Posts: 45
Threads: 26
Joined: Aug 2019
Reputation:
24
If you can win without JJ on the field does it make sense to make him the highest paid WR in league history?
The emotional fan in me is like I love him he is the greatest I want him in purple.
The logical business person in me ask could that money be better spent elsewhere?
Tyrek Hill got paid $120 million for 4 years. Great Player. The Chiefs lost the bidding war and still won a Superbowl.
Could 30 million a year go to 3-4 key roll players?
Thoughts?
Quite a feat for the coaches and players to overcome that.
He's the face of the franchise, a gift from the football gods in the draft.
No chance of winning in the NFL today if you cant pass and cant pass protect.
Mahomes is a generational talent and can make-up for Tyreek to a large extent. Vikings have no such asset.
It is what it is. Teams will win Superbowls without having JJ on their roster. Same when Tom Brady was playing. Or Patrick Mahomes. But you want all the talent you can accumulate. Pushes the margins of winning in your favor more often. Many times, big plays decided games. You need playmakers.
I don’t think this conversation is
applicable to teams with generational HOF QBs.
Having a QB that is perennially elite and field tilting will outweigh
almost all other factors. You can make a
lot of mistakes roster wise when you have an elite QB.
I do think there’s a strong argument to be had, that as long
as we have McCardell as WR coach and are churning out productive WRs left and
right, that maybe we don’t need to spend QB money on a WR and instead use that at
one or three of the positions we seemingly can’t figure out how to get right. Obviously having JJ is better than not having
JJ, but maybe JJ is not better than 2-3 other pro bowl caliber players. I think a lot of it depends on your timeline
too. If you’re “going all in”, then fuck
budgeting, get all the elite players you can and worry about the costs later. If you’re trying to be perennially good, well
budgeting matters than. Also outside of Cousins,
JJ is as much of a face for the franchise as any other player, and he’s
probably that one guy that brings elite street cred to the Vikings from the
national media. You can probably get rid
of either Cousins or JJ, but getting rid of both of them probably is tough on
the marketing department and getting butts in the seats even if the analytics
give us a better odds without them.
Quote: @"medaille" said:
I don’t think this conversation is
applicable to teams with generational HOF QBs.
Having a QB that is perennially elite and field tilting will outweigh
almost all other factors. You can make a
lot of mistakes roster wise when you have an elite QB.
I do think there’s a strong argument to be had, that as long
as we have McCardell as WR coach and are churning out productive WRs left and
right, that maybe we don’t need to spend QB money on a WR and instead use that at
one or three of the positions we seemingly can’t figure out how to get right. Obviously having JJ is better than not having
JJ, but maybe JJ is not better than 2-3 other pro bowl caliber players. I think a lot of it depends on your timeline
too. If you’re “going all in”, then fuck
budgeting, get all the elite players you can and worry about the costs later. If you’re trying to be perennially good, well
budgeting matters than. Also outside of Cousins,
JJ is as much of a face for the franchise as any other player, and he’s
probably that one guy that brings elite street cred to the Vikings from the
national media. You can probably get rid
of either Cousins or JJ, but getting rid of both of them probably is tough on
the marketing department and getting butts in the seats even if the analytics
give us a better odds without them.
Probably the biggest reason the team gives the extension. He is marketing gold.
Another great thing about JJ is he has not exhibited any prima-donna crap like many top Wr's before him - Diggs etc.
Also, zero off-the-field issues which is also marketing gold for both Vikings and the NFL.
Quote: @"medaille" said:
I don’t think this conversation is
applicable to teams with generational HOF QBs.
Having a QB that is perennially elite and field tilting will outweigh
almost all other factors. You can make a
lot of mistakes roster wise when you have an elite QB.
