Minimum Return for D. Hunter

@"supafreak84" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"supafreak84" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"supafreak84" said: Also Hunter led the NFL last season with 36 QB pressures on 3rd and 4th downs. So yeah, any trade package not including a 1st round pick and these teams can pound sand 

so let me get this straight,  you want the team to deal Cousins because he can walk after next year anyway,  but Hunter you have to have a first round pick even though he is also likely to walk after the coming season and is also wanting top tier money?  I dont understand the double standard,  KC is more important to the O than DH to the D,  KC is going to be harder to replace, and KC has been more durable.  With both of them I only see about another year or 2 tops before the wheels fall off the wagon.  Yes DH is likely higher ranked for his position,  but DE is not nearly as valued as QB so taking a third for Cousins,  but demanding a first for Hunter doesnt seem to be coming from the same place of logic to me.

What are you talking about? I'm not in favor of trading Hunter at all if the plan is to be competitive this season. However if they want to trade him, based on precedent and production, the Kwes-master better come out of that deal with at least a 1st round pick in return. 

If they trade Hunter, then it doesn't make sense to me to hold on to Cousins and be "kinda good" while jettisoning all the other older veterans on the roster because we wont be competitive anyway. Trade him, take a tank year, regroup next offseason with a likely top ten pick, cap space, and bring in some actual impact young players that we can build around for the long term. Again, if they really wanted Cousins in the first place and thought he was "the guy" he'd already be signed to an extension and this wouldn't be a conversation, but he's not....therefor it is

SO... if you are ok with them moving KC,  since they dont think he is the guy,  that would say they arent all in as well and moving Hunter would be a no brainer  as well since they are both on the last year of their deals and neither have been re-signed to date.

I dont buy the competitive rebuild notion,  if they keep fucking around with "competitive" the task of rebuilding a better roster is more challenging as you cant afford to make a run from the late teens to mid 20s to a top position if you are targeting real impact players at key positions like QB or even coveted DL.  sure you can luck into some guys dropping,  but I dont trust that we will take that guy anyway as there will always be some metric that says to take the WR.

I think you could make the argument for keeping Hunter while getting rid of Cousins from the age perspective. There's a seven year age difference. Hunter won't be 29 until Halloween while Cousins turns 35 prior to the season. I could feel pretty good about giving Hunter a 3 or 4 year deal and reasonably expecting the same type of production, where there is no way you give Cousins that same kind of deal. I personally feel if you keep one, you should keep them both though in the interest of being competitive.

But I do completely agree with you that the "competitive" part doesn't really lend to being in position to acquire that elusive franchise QB. The price tag becomes very steep trying to move up into position when you are drafting in the late teens to early 20's in the interest of trying to remain "competitive." 

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"supafreak84" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"supafreak84" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"supafreak84" said: Also Hunter led the NFL last season with 36 QB pressures on 3rd and 4th downs. So yeah, any trade package not including a 1st round pick and these teams can pound sand 

so let me get this straight,  you want the team to deal Cousins because he can walk after next year anyway,  but Hunter you have to have a first round pick even though he is also likely to walk after the coming season and is also wanting top tier money?  I dont understand the double standard,  KC is more important to the O than DH to the D,  KC is going to be harder to replace, and KC has been more durable.  With both of them I only see about another year or 2 tops before the wheels fall off the wagon.  Yes DH is likely higher ranked for his position,  but DE is not nearly as valued as QB so taking a third for Cousins,  but demanding a first for Hunter doesnt seem to be coming from the same place of logic to me.

What are you talking about? I'm not in favor of trading Hunter at all if the plan is to be competitive this season. However if they want to trade him, based on precedent and production, the Kwes-master better come out of that deal with at least a 1st round pick in return. 

