Hunting Problems?

[Guest]

18 hours ago, babababa said:

 

Hunter is Bruce Smith 2.0 and is in his prime.

Ummm...No. Not yet.

[swede700]

25 minutes ago, Virginia Viking said:

Ummm...No. Not yet.

I didn't even see that quote and I probably would have spit out my breakfast if I had.  Someone clearly never saw Bruce Smith play.  Hunter isn't anywhere near that level at this point.  Smith caused havoc...Hunter is a guy that has gotten his sacks sort of under the radar.  He's more Richard Dent than Bruce Smith.  He'd have to get to a whole other level to be Smith.  

[babababa]

20 hours ago, swede700 said:

Whether he has any guaranteed money left on his deal is completely irrelevant.  It just means that the team could cut him without any financial impact.  That doesn't give him any additional leverage. If he doesn't play, then that isn't going to improve his situation...it just makes it more likely that the team will do nothing, because they don't have to do anything.  

In reality though, @babababa, I think you're just overreacting.  It'll get done.  If they address Smith and O'Neill first, it's no skin off of Hunter's back.  It's not a sign of disrespect if they address them first...and I'm sure Hunter realizes that.  If he doesn't, then he's not as smart as I think he is.  Of course he's displeased...who wouldn't be, but in the end, it's just business.  Business is business and football is football.  From a business perspective, it'd be unwise to elevate Hunter in the priority just because he's upset (or thrown a fit, if you prefer that phrase), because what you do when the next guy comes complaining about how he's outplayed his contract that he just signed basically last week?        

Overreacting to what? It's my opinion that they should deal with him first -- that's all. I could easily turn it around and say that you could get O'Neil's deal done afterwards. What's your priority? That's what this comes down to. Forgive me for making my argument as always.

Yes the team could cut him without financial impact. Hunter sees that as leverage against him. He in turn can use HIS leverage as arguably the best DE in the league to veer this season into mediocrity. 

[babababa]

2 hours ago, swede700 said:

I didn't even see that quote and I probably would have spit out my breakfast if I had.  Someone clearly never saw Bruce Smith play.  Hunter isn't anywhere near that level at this point.  Smith caused havoc...Hunter is a guy that has gotten his sacks sort of under the radar.  He's more Richard Dent than Bruce Smith.  He'd have to get to a whole other level to be Smith.  

At 25 Hunter was the fastest player to 50 sacks. He's on pace to be an all-time great even after a lost season. I hope that clears it up. 

If I over-amplified it was due to projection as a ceiling which he is capable of. You have done just the opposite. Now I see why you're not interested in making Hunter a priority.

[babababa]

3 hours ago, Virginia Viking said:

Ummm...No. Not yet.

OK. On Pace to possibly be Michael Strahan. That's still an all-time great.

[swede700]

1 hour ago, babababa said:

At 25 Hunter was the fastest player to 50 sacks. He's on pace to be an all-time great even after a lost season. I hope that clears it up. 

If I over-amplified it was due to projection as a ceiling which he is capable of. You have done just the opposite. Now I see why you're not interested in making Hunter a priority.

His pace has been impressive certainly, but it's an extreme exaggeration to suggest he's Bruce Smith 2.0...or even Michael Strahan.  Their styles of play are completely different...and that's what I was getting at.  You could have simply indicated that you think he has the potential to be an all-time great.  He does certainly have that potential, but saying he already is (which you did by saying so) is an overstatement of epic proportions.

And the ceiling he has has nothing to do with where I place in him in priority.  He could already be Bruce Smith and I'd say exactly the same thing.  If he were Aaron Donald and was in the same situation, I'd say the same exact thing. HIs ceiling is absolutely irrelevant.  

[wcblack34]

If Bruce Smith, Richard Dent or Michael Strahan, in their primes, had missed an entire season due to a neck injury, their teams would have also been more than justified to want to see them on the field before giving them new money. 

[wcblack34]

It isn’t that we don’t value Hunter, or see him as a priority, it is that some of us just aren’t interested in dealing out market-setting contracts to guys who have not shown that they are back from their injury. What if Teddy Bridgewater had wanted a new deal when he came back? Would you have been in favor of giving it to him to? He was a pro bowler before the injury.

[Robb_K]

7 hours ago, wcblack34 said:

It isn’t that we don’t value Hunter, or see him as a priority, it is that some of us just aren’t interested in dealing out market-setting contracts to guys who have not shown that they are back from their injury. What if Teddy Bridgewater had wanted a new deal when he came back? Would you have been in favor of giving it to him to? He was a pro bowler before the injury.

