No signs that Anthony Barr is close to signing with Vikings

Anthony Barr and the Vikings are approaching a forgettable anniversary.

The veteran linebacker first realized last spring he wasn’t getting a contract extension and sat out a week of voluntary OTAs while buying an insurance policy on himself. In a December sit-down with the Star Tribune, Barr said he personally got involved in contract negotiations, only to quickly eject.

The Vikings’ offers were “not really what I had expected,” Barr said.

The Vikings could take control of the contract of the four-time Pro Bowl player Tuesday, but it seems an unlikely action given the cost, the team’s salary cap situation and the front office’s history with the franchise tag. A two-week window has opened for teams to use the one-year franchise or transition tags, which the Vikings last placed on linebacker Chad Greenway in 2011 before agreeing to a long-term deal before the start of that season.

The deadline is 3 p.m. on March 5 to apply the tag.

There are no indications the two parties are close or yet reengaged on an extension, with the last public comments coming from Barr when he said, “I could be anywhere,” before the Pro Bowl.

The Vikings have exclusive negotiating rights with Barr until March 11, when legal tampering begins. He can sign elsewhere starting March 13.

http://www.startribune.com/no-signs-that-anthony-barr-is-close-to-signing-with-vikings/506021112/

The 4 stages of a Viking Fans Season; Hope during the offseason, Increased hope during the season, Dagger your hopes in the postseason, Rinse & Repeat...
«1

Comments

  • JustinTime18™JustinTime18™ Posts: 15,277King
    This has been a foregone, at least to me, conclusion for awhile now...bring on Wilson and my next moniker...
    JimmyinSDpumpfCaactorvike


    Blue Ridge Mountains circa 2020.

  • MaroonBellsMaroonBells Posts: 15,030King
    This has been a foregone, at least to me, conclusion for awhile now...bring on Wilson and my next moniker...
    Agreed. If the Vikings were going to bring Barr back, they would've signed him months ago. 

    When in doubt tell the truth - Mark Twain

  • suncoastvikesuncoastvike Posts: 2,258Jarl
    So the Barr has been set and the team has not reached it. Doesn't sound like he'll be around in mid March.
    njvike
    ''A successful coach needs a patient wife, loyal dog, and a great quarterback ~ and not necessarily in that order''


  • JimmyinSDJimmyinSD Posts: 17,220King
    well he isnt getting tagged,  he can go see what the market bears and if somebody wants to unload on a sometimes player with high potential...we get a third round pick and a ton of cap space.  

    on the flip side... we all talk about a 4-3 OLB not being worth as much as he would if he were in a 34D.  I wonder how much that value changes though when you actually should consider our base D a 42D,  I have to think that LB value rises significantly when there are only 2 on the field for the majority of the snaps.
    Why isnt Chuck Foreman in the hall of fame?





  • JustinTime18™JustinTime18™ Posts: 15,277King
    That's a lot of bra size talk.
    suncoastvikepurplefaithfulJimmyinSDHappyVikingpikvikeswivikingKentisFessVike


    Blue Ridge Mountains circa 2020.

  • suncoastvikesuncoastvike Posts: 2,258Jarl
    That's a lot of bra size talk.
    42D that's Fraulein Oofda.
    kahsmickwivikingCaactorvike
    ''A successful coach needs a patient wife, loyal dog, and a great quarterback ~ and not necessarily in that order''


  • purplefaithfulpurplefaithful Posts: 17,164King

    Barr’s value on the open market is difficult to project because of his position. He will be 27 next season, young enough to try whatever a different coaching staff wants. 

    He was a 3-4 outside linebacker at UCLA, where he had 23½ sacks in two seasons, before converting to a stack linebacker in the Vikings’ 4-3 front.


    The 4 stages of a Viking Fans Season; Hope during the offseason, Increased hope during the season, Dagger your hopes in the postseason, Rinse & Repeat...
  • StickyBunStickyBun Posts: 15,518King
    This has been a foregone, at least to me, conclusion for awhile now...bring on Wilson and my next moniker...
    Agreed. If the Vikings were going to bring Barr back, they would've signed him months ago. 
    If they REALLY wanted to sign Barr, they would have been proactive like they were with Hunter.
    JimmyinSDJustinTime18™
  • JimmyinSDJimmyinSD Posts: 17,220King
    This has been a foregone, at least to me, conclusion for awhile now...bring on Wilson and my next moniker...
    Agreed. If the Vikings were going to bring Barr back, they would've signed him months ago. 
    If they REALLY wanted to sign Barr, they would have been proactive like they were with Hunter.
    i was thinking the same thing about Waynes recently... if they dont approach him this offseason I have to think that means they are willing to move on without him as well.
    Why isnt Chuck Foreman in the hall of fame?





  • pumpfpumpf Posts: 1,575Jarl

    Barr’s value on the open market is difficult to project because of his position. He will be 27 next season, young enough to try whatever a different coaching staff wants. 

