Will the Vikings be Wayne's World...?

[Krauser]

1 hour ago, PrplChilPill said:

well, I literally typed "three years to be competent"....and did not comment on years one and two......was he competent in years one and two? Because he didn't look that way to me.

Well, you're saying Waynes was competent in year 3, which means it took 2 years for him to be competent, unless you'd say a rookie who was competent in his first season "took a year to become competent".  

And I'd say he was competent in year 2 (passer rating when targeted was 77.4 in 2016, 18th of 89 qualifying CBs by PFF charting), but only played limited snaps because 38 year-old Newman had a fantastic season (5th in the NFL in passer rating allowed) and stayed healthy all year, meaning that Waynes only played rotationally. 

So I think it's fair to say he took a year to become competent, but got held back in terms of playing time by Newman playing unexpectedly well at his age. 

He's never been great, and counts as a bit of a disappointment for those of us (me included) who wanted to draft Marcus Peters, but he's pretty good. 

[whitehops]

4 hours ago, vike daddy said:

sweet. a savings of $3.3 mil.

not sure it's considered savings if it's money we never would have had to spend?

[vikestyle]

3 minutes ago, whitehops said:

not sure it's considered savings if it's money we never would have had to spend?

We would have had to spend it if he had been taken 1 pick earlier which was the point of the tweet. This would be considered a hypothetical situation. In said hypothetical situation, we saved money.

[JDBrocks]

Are you still disappointed now? Knowing what you know about Peters? A gambler with a poor attitude would not have thrived under Zimmer in my opinion.

[whitehops]

1 minute ago, vikestyle said:

We would have had to spend it if he had been taken 1 pick earlier which was the point of the tweet. This would be considered a hypothetical situation. In said hypothetical situation, we saved money.

we never had the tenth pick so paying the fifth year option premium was never an option. i get what chris tomasson is trying to say but the vikings hardly "saved" money in reality. 

 

 

[vikestyle]

1 minute ago, whitehops said:

we never had the tenth pick so paying the fifth year option premium was never an option. i get what chris tomasson is trying to say but the vikings hardly "saved" money in reality. 

 

 

The thing is, the situation discussed in the tweet was not reality. It was hypothetical. In the hypothetical situation, the money was saved. It was never presented as reality. It was simply an observation about how much more expensive this proposition would be had he been picked only one selection earlier. 

[Krauser]

21 minutes ago, JDBrocks said:

Are you still disappointed now? Knowing what you know about Peters? A gambler with a poor attitude would not have thrived under Zimmer in my opinion.

Can’t complain with results like Zimmer’s produced with the Vikings defense. At this point, every single move on that side of the ball, even those we were skeptical of — Gedeon, Sendejo, Waynes — looks good.

Still, I thought Peters was a special talent and he’s been playing like a future Hall of Famer (19 INTs since 2015, compare that to the entire Vikings team putting up 41 over the same span), so it’s hard not to feel some regret that we didn’t get to see him make those plays in purple. 

I have a soft spot for mercurial talents, even when they don’t fit a system or work well with a particular coach. Cordarrelle Patterson was another pre draft favorite of mine for similar reasons and while I get the idea that he was a bust or at least a disappointment, I’d have to list his rookie year plus the TD run in week one 2014 as one of my favorite things about the Vikings in recent years. 

[whitehops]

24 minutes ago, vikestyle said:

The thing is, the situation discussed in the tweet was not reality. It was hypothetical. In the hypothetical situation, the money was saved. It was never presented as reality. It was simply an observation about how much more expensive this proposition would be had he been picked only one selection earlier. 

tomasson never said money was saved, he simply stated what the fifth year option would be for a cornerback picked in the top 10. 

 

*hypothetically* the vikings would've paid $3.3 million more, but inferring that the vikings saved $3.3 million in *reality* is just wrong.

 

and if we're talking about how the vikings *hypothetically* saved $3.3 million in this *hypothetical* scenario then this thread is really a stretch considering it was barely a discussion point to begin with.

