Captain Relax Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 31 minutes ago, SemperFeist said: And they benched Warner halfway through the season. Signing someone who isn’t good enough to be a starter to start over a QB who was drafted to be the starting QB just seems like a waste of time and resources. I disagree. At least half the time those rookies who end up starting their rookie either flame out and bust, or never reach the potential reflected by their draft status. I really don't know why more teams don't protect their investment better by letting him sit and learn the pro game behind a professional QB. I will be quite surprised of Bryce Young comes anywhere near the expectations laid on a QB who is the overall number one pick. I still think it is paramount to resign Cousins AND draft the QBOTF. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CriminalMind Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 4 hours ago, SemperFeist said: The Vikings need to acquire a draft pick that assures them a top QB, or they need to re-sign Cousins before March 13th. If they enter the new league year with the starting QB spot in limbo, everyone in the front office should be fired. I’m on the train for/to: trading up to top 3 in February, to avoid the QB limbo situation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CriminalMind Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 (edited) 5 hours ago, Captain Relax said: I disagree. At least half the time those rookies who end up starting their rookie either flame out and bust, or never reach the potential reflected by their draft status. I really don't know why more teams don't protect their investment better by letting him sit and learn the pro game behind a professional QB. I will be quite surprised of Bryce Young comes anywhere near the expectations laid on a QB who is the overall number one pick. I still think it is paramount to resign Cousins AND draft the QBOTF. When has this actually happened in modern NFL. Using top #11 pick on QB while 1-2 months previously investing $35-$40M for 2-3 years on a free agent QB Edited January 21 by CriminalMind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrplChilPill Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 (edited) 5 hours ago, Captain Relax said: I disagree. At least half the time those rookies who end up starting their rookie either flame out and bust, or never reach the potential reflected by their draft status. I really don't know why more teams don't protect their investment better by letting him sit and learn the pro game behind a professional QB. I will be quite surprised of Bryce Young comes anywhere near the expectations laid on a QB who is the overall number one pick. I still think it is paramount to resign Cousins AND draft the QBOTF. Half the time, or more, when they don't start they fail. Waste of a year to sign Kirk and use pick one on a player you don't want to play. Why spend that money on Kirk, to lose games? Edited January 21 by PrplChilPill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Relax Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 5 hours ago, CriminalMind said: When has this actually happened in modern NFL. Using top #11 pick on QB while 1-2 months previously investing $35-$40M for 2-3 years on a free agent QB Who cares when it's happened before? I am saying, it's what I believe needs to happen for the Vikings. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cearbhall Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 1 hour ago, Captain Relax said: Who cares when it's happened before? I am saying, it's what I believe needs to happen for the Vikings. Agreed. The VIkings haven't ever won a Superb Owl before either. I wouldn't let history get in the way of a well laid plan. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemperFeist Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 12 hours ago, Captain Relax said: At least half the time those rookies who end up starting their rookie either flame out and bust, or never reach the potential reflected by their draft status. This is every position, not just QBs. It’s the overall nature of the draft. 13 hours ago, Captain Relax said: I really don't know why more teams don't protect their investment better by letting him sit and learn the pro game behind a professional QB. Because there’s really no evidence that it leads to better outcomes. And speaking of investment, what about the investment of spending $30M-$40M on a QB? Or the investment of signing any other key player? How does using a premium resource to draft a player who’s going to sit on the bench for 2+ years maximize your investment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingsrule Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 (edited) 9 hours ago, PrplChilPill said: Half the time, or more, when they don't start they fail. Waste of a year to sign Kirk and use pick one on a player you don't want to play. Why spend that money on Kirk, to lose games? How likely are the Vikes to pick at 11 again if Cousins is starting. Not likely. So why not take advantage of a bad year and get a quality QB prospect if one falls? There are other ways to improve the defense outside of a round one pick. Now if Cousins resigns, I’m more reserved in moving up because it will cost a future first but that is something to certainly weigh if you’re in love with a QB. Pick 11 and a future first (probably mid to late 20s) isn’t a bad price for a potential franchise QB. There is nothing wrong with spending money on Kirk while being competitive while grooming an actual talent at QB for a year. You may be able to roll the dice on a high upside prospect. I always think back to the Mahomes situation. High upside guy