Quote: @supafreak84 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ PurplePastor said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
So much for the notion of " in a few years this contract will be a bargain " that we always hear when a top money deal is inked. I fear anything done with Hunter will net the same remarks and in a couple years the same results.
I hear you, but this is positional. RBs are not not as valued as they once were and our offensive strategy has definitely shifted away from placing high value on that position since Cook's contract was forged.
RBs devaluation had started before this contract, its just some were late to the party ( Rick and Zim ) as certain positions eat larger and larger shares of the salary cap, other positions will have to be devalued beyond the RB contracts. We have kind of seen it with Safety the last few years as well. What other positions will feel the same crunch in coming years so we can avoid over paying and having to find ourselves in this situation again.
Personally I am not sold on Hunter in a 34 D and while I acknowledge that he ended up with good numbers on the surface last year, I just am concerned about his health and fit in this new D and would be OK with moving on from him for a good return, in lieu of giving him a monster deal and then seeing him flounder or get hurt and miss a lot of time again.
Yup, time to unload Hunter. If we can get a 1st I'd be ecstatic.
I think if you do that...then what's the argument for keeping Cousins?
to sell hope... and to not totally freak out JJ, TJ and Darrisaw before you get them extended.
You think trading away our best defensive player sells them hope?
Depends on what they do with the money and picks. It can't be argued that the team isn't in a rebuild, and as such some sacrifices need to be made, Hunter seems to me to be a candidate for not playing at a high level past 30 or so, so I am fine with buying low and selling high as long as they can get good compensation for him. I doubt the O guys spend much time thinking about the D except on game day.
I'm sure the guys on O were plenty concerned watching teams march up and down the field against us at will last season, particularly in the playoffs. If you trade Hunter, then we really aren't trying to compete, and I'm fine with that, but then why hold on to Cousins going into the last year of his deal as a 35 year old quarterback who could bring similar draft pick compensation and cap relief? Let's not half ass this rebuild
because they arent going to move on from Kirk, the fact that he is still here says the either there was no viable offers, or they dont plan on moving on from him until they have his replacement in house.
I agree that it won't happen, but if they move Hunter for draft picks, then trading Cousins SHOULD be the next logical domino to fall. Why half ass a tank job? You move Hunter on the heels of everyone else that's been moved, then the chances of us being competitive in 2023 goes out the window. I'd rather win 4 games starting Jaren Hall then winning 8 games starting Kirk Cousins and missing the playoffs because that would be about our ceiling IMO.
I think it makes the most sense, but I have made that point for over a year. it makes even more sense now that his contract numbers are fixed for this year and we wouldnt have to fit the entire 48 million onto this years cap.
Hunter is an elite 43 DE and probably a pretty good 34
edge. I can see a world where Hunter
wants to get paid elite 43 DE money, whereas Kwesi with his analytic brain can’t
pay him more than pretty good 34 edge money, because the inefficiencies are too
much or something.
Cousins is a pretty good QB for pretty good QB money, but
you’re just chasing that pretty good or better QB for rookie wage scale money
because the efficiency is off the charts.
Quote: @Greylock said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ PurplePastor said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
So much for the notion of " in a few years this contract will be a bargain " that we always hear when a top money deal is inked. I fear anything done with Hunter will net the same remarks and in a couple years the same results.
I hear you, but this is positional. RBs are not not as valued as they once were and our offensive strategy has definitely shifted away from placing high value on that position since Cook's contract was forged.
RBs devaluation had started before this contract, its just some were late to the party ( Rick and Zim ) as certain positions eat larger and larger shares of the salary cap, other positions will have to be devalued beyond the RB contracts. We have kind of seen it with Safety the last few years as well. What other positions will feel the same crunch in coming years so we can avoid over paying and having to find ourselves in this situation again.
Personally I am not sold on Hunter in a 34 D and while I acknowledge that he ended up with good numbers on the surface last year, I just am concerned about his health and fit in this new D and would be OK with moving on from him for a good return, in lieu of giving him a monster deal and then seeing him flounder or get hurt and miss a lot of time again.
Yup, time to unload Hunter. If we can get a 1st I'd be ecstatic.
I think if you do that...then what's the argument for keeping Cousins?
to sell hope... and to not totally freak out JJ, TJ and Darrisaw before you get them extended.
You think trading away our best defensive player sells them hope?
Depends on what they do with the money and picks. It can't be argued that the team isn't in a rebuild, and as such some sacrifices need to be made, Hunter seems to me to be a candidate for not playing at a high level past 30 or so, so I am fine with buying low and selling high as long as they can get good compensation for him. I doubt the O guys spend much time thinking about the D except on game day.
I'm sure the guys on O were plenty concerned watching teams march up and down the field against us at will last season, particularly in the playoffs. If you trade Hunter, then we really aren't trying to compete, and I'm fine with that, but then why hold on to Cousins going into the last year of his deal as a 35 year old quarterback who could bring similar draft pick compensation and cap relief? Let's not half ass this rebuild
Understand what you are saying about the potential of not having Hunter for what ever reason this season. But Hunter was on the field last season when teams were marching up and down the field so why keep a player that doesn't fit in this defense and could eat up a large portion of the cap with a new contract? Move him for picks and get some more cap relief going forward.
