Quote: @Wetlander said:
@ MaroonBells said:
For what it's worth, if we don't trade him, I expect his next extension to include a few voidable years, which are handy for aging players. The other side of that argument is that he's almost never hurt, which makes him seem like the kind of player who could feasibly play another 4-6 years without decline.
I don't think it will... Cousins bent Washington over playing on the franchise tag because he didn't feel the love from them. Then the Vikings showed him the love by giving him an essentially fully guaranteed 3 year deal. This past off-season, he could have easily asked for a longer extension with some fluff years tacked on to help the Vikings out with their cap after we showed him the love, but he didn't... he wanted another 2 year extension that became fully guaranteed within days after the end of his original 3 year deal.
I think Cousins likes these short fully guaranteed deals and I don't see it changing.
Of course he does: they represent actual money that he will be paid, and being short, he is able to sign a new deal when it's done - for more money.
$94M for 3 years is better - a higher rate of pay - than $94M for 5 or 6 years. You want to say that isn't a pay cut, fine - but a smart player knows it is. Teams love to tell players - stupid ones- that they are getting a deal that is something like $100M for 8 years. But the fine print usually says that only $50M is guaranteed. Everything that isn't guaranteed is an option for the team to keep the player at a price they already selected, and it may be a salary that is low because it was negotiated a few years ago and the salaries at their position have expanded with the (usually growing) cap. Or, sometimes the contract looks huge but has most of the money non-guaranteed at the back end and the team knows they will NEVER pay those years.
Cousins doesn't want to give the Vikings some 6 year deal with the option to keep him around for a low cost, and he also doesn't want a long deal that only pays a small amount early on and flatters him with some huge non-guaranteed amounts that will probably never get paid.
If the contract you want him to take does either of those things, it's a pay cut, by any name. If there is some option that still pays him just as well and allows him freedom, but puts part of his money into a bonus that doesn't hit the cap or does much later...well, Brez and Spielman should craft that deal and give it to him.
Quote: @JR44 said:
Remember when the word inside the Viking organization was that they were not trading Diggs, kind of like when they said they weren't trading Harvin.
I guess I don't see how this is relatable Two malcontents who in one way or another forced the teams hand. Or Cousins a good teammate who pretty much keeps quite and plays ball.
Quote: @Jor-El said:
@ Wetlander said:
@ MaroonBells said:
For what it's worth, if we don't trade him, I expect his next extension to include a few voidable years, which are handy for aging players. The other side of that argument is that he's almost never hurt, which makes him seem like the kind of player who could feasibly play another 4-6 years without decline.
I don't think it will... Cousins bent Washington over playing on the franchise tag because he didn't feel the love from them. Then the Vikings showed him the love by giving him an essentially fully guaranteed 3 year deal. This past off-season, he could have easily asked for a longer extension with some fluff years tacked on to help the Vikings out with their cap after we showed him the love, but he didn't... he wanted another 2 year extension that became fully guaranteed within days after the end of his original 3 year deal.
I think Cousins likes these short fully guaranteed deals and I don't see it changing.
Of course he does: they represent actual money that he will be paid, and being short, he is able to sign a new deal when it's done - for more money.
$94M for 3 years is better - a higher rate of pay - than $94M for 5 or 6 years. You want to say that isn't a pay cut, fine - but a smart player knows it is. Teams love to tell players - stupid ones- that they are getting a deal that is something like $100M for 8 years. But the fine print usually says that only $50M is guaranteed. Everything that isn't guaranteed is an option for the team to keep the player at a price they already selected, and it may be a salary that is low because it was negotiated a few years ago and the salaries at their position have expanded with the (usually growing) cap. Or, sometimes the contract looks huge but has most of the money non-guaranteed at the back end and the team knows they will NEVER pay those years.
Cousins doesn't want to give the Vikings some 6 year deal with the option to keep him around for a low cost, and he also doesn't want a long deal that only pays a small amount early on and flatters him with some huge non-guaranteed amounts that will probably never get paid.
If the contract you want him to take does either of those things, it's a pay cut, by any name. If there is some option that still pays him just as well and allows him freedom, but puts part of his money into a bonus that doesn't hit the cap or does much later...well, Brez and Spielman should craft that deal and give it to him.
