Skip to content

Vikings commence process of replacing Asher Allen

Corey+Gatewood+Stanford+v+California+tuJ41FJVhaul Getty Images

Before Asher Allen unexpectedly retired last week, a whopping 10 percent of the team’s 90-man offseason roster was devoted to the cornerback position, which has become a major weakness for the franchise in recent years.

And now that Allen has gone, the Vikings have gotten back up to nine corners by signing former Stanford cornerback Corey Gatewood.  The team announced the move on Monday.

Gatewood brings a special kind of inside information to the table, in preparation for the team’s Week Two game against Gatewood’s former college teammate, Colts quarterback Andrew Luck.  Gatewood arrived in Palo Alto as a running back, but then switched to cornerback.  He played corner until late in the 2010 season, when he was moved to receiver.  He stayed at receiver until being moved back to corner midway through the 2011 season.

So he has practiced with and against Luck, running routes for him and figuring out how to try to stop him.  If Gatewood can make the cut from 90 to 53 in Minnesota, it could be useful intelligence as the Vikings, who open with the Jags at home and then travel to Indy, could turn the page on a disappointing 3-13 season by starting 2-0.

That said, if the Vikings plan for replacing Allen consists solely of signing a cornerback who previously was unemployed at a time when nearly 2,900 players have NFL jobs, their best shot at 2-0 will come only in the preseason.

Permalink 18 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, Minnesota Vikings, Rumor Mill
18 Responses to “Vikings commence process of replacing Asher Allen”
  1. rickrock6661982 says: Jun 4, 2012 7:08 PM

    They need a process to replace a backup CB on one of the worst defenses in football?

    Really?

  2. 2ruefan says: Jun 4, 2012 7:32 PM

    “One of the worst defenses in football”.. As you would say “REALLY”?

    Try checking your stats buddy.

    The pass defense was very leaky (as indicated in the story.. in fact the POINT of the story..

    But try 11th against the run in the entire league last year…

  3. canadianvikingfaniii says: Jun 4, 2012 7:33 PM

    position, which has become a major weakness for the franchise in recent years
    ——————-
    Try for decades, in over two decades they have never had a good pass Defence and only a few average ones.

  4. jimthebuilder27 says: Jun 4, 2012 9:25 PM

    Asher Allen isn’t much of a loss anyway. He was horrible. Just watch his performances against the Packers and you’ll see how awful he was.

  5. potts316 says: Jun 4, 2012 9:46 PM

    A whopping 10 percent? Isn’t it normal for teams to keep at least 5, if not 6, corners on their final 53?

  6. fwippel says: Jun 4, 2012 10:00 PM

    Pull-llease! Asher Allen wasn’t good enough to earn a starting spot after three seasons, and he wasn’t going to get better.

    The Vikings are getting Chris Cook back, Winfield is still around, and they drafted multiple DBs. The idea that Allen’s departure is a loss for this team is laughable. The only people who will miss Asher Allen in the Viking secondary are named Stafford, Rodgers and Cutler; they shredded him last year.

  7. bla bla bla says: Jun 4, 2012 10:09 PM

    Wow. 11th against the run. And yet, they stunk.

    Stink, stank, stunk.

    Skol Failure!

  8. randallflagg52 says: Jun 4, 2012 10:28 PM

    2ruefan says:Jun 4, 2012 7:32 PM

    “One of the worst defenses in football”.. As you would say “REALLY”?

    Try checking your stats buddy.

    The pass defense was very leaky (as indicated in the story.. in fact the POINT of the story..

    But try 11th against the run in the entire league last year…

    ==================================

    Their run D being 11th was most likely due to the fact that teams didn’t even bother to run against them with that horrific secondary they had.

  9. spawn201 says: Jun 4, 2012 11:47 PM

    Sorry but Asher Allen leaving the Vikings is actually a positive thing. He was never going to be a starter.

  10. squared80 says: Jun 4, 2012 11:49 PM

    “They need a process to replace a backup CB on one of the worst defenses in football? Really?”

    This article is actually about the Vikings, not the Packers or Patriots.

    Secondly, what a terrbile article. An NFL team is going to lean on a undrafted quasi-CB to learn how to beat a rookie QB on what is currently the worst team in football? What a waste of kb’s.

  11. brewdogg says: Jun 5, 2012 12:24 AM

    randallflagg52 says: Jun 4, 2012 10:28 PM

    Their run D being 11th was most likely due to the fact that teams didn’t even bother to run against them with that horrific secondary they had.
    ———————————–

    Actually, the Vikings were ranked 19th in rushing att against, and 6th in yds/carry. They were 16th in pass attempts against them.