It's a circular problem.  I think it is probably fair that if the 10-15th best DE Joey Bosa, is getting $27 million per year, that Top 5 DE, Danielle Hunter should get a lot more than $11-12 million.  But, in fairness, he IS under contract for this year and next, so, he should, at least come to Camp, and participate in non-contact, and later, contact practices, and pre-season games, to "prove" that his neck can take the contact.  If he gets through them, then I think it is acceptable for The Vikings to offer him the extension/raise.  But, Danielle's agent probably feels that his client shouldn't risk ending his career in non-seasonal contact games unless he gets more years of guaranteed salary added to his contract.  Right now, The Vikings are on the hook for this coming season and 2023, IF Danielle's career is over.  If they give him 4-5 more years, they could be on the hook for 6-7 years.  But, as we all know, The Wilfs made it a priority to make Cook happy, and Danielle's position is a lot more important to the team than RB.  So, I still expect them to give him an extension/restructuring raise before this season starts, or right after Game 1.  I just don't know how they'll be able to manage that, if they also sign Geno Adkins, and give O'Neill and Smith extension raises (maybe Smith's will be an annual reduction, to keep him in Purple for the rest of his career).

[SteelKing728]

Money talks. Pay him what he's worth, and the problems go away.

[babababa]

18 hours ago, swede700 said:

His pace has been impressive certainly, but it's an extreme exaggeration to suggest he's Bruce Smith 2.0...or even Michael Strahan.  Their styles of play are completely different...and that's what I was getting at.  You could have simply indicated that you think he has the potential to be an all-time great.  He does certainly have that potential, but saying he already is (which you did by saying so) is an overstatement of epic proportions.

And the ceiling he has has nothing to do with where I place in him in priority.  He could already be Bruce Smith and I'd say exactly the same thing.  If he were Aaron Donald and was in the same situation, I'd say the same exact thing. HIs ceiling is absolutely irrelevant.  

Strahan was also a 4-3 LE pass rusher who is sized about the same and played the run and the pass at an extremely high level using power and leverage effectively. Right now, if Hunter played for another 10 years at his current pace he'd have 150 sacks. That's not an unreasonable comparison. 

I amended what I said before you declared me to be a lunatic -- see my post to Viginia Viking. I was talking about the level of play right now. I didn't think I had to add that to the conversation or that it would derail the argument to the point of spitting out your Wheaties.

 

[vike daddy]

15 minutes ago, babababa said:

if Hunter played for another 10 years at his current pace he'd have 150 sacks. That's not an unreasonable comparison. 

errr... that's unlikely.

[babababa]

15 hours ago, wcblack34 said:

It isn’t that we don’t value Hunter, or see him as a priority, it is that some of us just aren’t interested in dealing out market-setting contracts to guys who have not shown that they are back from their injury. What if Teddy Bridgewater had wanted a new deal when he came back? Would you have been in favor of giving it to him to? He was a pro bowler before the injury.

I get that. That's a fine argument. Maybe he needs to run through some sort of team medical evaluation.

If it was determined to be such a risk though, why wasn't this team all in on finding adequate help this offseason at the DE position. 4th round rookies aren't an answer. 

If the Vikings play hardball with Hunter they may be banking on a worse unit (on paper) than we had last season with Ngakoue and Odeigbo that was 25th in the league in pass-rushing. I was one of the few who worried about Hunter's injury going into FA and the draft. I wanted a first round pass-rusher but everyone was insistent that Hunter's neck was healed and the smoke regarding his unhappiness was nothing to worry about. 

[babababa]

1 minute ago, vike daddy said:

errr... that's unlikely.

He's on pace. Whether someone thinks it's unlikely he achieves it is a matter of opinion. 

[Nozizaki]

2 hours ago, SteelKing728 said:

Money talks. Pay him what he's worth, and the problems go away.

I think the problem is that the Vikings and Hunter strongly disagree on what he's worth. Hunter wants a market setting contract, despite having 3 years left on his current deal because before he got injured he was a Top 5 defensive player in the league and has never gotten the payday he deserves. The Vikings don't want to over spend on a player coming off an injury that could never be the same player. Both sides have fair stances, but a compromise needs to be reached.

I still think that Nick Olson's suggestion is the best compromise, but Hunter may want more guarantees than that.

The thing that stinks is this in getting in the way of one of the best offseasons the Vikings have ever had, in a year where they are pretty clearly all in.