LOL... You aren't understanding this at all. His contract wouldn't be 94 million for 3 years vs. 94 million for 5+ years. He would be paid the same 94 million in the first 3 years of the longer deal (same as the 3 yr deal), but by adding extra years which pushes the total contract value HIGHER than 94 million (let's say 156 million total), the Vikings can spread the dead money (his guaranteed 94 million) over 5 years instead of 3. That gives the team cap flexibility without taking any money out of Cousins pocket and still allows us to work out an extension or pay him a new market rate if we want after those first 3 years.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
For what it's worth, if we don't trade him, I expect his next extension to include a few voidable years, which are handy for aging players. The other side of that argument is that he's almost never hurt, which makes him seem like the kind of player who could feasibly play another 4-6 years without decline.
The Vikings have basically done everything in their power to avoid voidable years in the past. But the reality is other teams are having to use them to make their QB cap hits palatable. I see nothing wrong with it but it would be giving Kirk additional leverage.
Quote: @Wetlander said:
@ Jor-El said:
@ Wetlander said:
@ MaroonBells said:
For what it's worth, if we don't trade him, I expect his next extension to include a few voidable years, which are handy for aging players. The other side of that argument is that he's almost never hurt, which makes him seem like the kind of player who could feasibly play another 4-6 years without decline.
I don't think it will... Cousins bent Washington over playing on the franchise tag because he didn't feel the love from them. Then the Vikings showed him the love by giving him an essentially fully guaranteed 3 year deal. This past off-season, he could have easily asked for a longer extension with some fluff years tacked on to help the Vikings out with their cap after we showed him the love, but he didn't... he wanted another 2 year extension that became fully guaranteed within days after the end of his original 3 year deal.
I think Cousins likes these short fully guaranteed deals and I don't see it changing.
Of course he does: they represent actual money that he will be paid, and being short, he is able to sign a new deal when it's done - for more money.
$94M for 3 years is better - a higher rate of pay - than $94M for 5 or 6 years. You want to say that isn't a pay cut, fine - but a smart player knows it is. Teams love to tell players - stupid ones- that they are getting a deal that is something like $100M for 8 years. But the fine print usually says that only $50M is guaranteed. Everything that isn't guaranteed is an option for the team to keep the player at a price they already selected, and it may be a salary that is low because it was negotiated a few years ago and the salaries at their position have expanded with the (usually growing) cap. Or, sometimes the contract looks huge but has most of the money non-guaranteed at the back end and the team knows they will NEVER pay those years.
Cousins doesn't want to give the Vikings some 6 year deal with the option to keep him around for a low cost, and he also doesn't want a long deal that only pays a small amount early on and flatters him with some huge non-guaranteed amounts that will probably never get paid.
If the contract you want him to take does either of those things, it's a pay cut, by any name. If there is some option that still pays him just as well and allows him freedom, but puts part of his money into a bonus that doesn't hit the cap or does much later...well, Brez and Spielman should craft that deal and give it to him.
LOL... You aren't understanding this at all. His contract wouldn't be 94 million for 3 years vs. 94 million for 5+ years. He would be paid the same 94 million in the first 3 years of the longer deal (same as the 3 yr deal), but by adding extra years which pushes the total contract value HIGHER than 94 million (let's say 156 million total), the Vikings can spread the dead money (his guaranteed 94 million) over 5 years instead of 3. That gives the team cap flexibility without taking any money out of Cousins pocket and still allows us to work out an extension or pay him a new market rate if we want after those first 3 years.
Sounds great. So why didn't Spielman offer him this type of contract if it would be just as valuable to Cousins and let them have a lower cap hit? I don't profess to know all these clever contract/cap tricks. But it's either a worse deal (pay cut) for Cousins - in which case I don't blame him for turning it down - or it's something the front office should have worked out, and they're the ones to blame if they didn't.
Quote: @Wetlander said:
@ Jor-El said:
@ Wetlander said:
@ MaroonBells said:
For what it's worth, if we don't trade him, I expect his next extension to include a few voidable years, which are handy for aging players. The other side of that argument is that he's almost never hurt, which makes him seem like the kind of player who could feasibly play another 4-6 years without decline.
I don't think it will... Cousins bent Washington over playing on the franchise tag because he didn't feel the love from them. Then the Vikings showed him the love by giving him an essentially fully guaranteed 3 year deal. This past off-season, he could have easily asked for a longer extension with some fluff years tacked on to help the Vikings out with their cap after we showed him the love, but he didn't... he wanted another 2 year extension that became fully guaranteed within days after the end of his original 3 year deal.
