Seifert: Vikings open to trading Greenard

Season Age Team Lg Pos G GS Int Yds IntTD Lng PD FF Fmb FR Yds FRTD Sk Comb Solo Ast TFL QBHits
2024 21 MIN NFL OLB 16 0 1 4 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 20 12 8 3 5
2025 22 MIN NFL OLB 17 10 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 8.0 66 29 37 11 15

Season Age Team Lg Pos G GS Int Yds IntTD Lng PD FF Fmb FR Yds FRTD Sk Comb Solo Ast TFL QBHits
2024 27 MIN NFL ROLB 17 17 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 12.0 59 41 18 18 22
2025 28 MIN NFL OLB 12 10 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 3.0 38 19 19 10 12


Turner is growing up and should continue to improve, but he isnt a replacement for JG yet IMO and we will likely see that if we go full time Turner. I think that unless we want to add OLB/DE to our needs list, we should hang onto JG unless they are not serious about making a deep run in 26.

EDIT: Sorry, the stats display fine in my reply box.

In the realm of things you can control and things you can't control, losing Greenard, Hargrave and Allen would be losing 3 of your top pass rushers in one fell swoop. Like there would have to be a pretty damn good plan to voluntarily do that to your own defense, you know the one part of the team that carried us to a winning record when our offense was sucking the whole year.

Like a week ago our draft needs were pretty clear, we probably were going to focus on our secondary. If you lose all 3 of those guys, is secondary even on table anymore or is it an emergency to draft DL with our first pick?

"more is required"

If the Vikings trade greenard they won't get back what they gave up.

Surest path to mediocrity in the NFL, is losing talent be it trades, cuts or unrestricted free agency.

Don't trade greenard.

supafreak84 wrote:

To me this is a no-brainer. Dallas Turner just turned 23 years old and led the team in sacks (8) and forced fumbles (4) essentially playing in a part time roll last year. You invested a lot to move up and draft him. Not only has he earned the right to start, but the team has earned the right to maximize their investment and get younger in the process by way of trading Greenard for draft picks. If I can somehow parley Greenard into a late 1st round pick or an early to mid 2nd...done deal! I know this is not the standard Wilf way of doing things, which is to let good players play through their contracts and leave for nothing, but the moron bro's need to sit this one out

Greenard’s deal has no guaranteed money left, the team is doing due diligence on what’s out there, his deal was/is due to be renegotiated regardless…

By retaining Greenard, you are essentially crippling the continued development of Turner who HAS shown he is more than capable of producing in a starting role. You draft guys in the first round for a reason and you want to maximize bang for your buck on a rookie contract. You can't play and pay everybody. We've made a significant investment in Turner and have a chance to add a couple draft picks by trading Greenard on a roster that needs to get younger and is experiencing significant turnover. This shouldn't even be a discussion, play Turner and trade Greenard to the highest bidder.

supafreak84 wrote:
By retaining Greenard, you are essentially crippling the continued development of Turner who HAS shown he is more than capable of producing in a starting role. You draft guys in the first round for a reason and you want to maximize bang for your buck on a rookie contract. You can't play and pay everybody. We've made a significant investment in Turner and have a chance to add a couple draft picks by trading Greenard on a roster that needs to get younger and is experiencing significant turnover. This shouldn't even be a discussion, play Turner and trade Greenard to the highest bidder.

Depends on compensation...

3rd or 4th rd pick???

purplefaithful wrote:

Depends on compensation...

3rd or 4th rd pick???

Yep. I'm not sure we have the guy or guys at the wheel required to get max value so my guess no move is made.

supafreak84 wrote:
By retaining Greenard, you are essentially crippling the continued development of Turner who HAS shown he is more than capable of producing in a starting role. You draft guys in the first round for a reason and you want to maximize bang for your buck on a rookie contract. You can't play and pay everybody. We've made a significant investment in Turner and have a chance to add a couple draft picks by trading Greenard on a roster that needs to get younger and is experiencing significant turnover. This shouldn't even be a discussion, play Turner and trade Greenard to the highest bidder.

The goal is to put the best team on the field.  Depth is important.  You don't just get rid of your best players to get younger.

Obviously, we don't know what the plan is to add players, but it sure feels like we're going to be non-participants in free agency, It'll put a lot of pressure on rookies to contribute immediately.

In my mind, it's better to get younger through the draft first and then get rid of the older players as the young players are ready.

