Quote: @StickyBun said:
@ 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.
Well you are wrong. I never once said it was bad move. I know Hockenson is a good player, but I also knew with the trade what we'd have to pay him and questioned if that was a wise move considering our upcoming contracts, holes we needed to fill on the roster, and the TE talent pool in the draft being as deep and talented as it had ever been.
Quote: @supafreak84 said:
@ StickyBun said:
@ 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.
Well you are wrong. I never once said it was bad move. I know Hockenson is a good player, but I also knew with the trade what we'd have to pay him and questioned if that was a wise move considering our upcoming contracts, holes we needed to fill on the roster, and the TE talent pool in the draft being as deep and talented as it had ever been.
Ok, if you never said it was a 'bad' move, I'll believe you. My bad. All good with me regardless whether you did or not, just asking posters to own what they've said. No doubt Hock is expensive. But they've decided to pay talent at the TE position. Can't knock the productivity.
Quote: @StickyBun said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ StickyBun said:
@ 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.
Well you are wrong. I never once said it was bad move. I know Hockenson is a good player, but I also knew with the trade what we'd have to pay him and questioned if that was a wise move considering our upcoming contracts, holes we needed to fill on the roster, and the TE talent pool in the draft being as deep and talented as it had ever been.
Ok, if you never said it was a 'bad' move, I'll believe you. My bad. All good with me regardless whether you did or not, just asking posters to own what they've said. No doubt Hock is expensive. But they've decided to pay talent at the TE position. Can't knock the productivity.
Which is fine if that's how they want to build the roster and have built the roster in making him the top paid TE in the league. I'd just hate to see his contract come at the expense of extending Hunter, Darrisaw or one of these other pending big money deals. IMO you pay quarterbacks, receivers, and left tackles. Paying a TE top money...not so sure, and again it's not due to Hock not being a great player. It's almost like paying a running back or a kicker top dollar in today's game
Quote: @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.
So they don’t have to pay them like a WR…!!! Hock is essentially our #2 option behind JJ, take a look at what a top #2 reciever gets paid these days.
Quote: @supafreak84 said:
@ StickyBun said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ StickyBun said:
@ 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.
Well you are wrong. I never once said it was bad move. I know Hockenson is a good player, but I also knew with the trade what we'd have to pay him and questioned if that was a wise move considering our upcoming contracts, holes we needed to fill on the roster, and the TE talent pool in the draft being as deep and talented as it had ever been.
Ok, if you never said it was a 'bad' move, I'll believe you. My bad. All good with me regardless whether you did or not, just asking posters to own what they've said. No doubt Hock is expensive. But they've decided to pay talent at the TE position. Can't knock the productivity.
Which is fine if that's how they want to build the roster and have built the roster in making him the top paid TE in the league. I'd just hate to see his contract come at the expense of extending Hunter, Darrisaw or one of these other pending big money deals. IMO you pay quarterbacks, receivers, and left tackles. Paying a TE top money...not so sure, and again it's not due to Hock not being a great player. It's almost like paying a running back or a kicker top dollar in today's game
Not sure what the difference between a modern athletic TE is today compared to a WRer? They both are there to catch passes....overwhelmingly. So I do agree with what you are saying, but you are almost agreeing with signing Hock with what you've just said. A top TE in today's NFL catches the football, moves the chains and scores TDs. At least the top 5 in the NFL do and Hock is that. Just sayin'.
Quote: @StickyBun said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ StickyBun said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ StickyBun said:
@ 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.
Well you are wrong. I never once said it was bad move. I know Hockenson is a good player, but I also knew with the trade what we'd have to pay him and questioned if that was a wise move considering our upcoming contracts, holes we needed to fill on the roster, and the TE talent pool in the draft being as deep and talented as it had ever been.
Ok, if you never said it was a 'bad' move, I'll believe you. My bad. All good with me regardless whether you did or not, just asking posters to own what they've said. No doubt Hock is expensive. But they've decided to pay talent at the TE position. Can't knock the productivity.
Which is fine if that's how they want to build the roster and have built the roster in making him the top paid TE in the league. I'd just hate to see his contract come at the expense of extending Hunter, Darrisaw or one of these other pending big money deals. IMO you pay quarterbacks, receivers, and left tackles. Paying a TE top money...not so sure, and again it's not due to Hock not being a great player. It's almost like paying a running back or a kicker top dollar in today's game
Not sure what the difference between a modern athletic TE is today compared to a WRer? They both are there to catch passes....overwhelmingly. So I do agree with what you are saying, but you are almost agreeing with signing Hock with what you've just said. A top TE in today's NFL catches the football, moves the chains and scores TDs. At least the top 5 in the NFL do and Hock is that. Just sayin'.
The difference is about 13 million dollars a year in annual salary. That's the separation from the top paid tight end to the top paid receiver. Receivers are historically recognized as "game changers" and in today's league, have been paid as such. We are going to give Jefferson a historic contract, groundbreaking for a non quarterback. So with that in mind, and all the other upcoming big money deals we are going to have to fork out, was having the top paid TE in the league really the wisest decision? There are only so many slices of the pie to go around. It's how KAM has chosen to build the roster and we won't know if it was a good decision until we can assess what was lost.
Quote: @supafreak84 said:
@ StickyBun said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ StickyBun said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ StickyBun said:
@ 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.
Well you are wrong. I never once said it was bad move. I know Hockenson is a good player, but I also knew with the trade what we'd have to pay him and questioned if that was a wise move considering our upcoming contracts, holes we needed to fill on the roster, and the TE talent pool in the draft being as deep and talented as it had ever been.
Ok, if you never said it was a 'bad' move, I'll believe you. My bad. All good with me regardless whether you did or not, just asking posters to own what they've said. No doubt Hock is expensive. But they've decided to pay talent at the TE position. Can't knock the productivity.