I think Cousins likes these short fully guaranteed deals and I don't see it changing.
Of course he does: they represent actual money that he will be paid, and being short, he is able to sign a new deal when it's done - for more money.
$94M for 3 years is better - a higher rate of pay - than $94M for 5 or 6 years. You want to say that isn't a pay cut, fine - but a smart player knows it is. Teams love to tell players - stupid ones- that they are getting a deal that is something like $100M for 8 years. But the fine print usually says that only $50M is guaranteed. Everything that isn't guaranteed is an option for the team to keep the player at a price they already selected, and it may be a salary that is low because it was negotiated a few years ago and the salaries at their position have expanded with the (usually growing) cap. Or, sometimes the contract looks huge but has most of the money non-guaranteed at the back end and the team knows they will NEVER pay those years.
Cousins doesn't want to give the Vikings some 6 year deal with the option to keep him around for a low cost, and he also doesn't want a long deal that only pays a small amount early on and flatters him with some huge non-guaranteed amounts that will probably never get paid.
If the contract you want him to take does either of those things, it's a pay cut, by any name. If there is some option that still pays him just as well and allows him freedom, but puts part of his money into a bonus that doesn't hit the cap or does much later...well, Brez and Spielman should craft that deal and give it to him.
LOL... You aren't understanding this at all. His contract wouldn't be 94 million for 3 years vs. 94 million for 5+ years. He would be paid the same 94 million in the first 3 years of the longer deal (same as the 3 yr deal), but by adding extra years which pushes the total contract value HIGHER than 94 million (let's say 156 million total), the Vikings can spread the dead money (his guaranteed 94 million) over 5 years instead of 3. That gives the team cap flexibility without taking any money out of Cousins pocket and still allows us to work out an extension or pay him a new market rate if we want after those first 3 years.
Are you thinking specifically about signing bonus guarantees? For the salary guarantee you can't as easily spread it out this way. I get where you are going with it but the inevitable fact of backloading the contract is that you're just pushing Kirk 2022 $45M cap hit (the bottleneck) into the future. You still have to cross the bridge at some point.
Kirk is winning the NFL contract game and has continued to win it by maintaining leverage. In the most recent renegotiations he didn't have to sign an extension last season. Doing so helped the Vikings but in return he got a short-term deal which benefits him and also go the large 2022 cap hit which forces the Vikings to make the next move and effectively prevents the franchise tag in 2023.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ Hawkvike25 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ greediron said:
@ minny65 said:
@"Geoff Nichols" said:
I will put it to rest. The Vikings have absolutely zero interest in trading Kirk Cousins. It doesn't matter if the 49ers want him, he isn't available. I also feel very confident that the 49ers would not offer the 12th pick straight up with Kirk.
I agree and said the same above your post. That said I still don't think we should rule out drafting a QB in round 1. My supply/demand theory (ponder reach) vs Favre/Rodgers. I don't think having Cousins/rookie QB is such a bad thing.
Rick's biggest failure IMO. We have never had a developmental QB worth worrying about. Ponder and some old dude. Teddy and some even older dude. Kirk and a nobody. I get having a veteran mentor for the young QB, but you gotta have something in the well in case they bust like Ponder or get hurt like Teddy. We mortgaged the future because everyone knew Hill was way over his name and wouldn't make it through the season.
Yeah, but when has a "developmental" QB ever really developed? Seems to me there are three kinds: QBs you draft in the 1st to be starters, QBs you get lucky on (Dak, Brady, Wilson), and QBs who are drafted to be backups. I can't think of too many low-experience, high-upside QBs drafted in the mid-to-late rounds that actually developed into starters. Rich Gannon I guess.
I do agree that we can probably do better than Sean Mannion.
how many really get the chance? Cousins comes to mind, but most of those mid round guys never really see the field as they are behind somebody drafted higher that the coaches and gms have more professionally invested in succeeding.
Quite a few get their chance when the starter goes down. Tyrod Taylor got his chance, as has CJ Beathard, Brett Hundley, Matt Flynn, and Colt McCoy. Some obviously didnt have a chance to take over for the current QB but they had their shot to get noticed for a different option
Some do, most are spot starters who have never been given a real chance to compete due to an entrenched starter. its one thing to get to see the field, its another thing to get the amount of reps with the starters to really get comfortable in that role. thats why IMO being able to mentor a rookie QB and ease them into that starter role is better than just throwing them out there and scream swim MOFO swim.