[Cearbhall]

12 hours ago, JDBrocks said:

Why is there such impatience with draft picks? There are some players you draft early because they can fill a need right away. Others have great physical traits but need to be coached to reach a much higher ceiling.

The impatience is related to free agency. Before free agency existed it made a lot more sense to take great physical traits and coach them up. Nowadays coaching them up may just lead to them leaving. In the free agent era it is more important to get production sooner out of high draft picks. Guys that will not be ready to go in a year or two should not be considered in the first round with the possible exception of QB IMO.

[swede700]

13 minutes ago, Cearbhall said:

The impatience is related to free agency. Before free agency existed it made a lot more sense to take great physical traits and coach them up. Nowadays coaching them up may just lead to them leaving. In the free agent era it is more important to get production sooner out of high draft picks. Guys that will not be ready to go in a year or two should not be considered in the first round with the possible exception of QB IMO.

If done properly and you are a good organization, there should be no concern about whether they potentially leave or not.  That argument (while nothing new or unusual, as what you say is an accurate depiction) is garbage to me.  It's solely used as a flimsy excuse to attempt to justify why their team has been terrible rather than blaming the coaching or organization itself.    

[marshpit23]

13 hours ago, Krauser said:

Can’t complain with results like Zimmer’s produced with the Vikings defense. At this point, every single move on that side of the ball, even those we were skeptical of — Gedeon, Sendejo, Waynes — looks good.

Still, I thought Peters was a special talent and he’s been playing like a future Hall of Famer (19 INTs since 2015, compare that to the entire Vikings team putting up 41 over the same span), so it’s hard not to feel some regret that we didn’t get to see him make those plays in purple. 

I have a soft spot for mercurial talents, even when they don’t fit a system or work well with a particular coach. Cordarrelle Patterson was another pre draft favorite of mine for similar reasons and while I get the idea that he was a bust or at least a disappointment, I’d have to list his rookie year plus the TD run in week one 2014 as one of my favorite things about the Vikings in recent years. 

Is there a mercurial player in this year’s draft that you are fond of? 

[Krauser]

2 hours ago, marshpit23 said:

Is there a mercurial player in this year’s draft that you are fond of? 

I like Ito Smith a lot, could be a McKinnon replacement RB3. On the other hand RBs always look good in their highlights. 

I want and expect them to go OL early this year, so most of what I've watched has been solid and boring. 

[VikeManDan]

Does anyone see the Vikes picking up the option with the selection of Hughes in round 1? Would it be worth while to pick up the option and try to trade him after the upcoming season, before he is due the ~$9M? Or do we just let him walk and get the comp pick in 2020?

[SemperFeist]

6 minutes ago, VikeManDan said:

Does anyone see the Vikes picking up the option with the selection of Hughes in round 1? Would it be worth while to pick up the option and try to trade him after the upcoming season, before he is due the ~$9M? Or do we just let him walk and get the comp pick in 2020?

Yes, I still expect them to pick up the option. 

[whitehops]

it's definitely a more interesting situation now that we drafted hughes.

1. we could pick up the option with the intention to start him in 2019. we ensure we have good corner depth for the next two years and it gives us another year to decide if we want to extend him long-term. downside is that it wouldn't leave us with enough money to extend/re-sign all of hunter, diggs, barr and richardson.

2. we could opt not to pick up his option which leaves us a little thin with proven talent going forward, but we would have enough money to extend/re-sign all of hunter, diggs, barr and richardson plus we would get a future 3rd/4th round comp pick.

3. they could pick up the option as insurance to take a "wait and see" approach with their young corners. if they feel good about moving forward with rhodes/alexander/hughes/hill then they can cut waynes and extend/re-sign all of hunter, diggs, barr. if they don't feel comfortable moving forward without waynes in 2019 they keep him, lose one of their impending free agents but have a reliable set of corners. only downside with this (if they do cut waynes) is that they miss out on a 3rd/4th round comp pick but i think they'll value the roster flexibility greater.

 

i would guess they are leaning towards something like option 3 so i think they'll still pick up his option.