RE: General Vikes Talk

RE: General Vikes Talk (Full Version)

All Forums >> [The Minnesota Vikings] >> Vikes Talk

Message

Bill Johanesen -> RE: General Vikes Talk (4/18/2023 10:15:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: David F. the reason this years deal looks so bad is because the team has already paid almost all of the contract up front - this is what happens when teams are moving money around to create cap space.... I don't agree with that at all. The reason the deal looks so bad is because 5/72 was an INCREDIBLY team friendly contract back when it was signed. In the meantime the market has exploded and Hunter continues to play at an elite level, injuries notwithstanding. Almost $15M per wasn't peanuts back then. And he isn't playing at an "elite" level. Of course, ones definition of elite varies. Some (or one) may say the Vikings STs were elite. Perhaps lay off the word for a while [:D] 18th in sacks. Tied in range from 19-29 in TFL. He got $20M last year, $17M in 2018. 2023 happens to be the low salary year on a 5-year contract based on the contract and the restructures.

ratoppenheimer -> RE: General Vikes Talk (4/18/2023 10:18:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen quote: ORIGINAL: ratoppenheimer . . “Vikings DE Danielle Hunter is not expected to attend the start of Minnesota’s voluntary offseason program, per sources. The absence is likely due to his contract — he’s set to make $4.9M in the last year of his deal, well below market for a three-time Pro Bowler.” You have doubled down on Hunter being honorable and honoring his contract. If that was the case, he wouldn't be absent for the start of the offseason program due to his contract (if the "likely" reason is accurate). it's not part of his contract...and it's 3.5 months before training camp - let's give the guy some space....

ratoppenheimer -> RE: General Vikes Talk (4/18/2023 10:21:36 AM)
. . it very well could be that the team is planning on shopping hunter - let him work it out with his new team....

Trekgeekscott -> RE: General Vikes Talk (4/18/2023 10:50:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ratoppenheimer quote: ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen quote: ORIGINAL: ratoppenheimer . . “Vikings DE Danielle Hunter is not expected to attend the start of Minnesota’s voluntary offseason program, per sources. The absence is likely due to his contract — he’s set to make $4.9M in the last year of his deal, well below market for a three-time Pro Bowler.” You have doubled down on Hunter being honorable and honoring his contract. If that was the case, he wouldn't be absent for the start of the offseason program due to his contract (if the "likely" reason is accurate). it's not part of his contract...and it's 3.5 months before training camp - let's give the guy some space.... The voluntary part of an offseaon program has to be voluntary. If he chooses not to attend, there should be nothing said. If he volunteers to show up great. If not. so what? If he is going to be judged poorly because he didn't attend VOLUNTARY workouts then in some peoples minds they never were voluntary.

David F. -> RE: General Vikes Talk (4/18/2023 11:10:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen quote: ORIGINAL: David F. the reason this years deal looks so bad is because the team has already paid almost all of the contract up front - this is what happens when teams are moving money around to create cap space.... I don't agree with that at all. The reason the deal looks so bad is because 5/72 was an INCREDIBLY team friendly contract back when it was signed. In the meantime the market has exploded and Hunter continues to play at an elite level, injuries notwithstanding. Almost $15M per wasn't peanuts back then. And he isn't playing at an "elite" level. Of course, ones definition of elite varies. Some (or one) may say the Vikings STs were elite. Perhaps lay off the word for a while [:D] 18th in sacks. Tied in range from 19-29 in TFL. He got $20M last year, $17M in 2018. 2023 happens to be the low salary year on a 5-year contract based on the contract and the restructures. Over the last five years Hunter has averaged 0.79 sacks per game. That would rank him 6th for all time, tied with Lawrence Taylor. That's elite.