    He was a 3-4 outside linebacker at UCLA, where he had 23½ sacks in two seasons, before converting to a stack linebacker in the Vikings’ 4-3 front.


    Zimmer had big plans for the versatile player... but- from what I saw- he basically played him like a normal 4-3 LB.  Maybe Barr will go to a 3-4 team (or the Patriots) and become a superstar.  But, to me, he isn't anything special HERE (which is more about the scheme and what's asked of him than a reflection of his physical abilities).


  • Jor-ElJor-El Posts: 2,362Jarl
    This has been a foregone, at least to me, conclusion for awhile now...bring on Wilson and my next moniker...

    WilsonFillups50?
    JustinTime18™HappyVikingRalphie
  • RalphieRalphie Posts: 2,266Jarl
    This has been a foregone, at least to me, conclusion for awhile now...bring on Wilson and my next moniker...


    How 'bout...

    SendMasters34 or

    RocAuto32 or

    DontTreadonMe11

    ;)


    HappyVikingJustinTime18™

        

  • HappyVikingHappyViking Posts: 3,080Jarl
    @Ralphie said:
    This has been a foregone, at least to me, conclusion for awhile now...bring on Wilson and my next moniker...


    How 'bout...

    SendMasters34 or

    RocAuto32 or

    DontTreadonMe11

    ;)


    KissingCousins8
    KissTheCook33
    RhodesKill29

    It's kind of fun. B)
    JustinTime18™Ralphie
  • HappyVikingHappyViking Posts: 3,080Jarl
    @Jor-El said:
    This has been a foregone, at least to me, conclusion for awhile now...bring on Wilson and my next moniker...

    WilsonFillups50?
    How about FlipWilson50? :p
    JustinTime18™Ralphie
  • JustinTime18™JustinTime18™ Posts: 15,277King
    Lol, maybe we'll have a contest...I was thinking of:

    WhatzCooking33™
    Hard To Kill™
    HappyVikingRalphie


    Blue Ridge Mountains circa 2020.

  • RalphieRalphie Posts: 2,266Jarl
    Lol, maybe we'll have a contest...I was thinking of:

    WhatzCooking33™
    Hard To Kill™


    Great idea.  Just don't get too descriptive with the names.  Like...

    Swingin'DoorsCompton79 or

    YouCantMissMeI'mTheLinemanAlwaysOnMyBack74

    ;)

    BullazinHappyVikingJustinTime18™SFVikingFan

        

  • medaillemedaille Posts: 2,171Jarl
    This has been a foregone, at least to me, conclusion for awhile now...bring on Wilson and my next moniker...
    Agreed. If the Vikings were going to bring Barr back, they would've signed him months ago. 
    If they REALLY wanted to sign Barr, they would have been proactive like they were with Hunter.
    I think if Hunter was asking for $20M a year, he'd be in the same boat as Barr.  You can only be proactive when both sides agree to the figures.
    JimmyinSDKentis
  • Geoff NicholsGeoff Nichols Posts: 1,828Jarl
    @medaille said:
    This has been a foregone, at least to me, conclusion for awhile now...bring on Wilson and my next moniker...
    Agreed. If the Vikings were going to bring Barr back, they would've signed him months ago. 
    If they REALLY wanted to sign Barr, they would have been proactive like they were with Hunter.
    I think if Hunter was asking for $20M a year, he'd be in the same boat as Barr.  You can only be proactive when both sides agree to the figures.
    There is a lot of truth in that. It ultimately comes down to how each side values each other and themselves. 
    Ralphie
  • MarkSP18MarkSP18 Posts: 947Karl
    This has been a foregone, at least to me, conclusion for awhile now...bring on Wilson and my next moniker...
    Agreed. If the Vikings were going to bring Barr back, they would've signed him months ago. 
    If they REALLY wanted to sign Barr, they would have been proactive like they were with Hunter.
    i was thinking the same thing about Waynes recently... if they dont approach him this offseason I have to think that means they are willing to move on without him as well.
    The Vikings should absolutely trade Waynes.

    What was the point of drafting Hughes if your going to extend Waynes.

    Watching a player leave in free agency and then hoping to get a compensatory pick (by not doing nothing yourself in free agency) is not a strategy that I am fond of.

    All the talk about how Spielman loves 1st round picks and that 5th year has really not produced many extensions.  Only Rhodes and Smith.
    suncoastvike
  • Geoff NicholsGeoff Nichols Posts: 1,828Jarl
    @MarkSP18 said:
    This has been a foregone, at least to me, conclusion for awhile now...bring on Wilson and my next moniker...
    Agreed. If the Vikings were going to bring Barr back, they would've signed him months ago. 
    If they REALLY wanted to sign Barr, they would have been proactive like they were with Hunter.
    i was thinking the same thing about Waynes recently... if they dont approach him this offseason I have to think that means they are willing to move on without him as well.
    The Vikings should absolutely trade Waynes.

    What was the point of drafting Hughes if your going to extend Waynes.