Rich Gannon was drafted by the Patriots in the 4th round to be a RB. The Vikings wanted to developed him as a QB and it took 5 years before he became a starter for the Vikings. 4x pro-bowl, league MVP, took the Raiders to a the Superbowl.
Brad Johnson was drafted in the 9th round and needed to spend some time in the world league developing as a QB. It took 4 years before he saw legit starting time for the Vikings. 2x pro bowl, and won a Superbowl for the Bucs. Tony Dungy was a assistant coach with the Vikings in Johnson's early developmental years. Dungy later won a Superbowl with Johnson as his starter in Tampa Bay.
These are just two examples of "developmental" QB that went on to greatness. A development QB can only start out as a backup. It doesn't matter how they get starting experience,... the key elements is that they must be ready to take advantage of the opportunity when they get it. It is harder for some of these guys today because teams are only keeping two QB and the window to show improvement is a matter of games not years.
Yes, I do believe QBs can still be developed. I would love to see the Vikings draft a 3rd to 5th round QB this year as an understudy to Cousins. Why not?
If Brad Johnson or Rich Gannon can take teams to the Big Show... Cousins (or his backup) can do it too.
Quote: @Carl Knowles said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ Hawkvike25 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ greediron said:
@ minny65 said:
@"Geoff Nichols" said:
I will put it to rest. The Vikings have absolutely zero interest in trading Kirk Cousins. It doesn't matter if the 49ers want him, he isn't available. I also feel very confident that the 49ers would not offer the 12th pick straight up with Kirk.
I agree and said the same above your post. That said I still don't think we should rule out drafting a QB in round 1. My supply/demand theory (ponder reach) vs Favre/Rodgers. I don't think having Cousins/rookie QB is such a bad thing.
Rick's biggest failure IMO. We have never had a developmental QB worth worrying about. Ponder and some old dude. Teddy and some even older dude. Kirk and a nobody. I get having a veteran mentor for the young QB, but you gotta have something in the well in case they bust like Ponder or get hurt like Teddy. We mortgaged the future because everyone knew Hill was way over his name and wouldn't make it through the season.
Yeah, but when has a "developmental" QB ever really developed? Seems to me there are three kinds: QBs you draft in the 1st to be starters, QBs you get lucky on (Dak, Brady, Wilson), and QBs who are drafted to be backups. I can't think of too many low-experience, high-upside QBs drafted in the mid-to-late rounds that actually developed into starters. Rich Gannon I guess.
I do agree that we can probably do better than Sean Mannion.
how many really get the chance? Cousins comes to mind, but most of those mid round guys never really see the field as they are behind somebody drafted higher that the coaches and gms have more professionally invested in succeeding.
Quite a few get their chance when the starter goes down. Tyrod Taylor got his chance, as has CJ Beathard, Brett Hundley, Matt Flynn, and Colt McCoy. Some obviously didnt have a chance to take over for the current QB but they had their shot to get noticed for a different option
Some do, most are spot starters who have never been given a real chance to compete due to an entrenched starter. its one thing to get to see the field, its another thing to get the amount of reps with the starters to really get comfortable in that role. thats why IMO being able to mentor a rookie QB and ease them into that starter role is better than just throwing them out there and scream swim MOFO swim.
Rich Gannon was drafted by the Patriots in the 4th round to be a RB. The Vikings wanted to developed him as a QB and it took 5 years before he became a starter for the Vikings. 4x pro-bowl, league MVP, took the Raiders to a the Superbowl.
Brad Johnson was drafted in the 9th round and needed to spend some time in the world league developing as a QB. It took 4 years before he saw legit starting time for the Vikings. 2x pro bowl, and won a Superbowl for the Bucs. Tony Dungy was a assistant coach with the Vikings in Johnson's early developmental years. Dungy later won a Superbowl with Johnson as his starter in Tampa Bay.
These are just two examples of "developmental" QB that went on to greatness. A development QB can only start out as a backup. It doesn't matter how they get starting experience,... the key elements is that they must be ready to take advantage of the opportunity when they get it. It is harder for some of these guys today because teams are only keeping two QB and the window to show improvement is a matter of games not years.
Yes, I do believe QBs can still be developed. I would love to see the Vikings draft a 3rd to 5th round QB this year as an understudy to Cousins. Why not?
