Jump to content

Are we at the end of the Rhodes...?

vike daddy

By vike daddy
in Minnesota Vikings

 Share

Recommended Posts

SemperFeist

SemperFeist

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Nozizaki said:

Keep in mind Zimmer's history with injury reports. Look at the reports on Rhodes earlier this year against the Saints!

I'm not saying Rhodes is done for the year, but I wouldn't be shocked if he missed a week or two.

Zimmer has also never used language like “very very”, nor has he ever called out the “Twitter doctors” before. Zimmer has certainly been very vague, or even flippant, about a player’s injury before, but this wasn’t the same approach. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Uncle Buck

Uncle Buck

Posted
Posted
On 11/26/2018 at 8:30 AM, vikesfan89 said:

I've been thinking they should trade Wayne's for if they can get a decent pick but this could change things

I've actually been thinking we should consider trading Rhodes.  Xavier misses a lot of plays due to minor injuries, and he is getting a little older too.  By comparison, Waynes almost never misses any plays and he adds some things in terms of toughness, that Rhodes doesn't give us.  Rhodes is better in coverage, but I've been thinking that if we could live with the combination of Waynes and Hughes next year, maybe we could trade Rhodes for a good lineman or a linebacker to replace Barr.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vikingsrule

vikingsrule

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, swede700 said:

He's only 28 years old, not 32.  Considering trading a top-5 CB literally in his prime gets GMs and coaches fired.

I think something has to be considered. We're loaded at CB with two expensive salaries in Rhodes and Waynes. Hill and Hughes both look like they can play in this league.

The alternative to not putting up a CB on the trade block is not having the ability to afford Richardson and Barr and not being able to make immediate improvements along the OL.

But maybe that's okay. Maybe we can hit on the first three picks with immediate starters because we will need two Guards and a LB or DT.

Would Barr+Richardson and an additional 2nd or 3rd round pick be better for this team than keeping all current CBs together, losing Barr or Richardson and having one fewer top 100 draft pick?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
swede700

swede700

Posted
Posted (edited)

I've always advocated for letting Waynes walk after his 5th year option.  You certainly can't keep all of them together, but Rhodes is the one guy I'm not trading.  Waynes is the expendable one as far as I'm concerned, especially if Hughes is able to pick up where he left off (which isn't always a guarantee after an injury).  @Uncle Buck answered his own question when he said Rhodes is better in coverage.  In today's NFL, you need the guys who are better in coverage over the speed guys (I'm not certain I agree with him that Waynes has a toughness advantage, but that's neither here nor there) because the rules are so strict that having better technique keeps the penalties down and limits big plays.   

Edited by swede700
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Krauser

Krauser

Posted
Posted (edited)

They can keep all 5 CBs through 2019, and should. If Waynes will sign for what he’s worth (good CB2 money), they should extend him.

Unfortunately there’s a good chance Rhodes has already peaked. It might be the injuries but he’s not an elite corner this year. He turns 30 before training camp 2020 and will have little dead money ($4.8M) left for the last 3 years of his deal, with cap hits of $13M, $14M and $14M. They could probably get him to take a pay cut at that point in return for more guaranteed money over 2 more years. 

We've seen similar dropoffs from Griffen and Joseph this year, and even Smith has taken a step back.  Rather than seeing the current long term contracts on the roster as locked in, with other contracts (Richardson, Barr, Waynes) being negotiated around what’s left over, I’ll bet the Vikings are planning to claw back some of those contracts: Griffen has only $1.2M in dead money remaining in 2019, Joseph has $3.6M in 2019 and $2.4M in 2020, while Smith has $4M in 2019 and $2M in 2020.

Predict Griffen takes a pay cut in 2019, Rhodes in 2020, and Smith and Joseph either in 2020 or 2021. They should be able to keep the defense together for as long as they continue to play well, moving on from players only as they decline and are replaced internally (Hunter took over from Robison, now Harris from Sendejo, and eventually Hughes and Hill from Rhodes). 

Edited by Krauser
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, swede700 said:

I've always advocated for letting Waynes walk after his 5th year option.  You certainly can't keep all of them together, but Rhodes is the one guy I'm not trading.  Waynes is the expendable one as far as I'm concerned, especially if Hughes is able to pick up where he left off (which isn't always a guarantee after an injury).  @Uncle Buck answered his own question when he said Rhodes is better in coverage.  In today's NFL, you need the guys who are better in coverage over the speed guys (I'm not certain I agree with him that Waynes has a toughness advantage, but that's neither here nor there) because the rules are so strict that having better technique keeps the penalties down and limits big plays.   

Correct me if I am wrong in my assumptions, but wouldn't the Vikings potentially receive more in compensation for trading Rhodes in his "prime" then keeping his expensive contract and just letting Waynes walk?  I know it's a risk, but if Hughs and Hill can make up 75% of Rhodes production and Waynes continue to improve his technique (which I think he's done a good job at) then why not make the trade?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
swede700

swede700

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Virginia Viking said:

Correct me if I am wrong in my assumptions, but wouldn't the Vikings potentially receive more in compensation for trading Rhodes in his "prime" then keeping his expensive contract and just letting Waynes walk?  I know it's a risk, but if Hughs and Hill can make up 75% of Rhodes production and Waynes continue to improve his technique (which I think he's done a good job at) then why not make the trade?

Because you don't cut off your nose to spite your face.  To use the example of Belichick, you get rid of your player 1 year early, not 3.  In a league where 1 or 2 plays can make all the difference in a game, 75% of the production can be the difference between going 10-6 and 6-10. 

Edited by swede700
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, swede700 said:

Because you don't cut off your nose to spite your face.  To use the example of Belichick, you get rid of your player 1 year too early, not 3.  

Well...what does Belichick know?  He couldn't even win in Cleveland!!  <JK>  

You may be correct. I don't like the idea of losing a really good player in his prime either.  Yet, with the likelihood that Barr and Richardson leaving via free agency, and Waynes not being resigned...the Vikings are receiving little to nothing in real compensation.  I also don't like the idea of losing really good players and not getting much in return.  I think by trading Rhodes the Vikings could receive a couple of pretty decent draft picks or a player we have our eye on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...