Jump to content

Cearbhall

Veteran Members
  • Content count

    2,074
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

890 Pro Bowl

Recent Profile Visitors

617 profile views
  1. Vikings by the Numbers

    Yep yep. It is what it is.
  2. The Iron Chef!!

    Agreed. First round is too high for a RB. Only in the most exceptional of circumstances would I consider taking a RB in the first. Those are similar circumstances to where I would consider paying a RB over 5% of the salary cap. Your point about the using the savings on the offensive line, which will make the RBs look better, makes a ton of sense to me. On top of that, a good offensive line will make the QB look better and that will help the WRs and TEs as well. Saving resources on RB and using it to build the offensive line is not just about the RB position. The goal is not to reproduce the numbers that Cook would get. The goal is to build a consistent and strong offense. Solid offensive line is a must-have of that. Great RB is merely a nice-to-have.
  3. The Iron Chef!!

    With a good offensive line, maybe. A good offensive line will make decent RBs look good. A good RB with a weak offensive line leads to a dramatic fall in production when a team has to play another RB because the good RB got hurt or old. Good RBs do not last long in the league.
  4. Vikings by the Numbers

    Diggs' time with the Vikings was so short. His growing discontent and becoming petulant does not at all endear him. Cox was a kicker.
  5. The Iron Chef!!

    I agree. Cheaper veteran contracts are typically short. Just because I picked Alexander this year doesn't mean that I would be looking to continue that strategy at CB as a long-term plan. Going with cheaper, younger RBs is the long-term plan. The savings can be spent various ways depending on team needs. This year they need a CB. Next year it might be safety. Most of these stopgap free agents are place holders until a draft pick makes them expendable. That even includes the stopgap RBs I would be signing. For RB, I wouldn't be pushing huge draft resources into the RB position so it is more likely that I'll have the RB merry-go-round spinning annually. But when a RB on a rookie contract looks good enough I ride with him for those few years. So yes, the options next year again for $4M is again a veteran stopgap but not necessarily specific to the CB position. Veteran stopgaps are absolutely not my plan long-term for CB. The difference between RB and CB is that at RB I wouldn't be looking to give out high value second contracts. At CB, and many other positions, I would be looking to give out second contracts. I would be investing higher picks too. That's fine. I would be happy with just Warford for a year or two along with my alternative RBs instead of extending cook for two years and being left with the garbage OGs the team has under contract right now. I do think there would be room for one of the CBs sitting out there right now though. The time of year a guy is looking for a contract matter a lot. Warford's situation is not comparable to Glasgow or Turner. He is a better player than both, but his situation does not set him up to get a contract comparable to what Glasgow signed. And the team can use a veteran stopgap CB right now since their draft picks are no sure thing. I love Billy Turner so I'll stay away from comparisons to him. I am heavily bias there. As far as your thought that Warford eats up almost all of the $7M saved going from Cook for $12M to Miller and Alexander, we'll have have to wait and see. I don't think so, but I don't know any better than you on that right now. Obviously, if Warford is getting $7M this year it changes things. The team might then look into what they can get Clowney to agree to for a year. I could see him valuing a year with the Vikings enough to sign with them for $8M or less if he doesn't have any other short contract offers that give him a better opportunity to set him up for free agency next year. So far, I haven't seen any indication that there are teams out there looking to give him $10M for the year. I don't know much about Schweitzer but I am open to the possibility of him being an option. I do know a bit more about Spain and I have previously mentioned him as a possibility, I think before they got Kline. He isn't Warford, but absolutely a guy I would consider if Warford couldn't be signed. The team needs someone to play G that is better than Elflein. I have serious doubts that Samia will be better than Elflein and still see him as behind Dozier on the depth chart.
  6. The Iron Chef!!