If they trade Hunter, then it doesn't make sense to me to hold on to Cousins and be "kinda good" while jettisoning all the other older veterans on the roster because we wont be competitive anyway. Trade him, take a tank year, regroup next offseason with a likely top ten pick, cap space, and bring in some actual impact young players that we can build around for the long term. Again, if they really wanted Cousins in the first place and thought he was "the guy" he'd already be signed to an extension and this wouldn't be a conversation, but he's not....therefor it is

SO... if you are ok with them moving KC,  since they dont think he is the guy,  that would say they arent all in as well and moving Hunter would be a no brainer  as well since they are both on the last year of their deals and neither have been re-signed to date.

I dont buy the competitive rebuild notion,  if they keep fucking around with "competitive" the task of rebuilding a better roster is more challenging as you cant afford to make a run from the late teens to mid 20s to a top position if you are targeting real impact players at key positions like QB or even coveted DL.  sure you can luck into some guys dropping,  but I dont trust that we will take that guy anyway as there will always be some metric that says to take the WR.

I think you could make the argument for keeping Hunter while getting rid of Cousins from the age perspective. There's a seven year age difference. Hunter won't be 29 until Halloween while Cousins turns 35 prior to the season. I could feel pretty good about giving Hunter a 3 or 4 year deal and reasonably expecting the same type of production, where there is no way you give Cousins that same kind of deal. I personally feel if you keep one, you should keep them both though in the interest of being competitive.

But I do completely agree with you that the "competitive" part doesn't really lend to being in position to acquire that elusive franchise QB. The price tag becomes very steep trying to move up into position when you are drafting in the late teens to early 20's in the interest of trying to remain "competitive." 

i dont see Hunter being able to maintain his current level much longer,  his game is about quicks and not as much about power,  the quicks will leave him much sooner than a guy loses power and as such I dont see him as a good risk for anything more than a 2 year deal,  about all the more I would risk with KC.  IMO they both have about the same shelf life,  despite their age difference.

There are some Pro's and Con's to this entire issue.
If I had my druthers, I'd rather we work it out and keep him, with some non-guaranteed injury outs.
Good luck with that, I know.
His injury history bothers me...a lot.  Neurological (neck/spine) issues are not trifling matters.
If he was happy here, and he was re-signed, I'd be happy.  
Judging his performance last year is not an accurate representation of his abilities/capability because to me he is a pure DE/Edge and under that defense, he was lined up as a LB, not a natural Edge rusher.  He seemed out of sorts all season, as if he was trying to figure out where he was supposed to be.  Is BFlo's defense going to utilize him differently?  I would assume that they would take the blinders off and give him more help with blitz's from anywhere on the field.  It just seemed so predictable most of the plays, we were rushing 4 and they were just hand fighting.  Completely ineffective IMO, but I give him a pass for last year because of the bend-not break-defense that did NOT work.
I'm trying not to get emotionally attached either way.  I believe in my heart-of-hearts that Kwesi is going to try to re-sign him if he can.  If he cannot, he will trade him to wherever we can ge the best return.  
Of that, I am convinced.

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"supafreak84" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"supafreak84" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"supafreak84" said: Also Hunter led the NFL last season with 36 QB pressures on 3rd and 4th downs. So yeah, any trade package not including a 1st round pick and these teams can pound sand 

so let me get this straight,  you want the team to deal Cousins because he can walk after next year anyway,  but Hunter you have to have a first round pick even though he is also likely to walk after the coming season and is also wanting top tier money?  I dont understand the double standard,  KC is more important to the O than DH to the D,  KC is going to be harder to replace, and KC has been more durable.  With both of them I only see about another year or 2 tops before the wheels fall off the wagon.  Yes DH is likely higher ranked for his position,  but DE is not nearly as valued as QB so taking a third for Cousins,  but demanding a first for Hunter doesnt seem to be coming from the same place of logic to me.

What are you talking about? I'm not in favor of trading Hunter at all if the plan is to be competitive this season. However if they want to trade him, based on precedent and production, the Kwes-master better come out of that deal with at least a 1st round pick in return. 