ronhextall -> RE: General Vikes Talk (4/18/2023 11:14:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: David F. quote: ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen quote: ORIGINAL: David F. the reason this years deal looks so bad is because the team has already paid almost all of the contract up front - this is what happens when teams are moving money around to create cap space.... I don't agree with that at all. The reason the deal looks so bad is because 5/72 was an INCREDIBLY team friendly contract back when it was signed. In the meantime the market has exploded and Hunter continues to play at an elite level, injuries notwithstanding. Almost $15M per wasn't peanuts back then. And he isn't playing at an "elite" level. Of course, ones definition of elite varies. Some (or one) may say the Vikings STs were elite. Perhaps lay off the word for a while [:D] 18th in sacks. Tied in range from 19-29 in TFL. He got $20M last year, $17M in 2018. 2023 happens to be the low salary year on a 5-year contract based on the contract and the restructures. Over the last five years Hunter has averaged 0.79 sacks per game. That would rank him 6th for all time, tied with Lawrence Taylor. That's elite. I assume that's games he actually played in and not Viking's games. Lamar Jackson has won 75% of his starts, of course that doesn't do much good in December and January when he rarely plays.

David F. -> RE: General Vikes Talk (4/18/2023 11:21:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ronhextall quote: ORIGINAL: David F. quote: ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen quote: ORIGINAL: David F. the reason this years deal looks so bad is because the team has already paid almost all of the contract up front - this is what happens when teams are moving money around to create cap space.... I don't agree with that at all. The reason the deal looks so bad is because 5/72 was an INCREDIBLY team friendly contract back when it was signed. In the meantime the market has exploded and Hunter continues to play at an elite level, injuries notwithstanding. Almost $15M per wasn't peanuts back then. And he isn't playing at an "elite" level. Of course, ones definition of elite varies. Some (or one) may say the Vikings STs were elite. Perhaps lay off the word for a while [:D] 18th in sacks. Tied in range from 19-29 in TFL. He got $20M last year, $17M in 2018. 2023 happens to be the low salary year on a 5-year contract based on the contract and the restructures. Over the last five years Hunter has averaged 0.79 sacks per game. That would rank him 6th for all time, tied with Lawrence Taylor. That's elite. I assume that's games he actually played in and not Viking's games. Lamar Jackson has won 75% of his starts, of course that doesn't do much good in December and January when he rarely plays. Yeah it's for games he's played in. An individual per game stat applies to games the player played in. They didn't include all the games and then give him the sacks from whoever took his place. Did you know Tom Brady didn't throw any TD passes in 2008? What a loser right?

Phil Riewer -> RE: General Vikes Talk (4/18/2023 11:46:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: David F. quote: ORIGINAL: ronhextall quote: ORIGINAL: David F. quote: ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen quote: ORIGINAL: David F. the reason this years deal looks so bad is because the team has already paid almost all of the contract up front - this is what happens when teams are moving money around to create cap space.... I don't agree with that at all. The reason the deal looks so bad is because 5/72 was an INCREDIBLY team friendly contract back when it was signed. In the meantime the market has exploded and Hunter continues to play at an elite level, injuries notwithstanding. Almost $15M per wasn't peanuts back then. And he isn't playing at an "elite" level. Of course, ones definition of elite varies. Some (or one) may say the Vikings STs were elite. Perhaps lay off the word for a while [:D] 18th in sacks. Tied in range from 19-29 in TFL. He got $20M last year, $17M in 2018. 2023 happens to be the low salary year on a 5-year contract based on the contract and the restructures. Over the last five years Hunter has averaged 0.79 sacks per game. That would rank him 6th for all time, tied with Lawrence Taylor. That's elite. I assume that's games he actually played in and not Viking's games. Lamar Jackson has won 75% of his starts, of course that doesn't do much good in December and January when he rarely plays. Yeah it's for games he's played in. An individual per game stat applies to games the player played in. They didn't include all the games and then give him the sacks from whoever took his place. Did you know Tom Brady didn't throw any TD passes in 2008? What a loser right? I don't think Hunter is asking for the moon just more than 4.* million a year. In fact I think it will get done as Hunter has been fair in the past.

David Levine -> RE: General Vikes Talk (4/18/2023 12:00:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ronhextall quote: ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer quote: ORIGINAL: Bill Jandro Hunter is our best defensive player. We already lost our 2nd best defensive player (Tomlinson) to FA and replaced him with a much lesser player (Lowry). Doubt any draft pick will be even close to what Hunter gives you and our defense was 31st last season. Flores system certainly should make us better but unless he can walk on water he will need at least a handful of decent players. Hunter is our best defensive player that has played 23 games out of the 50 the last 3 years....so odds are it will have some clauses but he will get paid. Agreed, the only reason I know Hunter is because I keep reading on here how great he is. Guy never plays. I wouldn't pay him any more or extend him at this point. BFD if he doesn't show up for offseason drills. If he wants another big payday he is going to have to show it on the field. I assume that will motivate him to have a big season. He played every game for 4 years. Suffered a bad injury that cost him most of 2 years and then played every game last year.