    I wouldn't say my plan is to sign veteran stopgap CBs to one year deals. That is just how it would have worked out the first year owing to the team situation. I wouldn't advocate that as a general strategy at the CB position. The team will be able to get better CBs in the future. I am not paying a veteran RB $3.5M every year. The team needs a body so I would sign someone like that but I would be looking to get enough out of the low round RBs and UDFAs that there are years that I don't need to carry the mediocre veteran onto the 53. You're probably right. We'll have to see what Clowney signs for, but you are probably right. That's okay. Then the team has money for Warford. It's hard to say. The same as Cook's cap values starting low and escalating is true of other veteran signees. Warford could sign a contract with a cap value of $5M or less for this year. And I know that the savings from not extending Cook starts next year but the strange time warp was your idea, not mine, unless I was understanding you wrong. Some of the veteran CBs left out there won't get much more than veteran minimum for the year meaning their cost could almost be neutral considering the veteran cap benefit.
  7. The Iron Chef!!

    If we are talking about what I personally would want, I would go with a cheap veteran RB to give some baseline of reliability and a RB drafted in the 4th round or lower. The RBs I would consider for '21, in the hypothetical world where these free agents were warped forward a year without aging and still being free agents, would be the RBs of this tier: Lamar Miller, Todd Gurley, Matt Breida (for a sixth), DeAndre Washington, Jordan Howard, Carlos Hyde. Of that group I am a bit partial to Lamar Miller, but there are the medicals that he would need to check boxes on. The Vikings medical staff seems to have a handle on dealing with torn ACLs. He would be fairly affordable. Since this is hypothetical, I'll say that I bring in a RB of that tier for $3.5M per year on average as I cycle through a different veteran every year or two. However, when I am lucky the rookie contract guys look good enough for me to cut these guys before the season starts. I'll say that happens 20% of the time. This brings the average cost down below $3M per year. The team still has Mattison so my plan going into the year would be Mattison and the mediocre veteran sharing the load. My hope is that a rookie contract RB displaces the veteran at some point in the next couple years allowing me to roll with two RBs on rookie contracts. As far as draft capital required to invest in the RB position, we can go with the third round pick spent on Mattison, a 5th mid round pick, a 6th round pick, and an UDFA. I would keep investing something like that on a rolling basis so that when Mattison ages out there is a new 3rd round pick brought in. When the 5th round pick ages out, there is a new 5th round pick brought in. Now obviously, there would be some flexibility depending on how things are looking in a given year. Like if the mid round pick was performing well enough the team doesn't have to invest the 3rd round pick when Mattison ages out and instead go with another mid round pick. Meanwhile, depending on the situation each year bring in a cheap veteran to share the load in years where the team doesn't have enough guys on rookie contracts that have proven they would form a strong enough committee. Average cost: $3M. Those are the guys of the tier I listed above, but depending on the year it is guys like Latavious Murray (2017), Mark Ingram, Matt Forte (2016), Blount (2016), Gore (2015), etc... You know, the Leroy Hoards of the world that aren't explosive (anymore) but can dependably carry the ball forward. In any year that the team looks to be seriously contending other than the mediocre stable of RBs I would be open to trading for RB. There always seems to be one available. This leaves me with some additional draft capital and a pile of cap space to build other areas of the team. I am partial to the trenches and given that we have had decent defensive lines lately and offensive lines that have continually struggled I would focus more of that draft capital and cap space into the offensive line. For '20 I'll roll with Miller, Mattison, Boone, Abdullah, and a low round pick RB. As far as the 3rd round pick, I wouldn't force anything. Having retained Alexander the team's need for CB is mitigated. I don't know enough about the prospects to tell you who the team would have liked there. What I do know is that the team would like to have a 3rd round pick. I will tell you that I liked John Simpson. Maybe they trade back and take him. They can use the 6th round pick from the trade back to get their rookie RB too then. With the extra $7M in cap space the team can sign Warford or Clowney along with one of the veteran CBs sitting out there.
  8. The Iron Chef!!