If they trade Hunter, then it doesn't make sense to me to hold on to Cousins and be "kinda good" while jettisoning all the other older veterans on the roster because we wont be competitive anyway. Trade him, take a tank year, regroup next offseason with a likely top ten pick, cap space, and bring in some actual impact young players that we can build around for the long term. Again, if they really wanted Cousins in the first place and thought he was "the guy" he'd already be signed to an extension and this wouldn't be a conversation, but he's not....therefor it is

SO... if you are ok with them moving KC,  since they dont think he is the guy,  that would say they arent all in as well and moving Hunter would be a no brainer  as well since they are both on the last year of their deals and neither have been re-signed to date.

I dont buy the competitive rebuild notion,  if they keep fucking around with "competitive" the task of rebuilding a better roster is more challenging as you cant afford to make a run from the late teens to mid 20s to a top position if you are targeting real impact players at key positions like QB or even coveted DL.  sure you can luck into some guys dropping,  but I dont trust that we will take that guy anyway as there will always be some metric that says to take the WR.

I think you could make the argument for keeping Hunter while getting rid of Cousins from the age perspective. There's a seven year age difference. Hunter won't be 29 until Halloween while Cousins turns 35 prior to the season. I could feel pretty good about giving Hunter a 3 or 4 year deal and reasonably expecting the same type of production, where there is no way you give Cousins that same kind of deal. I personally feel if you keep one, you should keep them both though in the interest of being competitive.

But I do completely agree with you that the "competitive" part doesn't really lend to being in position to acquire that elusive franchise QB. The price tag becomes very steep trying to move up into position when you are drafting in the late teens to early 20's in the interest of trying to remain "competitive." 

i dont see Hunter being able to maintain his current level much longer,  his game is about quicks and not as much about power,  the quicks will leave him much sooner than a guy loses power and as such I dont see him as a good risk for anything more than a 2 year deal,  about all the more I would risk with KC.  IMO they both have about the same shelf life,  despite their age difference.

My preference is to extend Hunter with a fair deal. No way I trade Hunter for anything less than a first plus something. If we cannot get a 1st + in a trade then I would let his agent know that the Vikings are prepared to make Hunter play under the current contract (feel free to hold out) and to franchise him next year, too. Depending on how he does, we may consider franchising him a second time before releasing him after 3 more seasons. With both sides properly motivated perhaps it will make it easier to work out an extension.

@"Wetlander" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"supafreak84" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"supafreak84" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"supafreak84" said: Also Hunter led the NFL last season with 36 QB pressures on 3rd and 4th downs. So yeah, any trade package not including a 1st round pick and these teams can pound sand 

so let me get this straight,  you want the team to deal Cousins because he can walk after next year anyway,  but Hunter you have to have a first round pick even though he is also likely to walk after the coming season and is also wanting top tier money?  I dont understand the double standard,  KC is more important to the O than DH to the D,  KC is going to be harder to replace, and KC has been more durable.  With both of them I only see about another year or 2 tops before the wheels fall off the wagon.  Yes DH is likely higher ranked for his position,  but DE is not nearly as valued as QB so taking a third for Cousins,  but demanding a first for Hunter doesnt seem to be coming from the same place of logic to me.

What are you talking about? I'm not in favor of trading Hunter at all if the plan is to be competitive this season. However if they want to trade him, based on precedent and production, the Kwes-master better come out of that deal with at least a 1st round pick in return. 

If they trade Hunter, then it doesn't make sense to me to hold on to Cousins and be "kinda good" while jettisoning all the other older veterans on the roster because we wont be competitive anyway. Trade him, take a tank year, regroup next offseason with a likely top ten pick, cap space, and bring in some actual impact young players that we can build around for the long term. Again, if they really wanted Cousins in the first place and thought he was "the guy" he'd already be signed to an extension and this wouldn't be a conversation, but he's not....therefor it is

SO... if you are ok with them moving KC,  since they dont think he is the guy,  that would say they arent all in as well and moving Hunter would be a no brainer  as well since they are both on the last year of their deals and neither have been re-signed to date.