If Brad Johnson or Rich Gannon can take teams to the Big Show... Cousins (or his backup) can do it too.
Gannon definitely fits. But both he and Johnson were taken 30 years ago. Have you counted all the middle round "developmental" QBs the NFL has drafted in the last 15 years or so? None of them ever really develop.
Thinking of guys like Logan Thomas. Big guy, huge arm, good athlete. Man, if you could ever develop him. He's now playing TE. Jacoby Brissett, Deshone Kizer, Cardale Jones, Brett Hundley.
PIck QBs you think will be good backups and maybe you get lucky, because the "developmental QB" is a myth IMO.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ Carl Knowles said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ Hawkvike25 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ greediron said:
@ minny65 said:
@"Geoff Nichols" said:
I will put it to rest. The Vikings have absolutely zero interest in trading Kirk Cousins. It doesn't matter if the 49ers want him, he isn't available. I also feel very confident that the 49ers would not offer the 12th pick straight up with Kirk.
I agree and said the same above your post. That said I still don't think we should rule out drafting a QB in round 1. My supply/demand theory (ponder reach) vs Favre/Rodgers. I don't think having Cousins/rookie QB is such a bad thing.
Rick's biggest failure IMO. We have never had a developmental QB worth worrying about. Ponder and some old dude. Teddy and some even older dude. Kirk and a nobody. I get having a veteran mentor for the young QB, but you gotta have something in the well in case they bust like Ponder or get hurt like Teddy. We mortgaged the future because everyone knew Hill was way over his name and wouldn't make it through the season.
Yeah, but when has a "developmental" QB ever really developed? Seems to me there are three kinds: QBs you draft in the 1st to be starters, QBs you get lucky on (Dak, Brady, Wilson), and QBs who are drafted to be backups. I can't think of too many low-experience, high-upside QBs drafted in the mid-to-late rounds that actually developed into starters. Rich Gannon I guess.
I do agree that we can probably do better than Sean Mannion.
how many really get the chance? Cousins comes to mind, but most of those mid round guys never really see the field as they are behind somebody drafted higher that the coaches and gms have more professionally invested in succeeding.
Quite a few get their chance when the starter goes down. Tyrod Taylor got his chance, as has CJ Beathard, Brett Hundley, Matt Flynn, and Colt McCoy. Some obviously didnt have a chance to take over for the current QB but they had their shot to get noticed for a different option
Some do, most are spot starters who have never been given a real chance to compete due to an entrenched starter. its one thing to get to see the field, its another thing to get the amount of reps with the starters to really get comfortable in that role. thats why IMO being able to mentor a rookie QB and ease them into that starter role is better than just throwing them out there and scream swim MOFO swim.
Rich Gannon was drafted by the Patriots in the 4th round to be a RB. The Vikings wanted to developed him as a QB and it took 5 years before he became a starter for the Vikings. 4x pro-bowl, league MVP, took the Raiders to a the Superbowl.
Brad Johnson was drafted in the 9th round and needed to spend some time in the world league developing as a QB. It took 4 years before he saw legit starting time for the Vikings. 2x pro bowl, and won a Superbowl for the Bucs. Tony Dungy was a assistant coach with the Vikings in Johnson's early developmental years. Dungy later won a Superbowl with Johnson as his starter in Tampa Bay.
These are just two examples of "developmental" QB that went on to greatness. A development QB can only start out as a backup. It doesn't matter how they get starting experience,... the key elements is that they must be ready to take advantage of the opportunity when they get it. It is harder for some of these guys today because teams are only keeping two QB and the window to show improvement is a matter of games not years.
Yes, I do believe QBs can still be developed. I would love to see the Vikings draft a 3rd to 5th round QB this year as an understudy to Cousins. Why not?
If Brad Johnson or Rich Gannon can take teams to the Big Show... Cousins (or his backup) can do it too.
Gannon definitely fits. But both he and Johnson were taken 30 years ago. Have you counted all the middle round "developmental" QBs the NFL has drafted in the last 15 years or so? None of them ever really develop.
Thinking of guys like Logan Thomas. Big guy, huge arm, good athlete. Man, if you could ever develop him. He's now playing TE. Jacoby Brissett, Deshone Kizer, Cardale Jones, Brett Hundley.