David F. -> RE: General Vikes Talk (4/18/2023 12:14:08 PM)
I'm by no means married to Hunter. I'm just saying he needs a new deal or needs to be traded. Playing out this year and hitting free agency is the worst case scenario. Last season the Broncos traded Bradley Chubb to the Dolphins. Chubb missed 12 games in 2019, 2 games in 2020, and 9 in 2021. Chubb had 12 sacks as a rookie in 2018 and hasn't had a double digit sack year since, in fact he's only had 16.5 sacks since his rookie year. Denver got a 2023 1st, a 2024 4th, and RB Chase Edmunds for Chubb and a 2025 fifth rounder. Did you all just read that? Does that make Hunter's value more clear? Hunter is a better pass rusher than Chubb and pass rushers are the 2nd most valuable position in the NFL. If we trade him we'd demand a 1st and a 3rd. If we can't get that then fine but we have to lock him up for 3-4 years. If we could get a 2024 1st rounder for him that would put us in position to make a move for Caleb Williams. I love that scenario.

marty -> RE: General Vikes Talk (4/18/2023 12:43:00 PM)
I like the idea of getting Caleb Williams, but I have a feeling the team with the first pick won't trade it, regardless of what is offered as compensation. Other QBs I thought were sure things, were similar: Elway, Manning (Peyton), Lawrence.

Bill Johanesen -> RE: General Vikes Talk (4/18/2023 1:38:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ratoppenheimer quote: ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen quote: ORIGINAL: ratoppenheimer . . “Vikings DE Danielle Hunter is not expected to attend the start of Minnesota’s voluntary offseason program, per sources. The absence is likely due to his contract — he’s set to make $4.9M in the last year of his deal, well below market for a three-time Pro Bowler.” You have doubled down on Hunter being honorable and honoring his contract. If that was the case, he wouldn't be absent for the start of the offseason program due to his contract (if the "likely" reason is accurate). it's not part of his contract...and it's 3.5 months before training camp - let's give the guy some space.... You were the one that posted it... which kicked off the issue here.

Bill Johanesen -> RE: General Vikes Talk (4/18/2023 1:44:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: David F. quote: ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen quote: ORIGINAL: David F. the reason this years deal looks so bad is because the team has already paid almost all of the contract up front - this is what happens when teams are moving money around to create cap space.... I don't agree with that at all. The reason the deal looks so bad is because 5/72 was an INCREDIBLY team friendly contract back when it was signed. In the meantime the market has exploded and Hunter continues to play at an elite level, injuries notwithstanding. Almost $15M per wasn't peanuts back then. And he isn't playing at an "elite" level. Of course, ones definition of elite varies. Some (or one) may say the Vikings STs were elite. Perhaps lay off the word for a while [:D] 18th in sacks. Tied in range from 19-29 in TFL. He got $20M last year, $17M in 2018. 2023 happens to be the low salary year on a 5-year contract based on the contract and the restructures. Over the last five years Hunter has averaged 0.79 sacks per game. That would rank him 6th for all time, tied with Lawrence Taylor. That's elite. I'm not doubting production from several years ago, we all know his past. You said he "continues" to play at an elite level. 18th in sacks last year. Only played seven games in 2021. Not elite.

