Kirk to Pittsburgh? Trade Cousins?

mikenessfan
Living Legend

Posts: 20,403
Likes: 2,562

Kirk to Pittsburgh? Trade Cousins? Feb 14, 2022 12:19:35 GMT -6 via mobile Danchat likes this

Quote

Post by mikenessfan on Feb 14, 2022 12:19:35 GMT -6

Feb 14, 2022 10:10:54 GMT -6 MidwinterViking said:

Feb 14, 2022 9:28:59 GMT -6 comet52 said:

Sounds like more of the Rick and Mike Mediocrity Show with different guys in charge. This franchise should stop being afraid to rip the band-aid off and rebuild.

No franchise should ever willingly get worse. "Ripping a band aid off" and voluntarily getting worse would only serve to increase the gap between the Vikings and the elite teams in the NFL. Getting Pennies on the dollar for players in trade will never generate enough assets to close that gap.

The only path to a better future is to win as much as you can right now, while looking for every possibility to get better at all time.  Here is the reality of sucking. These are the teams with top 10 draft picks the last 5 drafts. How many of these teams have rebuilt into an elite team?

2017: Browns, Bears, 49ers, Jaguars, Titans, Jets, Chargers, Panthers, Bengals, Chiefs

2018: Browns, Giants, Jets, Browns (2x!), Colts, Broncos, Bills, bears, 49ers, Cardinals

2019: Cardinals, 49ers, Jets, Raiders, Bucs, Giants, Jaguars, Lions, Bills, Steelers

2020: Bengals, Commanders, Lions, Giants, Dolphins Cardinals, Jaguars, Browns, Jets

2021: Jaguars, Jets, 49ers, Falcons, Bengals, Dolphins, Lions, Panthers, Broncos, Eagles

I count 5 out of 50. And that 10% success rate includes:
- The 2017 Titans, who were coming off a 9-7 season but picking top 10 due to a 2016 trade
- The 2017 Chiefs who traded up in to the top 10.
- The 2019 Bucs who signed Tom Brady.

That leaves 2 examples of teams that actually turned things around on their own (2019 Bills & 2021 Bengals) and 1 (Bucs) who signed Tom Brady. The rest had an upside of where the Vikings already are and a downside of remaining horrible for years.

Until I see a plan that doesn't have a 90% failure rate, I will continue to think of any talk along the lines of "we should get worse to get better" as pure fantasy that I should not take seriously.

Your lost involves some of the same teams every year so that 5 out of 50 numbers don’t match. Also you forgot to mention that some of those teams that are redundant in that list have some of the worst gm’s in the nfl, meaning they make poor selections on their draft selections and fa signings. You can’t get better when your gm is inept. We are hoping kwesi is not one of those gms. All indications so far is he isn’t. So you have to put your trust in the gm and fo and start a rebuild. It all starts with the qb. Get that right and everything else should be much easier.

diehardtwinsfan
Moderator

Posts: 11,979

Likes: 7,517

Kirk to Pittsburgh? Trade Cousins? Feb 14, 2022 12:39:46 GMT -6

Quote

Post by diehardtwinsfan on Feb 14, 2022 12:39:46 GMT -6

Feb 14, 2022 10:59:31 GMT -6 MidwinterViking said:

Feb 14, 2022 10:34:35 GMT -6 diehardtwinsfan said:

I am not sure I agree here. The Dolphins situation certainly implies its there. But I'm not even sure I would call it willingly getting worse. I understand that the FO will always try and sell fans that a team is trying to compete, but there is a time to focus on the future vs. win now, and I'd argue we are a good candidate for doing perecisely that.

I personally don't call that tanking because the goal is not to lose games necessarily, but some would since the end result will be a short term increase in the L column. It simply means that you need to recognize that you've got a log of aging vets that need to go, that you need an influx of young talent, and that you need to give some of your younger guys a chance to see who sinks and who swims. We're very much in that situation with quite a few expensive, declining vets, low cap space and some promising younger players that could possibly shine under a coach that can develop them. You can call that voluntarily getting worse, I tend to look at it more as using a year to figure out where you need to improve while acquiring and developing additional cheap talent. The other added benefit is freeing up cap space to make more targeted moves in FA to plug the holes where players do not step up.