    Watching a player leave in free agency and then hoping to get a compensatory pick (by not doing nothing yourself in free agency) is not a strategy that I am fond of.

    All the talk about how Spielman loves 1st round picks and that 5th year has really not produced many extensions.  Only Rhodes and Smith.
    They have to at least see what another team would offer for Waynes. If you get a good offer then you probably move him. I just don't know if a team is going to give up a premium asset (pick) only to turn around and extend him. 

    Hughes was a pick to improve the slot where they really struggled at times in 2017. Of course Mac completely showed up this season and was arguably the best corner on the roster. His contract is also up after this coming season. 

    I think you need to figure out Mac's market rate as well. Coming off a good season and having a cap hit of $1M for a trading team, you might get more by trading him. 
    JimmyinSDRalphie
  • TyrTyr Posts: 753Karl
    @MarkSP18 said:
    This has been a foregone, at least to me, conclusion for awhile now...bring on Wilson and my next moniker...
    Agreed. If the Vikings were going to bring Barr back, they would've signed him months ago. 
    If they REALLY wanted to sign Barr, they would have been proactive like they were with Hunter.
    i was thinking the same thing about Waynes recently... if they dont approach him this offseason I have to think that means they are willing to move on without him as well.
    The Vikings should absolutely trade Waynes.

    What was the point of drafting Hughes if your going to extend Waynes.

    Watching a player leave in free agency and then hoping to get a compensatory pick (by not doing nothing yourself in free agency) is not a strategy that I am fond of.

    All the talk about how Spielman loves 1st round picks and that 5th year has really not produced many extensions.  Only Rhodes and Smith.
    They have to at least see what another team would offer for Waynes. If you get a good offer then you probably move him. I just don't know if a team is going to give up a premium asset (pick) only to turn around and extend him. 

    Hughes was a pick to improve the slot where they really struggled at times in 2017. Of course Mac completely showed up this season and was arguably the best corner on the roster. His contract is also up after this coming season. 

    I think you need to figure out Mac's market rate as well. Coming off a good season and having a cap hit of $1M for a trading team, you might get more by trading him. 
    Their strategy of stockpiling high round CBs is likely something that I'm never going to like. It feels strange to draft guys like Waynes and Alexander presumably with the intent that they'll never see their second contract here. Corners are expensive, but are the cap savings of a guy like Hughes worth it if they keep taking away high picks from other positions every 1 or 2-years? Hughes seemed promising prior to tearing his ACL, but that doesn't justify the strategy to me. I do agree that Alexander was a question mark heading into last season, but there were more reasonable insurance plans they could have pursued. We did at least seem to get a hit with Holton Hill, but he's the first late round CB to show any promise under Zimmer in MN and even then he was a late round pick more due to concerns over character than ability (not that character issues are easy to manage). It's just strange that the focus is to keep drafting CBs high rather than try to develop affordable replacements in the mid to late rounds. They've had good CB play under Zimmer, but I feel like other positions have suffered because of this.

    Is this an intentional strategy or just a sign of them valuing the quality of the prospect over the scale of the need? I'd hope that they won't consider corners in the first two rounds this year, but part of me is prepared that they'll pass over over good OL or LB talent for another CB. I think I'm joking about that, I hope.
  • JimmyinSDJimmyinSD Posts: 17,220King
    @Tyr said:
    @MarkSP18 said:
    This has been a foregone, at least to me, conclusion for awhile now...bring on Wilson and my next moniker...
    Agreed. If the Vikings were going to bring Barr back, they would've signed him months ago. 
    If they REALLY wanted to sign Barr, they would have been proactive like they were with Hunter.
    i was thinking the same thing about Waynes recently... if they dont approach him this offseason I have to think that means they are willing to move on without him as well.
    The Vikings should absolutely trade Waynes.

    What was the point of drafting Hughes if your going to extend Waynes.

    Watching a player leave in free agency and then hoping to get a compensatory pick (by not doing nothing yourself in free agency) is not a strategy that I am fond of.

    All the talk about how Spielman loves 1st round picks and that 5th year has really not produced many extensions.  Only Rhodes and Smith.
    They have to at least see what another team would offer for Waynes. If you get a good offer then you probably move him. I just don't know if a team is going to give up a premium asset (pick) only to turn around and extend him. 

    Hughes was a pick to improve the slot where they really struggled at times in 2017. Of course Mac completely showed up this season and was arguably the best corner on the roster. His contract is also up after this coming season. 

    I think you need to figure out Mac's market rate as well. Coming off a good season and having a cap hit of $1M for a trading team, you might get more by trading him. 
    Their strategy of stockpiling high round CBs is likely something that I'm never going to like. It feels strange to draft guys like Waynes and Alexander presumably with the intent that they'll never see their second contract here. Corners are expensive, but are the cap savings of a guy like Hughes worth it if they keep taking away high picks from other positions every 1 or 2-years? Hughes seemed promising prior to tearing his ACL, but that doesn't justify the strategy to me. I do agree that Alexander was a question mark heading into last season, but there were more reasonable insurance plans they could have pursued. We did at least seem to get a hit with Holton Hill, but he's the first late round CB to show any promise under Zimmer in MN and even then he was a late round pick more due to concerns over character than ability (not that character issues are easy to manage). It's just strange that the focus is to keep drafting CBs high rather than try to develop affordable replacements in the mid to late rounds. They've had good CB play under Zimmer, but I feel like other positions have suffered because of this.

