Not bad at all. A fan thx to The Brez!

Job well done.

Excellent job on getting the cap back on track, great signing with Murray. Think coaches made all the picks in draft and he was just playing point, wish we had Teasley for draft as no way Banks would have been pick at 18. Did not like the Greenard trade.

Definitely glad he is staying with team and doing what he does best.

Last year , He was clever enough to add a clause in both Hargrave and Allen's contracts, that if they were cut this off season, the Vikings would receive a portion of their salary cap space back , after June 1st,

Shrewd move.

JR44 wrote:

Excellent job on getting the cap back on track, great signing with Murray. Think coaches made all the picks in draft and he was just playing point, wish we had Teasley for draft as no way Banks would have been pick at 18. Did not like the Greenard trade.
Definitely glad he is staying with team and doing what he does best.

How do you know who Teasley would have taken? At 32 Seattle took an RB that most mockers ranked around #50 because they needed an RB and Price wouldn't have been there at 64. The Vikings took Banks at 18 because he was the most physically talented DT on the board and they didn't believe he'd last to 49. Seems like similar enough MOs to me. I didn't agree with the Banks pick either, but I'm not going to try and state absolutely what another man wouldn't have done in the Vikings' situation.

As for Greenard, the Vikings weren't happy about trading him either and said so. But he wasn't going to play on his current contract and the Vikings couldn't afford to give him a raise. Plus, until Greenard left Dallas Turner wasn't going to get his shot to play full time. So, a buyer's market where everyone knew we had to unload Greenard. Didn't get back as much as I'd have liked but it was posted that the Vikings got more for Greenard than other recent trades for similarly aged edges at his level. And it was the '26 cap savings from the trade used to sign Jajuan Jennings. I think Jennings could be a bigger plus than Greenard was a loss because we didn't have a Dallas Turner in waiting at WR3. All we had was Tai Felton. And we now have $22 million more in '27 cap room. I think the Vikings tried to make the best out of a bad situation and did fairly well.

RS_Express wrote:

How do you know who Teasley would have taken? At 32 Seattle took an RB that most mockers ranked around #50 because they needed an RB and Price wouldn't have been there at 64. The Vikings took Banks at 18 because he was the most physically talented DT on the board and they didn't believe he'd last to 49. Seems like similar enough MOs to me.

This ^

Happens every Draft. See Ty Simpson. Great organizations swing and miss. Bad organizations hit on draft picks. Geniuses make mistakes and blind squirrels find nuts. News at 11. Only the future holds who's right and wrong.

Love that Brz is staying. He's one of the best in the biz at what he does. I've said this before, but I do wonder if we might not have stumbled upon the best way to manage a draft. No unilateral decisions. 100% collaborative. I

just hope the new GM follows the same model. I think he will. I don't think the Wilfs would've hired him otherwise. But I do have this weird hunch that 10 years from now we'll look back on our leaderless draft as one of our best ever.

Really think Brez biggest accomplishments was setting the table for the new GM. Took care of some potholes with Hargrave and Allen. Cleaned up some potentially distracting issues Greenard. Just setup a nice situation for Teasley to walk into. He's got a season to deal with the QB and can put his own spin on that.

RS_Express wrote:

How do you know who Teasley would have taken? At 32 Seattle took an RB that most mockers ranked around #50 because they needed an RB and Price wouldn't have been there at 64. The Vikings took Banks at 18 because he was the most physically talented DT on the board and they didn't believe he'd last to 49. Seems like similar enough MOs to me. I didn't agree with the Banks pick either, but I'm not going to try and state absolutely what another man wouldn't have done in the Vikings' situation.
As for Greenard, the Vikings weren't happy about trading him either and said so. But he wasn't going to play on his current contract and the Vikings couldn't afford to give him a raise. Plus, until Greenard left Dallas Turner wasn't going to get his shot to play full time. So, a buyer's market where everyone knew we had to unload Greenard. Didn't get back as much as I'd have liked but it was posted that the Vikings got more for Greenard than other recent trades for similarly aged edges at his level. And it was the '26 cap savings from the trade used to sign Jajuan Jennings. I think Jennings could be a bigger plus than Greenard was a loss because we didn't have a Dallas Turner in waiting at WR3. All we had was Tai Felton. And we now have $22 million more in '27 cap room. I think the Vikings tried to make the best out of a bad situation and did fairly well.

1. If players were taken based on physical talent, Jermond McCoy would have been a top 10 pick. Banks being the most physically gifted DT in the draft is debatable, but it doesn't matter if he can't stay healthy which he has not been able to do with 3 foot injuries in 3 years. He just had surgery on his foot a month before the draft, the same foot he broke a year ago. He was a projected mid to late 2nd round pick for a reason. Not many GMs if any were going to use a pick that high for someone with that kind of history and also considering it was to the same foot, what are the chances a 6'6" 330# is not going to continue to have issues with that foot? He was the #3-5 ranked DT on most rankings.

2. Price was clearly the #2 RB and many mocks had him going to the Seattle at 32, that pick was not a surprise like the Banks pick was.

3. Simpson is an invalid comparison as well, QBs are a different animal in the draft, as the most important position teams regularly draft every year. The Rams reasoning was that they did not see them drafting that high again and felt they needed a young QB to groom, he was clearly the #2 ranked QB.

4. If that was the best they could get for Greenard, I would make the argument it would have better to have kept our best defensive player, get another year from him and then take the comp pick if he left. Of all teams, no way I would have I would have made the deal with Philly.