Vikings trade for Jordan Mason

JustInTime wrote:

Cmon. $12 is the maximum value. Half truths aren’t helping your argument. And we gave up a bag of used and soiled jocks in return. Please.

Why do it. Again, we go into the draft with no glaring need. Are we in position to acquire an elite RB? You’re positive Hampton and Henderson are going to be there at 24? I’d say it as likely that none are there. 

Weren’t you all in all Poles? I recall you loving the KC background.

I think there is a strong chance both will be there.  Henderson probably goes Day 2.  With it being such a strong class, I think the teams that don't get Jeanty will wait on the next tier of RBs.  I don't have Hampton in the same tier as Jeanty. He tested really well, but I don't see the same star power on the field.  

But I agree, I think I'd rather have Mason for a late round pick swap and a couple million per year than use our first or a second (in a trade down) on a RB.  We can probably tap a RB on Day 3 now.  There will be some good prospects on Day 3 to take a swing at and I think we will if we can trade down to accumulate some extra picks (which I think is even likelier now).

The simple response is Mason is a proven commodity where a college rookie is not...this also opens up several options for the organization for the upcoming draft depending on how the draft unfolds. The draft has never gone by the numbers, teams have always surprised everyone with out of nowhere picks. The Vikings now have various ways to strengthen their roster and not be attached to only one necessity.

MAD GAINZ wrote:

I think there is a strong chance both will be there.  Henderson probably goes Day 2.  With it being such a strong class, I think the teams that don't get Jeanty will wait on the next tier of RBs.  I don't have Hampton in the same tier as Jeanty. He tested really well, but I don't see the same star power on the field.  

But I agree, I think I'd rather have Mason for a late round pick swap and a couple million per year than use our first or a second (in a trade down) on a RB.  We can probably tap a RB on Day 3 now.  There will be some good prospects on Day 3 to take a swing at and I think we will if we can trade down to accumulate some extra picks (which I think is even likelier now).

^^^ 

Even a little blue pill wont help me overcome what you just laid out...

ArizonaViking wrote:
The simple response is Mason is a proven commodity where a college rookie is not...this also opens up several options for the organization for the upcoming draft depending on how the draft unfolds.  The draft has never gone by the numbers, teams have always surprised everyone with out of nowhere picks.  The Vikings now have various ways to strengthen their roster and not be attached to only one necessity.

This right here. Having options is never a bad thing.

StickierBuns wrote:

Dude, your rationale is fading on this one. Finding fault with the Mason trade is just searching for ways to bag on KAM. You've got a known quantity in Mason, who's only 25 years old, to unknown quantities in the draft and some of these guys are already 24 years old. He can pass block well. 'Historically loaded' doesn't mean much if you draft the wrong guy. I know you have a hard on for KAM, but this isn't the deal to criticize.

Nailed it.

As I stated on page one and others have also stated, this move gives us the following:

• A proven player in the league. He has done it in the NFL (good runner, runs hard, catches and pass blocks well).
  
• More flexibility in the draft as it fills a glaring need and reduces pressure to focus on RB. We are close to the “best player” available mindset in this draft.
  
• Even if we draft a RB the group becomes better. Even gives us the chance to develop the drafted RB than forcing him early.
  
• We are in a better spot to trading down in this draft as we have fewer needs.
  
• We did not give up much (draft picks or cash or cap) to get Jordan Mason. It’s not like this move affected what we can do in the off season regarding other potential free agent signings.
  

I have no idea how this can be seen as a bad move

StickierBuns wrote:

Dude, your rationale is fading on this one. Finding fault with the Mason trade is just searching for ways to bag on KAM. You've got a known quantity in Mason, who's only 25 years old, to unknown quantities in the draft and some of these guys are already 24 years old. He can pass block well. 'Historically loaded' doesn't mean much if you draft the wrong guy. I know you have a hard on for KAM, but this isn't the deal to criticize.

Agree. Of all the backs we're talking about, only about half will fit what we do and we could easily miss on those. 

I've heard there could be more than 30 backs taken in this draft. Last time the NFL took 30 backs was 2017. This was the McCaffrey, Cook and Mixon draft. The first one take, Fournette, is out of the NFL, and a guy taken after the draft, Ekeler, has been better than about 25 of the 30 drafted. The draft will always be a crap shoot.

MaroonBells wrote:

Agree. Of all the backs we're talking about, only about half will fit what we do and we could easily miss on those. 

I've heard there could be more than 30 backs taken in this draft. Last time the NFL took 30 backs was 2017. This was the McCaffrey, Cook and Mixon draft. The first one take, Fournette, is out of the NFL, and a guy taken after the draft, Ekeler, has been better than about 25 of the 30 drafted. The draft will always be a crap shoot.