    Is this an intentional strategy or just a sign of them valuing the quality of the prospect over the scale of the need? I'd hope that they won't consider corners in the first two rounds this year, but part of me is prepared that they'll pass over over good OL or LB talent for another CB. I think I'm joking about that, I hope.
    We have seen it take a year or two to get up to speed in Zimmers D,  and prior to last season we had a big ? on Alexander and Wayne's being a smaller ? but also nearing the end of his deal that would have left Rhodes as our only viable CB,  a position that we routinely see at least 3 on the field for the majority of the defensive snaps.  A year later it appears to be a position of strength but it could very easily have been the biggest need this offseason if things had fallen a little differently.


    suncoastvikeHappyViking
    Why isnt Chuck Foreman in the hall of fame?





  • Geoff NicholsGeoff Nichols Posts: 1,828Jarl
    @Tyr said:
    @MarkSP18 said:
    This has been a foregone, at least to me, conclusion for awhile now...bring on Wilson and my next moniker...
    Agreed. If the Vikings were going to bring Barr back, they would've signed him months ago. 
    If they REALLY wanted to sign Barr, they would have been proactive like they were with Hunter.
    i was thinking the same thing about Waynes recently... if they dont approach him this offseason I have to think that means they are willing to move on without him as well.
    The Vikings should absolutely trade Waynes.

    What was the point of drafting Hughes if your going to extend Waynes.

    Watching a player leave in free agency and then hoping to get a compensatory pick (by not doing nothing yourself in free agency) is not a strategy that I am fond of.

    All the talk about how Spielman loves 1st round picks and that 5th year has really not produced many extensions.  Only Rhodes and Smith.
    They have to at least see what another team would offer for Waynes. If you get a good offer then you probably move him. I just don't know if a team is going to give up a premium asset (pick) only to turn around and extend him. 

    Hughes was a pick to improve the slot where they really struggled at times in 2017. Of course Mac completely showed up this season and was arguably the best corner on the roster. His contract is also up after this coming season. 

    I think you need to figure out Mac's market rate as well. Coming off a good season and having a cap hit of $1M for a trading team, you might get more by trading him. 
    Their strategy of stockpiling high round CBs is likely something that I'm never going to like. It feels strange to draft guys like Waynes and Alexander presumably with the intent that they'll never see their second contract here. Corners are expensive, but are the cap savings of a guy like Hughes worth it if they keep taking away high picks from other positions every 1 or 2-years? Hughes seemed promising prior to tearing his ACL, but that doesn't justify the strategy to me. I do agree that Alexander was a question mark heading into last season, but there were more reasonable insurance plans they could have pursued. We did at least seem to get a hit with Holton Hill, but he's the first late round CB to show any promise under Zimmer in MN and even then he was a late round pick more due to concerns over character than ability (not that character issues are easy to manage). It's just strange that the focus is to keep drafting CBs high rather than try to develop affordable replacements in the mid to late rounds. They've had good CB play under Zimmer, but I feel like other positions have suffered because of this.

    Is this an intentional strategy or just a sign of them valuing the quality of the prospect over the scale of the need? I'd hope that they won't consider corners in the first two rounds this year, but part of me is prepared that they'll pass over over good OL or LB talent for another CB. I think I'm joking about that, I hope.
    I think there is some underestimation in how much the defense as a whole would suffer without good CB play. In today's NFL you need to rely so heavily on the secondary to slow down opposing offenses. Add in the fact that a lot of teams are running more 3WR sets and it has made a good nickel invaluable too. So I don't think the Vikings are off base investing high picks and money into their corners. Without them your other pieces don't work as well. 

    The question that needs to be asked is more along the lines of how sustainable it would be to pay 3 corners market rate. No current team has done that and it's really not feasible. So the Vikings need to pick two of Rhodes, Waynes, and Alexander to move forward with. My guess is they choose Rhodes/Waynes and retain Hughes as the slot guy and Holton hill as your 4th corner. 
    JimmyinSDDeepFreeze05
  • JimmyinSDJimmyinSD Posts: 17,220King
    @Tyr said:
    @MarkSP18 said:
    This has been a foregone, at least to me, conclusion for awhile now...bring on Wilson and my next moniker...
    Agreed. If the Vikings were going to bring Barr back, they would've signed him months ago. 
    If they REALLY wanted to sign Barr, they would have been proactive like they were with Hunter.
    i was thinking the same thing about Waynes recently... if they dont approach him this offseason I have to think that means they are willing to move on without him as well.
    The Vikings should absolutely trade Waynes.

    What was the point of drafting Hughes if your going to extend Waynes.