I dont buy the competitive rebuild notion,  if they keep fucking around with "competitive" the task of rebuilding a better roster is more challenging as you cant afford to make a run from the late teens to mid 20s to a top position if you are targeting real impact players at key positions like QB or even coveted DL.  sure you can luck into some guys dropping,  but I dont trust that we will take that guy anyway as there will always be some metric that says to take the WR.

I think you could make the argument for keeping Hunter while getting rid of Cousins from the age perspective. There's a seven year age difference. Hunter won't be 29 until Halloween while Cousins turns 35 prior to the season. I could feel pretty good about giving Hunter a 3 or 4 year deal and reasonably expecting the same type of production, where there is no way you give Cousins that same kind of deal. I personally feel if you keep one, you should keep them both though in the interest of being competitive.

But I do completely agree with you that the "competitive" part doesn't really lend to being in position to acquire that elusive franchise QB. The price tag becomes very steep trying to move up into position when you are drafting in the late teens to early 20's in the interest of trying to remain "competitive." 

i dont see Hunter being able to maintain his current level much longer,  his game is about quicks and not as much about power,  the quicks will leave him much sooner than a guy loses power and as such I dont see him as a good risk for anything more than a 2 year deal,  about all the more I would risk with KC.  IMO they both have about the same shelf life,  despite their age difference.

I think you're completely wrong. His game is all about power and length. He's more JJ Watt, not Von Miller.

If we get moderate improvement from the defense, the Vikings should be a playoff team again in 2023. It's hard to see that happening without Hunter. 

I see Hunter as a tipping point on the rebuild scale. He's the best player on our defense. One of the truly elite edge rushers in the NFL. And he's only 28. If you don't pay the guy, it's really hard to make the argument your rebuild is a "competitive" one. 

@"MaroonBells" said: If we get moderate improvement from the defense, the Vikings should be a playoff team again in 2023. It's hard to see that happening without Hunter. 

I see Hunter as a tipping point on the rebuild scale. He's the best player on our defense. One of the truly elite edge rushers in the NFL. And he's only 28. You don't pay a guy like it's really hard to make the argument your rebuild is a "competitive" one. 

@"Wetlander" said:

@"MaroonBells" said: If we get moderate improvement from the defense, the Vikings should be a playoff team again in 2023. It's hard to see that happening without Hunter. 

I see Hunter as a tipping point on the rebuild scale. He's the best player on our defense. One of the truly elite edge rushers in the NFL. And he's only 28. You don't pay a guy like it's really hard to make the argument your rebuild is a "competitive" one. 

Agree, especially when we have nothing proven at pass rusher behind him.  Wonnum and Patrick Jones are nice players but they don't look like difference makers.  The guy out of Army is intriguing but I'd be surprised if he does anything notable his rookie year.  Right now our pass rush is questionable, if we trade Hunter it could be a big problem.

@"MaroonBells" said:

@"Wetlander" said:

@"MaroonBells" said: If we get moderate improvement from the defense, the Vikings should be a playoff team again in 2023. It's hard to see that happening without Hunter. 

I see Hunter as a tipping point on the rebuild scale. He's the best player on our defense. One of the truly elite edge rushers in the NFL. And he's only 28. You don't pay a guy like it's really hard to make the argument your rebuild is a "competitive" one. 

Agree, especially when we have nothing proven at pass rusher behind him.  Wonnum and Patrick Jones are nice players but they don't look like difference makers.  The guy out of Army is intriguing but I'd be surprised if he does anything notable his rookie year.  Right now our pass rush is questionable, if we trade Hunter it could be a big problem.

Sounds like Wonnum is the one who got Hunter's snaps in OTAs, which is a little surprising to me. I think of PJ2 as the better pass rusher and Wonnum the better run defender.

Hunter is THE key decision of the offseason IMO. The "river" in poker terms. You keep him, the Vikings should be legit contenders. You trade him and they're not. But you might just get the capital you need to draft the QBOTF. 