The guy we just acquired was an UDFA. Crap shoot indeed.

StickierBuns wrote:

Dude, your rationale is fading on this one. Finding fault with the Mason trade is just searching for ways to bag on KAM. You've got a known quantity in Mason, who's only 25 years old, to unknown quantities in the draft and some of these guys are already 24 years old. He can pass block well. 'Historically loaded' doesn't mean much if you draft the wrong guy. I know you have a hard on for KAM, but this isn't the deal to criticize.

Let's let the draft play out and we can revisit this topic. All I'm saying is if we pass on an elite RB prospect in a historically good draft because we acquired Jordan Mason, who had a good first month of the season then didn't do dick, it's a mistake. Everybody keeps saying, "he's proven" well what exactly has he proven? He's as likely to be Alex Mattison as he is Marshawn Lynch in a small sample size and I hope we don't pass on an elite prospects at the position because of it, but got to let it play out first

supafreak84 wrote:

Let's let the draft play out and we can revisit this topic. All I'm saying is if we pass on an elite RB prospect in a historically good draft because we acquired Jordan Mason, who had a good first month of the season then didn't do dick, it's a mistake. Everybody keeps saying, "he's proven" well what exactly has he proven? He's as likely to be Alex Mattison as he is Marshawn Lynch in a small sample size and I hope we don't pass on an elite prospects at the position because of it, but got to let it play out first

He ran for like 680 yds, 3 TDs, and had 10 receptions for like another 80 yds in 8 starts.  Averaged over 5 YPC as a runner last season and is over 5 YPC in every season since he came into the league.  

He didn't do much in the second half of the season because CMC came back and he went into a backup role.  Then Mason got hurt and wasn't available in December.

With Kwesi's draft history, I like adding proven young talent in FA when we can.  It's his wheelhouse. If we took a RB early, we'd probably pick the one guy who sucks.  I still think we tap into RB3 on Day 3.  This class is DEEP and we may be able to find a guy there.  Once we get past Jeanty, it's anyone's guess if Hampton, Kaleb Johnson, Henderson, Judkins, etc is the 2nd best RB in the draft.

I like the Mason trade, he's only making a million or two more than a rookie would on a first or early 2nd round contract.

StickierBuns wrote:

No worries, its all opinion. Just for the record, I don't think Mason is either Mattison nor Marshawn Lynch, lol. I just think it was a very solid trade and addition to complement Jones. Tough runner. Its not like I have him penciled into my 1st team RB NFL All-Pro ballot.

I think it's about the KIND of runner Mason is. Tough runner is right. It's no secret we struggled in short yardage, goal line and eat-the-clock situations last year. You can blame some of that on the IOL, but between Chandler, Akers and Jones, we just didn't have a back who could punish and wear down would-be tacklers. Mason will never be a back who keeps DCs up at night, but he's that kind of back. He's the most physical back we've had since Peterson. 

I think between adding Kelly, Fries, Mason and that drill sergeant OL coach, the Vikings want to get much more physical. We can still add a RBOTF in the draft, but even if we don't, I like that at the very least we've added that dimension to our offense.

supafreak84 wrote:

Let's let the draft play out and we can revisit this topic. All I'm saying is if we pass on an elite RB prospect in a historically good draft because we acquired Jordan Mason, who had a good first month of the season then didn't do dick, it's a mistake. Everybody keeps saying, "he's proven" well what exactly has he proven? He's as likely to be Alex Mattison as he is Marshawn Lynch in a small sample size and I hope we don't pass on an elite prospects at the position because of it, but got to let it play out first

So let me get this straight…

1. Playing in the NFL for one year does not meet your definition of “proven” but you are absolutely sure a player (that we are not even sure will be available when we pick) who has never practiced with an NFL team nor played an NFL down has proven enough to you.
   
2. You are also certain that Mason will flame out but your unknown player will be better.
   

I am not trying to pick a fight but it’s really hard to follow your line of thought here.
Lastly, no one said signing Mason means we will pass on a RB. All it does is gives us more options and flexibility to do any of the following: 

1. Draft the best player available (be it a running back or not)
   
2. Trade out of the pick if we don’t have a high enough grade for any of the players instead of drafting for need. Signing Mason makes RB need less critical position to fill.
   
3. Have a better running back group and overall team going into the draft so we can be flexible on our targets. It’s no different than the other moves we have made. 
   
4. Look at it this way, I am sure if one of the top DL or OL prospects were available when we pick we will definitely consider them despite the FAs we have signed.
   

mblack wrote:

So let me get this straight…

1. Playing in the NFL for one year does not meet your definition of “proven” but you are absolutely sure a player (that we are not even sure will be available when we pick) who has never practiced with an NFL team nor played an NFL down has proven enough to you.
   
