Quote: @HappyViking said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ StickyBun said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
Theres more to a TE than catching passes, his run blocking is nothing to write home about, not shit, but not something to brag on, so as far as best of all time I would still go with Jordan, or even Rudolph once he got after the blocking. He's a hell of a receiver though, but how quickly we forget the dropsies he had earlier in the year, some were just shit passes, but a few hit him in the mitts and he didn't reign in. Either way, hell of a weapon for who ever is playing QB.
IMO, the game has changed. The TE needs to be a pass receiving threat way more than a blocker. He's a glorified WRer in the modern NFL with all the passing rules favoring the offense.
I agree, but then why then do we still call the position TE? Especially when we see traditional WRs get motioned inside to block at the line. I think he's a hell of a receiver, just not a great TE from a smash mouth football era definition. Sounds to me like Jimmy Kleinsasser is your guy. B) Hock was brought in to replace the underachieving, always injured Irv Smith. ISJ wasn't drafted high because of his blocking either. I loved both Rudy and Jordan, but I think Hock is already better than Rudy in his prime, and if he stays with the team, his potential will supplant Jordan as the #1 TE. Maybe that's just me, but that's how I see it.
With his receiving abilities and a serviceable blocking, I would agree. And Rudolph was one of my favorite.
Quote: @greediron said:
@ HappyViking said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ StickyBun said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
Theres more to a TE than catching passes, his run blocking is nothing to write home about, not shit, but not something to brag on, so as far as best of all time I would still go with Jordan, or even Rudolph once he got after the blocking. He's a hell of a receiver though, but how quickly we forget the dropsies he had earlier in the year, some were just shit passes, but a few hit him in the mitts and he didn't reign in. Either way, hell of a weapon for who ever is playing QB.
IMO, the game has changed. The TE needs to be a pass receiving threat way more than a blocker. He's a glorified WRer in the modern NFL with all the passing rules favoring the offense.
I agree, but then why then do we still call the position TE? Especially when we see traditional WRs get motioned inside to block at the line. I think he's a hell of a receiver, just not a great TE from a smash mouth football era definition. Sounds to me like Jimmy Kleinsasser is your guy. B) Hock was brought in to replace the underachieving, always injured Irv Smith. ISJ wasn't drafted high because of his blocking either. I loved both Rudy and Jordan, but I think Hock is already better than Rudy in his prime, and if he stays with the team, his potential will supplant Jordan as the #1 TE. Maybe that's just me, but that's how I see it.
With his receiving abilities and a serviceable blocking, I would agree. And Rudolph was one of my favorite.
IMO, 0.0% doubt Hock is a better TE than Kyle Rudolph. WAY more of a weapon.
Quote: @StickyBun said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ StickyBun said:
Yep. Wasn't too long ago, earlier in the season, some fans were bagging on this trade. Not sure why but fans are going to fan.
The questioning or "bagging" was about money allocation and not Hock as a player. Was it wise to pay a top dollar TE contract with other large contracts that will need to be paid on the horizon and an unsettled quarterback position, or would it have been wiser to not make the trade, take advantage of a historically deep TE crop and have that player on a rookie deal for the next four years?
Well I guess the regime is 19-8 since taking over, a playoff appearance and has one of the most productive TEs in the NFL......so what's the question again? 'Historically deep'? So I thought fans liked proven commodities over 2 in the bush? Its all theory and optimum planning until it comes to actually doing it and seeing the results. Hock is a machine. The team just went 5-0 without Justin Jefferson. So what 'large contracts' should they be focusing on?
lol, you'll have to pardon my giggling over the 'rookie contracts' and all the other crap. Just give me players that actually produce, not the fantasy of a drafted player that MIGHT produce and you can leverage a contract. Because it can all go up in smoke because the draft is a crapshoot.
You're seeing a clinic in coaching on both sides of the ball in Minnesota.
It boils down to roster construction. You can't have the top paid TE, top paid receiver (on a historic deal), and the top paid left tackle, which we will undoubtedly will have to pay. Throw in Hunter and needed upgrades on defense and where's the money coming from? Oh and nevermind the unsettled quarterback situation we will be ponying up on. So again, giggle away...but that's what the questioning of the Hockenson trade and what it boiled down to. How it effects our ability to sign our other players and bring in upgrades down the line remains to be seen
The guy plays hurt, and still goes after the ball when he knows he's going to take a big hit. He had some drops early on, but we don't win at minimum the last two games without him. And the difference between him and a wide receiver, a wide receiver doesn't keep getting up after those massive hits he takes. We are damn lucky to have him.