I do think there’s a strong argument to be had, that as long
as we have McCardell as WR coach and are churning out productive WRs left and
right, that maybe we don’t need to spend QB money on a WR and instead use that at
one or three of the positions we seemingly can’t figure out how to get right. Obviously having JJ is better than not having
JJ, but maybe JJ is not better than 2-3 other pro bowl caliber players. I think a lot of it depends on your timeline
too. If you’re “going all in”, then fuck
budgeting, get all the elite players you can and worry about the costs later. If you’re trying to be perennially good, well
budgeting matters than. Also outside of Cousins,
JJ is as much of a face for the franchise as any other player, and he’s
probably that one guy that brings elite street cred to the Vikings from the
national media. You can probably get rid
of either Cousins or JJ, but getting rid of both of them probably is tough on
the marketing department and getting butts in the seats even if the analytics
give us a better odds without them.
I agree with a lot of this but not the bolded part. JJ is way more the face of this team than Kirk was/is. Jefferson is always a top jersey seller and Kirk never is. I'm not sure what other metric we have to go by but looking around in the stands on gameday there are way more 18s than 8s.
If the Vikings have to choose one or the other, they'll choose JJ for sure. Younger, more popular, better at his position... it's not close. I know QB is the most important position and Kirk has played very well but JJ is the face of this team for sure and should be for a long time. Trading him for anything short of a generational QB talent would be foolish. Like others have said, KC could afford to trade Tyreek because they had Mahomes. Very few teams are in position to do that. CIN, BUF come to mind but not many others. It's an interesting thought because JJ could bring a haul, but it's so high-risk that a move like that blows up in your face, I don't think many GMs would do it, nevermind whether or not they even should.
Quote: @"medaille" said:
I don’t think this conversation is
applicable to teams with generational HOF QBs.
Having a QB that is perennially elite and field tilting will outweigh
almost all other factors. You can make a
lot of mistakes roster wise when you have an elite QB.
I do think there’s a strong argument to be had, that as long
as we have McCardell as WR coach and are churning out productive WRs left and
right, that maybe we don’t need to spend QB money on a WR and instead use that at
one or three of the positions we seemingly can’t figure out how to get right. Obviously having JJ is better than not having
JJ, but maybe JJ is not better than 2-3 other pro bowl caliber players. I think a lot of it depends on your timeline
too. If you’re “going all in”, then fuck
budgeting, get all the elite players you can and worry about the costs later. If you’re trying to be perennially good, well
budgeting matters than. Also outside of Cousins,
JJ is as much of a face for the franchise as any other player, and he’s
probably that one guy that brings elite street cred to the Vikings from the
national media. You can probably get rid
of either Cousins or JJ, but getting rid of both of them probably is tough on
the marketing department and getting butts in the seats even if the analytics
give us a better odds without them.
This. Mahomes can win Super Bowls with the NFL's worst WR group. As good as Cousins is, he's not a weapon like Mahomes. What's more, Mahomes is going to be in Kansas City for 10 more years. The Vikings are going to transition to a young QB at some point in the next couple. You're going to want JJ when that happens.
Quote: @"pattersaur" said:
@"medaille" said:
I don’t think this conversation is
applicable to teams with generational HOF QBs.
Having a QB that is perennially elite and field tilting will outweigh
almost all other factors. You can make a
lot of mistakes roster wise when you have an elite QB.
I do think there’s a strong argument to be had, that as long
as we have McCardell as WR coach and are churning out productive WRs left and
right, that maybe we don’t need to spend QB money on a WR and instead use that at
one or three of the positions we seemingly can’t figure out how to get right. Obviously having JJ is better than not having
JJ, but maybe JJ is not better than 2-3 other pro bowl caliber players. I think a lot of it depends on your timeline
too. If you’re “going all in”, then fuck
budgeting, get all the elite players you can and worry about the costs later. If you’re trying to be perennially good, well
budgeting matters than. Also outside of Cousins,
JJ is as much of a face for the franchise as any other player, and he’s
probably that one guy that brings elite street cred to the Vikings from the
national media. You can probably get rid
of either Cousins or JJ, but getting rid of both of them probably is tough on
the marketing department and getting butts in the seats even if the analytics
give us a better odds without them.
