Quote: @"MaroonBells" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
@"Wetlander" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
@"comet52" said:
If there is a QB in a draft that Kwesi believes is the next Mahomes, and trading Jefferson gives him the capital to do it, then yes he should do it. His job is to build a champion and that could well entail taking a risk on a bold move.
The reality is, even the best wideout in the game is not likely to bring you into regular contention, but a top 5 quarterback is.
That type of qb is what this franchise should be looking for if it ever wants to break the perpetual, risk-averse mediocrity cycle and actually contend. That and move off of attachment to and overpaying of aging vets in decline for the sake of familiarity and/or purple-tinted nostalgia.
I love JJ and he's a joy to watch and have on the team. I don't want to trade him. But I want a top 5 QB and a title even more. I've been waiting 50+ years so, pragmatism and taking the risk wins the day for me, if that unlikely scenario ever arises.
I'd say you're far more likely to get a Super Bowl with Cousins and JJ than you are without either.
I think the Vikings are going to extend Cousins long term, as they should, but I do think they should still keep taking shots on QBs where they sit or with small trades up. IOW, it doesn't have to be this super expensive #1 overall pick acquired by trading your best asset. Mahomes was the 2nd QB taken his draft. Hurts was the 5th. Stafford was acquired via trade. Brady was a free agent.
It will be interesting to see how Kwesi and O'Connell approach the QB situation moving forward. Based on Kwesi's comments last off-season, I think he likes Cousins but doesn't view him as a franchise changing QB. At some point, they (Kevin and Kwesi) are going to want to get "their" guy.
Even Kwesi said those comments were taken out of context from a conversation about the NBA. We'll find out soon enough what he really thinks. NFL GMs lie all the time, but they never lie with their checkbooks.
Extending KC is not going to tell what they really think except that they don't have a better plan in house and know they don't have the ammo to make a serious run at a top pick. They are stuck until they have his replacement in house imo. Sign him but still draft a QB high.
Agree, though I wouldn't use the word "stuck."
I'm all for drafting, or somehow acquiring, Cousins' eventual replacement. What I'm against is using Cousins value to achieve that. Teams should never trade a proven QB for an unproven one. Even KC still had Alex Smith when they drafted Mahomes. For those keeping score, in 2017 they traded from 27 to 10 by sending a 3rd rounder and their 2018 1st rounder to the Bills. Vikings could do something similar, though I wouldn't expect it this year.
Interestingly, the Bills used the extra 1st rounder in 2018 as ammo to move up and select Josh Allen.
STUCK, as in KCs shoes in cement when he gets to the top of his drop, or is pressured. We are stuck with a top tier arm talent attached to a statue, he will be good enough to keep us competitive, but with him on the team at the money he commands we will be stuck in the purgatory that we have know far to often. Drafting teens to mid-late 20s, getting the left overs from the rest of the teams that are making moves.
I think stuck is a pretty apt term when talking about KCs tenure here. We will have to agree to disagree on this one I'm sure.
Quote: @"StickyBun" said:
What's kind of amazing is how the franchise has had such a rich history of Hall of Fame WRers.
WR's & DL too...
Quote: @"JimmyinSD" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
@"Wetlander" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
@"comet52" said:
If there is a QB in a draft that Kwesi believes is the next Mahomes, and trading Jefferson gives him the capital to do it, then yes he should do it. His job is to build a champion and that could well entail taking a risk on a bold move.
The reality is, even the best wideout in the game is not likely to bring you into regular contention, but a top 5 quarterback is.
That type of qb is what this franchise should be looking for if it ever wants to break the perpetual, risk-averse mediocrity cycle and actually contend. That and move off of attachment to and overpaying of aging vets in decline for the sake of familiarity and/or purple-tinted nostalgia.
I love JJ and he's a joy to watch and have on the team. I don't want to trade him. But I want a top 5 QB and a title even more. I've been waiting 50+ years so, pragmatism and taking the risk wins the day for me, if that unlikely scenario ever arises.
I'd say you're far more likely to get a Super Bowl with Cousins and JJ than you are without either.
I think the Vikings are going to extend Cousins long term, as they should, but I do think they should still keep taking shots on QBs where they sit or with small trades up. IOW, it doesn't have to be this super expensive #1 overall pick acquired by trading your best asset. Mahomes was the 2nd QB taken his draft. Hurts was the 5th. Stafford was acquired via trade. Brady was a free agent.
It will be interesting to see how Kwesi and O'Connell approach the QB situation moving forward. Based on Kwesi's comments last off-season, I think he likes Cousins but doesn't view him as a franchise changing QB. At some point, they (Kevin and Kwesi) are going to want to get "their" guy.
Even Kwesi said those comments were taken out of context from a conversation about the NBA. We'll find out soon enough what he really thinks. NFL GMs lie all the time, but they never lie with their checkbooks.
Extending KC is not going to tell what they really think except that they don't have a better plan in house and know they don't have the ammo to make a serious run at a top pick. They are stuck until they have his replacement in house imo. Sign him but still draft a QB high.
Agree, though I wouldn't use the word "stuck."
