Hunter

[Guest]

@bigbone62 said:

@HappyViking said:

@1VikesFan said:

@supafreak84 said:
Signed in Houston. Two year deal 

Could be worth up to 51 million for the two years 

So Houston wouldn't pay Greenard but was willing to shell out big bucks for Hunter.  The Vikes, on the other hand, wouldn't pay Hunter, but would shell out the big $$s for Greenard. 
Interesting...

I understand that you're going to double down on being "GrumpyViking" about anything and everything. But all mental gymnastics aside is this really your take? You don't think that perhaps they didn't re-sign Greenard because they felt comfortable in that they were signing the top d-end in free agency?  

I'm sort of floored that people really felt Hunter ever had any intention of re-signing short of a historic deal. Two separate regimes fucked around with not giving a serious effort to re-up. Repeatedly floated that the team was open for a trade and asked for restructures. I thought it was obvious if he wasn't extended last season he wasn't coming back.

Between returning home to Texas and Houston being and obvious up and coming young team this was a no brainier for him. 

Not sure I understand your reply.  I just simply thought how each team let their high priced DE leave only to sign another; basically a swap.  It's kind of strange is all.  Maybe you read more into my simple reply than intended.
I honestly have never heard of Greenard before, but I am disappointed about losing Hunter.  The dude is a beast, but hopefully Greenard maybe fits better in the Flores D?  Not sure...

[Guest]

@medaille said:

@VikingOracle said:

@Greylock said:
You have to wonder do the Viking coaches and Kwesi know something about Hunter and that's the reason they didn't attempt to sigh him?  Pretty odd that a guy almost everybody thought was a must resign is still available.

Two thoughts to this -- either (a) Vikings really messed up by not trading him this past season or (b) Vikings couldn't trade him last season because of whatever is non-public.

Additional thought;  Hunter is the anti-Cousins.  While Cousins has repeatedly maximized his compensation, Hunter has repeatedly done bad deals or set himself up in a position to be underpaid.  His agent should have known already where he was going to sign.

Additional thought:  His medicals may be taking time or frightening off teams.

When we signed him to his last extension, he got a no trade clause. 

You sure?  It would explain a lot but I couldn't find that.  I knew he couldn't be tagged but I think he could be traded.

Where I looked: 

https://www.nfl.com/news/vikings-daniell...%20Bowler.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1009...ins-injury

https://www.si.com/nfl/vikings/news/repo...e-interest

[Guest]

@VikingOracle said:

@medaille said:

@VikingOracle said:

@Greylock said:
You have to wonder do the Viking coaches and Kwesi know something about Hunter and that's the reason they didn't attempt to sigh him?  Pretty odd that a guy almost everybody thought was a must resign is still available.

Two thoughts to this -- either (a) Vikings really messed up by not trading him this past season or (b) Vikings couldn't trade him last season because of whatever is non-public.

Additional thought;  Hunter is the anti-Cousins.  While Cousins has repeatedly maximized his compensation, Hunter has repeatedly done bad deals or set himself up in a position to be underpaid.  His agent should have known already where he was going to sign.

Additional thought:  His medicals may be taking time or frightening off teams.

When we signed him to his last extension, he got a no trade clause. 

You sure?  It would explain a lot but I couldn't find that.  I knew he couldn't be tagged but I think he could be traded.

Where I looked: 

https://www.nfl.com/news/vikings-daniell...%20Bowler.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1009...ins-injury

https://www.si.com/nfl/vikings/news/repo...e-interest

Pretty sure it was a no tag clause,  not a no trade clause.

[Guest]

I really liked Hunter.....but I never found myself loving him. Maybe I'm underrating him, but he disappears at times. For a super athletic guy it seemed a decent part of his sacks came from coverage. Maybe that's just perception and not reality. 

[Guest]

@StickyBun said:
I really liked Hunter.....but I never found myself loving him. Maybe I'm underrating him, but he disappears at times. For a super athletic guy it seemed a decent part of his sacks came from coverage. Maybe that's just perception and not reality. 

Like another has said,  he never seemed to take over situations like the greats of their era have done.  He's a nice piece that you hate to lose,  but he didn't drive the defense.