    Watching a player leave in free agency and then hoping to get a compensatory pick (by not doing nothing yourself in free agency) is not a strategy that I am fond of.

    All the talk about how Spielman loves 1st round picks and that 5th year has really not produced many extensions.  Only Rhodes and Smith.
    They have to at least see what another team would offer for Waynes. If you get a good offer then you probably move him. I just don't know if a team is going to give up a premium asset (pick) only to turn around and extend him. 

    Hughes was a pick to improve the slot where they really struggled at times in 2017. Of course Mac completely showed up this season and was arguably the best corner on the roster. His contract is also up after this coming season. 

    I think you need to figure out Mac's market rate as well. Coming off a good season and having a cap hit of $1M for a trading team, you might get more by trading him. 
    Their strategy of stockpiling high round CBs is likely something that I'm never going to like. It feels strange to draft guys like Waynes and Alexander presumably with the intent that they'll never see their second contract here. Corners are expensive, but are the cap savings of a guy like Hughes worth it if they keep taking away high picks from other positions every 1 or 2-years? Hughes seemed promising prior to tearing his ACL, but that doesn't justify the strategy to me. I do agree that Alexander was a question mark heading into last season, but there were more reasonable insurance plans they could have pursued. We did at least seem to get a hit with Holton Hill, but he's the first late round CB to show any promise under Zimmer in MN and even then he was a late round pick more due to concerns over character than ability (not that character issues are easy to manage). It's just strange that the focus is to keep drafting CBs high rather than try to develop affordable replacements in the mid to late rounds. They've had good CB play under Zimmer, but I feel like other positions have suffered because of this.

    Is this an intentional strategy or just a sign of them valuing the quality of the prospect over the scale of the need? I'd hope that they won't consider corners in the first two rounds this year, but part of me is prepared that they'll pass over over good OL or LB talent for another CB. I think I'm joking about that, I hope.
    I think there is some underestimation in how much the defense as a whole would suffer without good CB play. In today's NFL you need to rely so heavily on the secondary to slow down opposing offenses. Add in the fact that a lot of teams are running more 3WR sets and it has made a good nickel invaluable too. So I don't think the Vikings are off base investing high picks and money into their corners. Without them your other pieces don't work as well. 

    The question that needs to be asked is more along the lines of how sustainable it would be to pay 3 corners market rate. No current team has done that and it's really not feasible. So the Vikings need to pick two of Rhodes, Waynes, and Alexander to move forward with. My guess is they choose Rhodes/Waynes and retain Hughes as the slot guy and Holton hill as your 4th corner. 
    case in point... a few years back when our secondary was as poor as it was our run D was always rated #1,  not the WWall, our ends, and the LBs were pretty decent at stuffing the run,  but the fact that every O in the league could throw on our secondary really made teams not bother with the run when playing the Vikes.
    suncoastvikeDeepFreeze05
    Why isnt Chuck Foreman in the hall of fame?





  • MarkSP18MarkSP18 Posts: 947Karl
    @Tyr said:
    @MarkSP18 said:
    This has been a foregone, at least to me, conclusion for awhile now...bring on Wilson and my next moniker...
    Agreed. If the Vikings were going to bring Barr back, they would've signed him months ago. 
    If they REALLY wanted to sign Barr, they would have been proactive like they were with Hunter.
    i was thinking the same thing about Waynes recently... if they dont approach him this offseason I have to think that means they are willing to move on without him as well.
    The Vikings should absolutely trade Waynes.

    What was the point of drafting Hughes if your going to extend Waynes.

    Watching a player leave in free agency and then hoping to get a compensatory pick (by not doing nothing yourself in free agency) is not a strategy that I am fond of.

    All the talk about how Spielman loves 1st round picks and that 5th year has really not produced many extensions.  Only Rhodes and Smith.
    They have to at least see what another team would offer for Waynes. If you get a good offer then you probably move him. I just don't know if a team is going to give up a premium asset (pick) only to turn around and extend him. 

    Hughes was a pick to improve the slot where they really struggled at times in 2017. Of course Mac completely showed up this season and was arguably the best corner on the roster. His contract is also up after this coming season. 

    I think you need to figure out Mac's market rate as well. Coming off a good season and having a cap hit of $1M for a trading team, you might get more by trading him. 
    Their strategy of stockpiling high round CBs is likely something that I'm never going to like. It feels strange to draft guys like Waynes and Alexander presumably with the intent that they'll never see their second contract here. Corners are expensive, but are the cap savings of a guy like Hughes worth it if they keep taking away high picks from other positions every 1 or 2-years? Hughes seemed promising prior to tearing his ACL, but that doesn't justify the strategy to me. I do agree that Alexander was a question mark heading into last season, but there were more reasonable insurance plans they could have pursued. We did at least seem to get a hit with Holton Hill, but he's the first late round CB to show any promise under Zimmer in MN and even then he was a late round pick more due to concerns over character than ability (not that character issues are easy to manage). It's just strange that the focus is to keep drafting CBs high rather than try to develop affordable replacements in the mid to late rounds. They've had good CB play under Zimmer, but I feel like other positions have suffered because of this.