Granted there are multiple ways to field a super bowl team during the salary cap age.  Everyone knows the rookie QB strategy that is highly successful in putting real talent on the field.  I think a second approach is have a scheme that elevates ordinary players.  For some teams, their schemes are so good that they can easily replace players and not miss a beat.  I remember the Broncos o-line scheme being one that did not require phenomenal olinemen.  KC can get but with decent wide receivers (partly due to Mahones and partly due to scheme).  I think it is important to have a scheme where one positional group can get by with average players for salary cap purposes.

I mention this because it maybe that the former linebacker and linebacker coach, Flores, believes the his creative, blitz heavy scheme does not require superstar linebackers.  Yes, of course it would be better with such players but just perhaps the team feels that the scheme will make up for the lack of a superstar.

Just spitballing here, but it is a thought.

@"VikingOracle" said: Granted there are multiple ways to field a super bowl team during the salary cap age.  Everyone knows the rookie QB strategy that is highly successful in putting real talent on the field.  I think a second approach is have a scheme that elevates ordinary players.  For some teams, their schemes are so good that they can easily replace players and not miss a beat.  I remember the Broncos o-line scheme being one that did not require phenomenal olinemen.  KC can get but with decent wide receivers (partly due to Mahones and partly due to scheme).  I think it is important to have a scheme where one positional group can get by with average players for salary cap purposes.

I mention this because it maybe that the former linebacker and linebacker coach, Flores, believes the his creative, blitz heavy scheme does not require superstar linebackers.  Yes, of course it would be better with such players but just perhaps the team feels that the scheme will make up for the lack of a superstar.

Just spitballing here, but it is a thought.

@"VikingOracle" said: Granted there are multiple ways to field a super bowl team during the salary cap age.  Everyone knows the rookie QB strategy that is highly successful in putting real talent on the field.  I think a second approach is have a scheme that elevates ordinary players.  For some teams, their schemes are so good that they can easily replace players and not miss a beat.  I remember the Broncos o-line scheme being one that did not require phenomenal olinemen.  KC can get but with decent wide receivers (partly due to Mahones and partly due to scheme).  I think it is important to have a scheme where one positional group can get by with average players for salary cap purposes.

I mention this because it maybe that the former linebacker and linebacker coach, Flores, believes the his creative, blitz heavy scheme does not require superstar linebackers.  Yes, of course it would be better with such players but just perhaps the team feels that the scheme will make up for the lack of a superstar.

Just spitballing here, but it is a thought.

It sounds like that what a Flores defense requires most is versatility, which would seem to require knowledge and experience. A bit of a scary thought considering how young this defense is. 

This year's Viking team is going to be entertaining, that's for sure. 

@"MaroonBells" said:

@"VikingOracle" said: Granted there are multiple ways to field a super bowl team during the salary cap age.  Everyone knows the rookie QB strategy that is highly successful in putting real talent on the field.  I think a second approach is have a scheme that elevates ordinary players.  For some teams, their schemes are so good that they can easily replace players and not miss a beat.  I remember the Broncos o-line scheme being one that did not require phenomenal olinemen.  KC can get but with decent wide receivers (partly due to Mahones and partly due to scheme).  I think it is important to have a scheme where one positional group can get by with average players for salary cap purposes.

I mention this because it maybe that the former linebacker and linebacker coach, Flores, believes the his creative, blitz heavy scheme does not require superstar linebackers.  Yes, of course it would be better with such players but just perhaps the team feels that the scheme will make up for the lack of a superstar.

Just spitballing here, but it is a thought.

Interesting thought. And you're probably right to some degree. Cover two defenses, for example, don't require top cover corners. Just corners who can tackle. Mike Zimmer actually joked once that you can go pick up a cover-two corner at the 7-11 in Bloomington. 

It sounds like that what a Flores defense requires most is versatility, which would seem to require knowledge and experience. A bit of a scary thought considering how young this defense is. 

This year's Viking team is going to be entertaining, that's for sure. 