PIck QBs you think will be good backups and maybe you get lucky, because the "developmental QB" is a myth IMO.
If we are taking a shot day 3, Fellipe Franks is my guy at the moment. Good size, pedigree, and SEC background.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ Carl Knowles said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ Hawkvike25 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ greediron said:
@ minny65 said:
@"Geoff Nichols" said:
I will put it to rest. The Vikings have absolutely zero interest in trading Kirk Cousins. It doesn't matter if the 49ers want him, he isn't available. I also feel very confident that the 49ers would not offer the 12th pick straight up with Kirk.
I agree and said the same above your post. That said I still don't think we should rule out drafting a QB in round 1. My supply/demand theory (ponder reach) vs Favre/Rodgers. I don't think having Cousins/rookie QB is such a bad thing.
Rick's biggest failure IMO. We have never had a developmental QB worth worrying about. Ponder and some old dude. Teddy and some even older dude. Kirk and a nobody. I get having a veteran mentor for the young QB, but you gotta have something in the well in case they bust like Ponder or get hurt like Teddy. We mortgaged the future because everyone knew Hill was way over his name and wouldn't make it through the season.
Yeah, but when has a "developmental" QB ever really developed? Seems to me there are three kinds: QBs you draft in the 1st to be starters, QBs you get lucky on (Dak, Brady, Wilson), and QBs who are drafted to be backups. I can't think of too many low-experience, high-upside QBs drafted in the mid-to-late rounds that actually developed into starters. Rich Gannon I guess.
I do agree that we can probably do better than Sean Mannion.
how many really get the chance? Cousins comes to mind, but most of those mid round guys never really see the field as they are behind somebody drafted higher that the coaches and gms have more professionally invested in succeeding.
Quite a few get their chance when the starter goes down. Tyrod Taylor got his chance, as has CJ Beathard, Brett Hundley, Matt Flynn, and Colt McCoy. Some obviously didnt have a chance to take over for the current QB but they had their shot to get noticed for a different option
Some do, most are spot starters who have never been given a real chance to compete due to an entrenched starter. its one thing to get to see the field, its another thing to get the amount of reps with the starters to really get comfortable in that role. thats why IMO being able to mentor a rookie QB and ease them into that starter role is better than just throwing them out there and scream swim MOFO swim.
Rich Gannon was drafted by the Patriots in the 4th round to be a RB. The Vikings wanted to developed him as a QB and it took 5 years before he became a starter for the Vikings. 4x pro-bowl, league MVP, took the Raiders to a the Superbowl.
Brad Johnson was drafted in the 9th round and needed to spend some time in the world league developing as a QB. It took 4 years before he saw legit starting time for the Vikings. 2x pro bowl, and won a Superbowl for the Bucs. Tony Dungy was a assistant coach with the Vikings in Johnson's early developmental years. Dungy later won a Superbowl with Johnson as his starter in Tampa Bay.
These are just two examples of "developmental" QB that went on to greatness. A development QB can only start out as a backup. It doesn't matter how they get starting experience,... the key elements is that they must be ready to take advantage of the opportunity when they get it. It is harder for some of these guys today because teams are only keeping two QB and the window to show improvement is a matter of games not years.
Yes, I do believe QBs can still be developed. I would love to see the Vikings draft a 3rd to 5th round QB this year as an understudy to Cousins. Why not?
If Brad Johnson or Rich Gannon can take teams to the Big Show... Cousins (or his backup) can do it too.
Gannon definitely fits. But both he and Johnson were taken 30 years ago. Have you counted all the middle round "developmental" QBs the NFL has drafted in the last 15 years or so? None of them ever really develop.
Thinking of guys like Logan Thomas. Big guy, huge arm, good athlete. Man, if you could ever develop him. He's now playing TE. Jacoby Brissett, Deshone Kizer, Cardale Jones, Brett Hundley.
PIck QBs you think will be good backups and maybe you get lucky, because the "developmental QB" is a myth IMO.
I agree. The op's reference to "greatness" is way over the top. No one is carving a bust in Canton for Gannon, Johnson or Dilfer. Guys who once in their career were lucky to be in the right place at the right time.
The Vikings have had late round guys, fa's etc. on the roster over the years and none have amounted to a thing. Develop longshots? They can't find greatness when they a burn a first rounder on the likes of Ponder and Teddy, how are they gonna do it with a selection from Ricky's annual round 7 smorgasbord?
|