    Is this an intentional strategy or just a sign of them valuing the quality of the prospect over the scale of the need? I'd hope that they won't consider corners in the first two rounds this year, but part of me is prepared that they'll pass over over good OL or LB talent for another CB. I think I'm joking about that, I hope.
    I think there is some underestimation in how much the defense as a whole would suffer without good CB play. In today's NFL you need to rely so heavily on the secondary to slow down opposing offenses. Add in the fact that a lot of teams are running more 3WR sets and it has made a good nickel invaluable too. So I don't think the Vikings are off base investing high picks and money into their corners. Without them your other pieces don't work as well. 

    The question that needs to be asked is more along the lines of how sustainable it would be to pay 3 corners market rate. No current team has done that and it's really not feasible. So the Vikings need to pick two of Rhodes, Waynes, and Alexander to move forward with. My guess is they choose Rhodes/Waynes and retain Hughes as the slot guy and Holton hill as your 4th corner. 
    I saw you mentioned Hughes in the slot earlier but I am at a loss as to figuring out when he has actually, you know, ever played in the slot and showed he could be effective.

    I do not know where he played at NC or at the junior college he attended but he played on the outside at UCF and looked good there this past season.

    Counting on him to play in the slot reminds me of Josh Robinson.
  • Geoff NicholsGeoff Nichols Posts: 1,828Jarl
    @MarkSP18 said:
    @Tyr said:
    @MarkSP18 said:
    This has been a foregone, at least to me, conclusion for awhile now...bring on Wilson and my next moniker...
    Agreed. If the Vikings were going to bring Barr back, they would've signed him months ago. 
    If they REALLY wanted to sign Barr, they would have been proactive like they were with Hunter.
    i was thinking the same thing about Waynes recently... if they dont approach him this offseason I have to think that means they are willing to move on without him as well.
    The Vikings should absolutely trade Waynes.

    What was the point of drafting Hughes if your going to extend Waynes.

    Watching a player leave in free agency and then hoping to get a compensatory pick (by not doing nothing yourself in free agency) is not a strategy that I am fond of.

    All the talk about how Spielman loves 1st round picks and that 5th year has really not produced many extensions.  Only Rhodes and Smith.
    They have to at least see what another team would offer for Waynes. If you get a good offer then you probably move him. I just don't know if a team is going to give up a premium asset (pick) only to turn around and extend him. 

    Hughes was a pick to improve the slot where they really struggled at times in 2017. Of course Mac completely showed up this season and was arguably the best corner on the roster. His contract is also up after this coming season. 

    I think you need to figure out Mac's market rate as well. Coming off a good season and having a cap hit of $1M for a trading team, you might get more by trading him. 
    Their strategy of stockpiling high round CBs is likely something that I'm never going to like. It feels strange to draft guys like Waynes and Alexander presumably with the intent that they'll never see their second contract here. Corners are expensive, but are the cap savings of a guy like Hughes worth it if they keep taking away high picks from other positions every 1 or 2-years? Hughes seemed promising prior to tearing his ACL, but that doesn't justify the strategy to me. I do agree that Alexander was a question mark heading into last season, but there were more reasonable insurance plans they could have pursued. We did at least seem to get a hit with Holton Hill, but he's the first late round CB to show any promise under Zimmer in MN and even then he was a late round pick more due to concerns over character than ability (not that character issues are easy to manage). It's just strange that the focus is to keep drafting CBs high rather than try to develop affordable replacements in the mid to late rounds. They've had good CB play under Zimmer, but I feel like other positions have suffered because of this.

    Is this an intentional strategy or just a sign of them valuing the quality of the prospect over the scale of the need? I'd hope that they won't consider corners in the first two rounds this year, but part of me is prepared that they'll pass over over good OL or LB talent for another CB. I think I'm joking about that, I hope.
    I think there is some underestimation in how much the defense as a whole would suffer without good CB play. In today's NFL you need to rely so heavily on the secondary to slow down opposing offenses. Add in the fact that a lot of teams are running more 3WR sets and it has made a good nickel invaluable too. So I don't think the Vikings are off base investing high picks and money into their corners. Without them your other pieces don't work as well. 

    The question that needs to be asked is more along the lines of how sustainable it would be to pay 3 corners market rate. No current team has done that and it's really not feasible. So the Vikings need to pick two of Rhodes, Waynes, and Alexander to move forward with. My guess is they choose Rhodes/Waynes and retain Hughes as the slot guy and Holton hill as your 4th corner. 
    I saw you mentioned Hughes in the slot earlier but I am at a loss as to figuring out when he has actually, you know, ever played in the slot and showed he could be effective.

    I do not know where he played at NC or at the junior college he attended but he played on the outside at UCF and looked good there this past season.