@"purplefaithful" said:

@"MaroonBells" said:

@"VikingOracle" said: Granted there are multiple ways to field a super bowl team during the salary cap age.  Everyone knows the rookie QB strategy that is highly successful in putting real talent on the field.  I think a second approach is have a scheme that elevates ordinary players.  For some teams, their schemes are so good that they can easily replace players and not miss a beat.  I remember the Broncos o-line scheme being one that did not require phenomenal olinemen.  KC can get but with decent wide receivers (partly due to Mahones and partly due to scheme).  I think it is important to have a scheme where one positional group can get by with average players for salary cap purposes.

I mention this because it maybe that the former linebacker and linebacker coach, Flores, believes the his creative, blitz heavy scheme does not require superstar linebackers.  Yes, of course it would be better with such players but just perhaps the team feels that the scheme will make up for the lack of a superstar.

Just spitballing here, but it is a thought.

Interesting thought. And you're probably right to some degree. Cover two defenses, for example, don't require top cover corners. Just corners who can tackle. Mike Zimmer actually joked once that you can go pick up a cover-two corner at the 7-11 in Bloomington. 

It sounds like that what a Flores defense requires most is versatility, which would seem to require knowledge and experience. A bit of a scary thought considering how young this defense is. 

This year's Viking team is going to be entertaining, that's for sure. 

I should know better than to type this, but it couldn't be worse than last years debacle...

could it?  :p

@"MaroonBells" said:

@"purplefaithful" said:

@"MaroonBells" said:

@"VikingOracle" said: Granted there are multiple ways to field a super bowl team during the salary cap age.  Everyone knows the rookie QB strategy that is highly successful in putting real talent on the field.  I think a second approach is have a scheme that elevates ordinary players.  For some teams, their schemes are so good that they can easily replace players and not miss a beat.  I remember the Broncos o-line scheme being one that did not require phenomenal olinemen.  KC can get but with decent wide receivers (partly due to Mahones and partly due to scheme).  I think it is important to have a scheme where one positional group can get by with average players for salary cap purposes.

I mention this because it maybe that the former linebacker and linebacker coach, Flores, believes the his creative, blitz heavy scheme does not require superstar linebackers.  Yes, of course it would be better with such players but just perhaps the team feels that the scheme will make up for the lack of a superstar.

Just spitballing here, but it is a thought.

Interesting thought. And you're probably right to some degree. Cover two defenses, for example, don't require top cover corners. Just corners who can tackle. Mike Zimmer actually joked once that you can go pick up a cover-two corner at the 7-11 in Bloomington. 

It sounds like that what a Flores defense requires most is versatility, which would seem to require knowledge and experience. A bit of a scary thought considering how young this defense is. 

This year's Viking team is going to be entertaining, that's for sure. 

I should know better than to type this, but it couldn't be worse than last years debacle...

could it?  :p

Depends on what you mean by worse I guess. In terms of rankings, I have no idea. I just have a hunch we're going to make a lot of big plays (sacks, turnovers, picks) and we're going to give up a lot of big plays via QBs who know how to take advantage of the blitz and young defenders frequently out of position. 

How that shakes out is anyone's guess. 

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"MaroonBells" said:

@"purplefaithful" said:

@"MaroonBells" said:

@"VikingOracle" said: Granted there are multiple ways to field a super bowl team during the salary cap age.  Everyone knows the rookie QB strategy that is highly successful in putting real talent on the field.  I think a second approach is have a scheme that elevates ordinary players.  For some teams, their schemes are so good that they can easily replace players and not miss a beat.  I remember the Broncos o-line scheme being one that did not require phenomenal olinemen.  KC can get but with decent wide receivers (partly due to Mahones and partly due to scheme).  I think it is important to have a scheme where one positional group can get by with average players for salary cap purposes.

I mention this because it maybe that the former linebacker and linebacker coach, Flores, believes the his creative, blitz heavy scheme does not require superstar linebackers.  Yes, of course it would be better with such players but just perhaps the team feels that the scheme will make up for the lack of a superstar.

Just spitballing here, but it is a thought.