2. You are also certain that Mason will flame out but your unknown player will be better.
   

I am not trying to pick a fight but it’s really hard to follow your line of thought here.
Lastly, no one said signing Mason means we will pass on a RB. All it does is gives us more options and flexibility to do any of the following: 

1. Draft the best player available (be it a running back or not)
   
2. Trade out of the pick if we don’t have a high enough grade for any of the players instead of drafting for need. Signing Mason makes RB need less critical position to fill.
   
3. Have a better running back group and overall team going into the draft so we can be flexible on our targets. It’s no different than the other moves we have made. 
   
4. Look at it this way, I am sure if one of the top DL or OL prospects were available when we pick we will definitely consider them despite the FAs we have signed.
   

I guess we all have different definitions of "proven." To this point Mason hasn't "proven" anymore then someone like Alex Mattison, who is a similar type player and runner. I'd like to see a larger body of work before I'd declare Mason a proven talent, but that's just me. If his one month of production is good enough for you to reach that conclusion, more power to you. My preference would have been to take advantage of a deep and talented draft crop of running backs where there's a higher ceiling. I'd absolutely take any of the top 4 backs in this draft over Mason in a head to head and to have that player on a rookie deal for 4 or 5 years instead of playing musical running backs every year. I think the addition of Mason reduces that possibility significantly.

Whatever happens, happens though at this point.
Like I said, got to let the draft play out and we can all revisit this topic at a later time.

StickierBuns wrote:

Yabbut, it’s a small sample size.  :rolleyes:

JustInTime wrote:

Yabbut, it’s a small sample size.  :rolleyes:

Don't know what I was thinking. Boy you guys sure convinced me and proved me wrong. Mason for MVP..

StickierBuns wrote:

Haha, not MVP man. Just think its a pretty ok trade is all. 

Since we love to reference PFF, out of 47 running backs graded, Mason ranked the following;

Overall grade- 26th
Rushing grade- 20th
Receiving grade- 37th
Touchdowns- 35th

Doesn't get much more "pretty ok" then that..

StickierBuns wrote:

For the record, I'm not a big fan of PFF. But you seem good and stubborn on this so whatever man. You can be the sole person that hates this trade where we gave up a whopping 6th rounder for RB2. Never said it was earth shattering, said it was decent. Just toss another dart at KAM's picture or stick a pin in the Voodoo doll.

It’s an interesting hill to die on no? Pretty clownish. But, whatever.

And again, I’m not a huge fan of PFF, but when every member of a multi billion industry uses something, I’d say there’s at least a wee bit of credence to what they say. But then again, I’m a logical guy so what the fuck do I know.

StickierBuns wrote:

For the record, I'm not a big fan of PFF. But you seem good and stubborn on this so whatever man. You can be the sole person that hates this trade where we gave up a whopping 6th rounder for RB2. Never said it was earth shattering, said it was decent. Just toss another dart at KAM's picture or stick a pin in the Voodoo doll.

For the record, I think the Mason acquisition is a mid type move and he did show some ability for a small sample size last year. Runs hard, and we needed some size and a change of pace to Jones running style. The only way I have a problem with the Mason acquisition is if it's used as justification on draft day to bypass one of those top backs in the draft where at least one (if not more) is projected to be available at #24. Otherwise I'm fine with the acquisition. 

And I'm just giving you guys a bad time posting the PFF stats. I do get a chuckle though anytime the Vikings acquire a player some obscure, random stat line is posted like its this great under the radar move. For example, we could sign a backup guard and a stat line will be posted, "ranked 4th in the NFL in run blocking efficiency" even though the guy only played in six games lol. Just shit like that..

I guess what I find humorous is on one hand Kwesi is bashed at every turn to the point of using half truths to support an argument as well as derogatory nicknames then on the other hand the roster is referred to as championship quality. 

JustInTime wrote:

It’s an interesting hill to die on no? Pretty clownish. But, whatever.

And again, I’m not a huge fan of PFF, but when every member of a multi billion industry uses something, I’d say there’s at least a wee bit of credence to what they say. But then again, I’m a logical guy so what the fuck do I know.

Stop with the logic. There's no place for it. People tend to accept only data that jives with what they already believe, or want to believe. Confirmation bias. It's the bane of modern society. 

PFF may not be perfect, but when you have trained analysts, many of whom are former coaches and players, focusing on only one player and watching every single snap that player takes, and then before a grade is determined, it's reviewed again by a senior analyst, I don't know, call me crazy, I'm going to put more credibility into that than the typically biased opinion of Burnsville Bob watching Red Zone through his bottle of Grain Belt. If it weren't at least somewhat credible, GMs wouldn't use it. All of them do. 

They do need to step up their college game though.