Let's put these statements to the test:

It simply means that you need to recognize that you've got a log of aging vets that need to go

This is true of every team in the NFL.

you need an influx of young talent

Name a team that does not want an influx of young talent. The average career in the NFL is 3.3 years, less than the length of a rookie contract. Every team is looking for an influx of young talent at all times and from every possible source.

you need to give some of your younger guys a chance to see who sinks and who swims

Zimmer sucked at this and it's a big reason why he's gone. We should defiantly do that.

We're very much in that situation with quite a few expensive, declining vets, low cap space and some promising younger players that could possibly shine under a coach that can develop them

This assumption that we have a top heavy roster is false; most teams spend most of their cap on a small number of players. In 2021, the Vikings spent 31% of the salary cap on their top 5 players; this is inline with NFL averages that range from 17% (Panthers with a sh*t roster with nobody worth paying) and 38% (Chiefs & Packers).

And again, 3.3 year career average. Pretend every single young draft pick in that influx of talent works out and turns into a contributor. On average that is 3.3 years * 7 picks a year = 23 players. But there's 53 guys on a roster. That means those aging vets are actually a critical component of fielding a roster.

You need to come in with more than platitudes like "we need some young talent" to convince me to take this line of thinking seriously.

That's really an oversimplification of what is being said. Yes technically all teams have aging vets. Some have more than others. Some get more production out of them than others. Yes, technically all teams need to develop younger talent. Some have more than others, some less. That's the point. We aren't getting the level of production that we need out of that top talent. That's a good sign that it's time to move on.

comet52
Hall of Fame Candidate

Posts: 7,079
Likes: 8,707

Kirk to Pittsburgh? Trade Cousins? Feb 14, 2022 12:40:00 GMT -6 MidwinterViking likes this

Quote

Post by comet52 on Feb 14, 2022 12:40:00 GMT -6

Feb 14, 2022 10:10:54 GMT -6 MidwinterViking said:

Feb 14, 2022 9:28:59 GMT -6 comet52 said:

Sounds like more of the Rick and Mike Mediocrity Show with different guys in charge. This franchise should stop being afraid to rip the band-aid off and rebuild.

No franchise should ever willingly get worse. "Ripping a band aid off" and voluntarily getting worse would only serve to increase the gap between the Vikings and the elite teams in the NFL. Getting Pennies on the dollar for players in trade will never generate enough assets to close that gap.

The only path to a better future is to win as much as you can right now, while looking for every possibility to get better at all time.  Here is the reality of sucking. These are the teams with top 10 draft picks the last 5 drafts. How many of these teams have rebuilt into an elite team?

2017: Browns, Bears, 49ers, Jaguars, Titans, Jets, Chargers, Panthers, Bengals, Chiefs

2018: Browns, Giants, Jets, Browns (2x!), Colts, Broncos, Bills, bears, 49ers, Cardinals

2019: Cardinals, 49ers, Jets, Raiders, Bucs, Giants, Jaguars, Lions, Bills, Steelers

2020: Bengals, Commanders, Lions, Giants, Dolphins Cardinals, Jaguars, Browns, Jets

2021: Jaguars, Jets, 49ers, Falcons, Bengals, Dolphins, Lions, Panthers, Broncos, Eagles

I count 5 out of 50. And that 10% success rate includes:
- The 2017 Titans, who were coming off a 9-7 season but picking top 10 due to a 2016 trade
- The 2017 Chiefs who traded up in to the top 10.
- The 2019 Bucs who signed Tom Brady.

That leaves 2 examples of teams that actually turned things around on their own (2019 Bills & 2021 Bengals) and 1 (Bucs) who signed Tom Brady. The rest had an upside of where the Vikings already are and a downside of remaining horrible for years.

Until I see a plan that doesn't have a 90% failure rate, I will continue to think of any talk along the lines of "we should get worse to get better" as pure fantasy that I should not take seriously.