David F. -> RE: General Vikes Talk (4/18/2023 1:50:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen quote: ORIGINAL: David F. quote: ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen quote: ORIGINAL: David F. the reason this years deal looks so bad is because the team has already paid almost all of the contract up front - this is what happens when teams are moving money around to create cap space.... I don't agree with that at all. The reason the deal looks so bad is because 5/72 was an INCREDIBLY team friendly contract back when it was signed. In the meantime the market has exploded and Hunter continues to play at an elite level, injuries notwithstanding. Almost $15M per wasn't peanuts back then. And he isn't playing at an "elite" level. Of course, ones definition of elite varies. Some (or one) may say the Vikings STs were elite. Perhaps lay off the word for a while [:D] 18th in sacks. Tied in range from 19-29 in TFL. He got $20M last year, $17M in 2018. 2023 happens to be the low salary year on a 5-year contract based on the contract and the restructures. Over the last five years Hunter has averaged 0.79 sacks per game. That would rank him 6th for all time, tied with Lawrence Taylor. That's elite. I'm not doubting production from several years ago, we all know his past. You said he "continues" to play at an elite level. 18th in sacks last year. Only played seven games in 2021. Not elite. It's hard to get a sack when a one-and-done defensive coordinator keeps telling you to drop back in coverage. Still got 10.5 though.

Bill Johanesen -> RE: General Vikes Talk (4/18/2023 2:10:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: David F. quote: ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen quote: ORIGINAL: David F. quote: ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen quote: ORIGINAL: David F. the reason this years deal looks so bad is because the team has already paid almost all of the contract up front - this is what happens when teams are moving money around to create cap space.... I don't agree with that at all. The reason the deal looks so bad is because 5/72 was an INCREDIBLY team friendly contract back when it was signed. In the meantime the market has exploded and Hunter continues to play at an elite level, injuries notwithstanding. Almost $15M per wasn't peanuts back then. And he isn't playing at an "elite" level. Of course, ones definition of elite varies. Some (or one) may say the Vikings STs were elite. Perhaps lay off the word for a while [:D] 18th in sacks. Tied in range from 19-29 in TFL. He got $20M last year, $17M in 2018. 2023 happens to be the low salary year on a 5-year contract based on the contract and the restructures. Over the last five years Hunter has averaged 0.79 sacks per game. That would rank him 6th for all time, tied with Lawrence Taylor. That's elite. I'm not doubting production from several years ago, we all know his past. You said he "continues" to play at an elite level. 18th in sacks last year. Only played seven games in 2021. Not elite. It's hard to get a sack when a one-and-done defensive coordinator keeps telling you to drop back in coverage. Still got 10.5 though. Most players can rattle off reasons/excuses for not getting better numbers (faced double-teams, chips, schemes, etc). But yeah 10.5 is decent.

Phil Riewer -> RE: General Vikes Talk (4/18/2023 2:11:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: David Levine quote: ORIGINAL: ronhextall quote: ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer quote: ORIGINAL: Bill Jandro Hunter is our best defensive player. We already lost our 2nd best defensive player (Tomlinson) to FA and replaced him with a much lesser player (Lowry). Doubt any draft pick will be even close to what Hunter gives you and our defense was 31st last season. Flores system certainly should make us better but unless he can walk on water he will need at least a handful of decent players. Hunter is our best defensive player that has played 23 games out of the 50 the last 3 years....so odds are it will have some clauses but he will get paid. Agreed, the only reason I know Hunter is because I keep reading on here how great he is. Guy never plays. I wouldn't pay him any more or extend him at this point. BFD if he doesn't show up for offseason drills. If he wants another big payday he is going to have to show it on the field. I assume that will motivate him to have a big season. He played every game for 4 years. Suffered a bad injury that cost him most of 2 years and then played every game last year. They were 2 different injuries....Neck 2020 and Pec 2021.

Bill Johanesen -> RE: General Vikes Talk (4/18/2023 2:22:03 PM)
Hunter: - Used to be elite. Injuries put that in question. Now the 3-4 and various DCs put it in question because he's not at his (IMO) natural DE postion. - Teams routinely tear up contracts because the salary/cap in the final year or two is too high, so players should be able to as well by finding whatever leverage they can. - Not buying Hunter will play out his contract based on him being super honorable, and instead he and his agent will do what they think is fair and advantageous to them. Would it be better for both parties to part ways? Will he want to be around for the post-Cousins era, assuming it even pans out (QB and D are huge questions)? Can the team get a good return for him?

