Quote: @"supafreak84" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"supafreak84" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"supafreak84" said:
@"HappyViking" said:
@"supafreak84" said:
@"HappyViking" said:
@"supafreak84" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
@"supafreak84" said:
I still think Byron Murphy is in the conversation for us at 11. It would be nice however to have either EDGE or DT addressed before the draft. I'm just not sure if the front office envisions Van Ginkel as "the guy" opposite Greenard or just a rotation piece?
Where do we get the QB?
I'd envision if they went defense with the first pick, they'd move back up into the late 1st for Nix or Penix. I just don't think we mortgage our future moving up into the top 3 or having to jockey for whatever is ledtover with Denver and Vegas. Going defense at 11 and picking up one of those other two later on isnt a bad idea
I think it's safer to nab the QB at 11 then trade back into the 1st to grab the Edge or DT you want.
Maybe, but we still need an impact player along our defensive front and where does that come from at this point? I don't consider Greenard/Van Ginkel to be an upgrade over Hunter/Wonnum and at minimum you are hoping they can come close to matching that production. So where do we get better and upgrade a position of need? I guess I'm assuming a stud DT or Edge would still be available after the 11th pick, and somehow Kwesi can package a deal to get back into the first round and get their guy. It's the same theory for trading back up to nab a 1st round QB.
Would a QB they covet be more likely available in the mid to late rounds of the first or DL player? I'm not sure.I think they have to get the QB at 11, and then go D in round 2, if the trade up doesn't work. It's a rebuild year, and they need the picks anyway.
Maybe, but what if the quarterback they want isn't there at #11 or we get jumped in a trade up by either Denver or Vegas? You don't take a quarterback just to take a quarterback is my point, and the choices of quality defenders is going to be much more plentiful at 11 than quarterbacks I would guess. This team needs a sure thing in the first round.
thats the bed they made with the choices they have made to date, they wanted out of Kirk the Mercs antics ( which I agree with ) but they didnt have a decent bridge option in place, so now they will have to do what they have to do in order to not get left at the alter, its not a great situation, but its the one they face, might as well keep ATL on that list of potential QB takers as well, was listening to a couple different radio shows yesterday and both said while its unlikely, its not off the table for ATL to go QB this year since the pool is deeper than most, they wont likely be drafting this high in the next couple years, and essentially their deal with Kirk could be only 2 years with only 10 million dead cap depending on how they spread that 50 mill signing bonus. again not likely, but the notion that the choices are going to there by trading back in are just as remote as one of the top 3 being there at 11 IMO.
I agree with you, but unfortunately the "trade up or bust" philosophy only doubles down on our misery if that quarterback busts by trading future draft assets for the opportunity to take a swing. It didn't work out in SF with Lance and it didn't work out woth the Panthers moving up for Bryce Young last year. Worst case scenario for the Vikings is forcing a trade up (because you think you have to), giving up multiple future first round picks, and that quarterback being the bust that many turn out to be. I said this in the other thread, but if you want to throw this franchise into another Hershall Walker type black hole....this is the way to do it, and I don't know about everybody else, but I'd rather stay put, grab BPA (if it's a QB, great) and move back up into the late first where the compensation is much more reasonable and grab Penix or Nix. Are those two really that much of a drop-off after anyone not named Caleb Williams at QB? I don't think so. And worst case if we don't like what we see after a year, we are likely drafting top 5 again next season, still have our first round pick, and won't need to "sell the farm" to grab one of the elite prospects in 2025.
I dont want to trade up for the top 3, maybe if we can get into the top 5-7 range by only using a couple of this years picks, otherwise hang tight at 11 and take the best of whats left, should still be 2 good prospects at 11 unless there is an unprecedented run on the position. I just dont think you try and push the QB pick down the board, just inviting disaster for what? maybe a 3rd or 4th round pick that will be in the mid to later parts of those rounds? not worth missing out on what would in a normal year be a top 3 QB prospect.
Any move up from 11 into the top 3 to 5 picks is going to be massive based on past precedence. I'm just saying the Vikings don't need to be desperate and sell the farm because they think they "have to" to grab a quarterback. Do we need one? Absolutely. Would I mortgage three years of 1st round picks + for the opportunity to move up and take that swing? Absolutely not. The risk is too great. Roll with Darnold and whomever else they can get, continue building the defense, and we likely go into the 2025 offseason with a top 5 pick and over 100 million in cap room to spend in free agency.
and still no QB, there are 6 good QB prospects that could go 1st round, 4 likely before 11, but if the punits are right and Maye and Williams go in that first 3 with Daniels, that leaves 3 damn nice prospects outside the top 3 or 4 draft picks that wouldnt require as much, and depending on how the top 3-5 shake out, maybe you dont need to even use future picks, maybe you can get by with just using this years stock? its a wait and see thing IMO. one thing about being desperate, not many teams are going to not call the VIkings if they are looking at trading down so we should be in the loop on about anything available to move up.