This franchise running back Kirk and going 8-9 next season is not going to generate a lot of excitement. Kirk is a path to nowhere imho, but maybe KAM and KOC are going to bet their newly minted careers at the highest level on him. Good luck to them. *unsure*

IMO they would be better off trading him while his value is high and before his contract expires, then going with Mond or whoever they get back in the trade if that happens, e.g. Mayfield.

Being bad in 2022 means a real shot at drafting a franchise qb since there will be a couple in that draft. Since franchise qb is clearly the key to success in today's NFL, every effort should be made to get one, and if that takes a bad season or two I'm all for it.

As for lengthy lists of crappy teams that can't get it together, well, we must hope KAM and KOC are better than the leaders of those crappy teams. If they aren't we'll just keep being around .500 while the franchise p.r. machine tries to pump fans up about the occasional one and done playoff appearance by calling it "contending" (snicker). In that case the reality is the Rick and Mike Mediocrity Show will live on... without Rick and Mike! And I will be here to mock and slag the living sh*t out of the franchise for their failure, as always!

Lemme add, the time to be bad when you are a new HC/GM is the first year or two, not "a couple years after we tried and failed to make Kirk the hero like he never has been for a decade so now we gotta suck for a while, and I'm sure we get to keep our jobs right?"

Last Edit: Feb 14, 2022 12:46:06 GMT -6 by comet52

I'm here for entertainment purposes only

MidwinterViking
Veteran

Posts: 1,439
Likes: 2,125

Kirk to Pittsburgh? Trade Cousins? Feb 14, 2022 12:43:21 GMT -6

Quote

Post by MidwinterViking on Feb 14, 2022 12:43:21 GMT -6

Feb 14, 2022 11:28:33 GMT -6 whoskmoon said:

Feb 14, 2022 10:10:54 GMT -6 MidwinterViking said:

No franchise should ever willingly get worse. "Ripping a band aid off" and voluntarily getting worse would only serve to increase the gap between the Vikings and the elite teams in the NFL. Getting Pennies on the dollar for players in trade will never generate enough assets to close that gap.

The only path to a better future is to win as much as you can right now, while looking for every possibility to get better at all time.  Here is the reality of sucking. These are the teams with top 10 draft picks the last 5 drafts. How many of these teams have rebuilt into an elite team?

2017: Browns, Bears, 49ers, Jaguars, Titans, Jets, Chargers, Panthers, Bengals, Chiefs

2018: Browns, Giants, Jets, Browns (2x!), Colts, Broncos, Bills, bears, 49ers, Cardinals

2019: Cardinals, 49ers, Jets, Raiders, Bucs, Giants, Jaguars, Lions, Bills, Steelers

2020: Bengals, Commanders, Lions, Giants, Dolphins Cardinals, Jaguars, Browns, Jets

2021: Jaguars, Jets, 49ers, Falcons, Bengals, Dolphins, Lions, Panthers, Broncos, Eagles

I count 5 out of 50. And that 10% success rate includes:
- The 2017 Titans, who were coming off a 9-7 season but picking top 10 due to a 2016 trade
- The 2017 Chiefs who traded up in to the top 10.
- The 2019 Bucs who signed Tom Brady.

That leaves 2 examples of teams that actually turned things around on their own (2019 Bills & 2021 Bengals) and 1 (Bucs) who signed Tom Brady. The rest had an upside of where the Vikings already are and a downside of remaining horrible for years.

Until I see a plan that doesn't have a 90% failure rate, I will continue to think of any talk along the lines of "we should get worse to get better" as pure fantasy that I should not take seriously.

You take QB out of the picture, and the 9ers, Cards, Browns, Steelers and Panthers are 5 of the best rosters in the NFL. Broncos, Colts, Dolphins and Eagles are all really good teams as well. The Bears are a disaster right now, but won the division in 2018 and almost won a playoff game with Mitch Trubiskey as their QB.