Interesting thought. And you're probably right to some degree. Cover two defenses, for example, don't require top cover corners. Just corners who can tackle. Mike Zimmer actually joked once that you can go pick up a cover-two corner at the 7-11 in Bloomington. 

It sounds like that what a Flores defense requires most is versatility, which would seem to require knowledge and experience. A bit of a scary thought considering how young this defense is. 

This year's Viking team is going to be entertaining, that's for sure. 

I should know better than to type this, but it couldn't be worse than last years debacle...

could it?  :p

Depends on what you mean by worse I guess. In terms of rankings, I have no idea. I just have a hunch we're going to make a lot of big plays (sacks, turnovers, picks) and we're going to give up a lot of big plays via QBs who know how to take advantage of the blitz and young defenders frequently out of position. 

How that shakes out is anyone's guess. 

thats how I see it as well,  it will be a feast or famine year for D,  unfortunately they will face a lot of experienced QB this year so it might be a pretty lean year for those that enjoy watching a dominate Vikings D.

@"supafreak84" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"MaroonBells" said:

@"purplefaithful" said:

@"MaroonBells" said:

@"VikingOracle" said: Granted there are multiple ways to field a super bowl team during the salary cap age.  Everyone knows the rookie QB strategy that is highly successful in putting real talent on the field.  I think a second approach is have a scheme that elevates ordinary players.  For some teams, their schemes are so good that they can easily replace players and not miss a beat.  I remember the Broncos o-line scheme being one that did not require phenomenal olinemen.  KC can get but with decent wide receivers (partly due to Mahones and partly due to scheme).  I think it is important to have a scheme where one positional group can get by with average players for salary cap purposes.

I mention this because it maybe that the former linebacker and linebacker coach, Flores, believes the his creative, blitz heavy scheme does not require superstar linebackers.  Yes, of course it would be better with such players but just perhaps the team feels that the scheme will make up for the lack of a superstar.

Just spitballing here, but it is a thought.

Interesting thought. And you're probably right to some degree. Cover two defenses, for example, don't require top cover corners. Just corners who can tackle. Mike Zimmer actually joked once that you can go pick up a cover-two corner at the 7-11 in Bloomington. 

It sounds like that what a Flores defense requires most is versatility, which would seem to require knowledge and experience. A bit of a scary thought considering how young this defense is. 

This year's Viking team is going to be entertaining, that's for sure. 

I should know better than to type this, but it couldn't be worse than last years debacle...

could it?  :p

Depends on what you mean by worse I guess. In terms of rankings, I have no idea. I just have a hunch we're going to make a lot of big plays (sacks, turnovers, picks) and we're going to give up a lot of big plays via QBs who know how to take advantage of the blitz and young defenders frequently out of position. 

How that shakes out is anyone's guess. 

thats how I see it as well,  it will be a feast or famine year for D,  unfortunately they will face a lot of experienced QB this year so it might be a pretty lean year for those that enjoy watching a dominate Vikings D.

Just my opinion, but the faster we get back to 4-3 football with an emphasis on a dominant defensive line, is when we will see a significant jump and getting back to Minnesota Vikings football. Fuck this 3-4, fancy blitz packages, and flanking out our best passrusjers out into coverage. Look at the top defenses last year; San Francisco, Philly, Dallas, Washington, Buffalo, New Orleans, the Jets...the common theme is they run a 4-3. I know KOC goal is to turn us into the Midwest Rams, but come on! That's not Vikings football 

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"MaroonBells" said:

@"purplefaithful" said:

@"MaroonBells" said:

@"VikingOracle" said: Granted there are multiple ways to field a super bowl team during the salary cap age.  Everyone knows the rookie QB strategy that is highly successful in putting real talent on the field.  I think a second approach is have a scheme that elevates ordinary players.  For some teams, their schemes are so good that they can easily replace players and not miss a beat.  I remember the Broncos o-line scheme being one that did not require phenomenal olinemen.  KC can get but with decent wide receivers (partly due to Mahones and partly due to scheme).  I think it is important to have a scheme where one positional group can get by with average players for salary cap purposes.