who went to a playoff team and was able to sit learning behind a smart vet. That’s why you sign Kirk, build around the QB picked at 11 and hope you can piece together a defense that is at least league average level of competence. Now you could avoid taking a QB at 11 but then you’re stuck with something in round two or later, which usually doesn’t work out. Or you’re looking at a big trade up in the 2025 draft with a mid 20s first as your starting point. Edited January 21 by vikingsrule 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemperFeist Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 No, there is nothing wrong with spending money on Kirk if that’s the path you’d want to take forward. But spending money on Kirk means that a significant less amount of money can be spent on other areas of the team to improve the roster. Then add in the loss of 2-4 high draft picks over the next couple of years used to acquire a QB who won’t see the field, and it raises significant questions/concerns as to how and where the team would be able to improve the roster. It’s hard to stay competitive if you’re not making the roster better. The Chiefs’ model with Mahomes just isn’t applicable to the Vikings anymore. Not for 2024 at least. If the Vikings had wanted to follow that path, they needed to draft a QB in 2021, or last year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozzy Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 22 minutes ago, SemperFeist said: No, there is nothing wrong with spending money on Kirk if that’s the path you’d want to take forward. But spending money on Kirk means that a significant less amount of money can be spent on other areas of the team to improve the roster. Then add in the loss of 2-4 high draft picks over the next couple of years used to acquire a QB who won’t see the field, and it raises significant questions/concerns as to how and where the team would be able to improve the roster. It’s hard to stay competitive if you’re not making the roster better. The Chiefs’ model with Mahomes just isn’t applicable to the Vikings anymore. Not for 2024 at least. If the Vikings had wanted to follow that path, they needed to draft a QB in 2021, or last year. True but in 2023 Will Levis or Hendon Hooker? Not sure either would have been the answer long term. Levis seems to be too erratic as a passer and as a person honestly and Hooker who knows with those injuries and coming from that system. Then 2022 was just a bad QB draft and clearly none of those QBs have been that good, Sam Howell they could have picked up though but he did throw 21 TDs and 21 INTs last year and not sure he has a long term future but would have been an option at least and has more potential than say Nick Mullens has. The Vikings did draft Kellen Mond and I think that was their ideal developmental QB at the time and potential replacement, mobile and athletic but clearly he could not see the field or process well enough to be success in the NFL. Also was drafted under a different GM and Head coach. And say in that same draft they take Davis Mills instead of Mond, not sure one would have that different of results but at least Mills is still in the league and not on a practice squad. It is a weird situation and the Vikings have not really had an option to draft a top flight QB over that entire time. This year could be different with potential of Penix Jr, Nix or McCarthy but again not sure McCarthy would be worth that high of a pick but could argue Penix Jr and Nix are. Then again they would be passing on potential the best CB by drafting that CB or one of the best edge rushers or the best DT.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wcblack34 Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 11 hours ago, CriminalMind said: When has this actually happened in modern NFL. Using top #11 pick on QB while 1-2 months previously investing $35-$40M for 2-3 years on a free agent QB Who cares? If the Vikings, or any other team, think it can work for them, why not do it? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemperFeist Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 17 minutes ago, wcblack34 said: why not do it? Because the objective is to build the best team to be competitive. Committing to a veteran QB for 2-3 years is a commitment to build the most competitive team possible around that QB. Using the 11th pick on a bench warmer doesn’t do that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemperFeist Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 Reverse the draft and free agency, with the draft taking place in March and free agency beginning in May. If the Vikings traded up for a QB, or drafted a QB 11, no one would be on board signing a vet QB to 2-3 year, at $35M-$40M a year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CriminalMind Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 16 minutes ago, SemperFeist said: Reverse the draft and free agency, with the draft taking place in March and free agency beginning in May. If the Vikings traded up for a QB, or drafted a QB 11, no one would be on board signing a vet QB to 2-3 year, at $35M-$40M a year. The NFLPA likes the current set up obviously where current players get first crack. And draftee players are not in the union yet, so they don’t get a vote lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemperFeist Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 32 minutes ago, CriminalMind said: The NFLPA likes the current set up obviously where current players get first crack. And draftee players are not in the union yet, so they don’t get a vote lol It was a hypothetical, not a suggestion to change the current structure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.