I would say most of the teams you listed actually got much better after their down years and most were a great QB away from competing for a SB for at least one season after that bottom ten showing. The Jets, Lions and Jags obviously weren't that, but as someone else mentioned, those teams were drafting bottom 10 not because they were ripping off the band-aid, but because they were poorly run teams.

I think if you broke that list up into teams that were drafting bottom ten because they were in a rebuilding year after seasons of decent success and teams that were drafting bottom 10 because they are poorly run franchises, you would see most of the teams in rebuilding years got better soon after that bottom 10 showing.

Let's throw some W/L records on these best rosters and really good teams:

49ers: 10-7
Cardinals:11-6
Colts: 9-8
Browns: 8-9
Steelers: 9-7-1
Panthers: 5-12
Broncos: 7-10
Colts: 9-8
Dolphins: 9-8
Eagles: 9-8

That group is the argument in favor of "we should rebuild"? The crown jewel of that allegedly "really good" list is the Cardinals, who came within a missed field goal of losing to the Vikings before getting blasted 34-11 in the playoffs.

I am more convinced than ever that the only reasonable direction is to continue trying to win as much as possible.

whoskmoon
Content Creator

Posts: 8,875
Likes: 7,219
Member is Online

Kirk to Pittsburgh? Trade Cousins? Feb 14, 2022 15:27:57 GMT -6

Quote

Post by whoskmoon on Feb 14, 2022 15:27:57 GMT -6

Feb 14, 2022 12:43:21 GMT -6 MidwinterViking said:

Feb 14, 2022 11:28:33 GMT -6 whoskmoon said:

You take QB out of the picture, and the 9ers, Cards, Browns, Steelers and Panthers are 5 of the best rosters in the NFL. Broncos, Colts, Dolphins and Eagles are all really good teams as well. The Bears are a disaster right now, but won the division in 2018 and almost won a playoff game with Mitch Trubiskey as their QB.

I would say most of the teams you listed actually got much better after their down years and most were a great QB away from competing for a SB for at least one season after that bottom ten showing. The Jets, Lions and Jags obviously weren't that, but as someone else mentioned, those teams were drafting bottom 10 not because they were ripping off the band-aid, but because they were poorly run teams.

I think if you broke that list up into teams that were drafting bottom ten because they were in a rebuilding year after seasons of decent success and teams that were drafting bottom 10 because they are poorly run franchises, you would see most of the teams in rebuilding years got better soon after that bottom 10 showing.

Let's throw some W/L records on these best rosters and really good teams:

49ers: 10-7
Cardinals:11-6
Colts: 9-8
Browns: 8-9
Steelers: 9-7-1
Panthers: 5-12
Broncos: 7-10
Colts: 9-8
Dolphins: 9-8
Eagles: 9-8

That group is the argument in favor of "we should rebuild"? The crown jewel of that allegedly "really good" list is the Cardinals, who came within a missed field goal of losing to the Vikings before getting blasted 34-11 in the playoffs.

I am more convinced than ever that the only reasonable direction is to continue trying to win as much as possible.

I did say outside of the QB position, which played a big part in those records. Plus, all but 3 of those teams had a better record than the Vikings. If they aren't really good rosters because of their records, what exactly do we have?

vikingpwr Living Legend Posts: 21,398 Likes: 4,607	Kirk to Pittsburgh? Trade Cousins? Feb 14, 2022 20:07:47 GMT -6 Quote Select Post Deselect Post Link to Post Member Give Gift Back to Top Post by vikingpwr on Feb 14, 2022 20:07:47 GMT -6 Feb 14, 2022 12:00:27 GMT -6 ukvikings said: Depends on what you mean by “contender”. Winning the AFC East like the Ravens, Browns and Steelers have done with double digit wins the past 4 years.

vikingpwr
Living Legend

Posts: 21,398

Likes: 4,607

Kirk to Pittsburgh? Trade Cousins? Feb 14, 2022 21:40:34 GMT -6 ukvikings likes this

Quote

Post by vikingpwr on Feb 14, 2022 21:40:34 GMT -6

Feb 14, 2022 12:00:27 GMT -6 ukvikings said:

Depends on what you mean by “contender”.