    It is strange that you put him in the list of choices that I responded to and then argue against it because you don't think it is realistic. The point of keeping Alexander is so they have to draft one less DB. It is not fair to say they still need to do that. With Alexander, the team would need to draft one less CB. In fact, it would be a surprising if a rookie from outside the first round is better this year than Alexander. If you want to include the fact the team still needs a CB in the future, you better include in your scenario that the team would still need to draft a RB in the future even if they kept Cook. CBs generally have a lot more longevity in the league than RBs. The team would have Cook for 2-3 years at $12M or they would have a CB for $4M for the 2-3 years. The team would still have the $4M per year in the second and third year. Forgetting about the $4M per year savings in all years after Alexander's contract expired is not a fair comparison. I said straight up that Gordon isn't the RB I actually would choose. I just used his name because it matches the amount leftover after I selected Alexander out of your list of guys that I would have kept. The point is that I would rather use the cap space on another position. That is true no matter which RB the team actually rides with.
  9. The Iron Chef!!

    Sure, I would way rather have Alexander at the contract he signed with the Bengals and an $8M or less RB than Cook and the need to use a high draft pick to replace Alexander. Melvin Gordon was the $8M RB this year so you could use his name even though he isn't necessarily the RB that I would pick.
  10. As you stated in the topic, this is hypothetical so I'll answer hypothetically ignoring all of the reasons why the trade would never actually happen. I would give my left nut to trade Kirk Cousins for Aaron Rodgers. Rodgers doesn't have many good years left. That needs to be taken into account. With that consideration I probably withhold my left nut from the transaction and give a low round pick. Call it a 6th.
  11. You are right that it wouldn't happen. With the Packers recent trade up in to a higher spot in the first round to take a QB they wouldn't want Cousins' contract even if they didn't have to give up anything to get Cousins. Nevertheless, I answered the question without regard to whether Green Bay would accept it. I would rather have Aaron Rodgers and his current contract than Kirk Cousins and his current contract. Both teams would have to absorb a huge amount of cap acceleration this year likely requiring them both to cut players immediately. Still, I would go it in hopes that the Vikings could get a few good years from Rodgers in '21, '22, and '23 at very affordable cap costs. I am not basing my answer on it being at all realistic that all parties would go along with it. For purposes of discussion, I an answering as if they would, which is of course farcical.
  12. The Iron Chef!!

    I'm with @whitehops. Teams can find a RB fairly easily when other pieces are in place. Teams cannot find CBs, LTs, and such easily. By the time a team finds the solutions to those harder to find positions the RB is likely already on his last legs. I do not invest high cap space into the RB position nor high draft picks until at least the offensive line is solved. Invest that cap space and those draft picks into the offensive line and Kubiak will get production out of whoever he finds at RB low in the draft or using stopgap free agents.
  13. Vikings by the Numbers

    In defense of Culpepper, I remember him having a few pretty good games throwing to Nate Burleson when Moss was out injured. If that memory is accurate at all it somewhat dispels the concerns of Moss making Culpepper. That isn't enough to sway me to pick Daunte.
  14. The Iron Chef!!

    Kubiak values positional versatility. When it comes to splitting an extra player out he has shown that he values TE/WR versatility but throughout his career he has also shown that he values RB/WR versatility. FB/TE is another area he has shown he values versatility and I don't remember seeing that much year with Ham and our TEs. I don't know if he'll look for a guy that can flip between those two. I didn't see much in the offseason to make me think it was prioritized. As far as why Cook wasn't used lined up as a WR more often it may be as simple as the fact that Kevin Stefanski was calling the plays instead of Kubiak. It is also possible that he doesn't think Cook is good at it. I haven't seen that myself, but I also haven't watched Cook closely when lined up as a WR. It would be interesting to dig into what Cook did with those snaps.
  15. Vikings by the Numbers

    Agreed. You noticed that my Culpepper spiel was half-hearted. It is the best I could drum up. I thought someone should at least make a run at arguing in his favor. There were some good years. In the end, I really don't think that I am the guy for the job. Hopefully someone else will make a better stab at it. There is plenty out there that can be used to argue in Culpepper's favor. I just don't really have it in me.
×