Vikes sign Ham

[Guest]

@MaroonBells said:

@BrickVike said:

Tom Pelissero

@TomPelissero

The #Vikings signed FB C.J. Ham to new contract that's worth $12.25 million over four years, including $4M in 2020, source said. A nice bump from the restricted tender.

Wow, that's a lot. You can't find a FB in the 6th round who could replace what he gives us...at a fraction of the cost? Keep in mind, only, what, about a third of NFL teams actually use a FB? Less?

Exactly!
Rudolph extension is close, but not since Jon Carlson have I been THIS puzzled over a deal.
Like, what team was falling over the table to steal our Ham?

[Guest]

He is a phenomenal blocker. 
He rarely blows an assignment. 
He can line up behind the QB, offset, on the ends and we even split him out wide. 
He made the pro-bowl without rushing or receiving figures. 
His role has expanded in our offense every year he's been here. 
He played in 34% of our offensive snaps and 55% of our special teams snaps this past season.

The last team to overpay a FB while experts laughed was San Fransisco with Juszczyk. I can't recall hearing how overpayed he was in the lead up to our playoff game, or recall hearing about how much the 49ers needed their star free agent RB Jerrick McKinnon. Nobody seemed to care that he was overpaid when he was lead blocking for the scrubbiest group of successful running backs in the NFL.

[Guest]

Why was the Rudolph extension bad? He just finished his best year ever as a blocker, much needed without Morgan. And was still a receiving threat when needed. And insurance if Irv was not ready.

Not defending the Ham deal. And I'm in the minority but not pleased with Wilson's deal either. But Rudy was worth it.

[Guest]

@MaroonBells said:

@BrickVike said:

Tom Pelissero

@TomPelissero

The #Vikings signed FB C.J. Ham to new contract that's worth $12.25 million over four years, including $4M in 2020, source said. A nice bump from the restricted tender.

Wow, that's a lot. You can't find a FB in the 6th round who could replace what he gives us...at a fraction of the cost? Keep in mind, only, what, about a third of NFL teams actually use a FB? Less?

I like Ham, I'm not complaining.

 Blasingame was a  viable less expensive option. Still wish they'd kept him.

[Guest]

[Guest]

Was trying to quote a post above. But the structure of the deal makes a lot of sense. Its only $1.75M for a year of Ham which is far less than the RFA tender. From there on its year to year. 

[Guest]

@"Geoff Nichols" said:
Was trying to quote a post above. But the structure of the deal makes a lot of sense. Its only $1.75M for a year of Ham which is far less than the RFA tender. From there on its year to year. 

Thanks! Was struggling to defend this one.

[Guest]

@FSUVike said:
Why was the Rudolph extension bad? He just finished his best year ever as a blocker, much needed without Morgan. And was still a receiving threat when needed. And insurance if Irv was not ready.

Not defending the Ham deal. And I'm in the minority but not pleased with Wilson's deal either. But Rudy was worth it.

He's a nice player but I would've much rather seen that money spent elsewhere.
Paying that much for a TE to block on the outside when the middle of our OL (especially at that time) was getting steamrolled and we could barely run the ball was questionable. His deal looks fine now I guess, so that's why I said Carlson.
Also, I don't have strong opinions on the Wilson deal. He's fine sometimes, but looked awful against SF. But so did everyone. I DO feel strongly about the Ham deal even though @BlackMagic7 brings up some good points.

[Guest]

@pattersaur said:

 I DO feel strongly about the Ham deal even though @BlackMagic7 brings up some good points.

Being the kid grew up down the street from me up here in northern MN and I played for the same high school for the same coach he did, i'll admit I am HELLA biased. 

Very proud of what he's accomplished for his family and himself.