    Counting on him to play in the slot reminds me of Josh Robinson.
    Of the 244 snaps he played this season before getting injured over half came in the slot? 
  • Jor-ElJor-El Posts: 2,362Jarl
    @MarkSP18 said:
    This has been a foregone, at least to me, conclusion for awhile now...bring on Wilson and my next moniker...
    Agreed. If the Vikings were going to bring Barr back, they would've signed him months ago. 
    If they REALLY wanted to sign Barr, they would have been proactive like they were with Hunter.
    i was thinking the same thing about Waynes recently... if they dont approach him this offseason I have to think that means they are willing to move on without him as well.
    The Vikings should absolutely trade Waynes.

    What was the point of drafting Hughes if your going to extend Waynes.

    Watching a player leave in free agency and then hoping to get a compensatory pick (by not doing nothing yourself in free agency) is not a strategy that I am fond of.

    All the talk about how Spielman loves 1st round picks and that 5th year has really not produced many extensions.  Only Rhodes and Smith.
    They have to at least see what another team would offer for Waynes. If you get a good offer then you probably move him. I just don't know if a team is going to give up a premium asset (pick) only to turn around and extend him. 

    Hughes was a pick to improve the slot where they really struggled at times in 2017. Of course Mac completely showed up this season and was arguably the best corner on the roster. His contract is also up after this coming season. 

    I think you need to figure out Mac's market rate as well. Coming off a good season and having a cap hit of $1M for a trading team, you might get more by trading him. 
    If we trade Waynes for a 2nd, and put Hughes in his spot, didn't we just use a 1st to allow us to acquire a 2nd? He's going into his relatively expensive 5th year, then a free agent, so let's not fantasize about him bringing some bounty. But - trade Alexander (probably for less), give HIS job to Hughes, it's the same thing. Doesn't seem like progress in improving overall team talent.

    Also, Hughes had a few splash plays - but CBs rarely produce immediately in Zimmer's defense, so what if Hughes struggles in 2019 or 2020? Since Alexander was "arguably the best corner on the roster", why are we thinking of trading him? We aren't a farm team - extend Alexander, let's keep our players who are improving and emerging, not bet on someone who played 4 games or a draft pick.


  • FSUVikeFSUVike Posts: 1,451Jarl
    @MarkSP18 said:
    @Tyr said:
    @MarkSP18 said:
    This has been a foregone, at least to me, conclusion for awhile now...bring on Wilson and my next moniker...
    Agreed. If the Vikings were going to bring Barr back, they would've signed him months ago. 
    If they REALLY wanted to sign Barr, they would have been proactive like they were with Hunter.
    i was thinking the same thing about Waynes recently... if they dont approach him this offseason I have to think that means they are willing to move on without him as well.
    The Vikings should absolutely trade Waynes.

    What was the point of drafting Hughes if your going to extend Waynes.

    Watching a player leave in free agency and then hoping to get a compensatory pick (by not doing nothing yourself in free agency) is not a strategy that I am fond of.

    All the talk about how Spielman loves 1st round picks and that 5th year has really not produced many extensions.  Only Rhodes and Smith.
    They have to at least see what another team would offer for Waynes. If you get a good offer then you probably move him. I just don't know if a team is going to give up a premium asset (pick) only to turn around and extend him. 

    Hughes was a pick to improve the slot where they really struggled at times in 2017. Of course Mac completely showed up this season and was arguably the best corner on the roster. His contract is also up after this coming season. 

    I think you need to figure out Mac's market rate as well. Coming off a good season and having a cap hit of $1M for a trading team, you might get more by trading him. 
    Their strategy of stockpiling high round CBs is likely something that I'm never going to like. It feels strange to draft guys like Waynes and Alexander presumably with the intent that they'll never see their second contract here. Corners are expensive, but are the cap savings of a guy like Hughes worth it if they keep taking away high picks from other positions every 1 or 2-years? Hughes seemed promising prior to tearing his ACL, but that doesn't justify the strategy to me. I do agree that Alexander was a question mark heading into last season, but there were more reasonable insurance plans they could have pursued. We did at least seem to get a hit with Holton Hill, but he's the first late round CB to show any promise under Zimmer in MN and even then he was a late round pick more due to concerns over character than ability (not that character issues are easy to manage). It's just strange that the focus is to keep drafting CBs high rather than try to develop affordable replacements in the mid to late rounds. They've had good CB play under Zimmer, but I feel like other positions have suffered because of this.

    Is this an intentional strategy or just a sign of them valuing the quality of the prospect over the scale of the need? I'd hope that they won't consider corners in the first two rounds this year, but part of me is prepared that they'll pass over over good OL or LB talent for another CB. I think I'm joking about that, I hope.
    I think there is some underestimation in how much the defense as a whole would suffer without good CB play. In today's NFL you need to rely so heavily on the secondary to slow down opposing offenses. Add in the fact that a lot of teams are running more 3WR sets and it has made a good nickel invaluable too. So I don't think the Vikings are off base investing high picks and money into their corners. Without them your other pieces don't work as well. 