I agree with a lot of this but not the bolded part. JJ is way more the face of this team than Kirk was/is. Jefferson is always a top jersey seller and Kirk never is. I'm not sure what other metric we have to go by but looking around in the stands on gameday there are way more 18s than 8s.
If the Vikings have to choose one or the other, they'll choose JJ for sure. Younger, more popular, better at his position... it's not close. I know QB is the most important position and Kirk has played very well but JJ is the face of this team for sure and should be for a long time. Trading him for anything short of a generational QB talent would be foolish. Like others have said, KC could afford to trade Tyreek because they had Mahomes. Very few teams are in position to do that. CIN, BUF come to mind but not many others. It's an interesting thought because JJ could bring a haul, but it's so high-risk that a move like that blows up in your face, I don't think many GMs would do it, nevermind whether or not they even should.
JJ is the face of the franchise in terms of marketing. With his griddy and his grill and the fact that he's just a good dude, he's marketing gold. Cousins is day old Wonder bread in comparison. Wearing a Cousins jersey is like wearing your grandma's knitted sweater.
You can't really compare their trade values because of their age. About that I'd only say that it's harder to find a QB of Kirk's caliber than it is to find a WR of JJ's caliber. I think we just drafted another WR1 in Addison. Teams like the Bears have been looking for a QB like Cousins for 104 years.
Quote: @"MaroonBells" said:
@"pattersaur" said:
@"medaille" said:
I don’t think this conversation is
applicable to teams with generational HOF QBs.
Having a QB that is perennially elite and field tilting will outweigh
almost all other factors. You can make a
lot of mistakes roster wise when you have an elite QB.
I do think there’s a strong argument to be had, that as long
as we have McCardell as WR coach and are churning out productive WRs left and
right, that maybe we don’t need to spend QB money on a WR and instead use that at
one or three of the positions we seemingly can’t figure out how to get right. Obviously having JJ is better than not having
JJ, but maybe JJ is not better than 2-3 other pro bowl caliber players. I think a lot of it depends on your timeline
too. If you’re “going all in”, then fuck
budgeting, get all the elite players you can and worry about the costs later. If you’re trying to be perennially good, well
budgeting matters than. Also outside of Cousins,
JJ is as much of a face for the franchise as any other player, and he’s
probably that one guy that brings elite street cred to the Vikings from the
national media. You can probably get rid
of either Cousins or JJ, but getting rid of both of them probably is tough on
the marketing department and getting butts in the seats even if the analytics
give us a better odds without them.
I agree with a lot of this but not the bolded part. JJ is way more the face of this team than Kirk was/is. Jefferson is always a top jersey seller and Kirk never is. I'm not sure what other metric we have to go by but looking around in the stands on gameday there are way more 18s than 8s.
If the Vikings have to choose one or the other, they'll choose JJ for sure. Younger, more popular, better at his position... it's not close. I know QB is the most important position and Kirk has played very well but JJ is the face of this team for sure and should be for a long time. Trading him for anything short of a generational QB talent would be foolish. Like others have said, KC could afford to trade Tyreek because they had Mahomes. Very few teams are in position to do that. CIN, BUF come to mind but not many others. It's an interesting thought because JJ could bring a haul, but it's so high-risk that a move like that blows up in your face, I don't think many GMs would do it, nevermind whether or not they even should.
JJ is the face of the franchise in terms of marketing. With his griddy and his grill and the fact that he's just a good dude, he's marketing gold. Cousins is day old Wonder bread in comparison. Wearing a Cousins jersey is like wearing your grandma's knitted sweater.
You can't really compare their trade values because of their age. About that I'd only say that it's harder to find a QB of Kirk's caliber than it is to find a WR of JJ's caliber. I think we just drafted another WR1 in Addison. Teams like the Bears have been looking for a QB like Cousins for 104 years.
And the Bears have been looking for receivers for ever also.
|
