2022 Minnesota Vikings Offseason

[CriminalMind]

I don’t think the return will be as high as we want. Especially if they think they have move on from him (for whatever reason). Maybe KAM wants more draft capital (to get his QB) even if he wasn’t allowed to move Cousins for draft picks. 

[vikesfan89]

3 minutes ago, CriminalMind said:

I don’t think the return will be as high as we want. Especially if they think they have move on from him (for whatever reason). Maybe KAM wants more draft capital (to get his QB) even if he wasn’t allowed to move Cousins for draft picks. 

Needing to do something by Sunday doesn't help

[wcblack34]

6 minutes ago, CriminalMind said:

I don’t think the return will be as high as we want. Especially if they think they have move on from him (for whatever reason). Maybe KAM wants more draft capital (to get his QB) even if he wasn’t allowed to move Cousins for draft picks. 

I love your theory that the new GM is having his hands tied by the owners (owners who have shown no propensity for interfering in football operations) and isn’t allowed to implement the vision he was specifically hired to implement. 

[vikingsrule]

If we’re trading Hunter, are there any worthwhile veteran edge players available. That would be the next move. I think Hunter trade need to get a first round pick, for it to be worthwhile. Even if that first round pick is next years that is fine. Would imagine 2023 draft capital will be highly valued if that is the year to target a QB early while letting Cousins right the ship to the playoffs.

[wcblack34]

36 minutes ago, vikingsrule said:

If we’re trading Hunter, are there any worthwhile veteran edge players available. That would be the next move. I think Hunter trade need to get a first round pick, for it to be worthwhile. Even if that first round pick is next years that is fine. Would imagine 2023 draft capital will be highly valued if that is the year to target a QB early while letting Cousins right the ship to the playoffs.

Are there any teams going from a 3/4 to a 4/3 that might want to swap a player in a package?

[SemperFeist]

 

[CriminalMind]

1 hour ago, wcblack34 said:

I love your theory that the new GM is having his hands tied by the owners (owners who have shown no propensity for interfering in football operations) and isn’t allowed to implement the vision he was specifically hired to implement. 

Rick & Zim made ownership/COO? look bad when it was publicly revealed that they didn’t talk to each other. It’s possible they decided to put their foot down and take an overly active roll in shaping the football direction/operation this time around. KAM is young and new, so maybe he didn’t have the clout to fully object to their direction. 

Edited March 17, 2022 by CriminalMind

[swede700]

3 minutes ago, CriminalMind said:

Rick & Zim made ownership look bad when it was publicly revealed that they didn’t talk to each other. It’s possible they decided to put their foot down and take an overly active roll in shaping the football direction/operation. KAM is young and new, so maybe he didn’t have the clout to fully object to their direction

I doubt that rather highly.  Zygi has no interest in pushing an agenda...maybe Mark does, since he's far more active in the operations than Zygi is, but they are more likely to set the strategy rather than indicating specific moves...which they did in saying they want to remain competitive. 

If KAM had thought that they could be as competitive with someone else, I think they would have done that and would have had the power to do so.  But again, it's a "collaboration", so if the great majority of the people involved thought that they could win with Kirk, I imagine that's why they did what they did, not just because Mark told them to.

[SotanKing]

If Vikings decide to trade Hunter after extending Kirk, then I would be very much confused with the direction and vision of the new regime. Extending Kirk means they are in win now mode. In such a world, trading away your best defender (who is also a top class DE) does not make any sense. Why not restructure if they want to lower the cap hit?

[swede700]

4 minutes ago, SotanKing said:

If Vikings decide to trade Hunter after extending Kirk, then I would be very much confused with the direction and vision of the new regime. Extending Kirk means they are in win now mode. In such a world, trading away your best defender (who is also a top class DE) does not make any sense. Why not restructure if they want to lower the cap hit?

It depends upon what Hunter wants.  They may be between a rock and a hard place with Hunter.  They may want to restructure him or extend him, but they can't agree on a number.  It also could be that they don't believe how he fits into the Donatell defense. 