Listening to some Pods today and Locked On mentioned something to the effect of this next year may be a bit of clean up getting ready for the next GM.  One read on how things appear to be moving with Hargrave, Allen and Greenard it's more of a cashflow exercise to get the organization more appealing to new leadership candidates.  Not sure I buy it, but it seems the Wilfs maybe throttling back and cleaning up bit as they are "learning" the NFL process.  It just pisses me off that last year was such a lost year, and I like less and less in hindsight.

No idea why they’d be cleaning up for the new GM, more like cleaning up after the old one.

BigAl99 wrote:
  Not sure I buy it, but it seems the Wilfs maybe throttling back and cleaning up bit as they are "learning" the NFL process.  

After 21 years?  Really?   

If that's honestly the case we have no hope here lol.

Kentis wrote:
No idea why they’d be cleaning up for the new GM, more like cleaning up after the old one.

It was a late firing, so no time for a reasonable search, so yeah cleaning up after the old.  Put things in order, Allen, Hargrave,  major disappointments, move on.  Clean up the roster with out tying hands for new GM.  Ascending Turner, potential good return for Greenard makes 27 a more appealing situation to walk into.  Like I said not sure I buy it, but It is a different perspective.  If the goal is not kicking contracts can down the road and giving a new GM latitude to maneuver a with less dragging hubris.  That was my point about last year being wasted, a good year last year would have been more definition on JJM and a roster getting deeper.  Instead we have an under performing great offense that consumes a lot of future cap space.  And an over performing defense, we are betting a lot on BFlo.  I would find the Job more appealing to be moving forward with minimal mess from my predecessor and not having to correct every issue.

comet52 wrote:

After 21 years?  Really?   

If that's honestly the case we have no hope here lol.

At least they may be learning, so there is that.

Kentis wrote:

No idea why they’d be cleaning up for the new GM, more like cleaning up after the old one.

purplefaithful wrote:

Depends on compensation...

3rd or 4th rd pick???

Agreed. Starting point would have to be a 2nd round pick, but like I said, maybe a team like New Englad (if they can't land Crosby) could be persuaded to give up their 1st for Greenard and a say, a 4th in return? I'm not even picking up the phone for a 3rd round pick offer.

supafreak84 wrote:

Agreed. Starting point would have to be a 2nd round pick, but like I said, maybe a team like New Englad (if they can't land Crosby) could be persuaded to give up their 1st for Greenard and a say, a 4th in return? I'm not even picking up the phone for a 3rd round pick offer.

how would you know?

So, listening to the new Purple Daily episode with Doogie, the Vikings "don't want to" trade Greenard, however...he wants a new contract paying him 30+ million a season and the Vikings just aren't going to do that (at least not this offseason). All this could end up with him being traded and Mackey is on the same line of thinking as me, see if you can get a late first (with the two teams being mentioned were New England or San Francisco), otherwise nothing below a 2nd round pick would be in consideration.

Trade Greenard, start Turner, and use the draft compensation on rebuilding the interior defensive line.

supafreak84 wrote:
So, listening to the new Purple Daily episode with Doogie, the Vikings "don't want to" trade Greenard, however...he wants a new contract paying him 30+ million a season and the Vikings just aren't going to do that (at least not this offseason). All this could end up with him being traded and Mackey is on the same line of thinking as me, see if you can get a late first (with the two teams being mentioned were New England or San Francisco), otherwise nothing below a 2nd round pick would be in consideration.

Trade Greenard, start Turner, and use the draft compensation on rebuilding the interior defensive line.

Texans did the Vikings no favors just signing Danielle for $40mm....

supafreak84 wrote:

Agreed. Starting point would have to be a 2nd round pick, but like I said, maybe a team like New Englad (if they can't land Crosby) could be persuaded to give up their 1st for Greenard and a say, a 4th in return? I'm not even picking up the phone for a 3rd round pick offer.

Seeing that Maxx Crosby went for two 1st round picks, I'd take no less than a first rounder for Greenard.  He's a great all around DE, strong leader.  We have him under a reasonable contract for the next two years that anyone trading for him can use to negotiate a bigger extension.

Anything less than that and I'd keep him.

I don't think we can get a 1st and I don't think we'll take a 3rd. FWIW, Grok said we'd likely get a conditional 2nd rounder in 2027 or a 2026 3rd and 5th. I don't think that's too far off.