Quote: @supafreak84 said:
@ StickyBun said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ StickyBun said:
Yep. Wasn't too long ago, earlier in the season, some fans were bagging on this trade. Not sure why but fans are going to fan.
The questioning or "bagging" was about money allocation and not Hock as a player. Was it wise to pay a top dollar TE contract with other large contracts that will need to be paid on the horizon and an unsettled quarterback position, or would it have been wiser to not make the trade, take advantage of a historically deep TE crop and have that player on a rookie deal for the next four years?
Well I guess the regime is 19-8 since taking over, a playoff appearance and has one of the most productive TEs in the NFL......so what's the question again? 'Historically deep'? So I thought fans liked proven commodities over 2 in the bush? Its all theory and optimum planning until it comes to actually doing it and seeing the results. Hock is a machine. The team just went 5-0 without Justin Jefferson. So what 'large contracts' should they be focusing on?
lol, you'll have to pardon my giggling over the 'rookie contracts' and all the other crap. Just give me players that actually produce, not the fantasy of a drafted player that MIGHT produce and you can leverage a contract. Because it can all go up in smoke because the draft is a crapshoot.
You're seeing a clinic in coaching on both sides of the ball in Minnesota.
It boils down to roster construction. You can't have the top paid TE, top paid receiver (on a historic deal), and the top paid left tackle, which we will undoubtedly will have to pay. Throw in Hunter and needed upgrades on defense and where's the money coming from? Oh and nevermind the unsettled quarterback situation we will be ponying up on. So again, giggle away...but that's what the questioning of the Hockenson trade and what it boiled down to. How it effects our ability to sign our other players and bring in upgrades down the line remains to be seen
Yes, it all seems to be so adversely affecting the team....one loaded with injuries. :p
Obviously they'll have to make compromises somewhere, like all teams do. The NFL cap always seems to be fluid and continue to go up to mitigate things slightly. They'll continue to hope that coaching makes a difference. Making solid personnel decisions. Nothing new. It always seems like some fans that 'question', really are just unhappy the team isn't doing things the way THEY want. Not saying that's you, but maybe it is.
Rudolph was a really good receiving TE, but my frustration with him was that he would never really break tackles or get a lot of yards after the catch. Hockenson is actually dangerous after he catches the ball, which is what separates him from Rudolph for me.
A more interesting question to me is would you rather have Hockenson or the Lions current TE Sam LaPorta? LaPorta has been playing well, but to get him, the Vikings would have either had to trade down and lose out on Addison or trade up and lose out on Blackmon, both of whom have had strong rookie seasons. LaPorta is on a rookie deal, which is advantageous over Hockenson's contract, but I wouldn't want to give up either Addison or Blackmon right now.
Quote: @StickyBun said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ StickyBun said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ StickyBun said:
Yep. Wasn't too long ago, earlier in the season, some fans were bagging on this trade. Not sure why but fans are going to fan.
The questioning or "bagging" was about money allocation and not Hock as a player. Was it wise to pay a top dollar TE contract with other large contracts that will need to be paid on the horizon and an unsettled quarterback position, or would it have been wiser to not make the trade, take advantage of a historically deep TE crop and have that player on a rookie deal for the next four years?
Well I guess the regime is 19-8 since taking over, a playoff appearance and has one of the most productive TEs in the NFL......so what's the question again? 'Historically deep'? So I thought fans liked proven commodities over 2 in the bush? Its all theory and optimum planning until it comes to actually doing it and seeing the results. Hock is a machine. The team just went 5-0 without Justin Jefferson. So what 'large contracts' should they be focusing on?
lol, you'll have to pardon my giggling over the 'rookie contracts' and all the other crap. Just give me players that actually produce, not the fantasy of a drafted player that MIGHT produce and you can leverage a contract. Because it can all go up in smoke because the draft is a crapshoot.
You're seeing a clinic in coaching on both sides of the ball in Minnesota.
It boils down to roster construction. You can't have the top paid TE, top paid receiver (on a historic deal), and the top paid left tackle, which we will undoubtedly will have to pay. Throw in Hunter and needed upgrades on defense and where's the money coming from? Oh and nevermind the unsettled quarterback situation we will be ponying up on. So again, giggle away...but that's what the questioning of the Hockenson trade and what it boiled down to. How it effects our ability to sign our other players and bring in upgrades down the line remains to be seen
Yes, it all seems to be so adversely affecting the team....one loaded with injuries. :p
Obviously they'll have to make compromises somewhere, like all teams do. The NFL cap always seems to be fluid and continue to go up to mitigate things slightly. They'll continue to hope that coaching makes a difference. Making solid personnel decisions. Nothing new. It always seems like some fans that 'question', really are just unhappy the team isn't doing things the way THEY want. Not saying that's you, but maybe it is.