bstinger -> RE: General Vikes Talk (4/18/2023 6:22:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: David F. quote: ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen quote: ORIGINAL: David F. the reason this years deal looks so bad is because the team has already paid almost all of the contract up front - this is what happens when teams are moving money around to create cap space.... I don't agree with that at all. The reason the deal looks so bad is because 5/72 was an INCREDIBLY team friendly contract back when it was signed. In the meantime the market has exploded and Hunter continues to play at an elite level, injuries notwithstanding. Almost $15M per wasn't peanuts back then. And he isn't playing at an "elite" level. Of course, ones definition of elite varies. Some (or one) may say the Vikings STs were elite. Perhaps lay off the word for a while [:D] 18th in sacks. Tied in range from 19-29 in TFL. He got $20M last year, $17M in 2018. 2023 happens to be the low salary year on a 5-year contract based on the contract and the restructures. Over the last five years Hunter has averaged 0.79 sacks per game. That would rank him 6th for all time, tied with Lawrence Taylor. That's elite. Where does he rank in sacks per season counting the seasons he didn't play? The contract is per season, not per game played, let's not cherry pick the stats.

David F. -> RE: General Vikes Talk (4/18/2023 6:52:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bstinger quote: ORIGINAL: David F. quote: ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen quote: ORIGINAL: David F. the reason this years deal looks so bad is because the team has already paid almost all of the contract up front - this is what happens when teams are moving money around to create cap space.... I don't agree with that at all. The reason the deal looks so bad is because 5/72 was an INCREDIBLY team friendly contract back when it was signed. In the meantime the market has exploded and Hunter continues to play at an elite level, injuries notwithstanding. Almost $15M per wasn't peanuts back then. And he isn't playing at an "elite" level. Of course, ones definition of elite varies. Some (or one) may say the Vikings STs were elite. Perhaps lay off the word for a while [:D] 18th in sacks. Tied in range from 19-29 in TFL. He got $20M last year, $17M in 2018. 2023 happens to be the low salary year on a 5-year contract based on the contract and the restructures. Over the last five years Hunter has averaged 0.79 sacks per game. That would rank him 6th for all time, tied with Lawrence Taylor. That's elite. Where does he rank in sacks per season counting the seasons he didn't play? The contract is per season, not per game played, let's not cherry pick the stats. I'm only in charge of looking up the stats I want to post. I would assume the number would be lower if we added his games missed due to injury to his sacks per season. <sarcasm there> I don't think I'm trying to "trick" anyone here. When he plays he's awesome and is the best player on our defense. Do we just assume he'll be injured from now on? That doesn't seem fair. That said, I don't really care all that much. If I could get a 2024 1st rounder for him (which should be doable per Bradley Chubb trade - see my earlier post) I'd do it in a heartbeat and go after Caleb Williams.

ratoppenheimer -> RE: General Vikes Talk (4/18/2023 7:18:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen quote: ORIGINAL: ratoppenheimer quote: ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen quote: ORIGINAL: ratoppenheimer . . “Vikings DE Danielle Hunter is not expected to attend the start of Minnesota’s voluntary offseason program, per sources. The absence is likely due to his contract — he’s set to make $4.9M in the last year of his deal, well below market for a three-time Pro Bowler.” You have doubled down on Hunter being honorable and honoring his contract. If that was the case, he wouldn't be absent for the start of the offseason program due to his contract (if the "likely" reason is accurate). it's not part of his contract...and it's 3.5 months before training camp - let's give the guy some space.... You were the one that posted it... which kicked off the issue here. yes, but I do think it's too early to understand what's at play here...it's malleable...i think that it's very possible that we trade danielle hunter.... I've always been a big fan of hunter, and i do believe that he's a very honorable person...he's always been respectful, careful what he says, and he doesn't say much...he lets his on-field play do the communicating....

bstinger -> RE: General Vikes Talk (4/18/2023 7:51:49 PM)
I don't have a problem giving Hunter a raise from what his current contract his, but I'm not extending him for multiple years at top dollar if that's what he's expecting. I'm paying for likely future performance, not past, and he's close to the age where pass rushers start to decline. Two main reasons are he's 29 and he's better suited to being a DE in a 4-3. If we're going predominantly 3-4 again I do not like him as a LB. He can't cover. He needs to rush only. Both he and Z are disgruntled with their contracts, but a least Z is a better fit at 3-4 OLB. Hunter probably has more trade value, so I'd look to deal him. Add a little sweetener to Z's deal and try to draft a stud Edge.

