What's the best for a franchise?

[purplefaithful]

1). Curating a rook QB over 3 seasons and playing a veteran

Or 

2). Playing a rook sooner vs later ?
 - Throwing more # in the surround?

[Guest]

I don't think you necessarily need three seasons, but it's definitely #1. 

[Guest]

Gotta try and hit on a young talent.  “franschise” types will either not leave their franchise, or if they do - cost too much money & hamstring the rest of the team (you reading this Aaron?) 

[Guest]

Depends how close you are.   I think this roster has enough star talent to be a playoff contender with a QB like Kirk.  I think they have missed on a full draft (22') and a slew of marginal at best FAs (Bullard, Lowry, Phillips, Davenport).  

My concern is no longer the roster but the head coach.  Last night was a disgusting performance versus your rival on national tv at home with the playoffs on the line.  He and the team looked like they mailed it in by halftime.

Forget 2022, that was a .500 team that was extremely lucky to win 4-5 more games than they should.  This team has been .500 since we lost to SF in the divisional round.  The 22 and 23 rosters have been deeper than the 20 and 21 teams.

Regardless of the coach, it depends on how pro ready these QBs are.  Maye and Williams can be starters day one, Daniels and McCarthy might need a year.  I do not know what to expect out of Nix or Penix.

Kirk is going to be about Kirk and if you are sitting at #9 in the draft, you have to feel you have a good shot at getting a QB.  If he wants more than $25M per year, see ya.  I would rather this team add a DE and DT who can get to the QB without blitzing for a total of $30M per year.  I would rather extend Hunter and Jefferson as cornerstones to add to.  

I have zero confidence in a great draft but I do think we can be lucky enough to land  a top QB.

Williams/Maye/Daniels/McCarthy with Jefferson, Addison, Hockensen, Darrisaw, ONeil has a lot of immediate potential.  Draft a RB, add a vet big center AND you can contend just like Houston has this year.

Taking Kirk's money and adding a Calais Campbell and Christian Wilkins or Leonard Williams can elevate the defense to be more effective with blitzing, giving young CBs the opportunity to play with pressure and help.

The interior of the team still needs work.  A rookie with a bolstered interior is going to be more impactful in the long run (and potential immediate) than Kirk with Bradbury, Phillips, Bullard, etc.

[Guest]

A full 3 seasons is too long by at least a year, so by default: Option 2, for sure.

[Guest]

I think it depends on the rookie QB.  Like say if the Vikings re-sign Cousins for 2 years and draft JJ McCarthy, option #1 would be best.  You got a kid who needs some development as a passer but he has a ton of physical tools.  Sitting for a season did wonders for Mahomes, Hurts, Jordan Love, etc.  But there are always examples of guys like Joe Burrow, Herbert, Stroud, etc who played well as rookies and it didn't affect their development.

[Guest]

Not sure many teams 'curate a rookie QB over 3 seasons'....I think they get them in there with various levels of success (Stroud, Young, Richardson, Levis). They also want to take advantage of that rookie QB contract. Mahomes sat his rookie year behind Smith then started the final game of that season and was the starter from that point on. Option #2 is how the NFL does it. That's why signing Cousins, even for a 2 year deal, means Kirk will be the STARTER for 2 years. No rookie is getting in there behind a productive vet like Cousins. 

I can't imagine in today's NFL a highly drafted rookie QB sitting the bench for 3 years. I think the ideal thing is a vet starting and then a rookie replacing him some time his rookie season.

[Guest]

@StickyBun said:
Not sure many teams 'curate a rookie QB over 3 seasons'....I think they get them in there with various levels of success (Stroud, Young, Richardson, Levis). They also want to take advantage of that rookie QB contract. Mahomes sat his rookie year behind Smith then started the final game of that season and was the starter from that point on. Option #2 is how the NFL does it. That's why signing Cousins, even for a 2 year deal, means Kirk will be the STARTER for 2 years. No rookie is getting in there behind a productive vet like Cousins. 

I can't imagine in today's NFL a highly drafted rookie QB sitting the bench for 3 years. I think the ideal thing is a vet starting and then a rookie replacing him some time his rookie season.

If the rumors are true about the Vikings trying hard to trade up last year, and I'm sure they are, then the Vikings plan was to draft a rookie and have him sit under Cousins for a year.

Regardless of what we all think, it's pretty clear the NFL considers this the ideal. Doesn't always happen, especially if the rookie is clearly better than your vet, which was the case with the Bills (AJ McCarron), Bengals (Ryan Finley), Chargers (Tyrod Taylor) and Houston (Davis Mills). With Minnesota that would not have been the case. 

Considering that, I think the Vikings are going to try hard to get Cousins back for a year and go get their QB. Problem is, Cousins is going to want a longer term. So we'll see how it plays out. 

If they're unable to come to terms, the Vikings impetus to trade into the top 3 becomes significantly stronger. 

[Guest]

It depends on a lot of factors but having a good o-line with balanced play calling will certainly help.

[Guest]

In my opinion, the ideal is at least a year behind a guy seems to be extremely beneficial. Not only from a development stage, but also it gets them to a point where they are better at protecting themselves (getting the ball out quick, recognizing blitzes etc) from injury. Plenty of guys thrown right into the fire take injuries early in their careers that they may not have faced with a little more seasoning.

3 years? Too long in my opinion. I wouldn’t want to see more than 2 years learning behind a vet. With a consummate vet like Cousins, two years learning could do wonders for a young guy’s trajectory. The likelihood of getting two years is pretty low though. Vets get injured and that of course dictates that. 
My ideal scenario is getting Kirk signed to a two year deal and draft a rookie in the first round. Kirk should come at a reasonable price as he’s coming off of injury and he has high desire to remain in Minnesota. Unless he wants some exorbitant $40 million plus per year, I’d get a deal done. Something around $30-35 would be just fine with me. There are places you can go cheap, but QB is definitely not one of them. An extra $5-10 million in savings is nothing if the drop off is too significant. That’s “savings” put elsewhere means nothing except on paper. If you spend it on a vet defensive player, there’s no telling what you’ll get and if a guy even stays healthy. In my opinion, getting Cousins signed for at least a year maybe two, is a no brainer.

The key to success is improving that roster through smart draft selections. A good example of a poor decision is Cine. I didn’t have an issue with him as player as without injury he’d likely have been a great pick, it’s just that we had zero need for a safety. There’s taking best available, but need should be a consideration as there really isn’t such thing as “best available”. There should be a dozen similarly graded guys to pick from. Pick the best for your future. 

As for the top QB’s coming out, I think it’s a good year to find one. I like a number of them and they have a good chance at having one available. Penix is a guy I see with absolutely huge upside, but I’ll be surprised if he doesn’t go in the top 3. 
It could be a really fun draft this year!