    The question that needs to be asked is more along the lines of how sustainable it would be to pay 3 corners market rate. No current team has done that and it's really not feasible. So the Vikings need to pick two of Rhodes, Waynes, and Alexander to move forward with. My guess is they choose Rhodes/Waynes and retain Hughes as the slot guy and Holton hill as your 4th corner. 
    I saw you mentioned Hughes in the slot earlier but I am at a loss as to figuring out when he has actually, you know, ever played in the slot and showed he could be effective.

    I do not know where he played at NC or at the junior college he attended but he played on the outside at UCF and looked good there this past season.

    Counting on him to play in the slot reminds me of Josh Robinson.
    Every time you bring this up I'm going to point out that very few FBS schools utilize CBs solely as Slot Corners AND Josh Robinson played Zone in college, not Man-to-Man. This point you keep trying to make is off-base. So why keep trotting it out?
    DeepFreeze05
  • MarkSP18MarkSP18 Posts: 947Karl
    @FSUVike said:
    @MarkSP18 said:
    @Tyr said:
    @MarkSP18 said:
    This has been a foregone, at least to me, conclusion for awhile now...bring on Wilson and my next moniker...
    Agreed. If the Vikings were going to bring Barr back, they would've signed him months ago. 
    If they REALLY wanted to sign Barr, they would have been proactive like they were with Hunter.
    i was thinking the same thing about Waynes recently... if they dont approach him this offseason I have to think that means they are willing to move on without him as well.
    The Vikings should absolutely trade Waynes.

    What was the point of drafting Hughes if your going to extend Waynes.

    Watching a player leave in free agency and then hoping to get a compensatory pick (by not doing nothing yourself in free agency) is not a strategy that I am fond of.

    All the talk about how Spielman loves 1st round picks and that 5th year has really not produced many extensions.  Only Rhodes and Smith.
    They have to at least see what another team would offer for Waynes. If you get a good offer then you probably move him. I just don't know if a team is going to give up a premium asset (pick) only to turn around and extend him. 

    Hughes was a pick to improve the slot where they really struggled at times in 2017. Of course Mac completely showed up this season and was arguably the best corner on the roster. His contract is also up after this coming season. 

    I think you need to figure out Mac's market rate as well. Coming off a good season and having a cap hit of $1M for a trading team, you might get more by trading him. 
    Their strategy of stockpiling high round CBs is likely something that I'm never going to like. It feels strange to draft guys like Waynes and Alexander presumably with the intent that they'll never see their second contract here. Corners are expensive, but are the cap savings of a guy like Hughes worth it if they keep taking away high picks from other positions every 1 or 2-years? Hughes seemed promising prior to tearing his ACL, but that doesn't justify the strategy to me. I do agree that Alexander was a question mark heading into last season, but there were more reasonable insurance plans they could have pursued. We did at least seem to get a hit with Holton Hill, but he's the first late round CB to show any promise under Zimmer in MN and even then he was a late round pick more due to concerns over character than ability (not that character issues are easy to manage). It's just strange that the focus is to keep drafting CBs high rather than try to develop affordable replacements in the mid to late rounds. They've had good CB play under Zimmer, but I feel like other positions have suffered because of this.

    Is this an intentional strategy or just a sign of them valuing the quality of the prospect over the scale of the need? I'd hope that they won't consider corners in the first two rounds this year, but part of me is prepared that they'll pass over over good OL or LB talent for another CB. I think I'm joking about that, I hope.
    I think there is some underestimation in how much the defense as a whole would suffer without good CB play. In today's NFL you need to rely so heavily on the secondary to slow down opposing offenses. Add in the fact that a lot of teams are running more 3WR sets and it has made a good nickel invaluable too. So I don't think the Vikings are off base investing high picks and money into their corners. Without them your other pieces don't work as well. 

    The question that needs to be asked is more along the lines of how sustainable it would be to pay 3 corners market rate. No current team has done that and it's really not feasible. So the Vikings need to pick two of Rhodes, Waynes, and Alexander to move forward with. My guess is they choose Rhodes/Waynes and retain Hughes as the slot guy and Holton hill as your 4th corner. 
    I saw you mentioned Hughes in the slot earlier but I am at a loss as to figuring out when he has actually, you know, ever played in the slot and showed he could be effective.

    I do not know where he played at NC or at the junior college he attended but he played on the outside at UCF and looked good there this past season.

    Counting on him to play in the slot reminds me of Josh Robinson.
    Every time you bring this up I'm going to point out that very few FBS schools utilize CBs solely as Slot Corners AND Josh Robinson played Zone in college, not Man-to-Man. This point you keep trying to make is off-base. So why keep trotting it out?
    I do not know what is up with you cause I rarely converse with you or here that much to be honest.

    I did not know you were an authority of some sort.

    I can tell you it does not matter what you say or how often cause I ain;t buying it.


    The video shows him playing press, off, and not too much zone.

    Either way he did a lot of coverages in college.   Not just zone.
Sign In or Register to comment.