Quote: @"supafreak84" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"supafreak84" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"supafreak84" said:
@"HappyViking" said:
@"supafreak84" said:
@"HappyViking" said:
@"supafreak84" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
@"supafreak84" said:
I still think Byron Murphy is in the conversation for us at 11. It would be nice however to have either EDGE or DT addressed before the draft. I'm just not sure if the front office envisions Van Ginkel as "the guy" opposite Greenard or just a rotation piece?
Where do we get the QB?
I'd envision if they went defense with the first pick, they'd move back up into the late 1st for Nix or Penix. I just don't think we mortgage our future moving up into the top 3 or having to jockey for whatever is ledtover with Denver and Vegas. Going defense at 11 and picking up one of those other two later on isnt a bad idea
I think it's safer to nab the QB at 11 then trade back into the 1st to grab the Edge or DT you want.
Maybe, but we still need an impact player along our defensive front and where does that come from at this point? I don't consider Greenard/Van Ginkel to be an upgrade over Hunter/Wonnum and at minimum you are hoping they can come close to matching that production. So where do we get better and upgrade a position of need? I guess I'm assuming a stud DT or Edge would still be available after the 11th pick, and somehow Kwesi can package a deal to get back into the first round and get their guy. It's the same theory for trading back up to nab a 1st round QB.
Would a QB they covet be more likely available in the mid to late rounds of the first or DL player? I'm not sure.I think they have to get the QB at 11, and then go D in round 2, if the trade up doesn't work. It's a rebuild year, and they need the picks anyway.
Maybe, but what if the quarterback they want isn't there at #11 or we get jumped in a trade up by either Denver or Vegas? You don't take a quarterback just to take a quarterback is my point, and the choices of quality defenders is going to be much more plentiful at 11 than quarterbacks I would guess. This team needs a sure thing in the first round.
thats the bed they made with the choices they have made to date, they wanted out of Kirk the Mercs antics ( which I agree with ) but they didnt have a decent bridge option in place, so now they will have to do what they have to do in order to not get left at the alter, its not a great situation, but its the one they face, might as well keep ATL on that list of potential QB takers as well, was listening to a couple different radio shows yesterday and both said while its unlikely, its not off the table for ATL to go QB this year since the pool is deeper than most, they wont likely be drafting this high in the next couple years, and essentially their deal with Kirk could be only 2 years with only 10 million dead cap depending on how they spread that 50 mill signing bonus. again not likely, but the notion that the choices are going to there by trading back in are just as remote as one of the top 3 being there at 11 IMO.
I agree with you, but unfortunately the "trade up or bust" philosophy only doubles down on our misery if that quarterback busts by trading future draft assets for the opportunity to take a swing. It didn't work out in SF with Lance and it didn't work out woth the Panthers moving up for Bryce Young last year. Worst case scenario for the Vikings is forcing a trade up (because you think you have to), giving up multiple future first round picks, and that quarterback being the bust that many turn out to be. I said this in the other thread, but if you want to throw this franchise into another Hershall Walker type black hole....this is the way to do it, and I don't know about everybody else, but I'd rather stay put, grab BPA (if it's a QB, great) and move back up into the late first where the compensation is much more reasonable and grab Penix or Nix. Are those two really that much of a drop-off after anyone not named Caleb Williams at QB? I don't think so. And worst case if we don't like what we see after a year, we are likely drafting top 5 again next season, still have our first round pick, and won't need to "sell the farm" to grab one of the elite prospects in 2025.
I dont want to trade up for the top 3, maybe if we can get into the top 5-7 range by only using a couple of this years picks, otherwise hang tight at 11 and take the best of whats left, should still be 2 good prospects at 11 unless there is an unprecedented run on the position. I just dont think you try and push the QB pick down the board, just inviting disaster for what? maybe a 3rd or 4th round pick that will be in the mid to later parts of those rounds? not worth missing out on what would in a normal year be a top 3 QB prospect.
Any move up from 11 into the top 3 to 5 picks is going to be massive based on past precedence. I'm just saying the Vikings don't need to be desperate and sell the farm because they think they "have to" to grab a quarterback. Do we need one? Absolutely. Would I mortgage three years of 1st round picks + for the opportunity to move up and take that swing? Absolutely not. The risk is too great. Roll with Darnold and whomever else they can get, continue building the defense, and we likely go into the 2025 offseason with a top 5 pick and over 100 million in cap room to spend in free agency.
Totally agree. A move up into the top 5 will cost us our 2025 1st & much more. Now that Kirko is gone I can see us potentially having a top 10 pick next year. I don't want to take the chance on giving that up. Since the season ended, I've been touting the depth of this QB class & how much deeper it will be than the 2025 class. But if we have a top 10 pick next year, we'll have a legit chance of drafting Sanders or Beck. I'm not saying don't draft a QB this year because next year's pick isn't guaranteed, I'm saying don't trade up to do so.
Another thought, missing on a 1st round QB doesn't set you back. Look no further than the Steelers who whiffed on Pickett & are still playoff contenders this year. But what does set you back is trading multiple high picks to move up to draft a QB & then missing on that QB.
Jonathan Bullard just resigned....does that count?
|