Which is fine if that's how they want to build the roster and have built the roster in making him the top paid TE in the league. I'd just hate to see his contract come at the expense of extending Hunter, Darrisaw or one of these other pending big money deals. IMO you pay quarterbacks, receivers, and left tackles. Paying a TE top money...not so sure, and again it's not due to Hock not being a great player. It's almost like paying a running back or a kicker top dollar in today's game
Not sure what the difference between a modern athletic TE is today compared to a WRer? They both are there to catch passes....overwhelmingly. So I do agree with what you are saying, but you are almost agreeing with signing Hock with what you've just said. A top TE in today's NFL catches the football, moves the chains and scores TDs. At least the top 5 in the NFL do and Hock is that. Just sayin'.
The difference is about 13 million dollars a year in annual salary. That's the separation from the top paid tight end to the top paid receiver. Receivers are historically recognized as "game changers" and in today's league, have been paid as such. We are going to give Jefferson a historic contract, groundbreaking for a non quarterback. So with that in mind, and all the other upcoming big money deals we are going to have to fork out, was having the top paid TE in the league really the wisest decision? There are only so many slices of the pie to go around. It's how KAM has chosen to build the roster and we won't know if it was a good decision until we can assess what was lost.
Hock is on pace to break records for all time best Viking TE, both in catches and yards in a season. He does what WRers do. So again, I think your rationale is good but you aren't seeing that Hock is money spent in an area that is a 'game changer'. WRers and top 5 TEs do exactly the same thing in the modern NFL.
Good conversation. Appreciate you explaining your rationale even deeper.
Quote: @StickyBun said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ StickyBun said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ StickyBun said:
@ 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.
Well you are wrong. I never once said it was bad move. I know Hockenson is a good player, but I also knew with the trade what we'd have to pay him and questioned if that was a wise move considering our upcoming contracts, holes we needed to fill on the roster, and the TE talent pool in the draft being as deep and talented as it had ever been.
Ok, if you never said it was a 'bad' move, I'll believe you. My bad. All good with me regardless whether you did or not, just asking posters to own what they've said. No doubt Hock is expensive. But they've decided to pay talent at the TE position. Can't knock the productivity.
Which is fine if that's how they want to build the roster and have built the roster in making him the top paid TE in the league. I'd just hate to see his contract come at the expense of extending Hunter, Darrisaw or one of these other pending big money deals. IMO you pay quarterbacks, receivers, and left tackles. Paying a TE top money...not so sure, and again it's not due to Hock not being a great player. It's almost like paying a running back or a kicker top dollar in today's game
Not sure what the difference between a modern athletic TE is today compared to a WRer? They both are there to catch passes....overwhelmingly. So I do agree with what you are saying, but you are almost agreeing with signing Hock with what you've just said. A top TE in today's NFL catches the football, moves the chains and scores TDs. At least the top 5 in the NFL do and Hock is that. Just sayin'.
And the TE that can run those middle of the field seam routes is a green QBs best friend. No way we win the last two with Irv
Quote: @StickyBun said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ StickyBun said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ StickyBun said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ StickyBun said:
@ 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.
Well you are wrong. I never once said it was bad move. I know Hockenson is a good player, but I also knew with the trade what we'd have to pay him and questioned if that was a wise move considering our upcoming contracts, holes we needed to fill on the roster, and the TE talent pool in the draft being as deep and talented as it had ever been.
Ok, if you never said it was a 'bad' move, I'll believe you. My bad. All good with me regardless whether you did or not, just asking posters to own what they've said. No doubt Hock is expensive. But they've decided to pay talent at the TE position. Can't knock the productivity.
Which is fine if that's how they want to build the roster and have built the roster in making him the top paid TE in the league. I'd just hate to see his contract come at the expense of extending Hunter, Darrisaw or one of these other pending big money deals. IMO you pay quarterbacks, receivers, and left tackles. Paying a TE top money...not so sure, and again it's not due to Hock not being a great player. It's almost like paying a running back or a kicker top dollar in today's game
Not sure what the difference between a modern athletic TE is today compared to a WRer? They both are there to catch passes....overwhelmingly. So I do agree with what you are saying, but you are almost agreeing with signing Hock with what you've just said. A top TE in today's NFL catches the football, moves the chains and scores TDs. At least the top 5 in the NFL do and Hock is that. Just sayin'.
The difference is about 13 million dollars a year in annual salary. That's the separation from the top paid tight end to the top paid receiver. Receivers are historically recognized as "game changers" and in today's league, have been paid as such. We are going to give Jefferson a historic contract, groundbreaking for a non quarterback. So with that in mind, and all the other upcoming big money deals we are going to have to fork out, was having the top paid TE in the league really the wisest decision? There are only so many slices of the pie to go around. It's how KAM has chosen to build the roster and we won't know if it was a good decision until we can assess what was lost.
Hock is on pace to break records for all time best Viking TE, both in catches and yards in a season. He does what WRers do. So again, I think your rationale is good but you aren't seeing that Hock is money spent in an area that is a 'game changer'. WRers and top 5 TEs do exactly the same thing in the modern NFL.
Good conversation. Appreciate you explaining your rationale even deeper.
There's no debate he is one of the best TE's in the league, but we are just going to have to wait and see at what expense does making him the top paid TE in league history have on our ability to get contracts done with Jefferson, Darrisaw, Hunter, Cousins, etc.
Quote: @HappyViking said:
Sounds to me like Jimmy Kleinsasser is your guy.
Kleinsasser!!!
![[Image: v7fale9e6l1c.jpg]](https://vikefans.com/vfforums/uploads/editor/j4/v7fale9e6l1c.jpg)
|
