Posts: 1,209
Threads: 784
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation:
272
It’s interesting how many similarities there are between Minnesota and Seattle. Both are teams who wanted to run the ball and play good defense. Wilson is probably top 5, Cousins top 10, similar cap hits, same age. Both teams have a really good young WR and defenses that just weren’t good enough to play the kind of football they wanted to play.
While Minnesota fired their GM and HC, the new regime has decided to run it back, keeping their roster largely intact. Seattle, on the other hand, is blowing it up. They traded Wilson, they released Bobby Wagner and right now have Drew Lock and Geno Smith at QB. They’re rumored to be interested in Baker Mayfield, a player many suggested for the Vikings if we had taken a similar path.
Will Seattle draft a QB at 9 or wait until next year? Either way, it will be very interesting to see what happens there. How long before they’re competitive again? Which team made the right decision?
Yep, worth keeping an eye on. If Minnesota has another non-playoff year upcoming, I'll think you'll see them take a similar approach to Seattle. But if you look at last year, how the team was poorly coached situationally, how the defense collapsed in epic proportions in historically bad ways and the team STILL being in most games, I think it undertstandably gave the new regime hope for a quick fix.
Run it Back seems to be the right way to go. Doesn't mean it will work out that way. But its probably the best decision that may not bear results to match the prudent move. We'll see.
Won't likely know for 3 to 5 years. Even then lots of variables.
Quote: @"JimmyinSD" said:
Won't likely know for 3 to 5 years. Even then lots of variables.
Agreed. But that won't stop a good chunk of fans from micromanaging or overreacting year to year. 5 years might be a bit much, but the variables thing is very true. Unfortunately, the Vikings' long history is that the X-factors and variables are rarely on their side. Truly, the vast majority of us long timers will have to see it to believe it.
Funny enough if I were them, I’d have said run it back with Russ, DK, Lockett, and try your best to retool the defense. And if I were us, I’d have leaned towards blow it up. Shows what I know.
I will say I really like how KAM has spent money this offseason— primarily on the Kirk and Z Smith deals— that will allow us to run it back yet again the following year if things go well this season. But if not, we can move on from many pieces after this season or at worst in Kirk’s case, the following year.
For a first-time GM on a 4-year contract, I have to admit what he’s doing is probably the most sensible approach. For a long-suffering fan who covets an elite QB for once, I would have done things differently. I’m very interested and excited to see how the draft goes.
Last thought— I do think if Rick Spielman were still the GM the offseason to date would have gone very, very similar to how it’s gone. Seems like the Wilfs wanted a culture change, not a roster change. Which knowing all that we know now, seems wise.
Quote: @"pattersaur" said:
Last thought— I do think if Rick Spielman were still the GM the offseason to date would have gone very, very similar to how it’s gone. Seems like the Wilfs wanted a culture change, not a roster change. Which knowing all that we know now, seems wise.
Two things: if they are 'Running it Back', what kind of big roster changes get made? And with the cap they inherited, how many moves can they truly make? Not much of the roster was EVER going to be changed for 2022 regardless if Pee Wee Herman was the GM.
The issue with the Seahawks is their draft classes for the last 5 years have been pathetic, like comically bad. Their team, on paper, is not good and it makes it hard to win with a pricy QB and high end free agents as opposed to impact players on rookie deals. Pretty easy to know you have to blow it up and get a ton of draft picks
Quote: @"Hawkvike25" said:
The issue with the Seahawks is their draft classes for the last 5 years have been pathetic, like comically bad. Their team, on paper, is not good and it makes it hard to win with a pricy QB and high end free agents as opposed to impact players on rookie deals. Pretty easy to know you have to blow it up and get a ton of draft picks
Yeah, its not apples for apples.
Quote: @"StickyBun" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
Won't likely know for 3 to 5 years. Even then lots of variables.
Agreed. But that won't stop a good chunk of fans from micromanaging or overreacting year to year. 5 years might be a bit much, but the variables thing is very true. Unfortunately, the Vikings' long history is that the X-factors and variables are rarely on their side. Truly, the vast majority of us long timers will have to see it to believe it.
I went with 5 since KAM is still saddled with some remaining issues for his first year or 2 that would hinder him getting a clean run at his vision. Unless a total flop I would give about any HC or GM 5 years minimum to produce their vision.
Seattle is about to find out what life is like without a HOF/Franchise/Elite QB.
Didnt take em too long to forget. How long did Wilson play there? 8 seasons? 9?
Unless they got a GB size QB horseshoe up their asz? The 12th man isnt very intimidating now.
|