I'm all for drafting, or somehow acquiring, Cousins' eventual replacement. What I'm against is using Cousins value to achieve that. Teams should never trade a proven QB for an unproven one. Even KC still had Alex Smith when they drafted Mahomes. For those keeping score, in 2017 they traded from 27 to 10 by sending a 3rd rounder and their 2018 1st rounder to the Bills. Vikings could do something similar, though I wouldn't expect it this year.
Interestingly, the Bills used the extra 1st rounder in 2018 as ammo to move up and select Josh Allen.
STUCK, as in KCs shoes in cement when he gets to the top of his drop, or is pressured. We are stuck with a top tier arm talent attached to a statue, he will be good enough to keep us competitive, but with him on the team at the money he commands we will be stuck in the purgatory that we have know far to often. Drafting teens to mid-late 20s, getting the left overs from the rest of the teams that are making moves.
I think stuck is a pretty apt term when talking about KCs tenure here. We will have to agree to disagree on this one I'm sure.
Yeah, don't agree with that at all obviously.
Quote: @"1VikesFan" said:
@"Kentis" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
They were just discussing a hypothetical trade of JJ to get into a position to rebuild the team and add a premium QB of the future. They were discussing 2 firsts, 2 seconds, and possibly another later round pick or two. This years first rounder would have to be a top 10 in this scenario.
Would you do it? If not what would it take? Or how little would you take?
Is the trade within our division…?  :p
I don't think Kwesi has traded with the Bears yet
Wouldn't it be an ironic twist of fate if Kwesi completes the "trade within the division" trifecta with the Bears this draft? They don't need a QB... maybe we move up to #1 to get our QBotF?
Bwahahahahaaa
Neither Mahomes nor Hurts were drafted with premium
picks. You don’t need to and probably
shouldn’t acquire a ton of picks to then trade them all away to get the #1 pick,
as guys that got drafted with more premium picks were sitting at home watching
the game. Once you have your QB, you
need to surround them with enough talent such that they can flourish, so I
think it’s counterproductive to trade an offensive asset for a QB, but I do
think there’s room for a conversation about roster composition and how much you
pay JJ before it starts to hinder the rest of the roster. There’s always a risk that he pulls a Diggs
and forces his way out shortly into his new contract, or of getting injured and
losing his edge. We’ve seen first hand
the damage that happens when you have a roster that is heavily invested in
older vets and what happens when they get injured and you can’t afford to have
adequate backups. Obviously JJ is still young,
but Hunter was young and we lost 2 years of production from him. Not that we shouldn’t pay him, but our entire
season shouldn’t go in the toilet when a non-QB gets an injury.
Quote: @"medaille" said:
Neither Mahomes nor Hurts were drafted with premium
picks. You don’t need to and probably
shouldn’t acquire a ton of picks to then trade them all away to get the #1 pick,
as guys that got drafted with more premium picks were sitting at home watching
the game. Once you have your QB, you
need to surround them with enough talent such that they can flourish, so I
think it’s counterproductive to trade an offensive asset for a QB, but I do
think there’s room for a conversation about roster composition and how much you
pay JJ before it starts to hinder the rest of the roster. There’s always a risk that he pulls a Diggs
and forces his way out shortly into his new contract, or of getting injured and
losing his edge. We’ve seen first hand
the damage that happens when you have a roster that is heavily invested in
older vets and what happens when they get injured and you can’t afford to have
adequate backups. Obviously JJ is still young,
but Hunter was young and we lost 2 years of production from him. Not that we shouldn’t pay him, but our entire
season shouldn’t go in the toilet when a non-QB gets an injury.
Note, the original premise was to get into position to take a QB of the future, as well as other picks to hasten the rebuild of the team like OL, DL, LB, DB, and yes, if JJ were gone WR would be on that list as well. I just wonder how often the very best at that or most any position, actually has the impact that their contracts demand vs what they would net in a trade or the production you could get from a lesser player. JJ is one of the best I have ever seen play the position, but 30+ million a year on top of what ever KC makes, that doesnt leave much scratch for filling all those other holes. At least with a trade you would have both money and opportunity to replace not only JJ and KC with young cheaper talent, you would have the ammo to fill a lot of other holes and get us out of the perpetual game of kick the cap can that eventually always comes home to roost.
I am not saying I would pull the trigger, but I would definitely be answering the phone and would consider the right package of picks as I think this team is in need of a major talent infusion as well as resetting the cap to make a real run, just dont see it happening soon with the current path we are on. I would add that before I would do this deal for JJ, I would be looking at my options for moving KC for a pick or two, and then looking to bring in a bridge QB and putting much more emphasis on finding a QBotF this draft.
Quote: @"Knucklehead" said:
You win SB's by acquiring more players of JJ's talent level not by trading those that you already have.
True, unless you have a QB like Mahomes. They traded Tyrek Hill and went on to win a Super Bowl without a adding a star WR to replace him. Having that QB who can put the team on their shoulders and carry them to a win is what turns a good team like KC into a Super Bowl winner and while I would not look to trade JJ, if it could possibly bring me a young QB like that, I would have to consider that.
|