I understand the confusion, but that confusion is more about the perception rather than the objective.  While the extension of Cousins and the handling of Danielle (if he's traded) may seem to be contrary, they really aren't, as they are 2 unrelated incidences.  I think they can do that and still be progressing towards a positive vision.  There is no question that Kirk fits the offensive vision, but there is question whether Danielle fits the defensive vision.  If he's a square peg in a round hole...and makes as much money as he does, that could be to the detriment of the defense and to his value.  It's better to move him now and take the best deal you can get, getting pieces that better fit the vision than trying to hold on to him just because he's the most talented defensive player you have.    

[wcblack34]

2 minutes ago, swede700 said:

It depends upon what Hunter wants.  They may be between a rock and a hard place with Hunter.  They may want to restructure him or extend him, but they can't agree on a number.  It also could be that they don't believe how he fits into the Donatell defense. 

I understand the confusion, but that confusion is more about the perception rather than the objective.  While the extension of Cousins and the handling of Danielle (if he's traded) may seem to be contrary, they really aren't, as they are 2 unrelated incidences.  I think they can do that and still be progressing towards a positive vision.  There is no question that Kirk fits the offensive vision, but there is question whether Danielle fits the defensive vision.  If he's a square peg in a round hole...and makes as much money as he does, that could be to the detriment of the defense and to his value.  It's better to move him now and take the best deal you can get, getting pieces that better fit the vision than trying to hold on to him just because he's the most talented defensive player you have.    

I would agree with this, unless they trade him to a team that also runs a Fangio style Defense. Then I'd be a little confused. Unless it's just an evaluation difference between coaching staffs. 

[wcblack34]

Za'Darius Smith is back on the market. Deal with Baltimore has apparently fallen through. 

[CriminalMind]

40 minutes ago, swede700 said:

It depends upon what Hunter wants.  They may be between a rock and a hard place with Hunter.  They may want to restructure him or extend him, but they can't agree on a number.  It also could be that they don't believe how he fits into the Donatell defense. 

I understand the confusion, but that confusion is more about the perception rather than the objective.  While the extension of Cousins and the handling of Danielle (if he's traded) may seem to be contrary, they really aren't, as they are 2 unrelated incidences.  I think they can do that and still be progressing towards a positive vision.  There is no question that Kirk fits the offensive vision, but there is question whether Danielle fits the defensive vision.  If he's a square peg in a round hole...and makes as much money as he does, that could be to the detriment of the defense and to his value.  It's better to move him now and take the best deal you can get, getting pieces that better fit the vision than trying to hold on to him just because he's the most talented defensive player you have.    

Danielle will fit any defensive strategy or front. Every DC will start Hunter, and will help mould the strategy around Hunter. Why? Because he is a beat and top 5 DL player when healthy

[swede700]

2 minutes ago, CriminalMind said:

Danielle will fit any defensive strategy or front. Every DC will start Hunter, and will help mould the strategy around Hunter. Why? Because he is a beat and top 5 DL player when healthy

That's your opinion, we don't know theirs.  I personally think he probably could too, but I'm not a football coach.  

[marshpit23]

1 hour ago, swede700 said:

It depends upon what Hunter wants.  They may be between a rock and a hard place with Hunter.  They may want to restructure him or extend him, but they can't agree on a number.  It also could be that they don't believe how he fits into the Donatell defense. 

I understand the confusion, but that confusion is more about the perception rather than the objective.  While the extension of Cousins and the handling of Danielle (if he's traded) may seem to be contrary, they really aren't, as they are 2 unrelated incidences.  I think they can do that and still be progressing towards a positive vision.  There is no question that Kirk fits the offensive vision, but there is question whether Danielle fits the defensive vision.  If he's a square peg in a round hole...and makes as much money as he does, that could be to the detriment of the defense and to his value.  It's better to move him now and take the best deal you can get, getting pieces that better fit the vision than trying to hold on to him just because he's the most talented defensive player you have.    

I agree with this. Also, what if Danielle doesn’t see himself a fit for the new 3/4 defense or is simply not happy about the change!? A lot of variables that we don’t know about.