    Additionally, a full third of the league (11 teams) were worse than the Vikings in yards/game and yards/play.

    I know people with small minds like to make generalized assumptions, especially when they can use them to back an insult, but maybe you should try checking a few things before you embarrass yourself.

  12. vikingsfan1994 says: Jun 5, 2012 12:57 AM

    I noticed that Vikings fans are disloyal fools who jump at the opportunity to replace their team members. Asher Allen was a better player than you may think. He kept Calvin Johnson and Steve Smith to just 50% completion last year, which is pretty damn good for an average corner, which he is. He was never a starter, just a nickel or dime package guy really. And because he wasn’t a number 1 guy you hated him. Are there men or boys commenting on this website. Grow up.

  13. doubledee88 says: Jun 5, 2012 4:20 AM

    @ 2ruefan

    “One of the worst defenses in football”.. As you would say “REALLY”?

    Try checking your stats buddy.

    The pass defense was very leaky (as indicated in the story.. in fact the POINT of the story..

    But try 11th against the run in the entire league last year…

    ———————————————————

    Yeah big whoopin deal 11th against the run in a division that is pass happy.. I mean the Packers Defense was non existant last year but they were still 15-1

  14. pleazenufalready says: Jun 5, 2012 8:16 AM

    9 of the 13 losses last year were by 7 points or less. Yeah, the defense wasn’t great, but slightly better quarterbacking and a healthy AP would have gotten them 5 or 6 more wins.

  15. spartan822 says: Jun 5, 2012 3:41 PM

    That said, if the Vikings plan for replacing Allen consists solely of signing a cornerback who previously was unemployed at a time when nearly 2,900 players have NFL jobs, their best shot at 2-0 will come only in the preseason.
    ————–
    That’s quite a stretch to say that the Vikings chances for success in 2012 hinge on how well they replace their 3rd/4th string CB.

  16. percywhipped21 says: Jun 5, 2012 5:10 PM

    vikingsfan1994 says:
    Jun 5, 2012 12:57 AM
    I noticed that Vikings fans are disloyal fools who jump at the opportunity to replace their team members. Asher Allen was a better player than you may think. He kept Calvin Johnson and Steve Smith to just 50% completion last year, which is pretty damn good for an average corner, which he is. He was never a starter, just a nickel or dime package guy really. And because he wasn’t a number 1 guy you hated him. Are there men or boys commenting on this website. Grow up.

    —————————————

    Im confused by your post. You say Asher allen held Calving Johnson and Steve Smith to 50% completion last year but then right after that you say he was only a nick or dime guy. Why would we be putting our nickel or dime guy on #1 WR’s? Doesnt make sense. Asher Allen was a depth guy. He added depth to the CB position. He is very replacable and i dont see anybody missing him too much this coming year. Not being disloyal to my team, just stating what i believe is true.

  17. randallflagg52 says: Jun 6, 2012 2:28 AM

    brewdogg says:Jun 5, 2012 12:24 AM

    randallflagg52 says: Jun 4, 2012 10:28 PM

    Their run D being 11th was most likely due to the fact that teams didn’t even bother to run against them with that horrific secondary they had.
    ———————————–

    Actually, the Vikings were ranked 19th in rushing att against, and 6th in yds/carry. They were 16th in pass attempts against them.

    Additionally, a full third of the league (11 teams) were worse than the Vikings in yards/game and yards/play.

    I know people with small minds like to make generalized assumptions, especially when they can use them to back an insult, but maybe you should try checking a few things before you embarrass yourself.

    ==================================

    Cool stats bro…

    Who do they say stats are for again? Oh yeah, stats are for losers. Just like the vikings. Have fun with another sub .500 record.

  18. brewdogg says: Jun 6, 2012 1:45 PM

    randallflagg52 says: Jun 6, 2012 2:28 AM

    Cool stats bro…

    Who do they say stats are for again? Oh yeah, stats are for losers. Just like the vikings. Have fun with another sub .500 record.
    ————————————–

    That’s another funny assumption….. How many players have been denied the HOF because they didn’t have the requisite stats? You know, players who were generally considered among the best at their position but didn’t have the level of statistical achievement as their HOF counterparts….. I guess at times it is lack of stats that is for losers.

    Here’s another fun stat for you. Do you know when the last time the Vikings had 3 consecutive losing seasons was? ’61-’63. Their first three years in the league.

    Sometimes stats are fun, especially when dealing with someone like you.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!