: 9197
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

bsufan101

Pro

I would first like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

As the pro I will first set Definitions:

This house: The Minnesota Vikings
Ian Johnson: Running back from Boise State, currently on active roster for the Vikings.

Ian has had a incredible college career at Boise State. His Sophomore year he scored 25 touchdowns and over all in his college years he scored a total of 58 rushing touchdowns beating Marsha Faulk's old record of 57.
At the NFL combine he had the second fastest 40 yard dash.

My main point toward the resolution is that Ian Johnson has heart. According to a video released by the vikings web site Ian has been dong every thing possible to find a way to help the team. Even his senior year he was not worried about TD's. He just wanted the team to win.
Ahead of him is Adrian Peterson. Who has a good ability to run the ball but lacks short yardage situations. Ian is noted for short yard plays and can break away from the D
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

There are two superior alternatives to making Ian Johnson the 3rd string running back of the Minnesota Vikings.

Alternative number 1: Trade Chester Taylor for minor picks or release him, to free up salary cap space and make Ian Johnson the 2nd string running back. It is something of a waste to invest in three backs of such quality, maintaining it makes it more difficult to fill other positions in the roster as well.

Alternative number 2: If Ian Johnson attracts attention, trade him for a player of similar quality, at a position where the Vikings are not as strong, from a team weak in backs so that the investment results in a greater marginal return for the Vikings.

Both options are more rational than risking tying so many resources in multiple players of one position that has a star in front. One strong backup is plenty to stabilize Adrian's load.
Debate Round No. 1
bsufan101

Pro

First I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate challenge.

In response to my opponents arguments:

1. For the Minnesota Vikings to trade or even get rid of Chester Taylor would be suicidal for there season. I am a huge Ian Johnson fan but even I have to admit Ian had played against a far weaker schedule than most backs in the NCAA. To get rid of a good combination like Adrian and Chester in hopes that Ian will show up and play tremendously.

Again my opponents third argument is betting on Ian doing great. The vikings have a very poor passing game, the only way for there season to have a chance of success is to have a deep running back area.

Now I will agree with my opponent that the Vikings could get other positions filled accept they are ok in all areas. Not great, but ok. So keeping all three at least until the preseason is over would be beneficial. Also if Ian was to go to another team he might not have the ability to highlight his tremendous skill at short runs and make a team do worse off.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

There are 32 teams in the NFL. Odds are at least one would be willing to trade something that potentially improves the Vikings passing game (Perhaps a receiver?) for a solid back like Chester Taylor. You contradict yourself by saying the Vikings are OK in all areas and have a very poor passing game.

Odds are also high that some team with an overabundance of reception capabilities could benefit from a back both strong in short yardage and extremely fast.

Depth is useful. But it can't be looked into too much when one still has room to improve in breadth instead, where one will get the benefit all of the time instead of some of the time.
Debate Round No. 2
bsufan101

Pro

In the statement about me "Contradicting" myself. I am not contradicting myself at all. The vikings have an OK pass game. Compared to the rest of the NFL they are rated poor. I'm sorry for not clarifying myself in my first speech.

The thing of it is, is that you are putting way to much trust that Ian can perform in the pro's. Let me put this scenario into the game. If Peterson was to get injured and Ian could not perform the Vikings all in all are fairly screwed. The only way to drop to a two man Running team is to know Ian can play well in the pros. Because even is they got rid of Ian, the viking still have a poor short gain run team.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"The vikings have an OK pass game. Compared to the rest of the NFL they are rated poor."
Poor contradicts OK in a given context. If you are not speaking of the context of the NFL in describing their pass game as OK (say, you are saying they have an OK pass game-- for a high school team) it is irrelevant.

"
The thing of it is, is that you are putting way to much trust that Ian can perform in the pro's."
Actually, only one of my alternatives trusts that. The other one involves trading him off and letting some other fellow do the trusting. Incidentally, your entire first round, and the notion of giving him a spot on the roster in the first place, is premised around the notion that he can perform.

:If Peterson was to get injured and Ian could not perform the Vikings all in all are fairly screwed.
Premising the season around the injury of a player who contends for MVP votes is not a rational way to play. If that happens they are screwed anyway. Sports teams are not premised around making the losing seasons lose slightly less. They are premised around making the winning seasons win more. Whether your measure is revenue, enjoyment of the fans, or enjoyment of the owner, all would take a season in which people are in high contention for a title and a badly losing season over a moderate winning record and moderate losing record.

:Because even is they got rid of Ian, the viking still have a poor short gain run team.
The notion that Adrian Peterson is bad in short yardage, from looking around the internet is premised on a very small number of red zone plays in his career. He has the body to improve in that area, if need be, he likely will. With a talent like his, it's highly doubtful that he won't reduce the number of bad plays in short yardage if he gets more experience in it.
Also, the Vikings have a 254 pound fullback who appears quite capable of improving short yardage performance this season. http://www.rotoworld.com...
Keeping Ian Johnson around just for short yardage duties, when you aren't even certain of those from him, and apparently the coach is confident about the fullback's capability there, is silly and a waste of upside. If Ian Johnson gives reasons in the preseason to be confident about his abilities to serve as the number 2 back, act accordingly, if he doesn't, why not trade to someone who thinks they have a better use for him for something you have a better use for?
Debate Round No. 3
bsufan101

Pro

First I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. It has been fun for me as this is the first debate I have hosted.

Yes there are teams in the league that need help at running the ball. And based on the game on Friday the Vikings had Ian can indeed get the job done at running the ball. 50 yards in 9 plays on the first NFL game you have ever played is impressive.

Again I go back to my original statement that: Ian Johnson needs to be in the third string position for the Vikings.
1. He has proven he is more than able to run the ball.
2.He is still learning, based upon the statements he made in an interview.

Also the thought that he would change teams this late into the full year is hard to believe. He needs to get used to a play book.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"Also the thought that he would change teams this late into the full year is hard to believe. He needs to get used to a play book."
As a probable backup runningback, he should in theory have plenty of time to learn, and he only needs to know a few plays right away. In either case, the resolution does not state that this house would wait this long to make the decision, the alternative "This house would have made one of the moves I described several weeks ago" is quite valid even if it's a little late for the Vikings to do that now. The fact that the mistake was already made does not alter its status as a mistake.

The rest of the round contains nothing I haven't addressed.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by bsufan101 7 years ago
bsufan101
Ya, sorry this is the first time I wrote a debate. Any suggestions to make it better?
Posted by sllewuy 7 years ago
sllewuy
oOo thats too hard to argue with a guy running that fast would make a great punt returner
Posted by bsufan101 7 years ago
bsufan101
Ok, here is the thing. The position that I'm taking is that Ian Johnson should be a player on the roster. Whether that is as a running back or special teams does not matter.
Posted by sllewuy 7 years ago
sllewuy
so yes thats the reason? im confused about this so the debate is u want him to start?
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
Read the title.
Posted by sllewuy 7 years ago
sllewuy
wait is this about why he should start?
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
"Who?"

Remember the guy that proposed to his girlfriend after he ran for a TD in an NCAA bowl game against Oklahoma? That was him.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
"Ian Johnson"
Who?
Posted by bearsfan 7 years ago
bearsfan
"Marsha Faulk's old record of 57." Marshall will find you...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
bsufan101Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by bsufan101 7 years ago
bsufan101
bsufan101Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70