OBJ to the Vikes?

[Guest]

SprotsCenter

@MegaToughScene

· 48m

JUST IN: The @Browns have just released an official statement regarding the Odell Beckham Jr. trade.Show this thread

[Guest]

@HappyViking said:
Please, no more diva WRs, if possible.  Diggs proved to be such an enormous PITA they granted him his wish and traded him.  I don't think RS and Zim would even fathom the idea of targeting even a bigger PITA to replace Diggs.  I just don't see this happening.

This is probably a big reason Zim wants a run focused offense; less need for WRs.

[Guest]

ok fors anyone know if this is a real trade or just click bait?  I have heard its real and it is BS.

[Guest]

@PurplePastor said:

@HappyViking said:
Please, no more diva WRs, if possible.  Diggs proved to be such an enormous PITA they granted him his wish and traded him.  I don't think RS and Zim would even fathom the idea of targeting even a bigger PITA to replace Diggs.  I just don't see this happening.

This is probably a big reason Zim wants a run focused offense; less need for WRs.

Why does Run First=Less need for Receivers? Gary Kubiak won a Super Bowl as a Head Coach with a Run First Offense that also had a pair of 1,000 yard Receivers. And that was with Manning post-neck surgery, who clearly didn't have the same arm.

I'm not trying to criticize you specifically, but this notion that Run First teams don't need 2 good Receivers is patently false. Or shall I say 'Run First teams that are actually good hard to scheme against' Offenses.

Unless Minnesota somehow conjures up an Elite Offensive Line they are going to struggle to run the ball against stacked boxes. And why wouldn't a DC stack the box, double Thielen every snap, and dare Irv,.Sharpe, Rudy and Bisi to consistently make plays? 

The Ravens are a Run First team with a QB that is maybe their best rushing option. And they have a much better O-Line. And better Receivng threats at both TE spots and at WR other than Thielen. And yet with all of that they will be spending an early pick on another Receiver to go with Brown. That's pretty much the ultimate repudiation of the very concept of Run First teams not needing two good Receivers. 

[Guest]

@FSUVike said:

@PurplePastor said:

@HappyViking said:
Please, no more diva WRs, if possible.  Diggs proved to be such an enormous PITA they granted him his wish and traded him.  I don't think RS and Zim would even fathom the idea of targeting even a bigger PITA to replace Diggs.  I just don't see this happening.

This is probably a big reason Zim wants a run focused offense; less need for WRs.

Why does Run First=Less need for Receivers? Gary Kubiak won a Super Bowl as a Head Coach with a Run First Offense that also had a pair of 1,000 yard Receivers. And that was with Manning post-neck surgery, who clearly didn't have the same arm.

I'm not trying to criticize you specifically, but this notion that Run First teams don't need 2 good Receivers is patently false. Or shall I say 'Run First teams that are actually good hard to scheme against' Offenses.

Unless Minnesota somehow conjures up an Elite Offensive Line they are going to struggle to run the ball against stacked boxes. And why wouldn't a DC stack the box, double Thielen every snap, and dare Irv,.Sharpe, Rudy and Bisi to consistently make plays? 

The Ravens are a Run First team with a QB that is maybe their best rushing option. And they have a much better O-Line. And better Receivng threats at both TE spots and at WR other than Thielen. And yet with all of that they will be spending an early pick on another Receiver to go with Brown. That's pretty much the ultimate repudiation of the very concept of Run First teams not needing two good Receivers. 

Point well taken. I agree with you and understand your point. I was mainly referring to the diva disease that WRs tend to have. A run first offense obviously needs two or three decent WRs that are capable of burning the DBs to keep them honest, but isn't as dependent on the WRs being better than decent as much as a pass heavy offense. 

[Guest]

Minnesota Vikings

Jay GIazer

@MegaToughScene

·5h

BREAKING: The Cleveland Browns are trading WR Odell Beckham Jr. to the Minnesota Vikings in exchange for 2020 2nd, 3rd & 5th round picks.

[Guest]

@FessVike said:

Minnesota Vikings

Jay GIazer

@MegaToughScene

·5h

BREAKING: The Cleveland Browns are trading WR Odell Beckham Jr. to the Minnesota Vikings in exchange for 2020 2nd, 3rd & 5th round picks.

[Guest]

@FessVike said:

Minnesota Vikings

Jay GIazer

@MegaToughScene

·5h

BREAKING: The Cleveland Browns are trading WR Odell Beckham Jr. to the Minnesota Vikings in exchange for 2020 2nd, 3rd & 5th round picks.

[Guest]

Food for thought.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/04/16/the-obj-trade-talk-needs-to-be-taken-seriously-at-least-for-now/

The biggest story from Wednesday could end up being a nothing burger, or it could be a hot tamale. For now, there’s not much clarity regarding talk of a potential trade that would send receiver Odell Beckham Jr. from the Browns to the Vikings. And that lack of clarity requires the talk to be taken somewhat seriously, at least for now.At the risk of outing sources (which some consider to be bad form, but sometimes it’s necessary), it doesn’t take a genius (which means I’m qualified) to connect the dots from Marc Malusis of WFAN — the Giants’ flagship station — back to the team that drafted OBJ and employed him for five years. If the Vikings are considering trading for Beckham, the Vikings surely are doing their homework. That homework surely includes contacting, wait for it, the Giants.
Thus, the Vikings call the Giants and someone with the Giants leaks it to Malusis, and sometimes it’s just that simple.
From the Vikings’ perspective, don’t expect anything definitive unless and until a deal is done, if a deal is done. From “we have no intent to trade Percy Harvin” to “Stefon Diggs is a Minnesota Viking,” Vikings G.M. Rick Spielman has mastered the art of hedging his words when it comes to potential trades. Given that Beckham is under contract with the Browns, Spielman has any easy way to avoid any commentary on the topic, by simply citing a blanket position that the team doesn’t ever discuss issues related to players under contract with other teams.
From Cleveland’s perspective, the smart move (if there’s nothing to the trade talk) would be to shout from the rooftops that there’s nothing to the trade talk. Instead, the only Browns-side reporting comes from Mary Kay Cabot of the Cleveland Plain Dealer, who cites not a Browns source but a “source close to the Vikings” in support of the notion that the WFAN report is “false.”
So why aren’t the Browns saying anything, on or off the record, to Cabot? If there’s nothing to it, they need to put this fire out, quickly. If, alternatively, there’s a “there” there, the Browns are smart to not go there. If they tell Cabot that it’s false and she reports, citing a Browns source, that it’s false  and it ends up being not false, Cabot gets burned and the relationship gets damaged.
Bottom line? Based on how this emerged and how the teams involved have, and haven’t, reacted to it, it’s impossible to ignore it. That doesn’t mean it’s going to happening. But it can’t be written off as a non-story, yet.

[Guest]

Just let me meditate on this thought for a bit . . .

22
25
Harris sent for a 3rd

5 picks in the top 100 (2) 1sts (3) 3rds and OBJ

OBJ, Thelien, Cook, Rudy, Irv

Daymmnnn