Contender in like winning the AFC North. The Ravens, Browns and Steelers did that with double digit wins 2016 through 2020. That kinda contender. The Bengals were 25-53-1 during that period. I didn't see them as contenders in 2021.

Keep in mind that I responded to a post from Norseman.....Why would anybody in their right mind see us as contenders in 2022?

Today is February 14th and the Vikings haven't filled out their coaching staff yet or signed any players in free agency. The draft is 75 days from now. Who the hell knows if we'll be a contender or not. If I were to guess I'd say no but anything can happen between now and January 2023.

Last Edit: Feb 14, 2022 21:42:43 GMT -6 by vikingpwr

diehardtwinsfan
Moderator

Posts: 11,979

Likes: 7,517

Kirk to Pittsburgh? Trade Cousins? Feb 15, 2022 7:30:51 GMT -6 Danchat likes this

Quote

Post by diehardtwinsfan on Feb 15, 2022 7:30:51 GMT -6

Feb 14, 2022 12:43:21 GMT -6 MidwinterViking said:

I am more convinced than ever that the only reasonable direction is to continue trying to win as much as possible.

Seems to me that sometimes winning as much as possible means recognizing that you need to take the time to develop better players. That really is an oversimplification.

MidwinterViking
Veteran

Posts: 1,439
Likes: 2,125

Kirk to Pittsburgh? Trade Cousins? Feb 15, 2022 8:14:05 GMT -6

Quote

Post by MidwinterViking on Feb 15, 2022 8:14:05 GMT -6

Feb 15, 2022 7:30:51 GMT -6 diehardtwinsfan said:

Feb 14, 2022 12:43:21 GMT -6 MidwinterViking said:

I am more convinced than ever that the only reasonable direction is to continue trying to win as much as possible.

Seems to me that sometimes winning as much as possible means recognizing that you need to take the time to develop better players. That really is an oversimplification.

You're absolutely right it's simple. It is supposed to be very simple. For every move, ask: does this make the team more likely to win the next game / season or less likely? If the answer is "less" then don't make the move.

You don't get to stop to develop better players; the NFL never stops. If you take time to develop better players, however much time you take, that is how much further behind you are. Developing players get to keep up while the team is trying to win every game possible. A coach that is good at developing players will look at a new guys say "You can't do everything, but what CAN you do?" If they are worth developing, they can contribute something then use that experience to get better. If they can't contribute anything, then why are they on the roster?

This is where Zimmer was horrible: he couldn't use guys unless they already knew everything; after a while he was out of warm bodies that knew everything.

diehardtwinsfan
Moderator

Posts: 11,979

Likes: 7,517

Kirk to Pittsburgh? Trade Cousins? Feb 15, 2022 8:59:28 GMT -6 Danchat likes this

Quote

Post by diehardtwinsfan on Feb 15, 2022 8:59:28 GMT -6

Feb 15, 2022 8:14:05 GMT -6 MidwinterViking said:

Feb 15, 2022 7:30:51 GMT -6 diehardtwinsfan said:

Seems to me that sometimes winning as much as possible means recognizing that you need to take the time to develop better players. That really is an oversimplification.

You're absolutely right it's simple. It is supposed to be very simple. For every move, ask: does this make the team more likely to win the next game / season or less likely? If the answer is "less" then don't make the move.

You don't get to stop to develop better players; the NFL never stops. If you take time to develop better players, however much time you take, that is how much further behind you are. Developing players get to keep up while the team is trying to win every game possible. A coach that is good at developing players will look at a new guys say "You can't do everything, but what CAN you do?" If they are worth developing, they can contribute something then use that experience to get better. If they can't contribute anything, then why are they on the roster?

This is where Zimmer was horrible: he couldn't use guys unless they already knew everything; after a while he was out of warm bodies that knew everything.

But you are now playing aging, expensive vets in front of those younger players. It's kind of hard to develop a guy on the bench. Those snaps matter. I'd add, having the cap space to plug holes once you figure out which younger guys can cut also matters. You don't get that kicking the can down the road.