I mention this because it maybe that the former linebacker and linebacker coach, Flores, believes the his creative, blitz heavy scheme does not require superstar linebackers.  Yes, of course it would be better with such players but just perhaps the team feels that the scheme will make up for the lack of a superstar.

Just spitballing here, but it is a thought.

Interesting thought. And you're probably right to some degree. Cover two defenses, for example, don't require top cover corners. Just corners who can tackle. Mike Zimmer actually joked once that you can go pick up a cover-two corner at the 7-11 in Bloomington. 

It sounds like that what a Flores defense requires most is versatility, which would seem to require knowledge and experience. A bit of a scary thought considering how young this defense is. 

This year's Viking team is going to be entertaining, that's for sure. 

I should know better than to type this, but it couldn't be worse than last years debacle...

could it?  :p

Depends on what you mean by worse I guess. In terms of rankings, I have no idea. I just have a hunch we're going to make a lot of big plays (sacks, turnovers, picks) and we're going to give up a lot of big plays via QBs who know how to take advantage of the blitz and young defenders frequently out of position. 

How that shakes out is anyone's guess. 

thats how I see it as well,  it will be a feast or famine year for D,  unfortunately they will face a lot of experienced QB this year so it might be a pretty lean year for those that enjoy watching a dominate Vikings D.

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"supafreak84" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"MaroonBells" said:

@"purplefaithful" said:

@"MaroonBells" said:

@"VikingOracle" said: Granted there are multiple ways to field a super bowl team during the salary cap age.  Everyone knows the rookie QB strategy that is highly successful in putting real talent on the field.  I think a second approach is have a scheme that elevates ordinary players.  For some teams, their schemes are so good that they can easily replace players and not miss a beat.  I remember the Broncos o-line scheme being one that did not require phenomenal olinemen.  KC can get but with decent wide receivers (partly due to Mahones and partly due to scheme).  I think it is important to have a scheme where one positional group can get by with average players for salary cap purposes.

I mention this because it maybe that the former linebacker and linebacker coach, Flores, believes the his creative, blitz heavy scheme does not require superstar linebackers.  Yes, of course it would be better with such players but just perhaps the team feels that the scheme will make up for the lack of a superstar.

Just spitballing here, but it is a thought.

Interesting thought. And you're probably right to some degree. Cover two defenses, for example, don't require top cover corners. Just corners who can tackle. Mike Zimmer actually joked once that you can go pick up a cover-two corner at the 7-11 in Bloomington. 

It sounds like that what a Flores defense requires most is versatility, which would seem to require knowledge and experience. A bit of a scary thought considering how young this defense is. 

This year's Viking team is going to be entertaining, that's for sure. 

I should know better than to type this, but it couldn't be worse than last years debacle...

could it?  :p

Depends on what you mean by worse I guess. In terms of rankings, I have no idea. I just have a hunch we're going to make a lot of big plays (sacks, turnovers, picks) and we're going to give up a lot of big plays via QBs who know how to take advantage of the blitz and young defenders frequently out of position. 

How that shakes out is anyone's guess. 

thats how I see it as well,  it will be a feast or famine year for D,  unfortunately they will face a lot of experienced QB this year so it might be a pretty lean year for those that enjoy watching a dominate Vikings D.

Just my opinion, but the faster we get back to 4-3 football with an emphasis on a dominant defensive line, is when we will see a significant jump and getting back to Minnesota Vikings football. Fuck this 3-4, fancy blitz packages, and flanking out our best passrusjers out into coverage. Look at the top defenses last year; San Francisco, Philly, Dallas, Washington, Buffalo, New Orleans, the Jets...the common theme is they run a 4-3. I know KOC goal is to turn us into the Midwest Rams, but come on! That's not Vikings football 

I am not a fan of the 34 either,  but it does get more hands in passing lanes at that quick hitter level of the passing game,   just as last year though.... we dont have the people to do it right.  and this offseason didnt really do much to improve that IMO.