Post Game Thoughts- Bengals.

[Vikes_Bolts1228]

1 hour ago, AP_allday2869 said:

I have never understood getting rid of awesome players during a rebuild. Sure, their contracts may not be the best with a rebuilding ideology, but that would make it harder to be good since you are getting rid of bonafide contributors and would actually take the rebuilding process longer than it should if those players are young. Just my .02

And we honestly don't even need a *true* rebuild. There's still a ton of talent on this team: Cook, JJeff, Thielen, Hunter, Kendricks, Irv, hopefully Darrisaw, O'Neil, d-line looks good on paper, might have a kicker....

Once Kirk's contract is gone, it'll free up enough to play around with. Get an interior OL, a OLB, and a CB and you're back into contention. 

If you truly do move on from Kirk and either go with Mond or another young QB, you're going to want to surround that QB with the best talent you can get. You'll want him handing it off to a top-5 RB, throwing to a young, exciting tight end, and one of the best WR combos in the NFL.

I think most of the "rebuild" would be with the coaching staff and/or FO staff.

Edited September 16, 2021 by Vikes_Bolts1228

[Guest]

15 hours ago, SemperFeist said:

Getting rid of top tier talent is never smart. Players like Thielen and Cook, both on the field and in the locker room are exactly the type of players essential to a rebuild. 

But it's top tier players that are going reap the Vikings the picks and or players that will bring in promising talent to build on.  I'm not saying it isn't going to hurt.  Rebuilds are just painful.  Besides, I've read on this board over and over again, it isn't smart to hang onto productive players to long and have them start to decline while being paid at high level.

What would've the Ravens offered us for Cook?  What would Thielen bring from the Patriots?  

[Cearbhall]

41 minutes ago, Virginia Viking said:

But it's top tier players that are going reap the Vikings the picks and or players that will bring in promising talent to build on.  I'm not saying it isn't going to hurt.  Rebuilds are just painful.  Besides, I've read on this board over and over again, it isn't smart to hang onto productive players to long and have them start to decline while being paid at high level.

What would've the Ravens offered us for Cook?  What would Thielen bring from the Patriots?  

Not sure what it matters as far as what those players would bring.  If Rick Spielman is still running the show he'll only rebuild the team in the same image. I would argue that it should be a different GM, but Spielman is still the GM today and it is hard to imagine him having interest in amassing resources so he can be fired and the next guy can have those picks.

Only after the team gets a new GM, and by extension a new philosophy and new coach, can I seriously entertain the thoughts you are expressing here -- trading away talent for the next year or two in favor of the longer term strength of the team.

Edited September 16, 2021 by Cearbhall

[swede700]

I've said this many times over, but coaching isn't the main culprit in offensive line play...it's the CBA.  Even the best offensive lines in the NFL today would be middle of the pack at best in the NFL 25 years ago.  There isn't enough offseason contact to develop offensive linemen all that well, who need it far more than defensive linemen do.  Coaching is certainly a factor, but it's clearly evident in the Vikings' case that you can change all the coaches you want, but if you're still getting the same results then it's not the coaching.    

[SemperFeist]

1 hour ago, Virginia Viking said:

But it's top tier players that are going reap the Vikings the picks and or players that will bring in promising talent to build on

So, your idea is to trade proven talent in an effort to bring in promising talent? Seems like a good way to remain a consistent bottom feeder. 

[SemperFeist]

50 minutes ago, swede700 said:

Coaching is certainly a factor, but it's clearly evident in the Vikings' case that you can change all the coaches you want, but if you're still getting the same results then it's not the coaching.

Some coaches have changed. But not the primary culprit. 

[vikesfan89]

31 minutes ago, SemperFeist said:

So, your idea is to trade proven talent in an effort to bring in promising talent? Seems like a good way to remain a consistent bottom feeder. 

It depends on the return.  If I was a new gm I would want to get some more early draft picks. 

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Cearbhall said:

Not sure what it matters as far as what those players would bring.  If Rick Spielman is still running the show he'll only rebuild the team in the same image. I would argue that it should be a different GM, but Spielman is still the GM today and it is hard to imagine him having interest in amassing resources so he can be fired and the next guy can have those picks.