I'm not saying you try and lose games, but there is a time to take a step back so you can take 2 forward.

whoskmoon
Content Creator

Posts: 8,875
Likes: 7,219
Member is Online

Kirk to Pittsburgh? Trade Cousins? Feb 15, 2022 9:39:02 GMT -6

Quote

Post by whoskmoon on Feb 15, 2022 9:39:02 GMT -6

Feb 15, 2022 8:14:05 GMT -6 MidwinterViking said:

Feb 15, 2022 7:30:51 GMT -6 diehardtwinsfan said:

Seems to me that sometimes winning as much as possible means recognizing that you need to take the time to develop better players. That really is an oversimplification.

You're absolutely right it's simple. It is supposed to be very simple. For every move, ask: does this make the team more likely to win the next game / season or less likely? If the answer is "less" then don't make the move.

That kind of thinking would be horrible to have in a GM or HC. You cannot go all in on every season at the cost of future seasons, especially if going all in isn't even going to get you to the playoffs. In every professional sport teams will take the L one year to get the W later on and there is good reason for that.

It isn't always the right move, and sometimes the right move is to go all in on a season as the Rams proved this year, but sometimes you just have to accept that your team isn't good enough as it is currently built, and reboot.

MidwinterViking
Veteran

Posts: 1,439
Likes: 2,125

Kirk to Pittsburgh? Trade Cousins? Feb 15, 2022 10:24:28 GMT -6 via mobile

Quote

Post by MidwinterViking on Feb 15, 2022 10:24:28 GMT -6

Feb 15, 2022 8:59:28 GMT -6 diehardtwinsfan said:

Feb 15, 2022 8:14:05 GMT -6 MidwinterViking said:

You're absolutely right it's simple. It is supposed to be very simple. For every move, ask: does this make the team more likely to win the next game / season or less likely? If the answer is "less" then don't make the move.

You don't get to stop to develop better players; the NFL never stops. If you take time to develop better players, however much time you take, that is how much further behind you are. Developing players get to keep up while the team is trying to win every game possible. A coach that is good at developing players will look at a new guys say "You can't do everything, but what CAN you do?" If they are worth developing, they can contribute something then use that experience to get better. If they can't contribute anything, then why are they on the roster?

This is where Zimmer was horrible: he couldn't use guys unless they already knew everything; after a while he was out of warm bodies that knew everything.

But you are now playing aging, expensive vets in front of those younger players. It's kind of hard to develop a guy on the bench. Those snaps matter. I'd add, having the cap space to plug holes once you figure out which younger guys can cut also matters. You don't get that kicking the can down the road.

I'm not saying you try and lose games, but there is a time to take a step back so you can take 2 forward.

And that time is "one offseason". Once players retire and contracts expire, the clock is ticking to complete those two steps forward by the start of the next season.

When the games start, if the aging, expensive vet is a better player than the young, developing guy, guess who gets on the field? It's very simple, the better player will play.

The young guy has all off-season to work out, OATs and mini camp to learn stuff, and a pre-season to show what he can do. If, during that time, he hasn't convinced the coaches "hey this guy has game, I need to play him over Mr. Oldendude", the the young guy is on the sidelines. The coaches can (and should) tip the scales towards the young guy and make sure he knows what he needs to do and give him every opportunity to beat the vet. But this is not a multi year plan, the young guy doesn't get real game time as his own personal study hall.

ukvikings
Starter

Posts: 659
Likes: 542

Kirk to Pittsburgh? Trade Cousins? Feb 15, 2022 12:37:54 GMT -6 via mobile diehardtwinsfan, NoresemanSam, and 1 more like this

Quote

Post by ukvikings on Feb 15, 2022 12:37:54 GMT -6

Feb 15, 2022 8:14:05 GMT -6 MidwinterViking said:

Feb 15, 2022 7:30:51 GMT -6 diehardtwinsfan said:

Seems to me that sometimes winning as much as possible means recognizing that you need to take the time to develop better players. That really is an oversimplification.