Well teams marched up and down the field on us because of the total lack of pass defense. It was pitch and catch all year with our DB's giving up huge cushions and mostly everyone completely confused in pass coverage. An Ed Donatell shit show sandwich is what it was, and what I told everybody it was going to be. Maybe if we offered anything in the way of pass defense Hunter ends up with 15 or 16 sacks and this isn't even a topic for discussion. I think managing what he did playing as a ridiculous 3-4 OLB was outstanding. He was our best player last season and has been arguably our best player over the years anytime he is healthy and on the field. So yeah, if they want to move him in a trade over a contract then you might as well move everyone over the age of about 25 who doesn't fit into our long term plans and take what you can get for them. Cousins would be domino #1
Kwesi 86'd Thielen, Cook, Smith and Kendricks and received back a 5th round pick.
Yay?
Quote: @Mattyman said:
Kwesi 86'd Thielen, Cook, Smith and Kendricks and received back a 5th round pick.
Yay?
Declining players on bad contracts, how much would you have given up for any of them? It's not like any teams were beating down his door with offers and he decided to cut them instead of trading them.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
So much for the notion of " in a few years this contract will be a bargain " that we always hear when a top money deal is inked. I fear anything done with Hunter will net the same remarks and in a couple years the same results.
I don't think I've heard anyone say that about any position other than QB, for which it clearly remains true.
Hunter is a pivot point in my mind. THE pivot point for the Vikings '23 season and beyond. I think Bradbury, Cousins, Thielen, Cook, Kendricks, etc., were all pretty easy and obvious decisions. Hunter is more complicated.
He's an elite NFL pass rusher making far less than he should. He's good, young, and with a fully healthy season in '22 behind him, no longer an acute injury risk. But he's also not among the Vikings core of youth (JJ, Darrisaw, TJH) for whom the decision to keep or move is obvious.
Bottom line is that if the Vikings extend Hunter, they fully expect to contend in '23. If they trade him, it's about '24. It's now less of a "competitive" rebuild and more of a total rebuild with miles of cap space and the draft capital needed to move up for Cousins' replacement.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
So much for the notion of " in a few years this contract will be a bargain " that we always hear when a top money deal is inked. I fear anything done with Hunter will net the same remarks and in a couple years the same results.
I don't think I've heard anyone say that about any position other than QB, for which it clearly remains true.
Hunter is a pivot point in my mind. THE pivot point for the Vikings '23 season and beyond. I think Bradbury, Cousins, Thielen, Cook, Kendricks, etc., were all pretty easy and obvious decisions. Hunter is more complicated.
He's an elite NFL pass rusher making far less than he should. He's good, young, and with a fully healthy season in '22 behind him, no longer an acute injury risk. But he's also not among the Vikings core of youth (JJ, Darrisaw, TJH) for whom the decision to keep or move is obvious.
Bottom line is that if the Vikings extend Hunter, they fully expect to contend in '23. If they trade him, it's about '24. It's now less of a "competitive" rebuild and more of a total rebuild with miles of cap space and the draft capital needed to move up for Cousins' replacement.
LOL, pretty sure you yourself have said that about a lot of contracts that the Vikings have offered over the last 5 years or more, regardless of position, anytime somebody says its to much.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
So much for the notion of " in a few years this contract will be a bargain " that we always hear when a top money deal is inked. I fear anything done with Hunter will net the same remarks and in a couple years the same results.
I don't think I've heard anyone say that about any position other than QB, for which it clearly remains true.
Hunter is a pivot point in my mind. THE pivot point for the Vikings '23 season and beyond. I think Bradbury, Cousins, Thielen, Cook, Kendricks, etc., were all pretty easy and obvious decisions. Hunter is more complicated.
He's an elite NFL pass rusher making far less than he should. He's good, young, and with a fully healthy season in '22 behind him, no longer an acute injury risk. But he's also not among the Vikings core of youth (JJ, Darrisaw, TJH) for whom the decision to keep or move is obvious.
Bottom line is that if the Vikings extend Hunter, they fully expect to contend in '23. If they trade him, it's about '24. It's now less of a "competitive" rebuild and more of a total rebuild with miles of cap space and the draft capital needed to move up for Cousins' replacement.
LOL, pretty sure you yourself have said that about a lot of contracts that the Vikings have offered over the last 5 years or more, regardless of position, anytime somebody says its to much.
I'm sure it's been said before but I doubt I ever said it. But yeah, contracts go up. Always have, always will.
But because contracts for other positions are rarely a bone of contention, nobody really talks much about what percentage of cap they represent, for example. QB contracts are the ones that get all the scrutiny because they're so visible....and enormous...and controversial.
QB, because the position is so important, yet reliant on other factors like system and supporting cast, it's hard to get a clear picture of what you really have. Not so other positions. You don't pay average edge rushers big contracts, but you do it all the time at QB. You either pay them market value or you go try to find another one. And the impact of that decision is HUGE. Think if Justin Fields were up for renewal right now. Do the Bears pay him? Good fucking question.
That's why seemingly average QBs like Derek Carr, Daniel Jones and Ryan Tannehill get ridiculous contracts. Seemingly average backs, edges, tackles, etc., don't.
Quote: @Mattyman said:
Kwesi 86'd Thielen, Cook, Smith and Kendricks and received back a 5th round pick.
Yay?
Spielman would've fetched at least 3 firsts, stooopid Vikings! B)
|