Again, I brought up the Chiefs as an example who had to give away the most dangerous weapon in football in Tyreek Hill because they couldn't pay him with the other big money contracts they had to pay. It has nothing to do with management doing things the way I or anybody else "wanted" and has everything to do with questioning money allocation and roster building moving forward. Was paying Hockensen a historic contract for a TE a wise move, if it say...costs us Hunter or Darrisaw down the line? It can certainly be questioned and that was the entire premise of the perceived "bagging." Nobody is denying Hockensen is an upper echelon TE because he is, but the wisdom in giving him a historic contract with all these other deals on the horizon is certainly questionable
Quote: @supafreak84 said:
@ StickyBun said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ StickyBun said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ StickyBun said:
Yep. Wasn't too long ago, earlier in the season, some fans were bagging on this trade. Not sure why but fans are going to fan.
The questioning or "bagging" was about money allocation and not Hock as a player. Was it wise to pay a top dollar TE contract with other large contracts that will need to be paid on the horizon and an unsettled quarterback position, or would it have been wiser to not make the trade, take advantage of a historically deep TE crop and have that player on a rookie deal for the next four years?
Well I guess the regime is 19-8 since taking over, a playoff appearance and has one of the most productive TEs in the NFL......so what's the question again? 'Historically deep'? So I thought fans liked proven commodities over 2 in the bush? Its all theory and optimum planning until it comes to actually doing it and seeing the results. Hock is a machine. The team just went 5-0 without Justin Jefferson. So what 'large contracts' should they be focusing on?
lol, you'll have to pardon my giggling over the 'rookie contracts' and all the other crap. Just give me players that actually produce, not the fantasy of a drafted player that MIGHT produce and you can leverage a contract. Because it can all go up in smoke because the draft is a crapshoot.
You're seeing a clinic in coaching on both sides of the ball in Minnesota.
It boils down to roster construction. You can't have the top paid TE, top paid receiver (on a historic deal), and the top paid left tackle, which we will undoubtedly will have to pay. Throw in Hunter and needed upgrades on defense and where's the money coming from? Oh and nevermind the unsettled quarterback situation we will be ponying up on. So again, giggle away...but that's what the questioning of the Hockenson trade and what it boiled down to. How it effects our ability to sign our other players and bring in upgrades down the line remains to be seen
Yes, it all seems to be so adversely affecting the team....one loaded with injuries. :p
Obviously they'll have to make compromises somewhere, like all teams do. The NFL cap always seems to be fluid and continue to go up to mitigate things slightly. They'll continue to hope that coaching makes a difference. Making solid personnel decisions. Nothing new. It always seems like some fans that 'question', really are just unhappy the team isn't doing things the way THEY want. Not saying that's you, but maybe it is.
Again, I brought up the Chiefs as an example who had to give away the most dangerous weapon in football in Tyreek Hill because they couldn't pay him with the other big money contracts they had to pay. It has nothing to do with management doing things the way I or anybody else "wanted" and has everything to do with questioning money allocation and roster building moving forward. Was paying Hockensen a historic contract for a TE a wise move, if it say...costs us Hunter or Darrisaw down the line? It can certainly be questioned and that was the entire premise of the perceived "bagging." Nobody is denying Hockensen is an upper echelon TE because he is, but the wisdom in giving him a historic contract with all these other deals on the horizon is certainly questionable
There's a difference between 'questioning' and saying its definitely wrong. Again, it'll all come out in the wash, but you act now like you were just innocently 'questioning' the move when I remember quite vividly your opinion was way stronger than that. You were 'bagging' on it. And that's all I'm saying. Just own it.
Quote: @Tyr said:
Rudolph was a really good receiving TE, but my frustration with him was that he would never really break tackles or get a lot of yards after the catch. Hockenson is actually dangerous after he catches the ball, which is what separates him from Rudolph for me.
A more interesting question to me is would you rather have Hockenson or the Lions current TE Sam LaPorta? LaPorta has been playing well, but to get him, the Vikings would have either had to trade down and lose out on Addison or trade up and lose out on Blackmon, both of whom have had strong rookie seasons. LaPorta is on a rookie deal, which is advantageous over Hockenson's contract, but I wouldn't want to give up either Addison or Blackmon right now.
Rudolph was a big part of the last playoff win down in NO, so there are many fond memories. But yes, he was not nearly as athletic as Hock.
My wife says she likes Tight Ends.
we got her a Vikings shirt that says that and then lists Rudy and Hock and their numbers 
|