Only after the team gets a new GM, and by extension a new philosophy and new coach, can I seriously entertain the thoughts you are expressing here -- trading away talent for the next year or two in favor of the longer term strength of the team.

My trading of players presupposes that Spielman and Zimmer are gone.

[SemperFeist]

1 hour ago, vikesfan89 said:

It depends on the return.  If I was a new gm I would want to get some more early draft picks. 

 

Again, for what end result? Hoping you find a player who’s as good as who you traded away? 

Draft picks are extremely overrated. 

Edited September 16, 2021 by SemperFeist

[swede700]

1 hour ago, vikesfan89 said:

It depends on the return.  If I was a new gm I would want to get some more early draft picks. 

 

You'd have to balance it.  Trading Cook really isn't an option, even if there is a new GM, because you'll never get sufficient return for what he can provide, since not enough teams value the RB position.  You'd never get an early draft pick for him.  While some might argue that a guy like Jefferson is, I feel the only "tradeable" asset that you could get sufficient return on and get cap relief at the same time is Danielle.  Other players aren't going to bring back enough good offers in return and cap relief at the same time.  Jefferson may get you a 1st rounder back, but doesn't save you any cap so there's no point in trading him.  And other productive players like Kendricks or Thielen aren't going to bring you back high draft picks because of their age and/or positional value.  

[vikesfan89]

45 minutes ago, SemperFeist said:

Again, for what end result? Hoping you find a player who’s as good as who you traded away? 

Draft picks are extremely overrated. 

What about 1 year for a player on a high salary compared that could potentially be really good for 4 to 5 years or more? 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but are you always against trading good players? 

[vikesfan89]

32 minutes ago, swede700 said:

You'd have to balance it.  Trading Cook really isn't an option, even if there is a new GM, because you'll never get sufficient return for what he can provide, since not enough teams value the RB position.  You'd never get an early draft pick for him.  While some might argue that a guy like Jefferson is, I feel the only "tradeable" asset that you could get sufficient return on and get cap relief at the same time is Danielle.  Other players aren't going to bring back enough good offers in return and cap relief at the same time.  Jefferson may get you a 1st rounder back, but doesn't save you any cap so there's no point in trading him.  And other productive players like Kendricks or Thielen aren't going to bring you back high draft picks because of their age and/or positional value.  

Yeah I wouldn't trade players just to trade them.  And Jefferson would be a good young player to start a rebuild with so it would take at least a1st to pick up the phone for him

[vikingsrule]

I don’t think the roster really needs to be rebuilt. The biggest issue is team leadership. Seems they’ve been treading water for years and they are good enough to make a playoff appearance every other year. I see a roster with a lot of talent. 
 

QB and the secondary need to be blown up. The OL is still so young, Darrisaw, ONeill and Davis probably have a spot on a future OL. Cleveland and Bradbury are too hard to judge. If the Vikes go to a power blocking scheme, I’d expect Bradbury and Cleveland to be on the outs.

To me I see a need for some premier young talent at some key positions like QB, DE and CB and a desperate need for a new type of coaching staff.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, SemperFeist said:

Again, for what end result? Hoping you find a player who’s as good as who you traded away? 

Draft picks are extremely overrated. 

Hmmm...I remember saying something very similar once here, and was roundly criticized that I didn't understand that draft picks are capital in the NFL.  I was told the more you have the more you can do to build a team.  I wonder where those voices are today?

[swede700]

31 minutes ago, Virginia Viking said:

Hmmm...I remember saying something very similar once here, and was roundly criticized that I didn't understand that draft picks are capital in the NFL.  I was told the more you have the more you can do to build a team.  I wonder where those voices are today?

Draft picks certainly are capital, but there's a balance to it.  You don't need to amass them like Rick has seemed to do the last couple of years, but you also don't need to treat them like the Rams have treated them either. Ultimately, it's how those draft picks are used...look at the Browns a few years ago when they were continually amassing early draft picks, they ultimately got little to nothing out of them.