You're absolutely right it's simple. It is supposed to be very simple. For every move, ask: does this make the team more likely to win the next game / season or less likely? If the answer is "less" then don't make the move.

You don't get to stop to develop better players; the NFL never stops. If you take time to develop better players, however much time you take, that is how much further behind you are. Developing players get to keep up while the team is trying to win every game possible. A coach that is good at developing players will look at a new guys say "You can't do everything, but what CAN you do?" If they are worth developing, they can contribute something then use that experience to get better. If they can't contribute anything, then why are they on the roster?

This is where Zimmer was horrible: he couldn't use guys unless they already knew everything; after a while he was out of warm bodies that knew everything.

I would rephrase what you’re saying. Does each move make it more likely we win more games over the next 3-5 years(including the current season) than doing the alternative? Restructures/extensions/void years are moves that all make it more likely to win your next game but makes you less likely to win games when those bills come due. So it’s always a balancing act of present and future hopes in mind.

One thing this reminds me of is all the people talking about the cap going up in future years. What that naive thinking neglects, is that the cap is a fixed number with relative value. If the cap is $258 million or something a couple years from now and the Vikings have 50 million but the Bengals have 100 million, it still means we won’t be having our pick of free agents.

MidwinterViking
Veteran

Posts: 1,439
Likes: 2,125

Kirk to Pittsburgh? Trade Cousins? Feb 15, 2022 16:59:35 GMT -6

Quote

Post by MidwinterViking on Feb 15, 2022 16:59:35 GMT -6

Feb 15, 2022 12:37:54 GMT -6 ukvikings said:

Feb 15, 2022 8:14:05 GMT -6 MidwinterViking said:

You're absolutely right it's simple. It is supposed to be very simple. For every move, ask: does this make the team more likely to win the next game / season or less likely? If the answer is "less" then don't make the move.

You don't get to stop to develop better players; the NFL never stops. If you take time to develop better players, however much time you take, that is how much further behind you are. Developing players get to keep up while the team is trying to win every game possible. A coach that is good at developing players will look at a new guys say "You can't do everything, but what CAN you do?" If they are worth developing, they can contribute something then use that experience to get better. If they can't contribute anything, then why are they on the roster?

This is where Zimmer was horrible: he couldn't use guys unless they already knew everything; after a while he was out of warm bodies that knew everything.

I would rephrase what you’re saying. Does each move make it more likely we win more games over the next 3-5 years(including the current season) than doing the alternative? Restructures/extensions/void years are moves that all make it more likely to win your next game but makes you less likely to win games when those bills come due. So it’s always a balancing act of present and future hopes in mind.

One thing this reminds me of is all the people talking about the cap going up in future years. What that naive thinking neglects, is that the cap is a fixed number with relative value. If the cap is $258 million or something a couple years from now and the Vikings have 50 million but the Bengals have 100 million, it still means we won’t be having our pick of free agents.

If you re-phrase it like that, then I would disagree with you. I agree that it's a bad idea to steal from future teams (draft picks / cap space) other than a reasonable and customary signing bonus. I think Void years are almost always a mistake and I'm glad the Vikings did less of that than most teams in the Covid year. Trading future picks and adding void years are only to be done if there is a very compelling reason.

What I am not willing to do is trade away wins now for wins in the future. And it's important to be clear, now and the future are not mutually exclusive. Good deals are great for both (i.e. the Brian O'Niell signing). And anything that leads to similar results now with better odds in the future is better. But the 2022 offseason is for building the best team you can in 2022 and this season gets the primary consideration in all decisions. 2023 will be a completely different team. 2024 is about a million years from now.

Funkytown Owner Purple Pain Big Dog Posts: 67,661 Likes: 31,587 Fan Since: 1998	Kirk to Pittsburgh? Trade Cousins? Feb 21, 2022 14:39:09 GMT -6 via mobile GermanViking likes this Quote Select Post Deselect Post Link to Post Member Give Gift Back to Top Post by Funkytown on Feb 21, 2022 14:39:09 GMT -6