ratoppenheimer -> RE: General Vikes Talk (4/18/2023 8:04:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bstinger I don't have a problem giving Hunter a raise from what his current contract his, but I'm not extending him for multiple years at top dollar if that's what he's expecting. I'm paying for likely future performance, not past, and he's close to the age where pass rushers start to decline. Two main reasons are he's 29 and he's better suited to being a DE in a 4-3. If we're going predominantly 3-4 again I do not like him as a LB. He can't cover. He needs to rush only. Both he and Z are disgruntled with their contracts, but a least Z is a better fit at 3-4 OLB. Hunter probably has more trade value, so I'd look to deal him. Add a little sweetener to Z's deal and try to draft a stud Edge. does hunter fit our scheme? - good question..... trade him and bring in Justin Houston at $2.5mm/yr on a one-year deal....

Mark Anderson -> RE: General Vikes Talk (4/19/2023 9:15:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ratoppenheimer quote: ORIGINAL: bstinger I don't have a problem giving Hunter a raise from what his current contract his, but I'm not extending him for multiple years at top dollar if that's what he's expecting. I'm paying for likely future performance, not past, and he's close to the age where pass rushers start to decline. Two main reasons are he's 29 and he's better suited to being a DE in a 4-3. If we're going predominantly 3-4 again I do not like him as a LB. He can't cover. He needs to rush only. Both he and Z are disgruntled with their contracts, but a least Z is a better fit at 3-4 OLB. Hunter probably has more trade value, so I'd look to deal him. Add a little sweetener to Z's deal and try to draft a stud Edge. does hunter fit our scheme? - good question..... trade him and bring in Justin Houston at $2.5mm/yr on a one-year deal.... If we trade Hunter, we lose cap space. Dalvin would also have to be traded/released to stay in the black(capwise).

ratoppenheimer -> RE: General Vikes Talk (4/19/2023 3:03:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mark Anderson quote: ORIGINAL: ratoppenheimer quote: ORIGINAL: bstinger I don't have a problem giving Hunter a raise from what his current contract his, but I'm not extending him for multiple years at top dollar if that's what he's expecting. I'm paying for likely future performance, not past, and he's close to the age where pass rushers start to decline. Two main reasons are he's 29 and he's better suited to being a DE in a 4-3. If we're going predominantly 3-4 again I do not like him as a LB. He can't cover. He needs to rush only. Both he and Z are disgruntled with their contracts, but a least Z is a better fit at 3-4 OLB. Hunter probably has more trade value, so I'd look to deal him. Add a little sweetener to Z's deal and try to draft a stud Edge. does hunter fit our scheme? - good question..... trade him and bring in Justin Houston at $2.5mm/yr on a one-year deal.... If we trade Hunter, we lose cap space. Dalvin would also have to be traded/released to stay in the black(capwise). most talking heads believe that cook will not be a viking come draft day.... .

TJSweens -> RE: General Vikes Talk (4/19/2023 5:27:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ratoppenheimer quote: ORIGINAL: Mark Anderson quote: ORIGINAL: ratoppenheimer quote: ORIGINAL: bstinger I don't have a problem giving Hunter a raise from what his current contract his, but I'm not extending him for multiple years at top dollar if that's what he's expecting. I'm paying for likely future performance, not past, and he's close to the age where pass rushers start to decline. Two main reasons are he's 29 and he's better suited to being a DE in a 4-3. If we're going predominantly 3-4 again I do not like him as a LB. He can't cover. He needs to rush only. Both he and Z are disgruntled with their contracts, but a least Z is a better fit at 3-4 OLB. Hunter probably has more trade value, so I'd look to deal him. Add a little sweetener to Z's deal and try to draft a stud Edge. does hunter fit our scheme? - good question..... trade him and bring in Justin Houston at $2.5mm/yr on a one-year deal.... If we trade Hunter, we lose cap space. Dalvin would also have to be traded/released to stay in the black(capwise). most talking heads believe that cook will not be a viking come draft day.... The consensus seems to be that will try to deal him for pick(s). If they can't do that they will release him after June 1.

Page: << < prev 303 304 [305] 306 307 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode