RE: General Vikes Talk

RE: General Vikes Talk (Full Version)

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

Message

Phil Riewer -> RE: General Vikes Talk (3/5/2024 2:04:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen quote: ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer You know a top 10 pick will make more than Fields in 2024. Lance is 7 then 22; Fields is 4 then 25. If you go top 3 they make 41 million over 4 years with a around a 24 million dollar signing bonus. 11th pick would be about half that $$$. So if you really are worried about money why trade up to top 3? Who is advocating trading up to top 3? I specifically stated do it if there was an Elway or Manning but there isn't. My response wasn't directed at you specifically. There are many advocating moving up. Anyone who says they are saving money by going from Kirk to a top 3 pick at QB needs to review their cheat cards......KC won because they picked Mahomes at 11 which is half the cost on rookie contracts of a top 3.

David Levine -> RE: General Vikes Talk (3/5/2024 2:06:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer You know a top 10 pick will make more than Fields in 2024. Lance is 7 then 22; Fields is 4 then 25. If you go top 3 they make 41 million over 4 years with around a 24 million dollar signing bonus. 11th pick would be about half that $$$. So if you really are worried about money why trade up to top 3? Not sure when you have to pick up their option but I would prefer either over Wilson. Upside. Why spend the money on guys who have shown to not be good?

TJSweens -> RE: General Vikes Talk (3/5/2024 2:09:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: David Levine quote: ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen If there was an Elway or Manning in the draft, consider trading 3+ first rounders. This draft? Nope. Besides, Chi, Wash, and NE are going QB. Chi certainly isn't trading with us. We're in the running for McCarthy, Penix, or Nix. If we stay at 11, there is a solid chance that Penix and Nix are our only options. If we want a QB, we should trade up and get a guy. Settling for whoever falls to us is proven loser strategy for this team.

David Levine -> RE: General Vikes Talk (3/5/2024 2:09:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer quote: ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen quote: ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer You know a top 10 pick will make more than Fields in 2024. Lance is 7 then 22; Fields is 4 then 25. If you go top 3 they make 41 million over 4 years with a around a 24 million dollar signing bonus. 11th pick would be about half that $$$. So if you really are worried about money why trade up to top 3? Who is advocating trading up to top 3? I specifically stated do it if there was an Elway or Manning but there isn't. My response wasn't directed at you specifically. There are many advocating moving up. Anyone who says they are saving money by going from Kirk to a top 3 pick at QB needs to review their cheat cards......KC won because they picked Mahomes at 11 which is half the cost on rookie contracts of a top 3. What?? The #1 overall pick will cost the same over the next 4 years combined as Kirk will cost just this year. That's a HUGE savings.

Mark Anderson -> RE: General Vikes Talk (3/5/2024 2:12:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen If there was an Elway or Manning in the draft, consider trading 3+ first rounders. This draft? Nope. Besides, Chi, Wash, and NE are going QB. Chi certainly isn't trading with us. We're in the running for McCarthy, Penix, or Nix. If Maye or Daniels gets to Chargers pick, I go for it.

Bill Johanesen -> RE: General Vikes Talk (3/5/2024 2:18:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer quote: ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen quote: ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer You know a top 10 pick will make more than Fields in 2024. Lance is 7 then 22; Fields is 4 then 25. If you go top 3 they make 41 million over 4 years with a around a 24 million dollar signing bonus. 11th pick would be about half that $$$. So if you really are worried about money why trade up to top 3? Who is advocating trading up to top 3? I specifically stated do it if there was an Elway or Manning but there isn't. My response wasn't directed at you specifically. There are many advocating moving up. Anyone who says they are saving money by going from Kirk to a top 3 pick at QB needs to review their cheat cards......KC won because they picked Mahomes at 11 which is half the cost on rookie contracts of a top 3. Having a moment? You just said a top rookie will cost $41 million over 4 years (Spotrac says $35-38 million). Cousins over 4 years is easily TRIPLE that, with a discount for age. You best review your "cheat cards".

Phil Riewer -> RE: General Vikes Talk (3/5/2024 2:18:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: David Levine quote: ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer quote: ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen quote: ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer You know a top 10 pick will make more than Fields in 2024. Lance is 7 then 22; Fields is 4 then 25. If you go top 3 they make 41 million over 4 years with a around a 24 million dollar signing bonus. 11th pick would be about half that $$$. So if you really are worried about money why trade up to top 3? Who is advocating trading up to top 3? I specifically stated do it if there was an Elway or Manning but there isn't. My response wasn't directed at you specifically. There are many advocating moving up. Anyone who says they are saving money by going from Kirk to a top 3 pick at QB needs to review their cheat cards......KC won because they picked Mahomes at 11 which is half the cost on rookie contracts of a top 3. What?? The #1 overall pick will cost the same over the next 4 years combined as Kirk will cost just this year. That's a HUGE savings. What does draft capital and the contract cost? I am directly responding to the ones stating that there is a big savings money wise. You trade up and use draft picks instead of signing a FA.....it is still very costly. It can't be the rational for moving on from Kirk ($$$) it has to be to move on and get younger. Fields, Lance, etc. fit that bill.

Jeff Jesser -> RE: General Vikes Talk (3/5/2024 2:19:08 PM)
The thing with Fields is we'd get a cheap year for KOC (and now McNown) to work with him to see what his real ceiling is. Chicago is such a dumpster fire for QB's it's hard to judge him. I'm not at all saying that's my favorite choice but I would take that chance over KC's for 2 guaranteed years at 40+ each. Or whatever outrages demands he's gonna attempt.

David Levine -> RE: General Vikes Talk (3/5/2024 2:22:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jeff Jesser The thing with Fields is we'd get a cheap year for KOC (and now McNown) to work with him to see what his real ceiling is. Chicago is such a dumpster fire for QB's it's hard to judge him. I'm not at all saying that's my favorite choice but I would take that chance over KC's for 2 guaranteed years at 40+ each. Or whatever outrages demands he's gonna attempt. You almost have to pick up (and believe he's worth) his 5th year option though. If you don't, you're saying you don't have faith he's your guy - so you're just wasting another year of the franchise.

Bill Johanesen -> RE: General Vikes Talk (3/5/2024 2:23:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TJSweens quote: ORIGINAL: David Levine quote: ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen If there was an Elway or Manning in the draft, consider trading 3+ first rounders. This draft? Nope. Besides, Chi, Wash, and NE are going QB. Chi certainly isn't trading with us. We're in the running for McCarthy, Penix, or Nix. If we stay at 11, there is a solid chance that Penix and Nix are our only options. If we want a QB, we should trade up and get a guy. Settling for whoever falls to us is proven loser strategy for this team. Presuming the big 3 go 1-2-3 because those teams are not trading out of their positions, how high does one go for the second tier? Granted, a team could have their sights set on what they think is a sure-fire option but in general at what point is trading up a panic move?

Phil Riewer -> RE: General Vikes Talk (3/5/2024 2:23:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: David Levine quote: ORIGINAL: Jeff Jesser The thing with Fields is we'd get a cheap year for KOC (and now McNown) to work with him to see what his real ceiling is. Chicago is such a dumpster fire for QB's it's hard to judge him. I'm not at all saying that's my favorite choice but I would take that chance over KC's for 2 guaranteed years at 40+ each. Or whatever outrages demands he's gonna attempt. You almost have to pick up (and believe he's worth) his 5th year option though. If you don't, you're saying you don't have faith he's your guy - so you're just wasting another year of the franchise. 2/29 Million. Still saving a ton for 2 years. Again if you are justifying the move is to save money(you are saving around 50 million compared to what Kirk is getting). Fields and Lance can end up being better than the top 4 options if put in our dynamic offense. Gives you 2 years to build around them...

Trekgeekscott -> RE: General Vikes Talk (3/5/2024 2:31:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer quote: ORIGINAL: David Levine quote: ORIGINAL: Jeff Jesser The thing with Fields is we'd get a cheap year for KOC (and now McNown) to work with him to see what his real ceiling is. Chicago is such a dumpster fire for QB's it's hard to judge him. I'm not at all saying that's my favorite choice but I would take that chance over KC's for 2 guaranteed years at 40+ each. Or whatever outrages demands he's gonna attempt. You almost have to pick up (and believe he's worth) his 5th year option though. If you don't, you're saying you don't have faith he's your guy - so you're just wasting another year of the franchise. 2/29 Million. Still saving a ton for 2 years. Again if you are justifying the move is to save money(you are saving around 50 million compared to what Kirk is getting). Fields and Lance can end up being better than the top 4 options if put in our dynamic offense. Gives you 2 years to build around them... screw Fields. There is a reason the Bears are giving up on him. Same with Trey Lance. The 49ers gave up very quickly on him. There is a reason. DRAFT A QB. Sign a bridge QB like Russell Wilson or Sam Darnold until Rookie can take the reigns. Don't waste your time on Fields or Lance

Bill Johanesen -> RE: General Vikes Talk (3/5/2024 2:34:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer quote: ORIGINAL: David Levine quote: ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer quote: ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen quote: ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer You know a top 10 pick will make more than Fields in 2024. Lance is 7 then 22; Fields is 4 then 25. If you go top 3 they make 41 million over 4 years with a around a 24 million dollar signing bonus. 11th pick would be about half that $$$. So if you really are worried about money why trade up to top 3? Who is advocating trading up to top 3? I specifically stated do it if there was an Elway or Manning but there isn't. My response wasn't directed at you specifically. There are many advocating moving up. Anyone who says they are saving money by going from Kirk to a top 3 pick at QB needs to review their cheat cards......KC won because they picked Mahomes at 11 which is half the cost on rookie contracts of a top 3. What?? The #1 overall pick will cost the same over the next 4 years combined as Kirk will cost just this year. That's a HUGE savings. What does draft capital and the contract cost? I am directly responding to the ones stating that there is a big savings money wise. You trade up and use draft picks instead of signing a FA.....it is still very costly. It can't be the rational for moving on from Kirk ($$$) it has to be to move on and get younger. Fields, Lance, etc. fit that bill. You are the one who tossed out a top 3 QB. You were then fact-checked regarding your assertion about "saving money" with this top 3 QB you created vs. Cousins. AND you compared the cost of FOUR years of a top 3 QB vs just TWO years of Fields/Lance.

Lars -> RE: General Vikes Talk (3/5/2024 2:36:09 PM)
I have seen enough film on Fields. No thanks

Phil Riewer -> RE: General Vikes Talk (3/5/2024 2:37:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen quote: ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer quote: ORIGINAL: David Levine quote: ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer quote: ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen quote: ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer You know a top 10 pick will make more than Fields in 2024. Lance is 7 then 22; Fields is 4 then 25. If you go top 3 they make 41 million over 4 years with a around a 24 million dollar signing bonus. 11th pick would be about half that $$$. So if you really are worried about money why trade up to top 3? Who is advocating trading up to top 3? I specifically stated do it if there was an Elway or Manning but there isn't. My response wasn't directed at you specifically. There are many advocating moving up. Anyone who says they are saving money by going from Kirk to a top 3 pick at QB needs to review their cheat cards......KC won because they picked Mahomes at 11 which is half the cost on rookie contracts of a top 3. What?? The #1 overall pick will cost the same over the next 4 years combined as Kirk will cost just this year. That's a HUGE savings. What does draft capital and the contract cost? I am directly responding to the ones stating that there is a big savings money wise. You trade up and use draft picks instead of signing a FA.....it is still very costly. It can't be the rational for moving on from Kirk ($$$) it has to be to move on and get younger. Fields, Lance, etc. fit that bill. You are the one who tossed out a top 3 QB. You were then fact-checked regarding your assertion about "saving money" with this top 3 QB you created vs. Cousins. AND you compared the cost of FOUR years of a top 3 QB vs just TWO years of Fields/Lance. Yearly cap hits are already projected/slotted for the Bears #1 Pick and our #11 pick. Easy to compare. 2023 and 2024.

Bill Johanesen -> RE: General Vikes Talk (3/5/2024 2:37:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer quote: ORIGINAL: David Levine quote: ORIGINAL: Jeff Jesser The thing with Fields is we'd get a cheap year for KOC (and now McNown) to work with him to see what his real ceiling is. Chicago is such a dumpster fire for QB's it's hard to judge him. I'm not at all saying that's my favorite choice but I would take that chance over KC's for 2 guaranteed years at 40+ each. Or whatever outrages demands he's gonna attempt. You almost have to pick up (and believe he's worth) his 5th year option though. If you don't, you're saying you don't have faith he's your guy - so you're just wasting another year of the franchise. 2/29 Million. Still saving a ton for 2 years. Again if you are justifying the move is to save money(you are saving around 50 million compared to what Kirk is getting). Fields and Lance can end up being better than the top 4 options if put in our dynamic offense. Gives you 2 years to build around them... Wrong. Try comparing apples to apples on your two-year kick. Stroud, #2 overall last year, has a total cap hit of $15 million for his first two years. So a #2 is about HALF the cost over the two years you keep throwing out. Let's call it "a ton" of savings. And saying Fields and Lance can be better than the rookies is merely unsubstantiated innuendo. They can just as easily be worse. Nobody is beating the door down to get them... absent the Cowboys trading a 5th for Lance. A 5th, LOL.

Bill Johanesen -> RE: General Vikes Talk (3/5/2024 2:41:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer quote: ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen quote: ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer quote: ORIGINAL: David Levine quote: ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer quote: ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen quote: ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer You know a top 10 pick will make more than Fields in 2024. Lance is 7 then 22; Fields is 4 then 25. If you go top 3 they make 41 million over 4 years with a around a 24 million dollar signing bonus. 11th pick would be about half that $$$. So if you really are worried about money why trade up to top 3? Who is advocating trading up to top 3? I specifically stated do it if there was an Elway or Manning but there isn't. My response wasn't directed at you specifically. There are many advocating moving up. Anyone who says they are saving money by going from Kirk to a top 3 pick at QB needs to review their cheat cards......KC won because they picked Mahomes at 11 which is half the cost on rookie contracts of a top 3. What?? The #1 overall pick will cost the same over the next 4 years combined as Kirk will cost just this year. That's a HUGE savings. What does draft capital and the contract cost? I am directly responding to the ones stating that there is a big savings money wise. You trade up and use draft picks instead of signing a FA.....it is still very costly. It can't be the rational for moving on from Kirk ($$$) it has to be to move on and get younger. Fields, Lance, etc. fit that bill. You are the one who tossed out a top 3 QB. You were then fact-checked regarding your assertion about "saving money" with this top 3 QB you created vs. Cousins. AND you compared the cost of FOUR years of a top 3 QB vs just TWO years of Fields/Lance. Yearly cap hits are already projected/slotted for the Bears #1 Pick and our #11 pick. Easy to compare. 2023 and 2024. Again, the comparo you made was the cost of FOUR years of a top 3 QB vs just TWO years of Fields/Lance. #11 nor 2023 vs 2024 have nothing to do with what you posted.

Bill Johanesen -> RE: General Vikes Talk (3/5/2024 2:55:58 PM)
Looks 5th year options are all the rage! - Break The Bank $20 million - Lance/Fields $22 million - Darrisaw $16 million Spend... spend! Then have Brzez backload what you spent! Pfff... flush with cap!

David Levine -> RE: General Vikes Talk (3/5/2024 3:26:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer quote: ORIGINAL: David Levine quote: ORIGINAL: Jeff Jesser The thing with Fields is we'd get a cheap year for KOC (and now McNown) to work with him to see what his real ceiling is. Chicago is such a dumpster fire for QB's it's hard to judge him. I'm not at all saying that's my favorite choice but I would take that chance over KC's for 2 guaranteed years at 40+ each. Or whatever outrages demands he's gonna attempt. You almost have to pick up (and believe he's worth) his 5th year option though. If you don't, you're saying you don't have faith he's your guy - so you're just wasting another year of the franchise. 2/29 Million. Still saving a ton for 2 years. Again if you are justifying the move is to save money(you are saving around 50 million compared to what Kirk is getting). Fields and Lance can end up being better than the top 4 options if put in our dynamic offense. Gives you 2 years to build around them... And most likely sets you back 2 years, so we're having this same conversation in 2026...

Tom Sykes -> RE: General Vikes Talk (3/5/2024 3:43:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: David Levine quote: ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer quote: ORIGINAL: David Levine quote: ORIGINAL: Jeff Jesser The thing with Fields is we'd get a cheap year for KOC (and now McNown) to work with him to see what his real ceiling is. Chicago is such a dumpster fire for QB's it's hard to judge him. I'm not at all saying that's my favorite choice but I would take that chance over KC's for 2 guaranteed years at 40+ each. Or whatever outrages demands he's gonna attempt. You almost have to pick up (and believe he's worth) his 5th year option though. If you don't, you're saying you don't have faith he's your guy - so you're just wasting another year of the franchise. 2/29 Million. Still saving a ton for 2 years. Again if you are justifying the move is to save money(you are saving around 50 million compared to what Kirk is getting). Fields and Lance can end up being better than the top 4 options if put in our dynamic offense. Gives you 2 years to build around them... And most likely sets you back 2 years, so we're having this same conversation in 2026... But with a different GM / HC. So there’s that …

Phil Riewer -> RE: General Vikes Talk (3/5/2024 3:47:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: David Levine quote: ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer quote: ORIGINAL: David Levine quote: ORIGINAL: Jeff Jesser The thing with Fields is we'd get a cheap year for KOC (and now McNown) to work with him to see what his real ceiling is. Chicago is such a dumpster fire for QB's it's hard to judge him. I'm not at all saying that's my favorite choice but I would take that chance over KC's for 2 guaranteed years at 40+ each. Or whatever outrages demands he's gonna attempt. You almost have to pick up (and believe he's worth) his 5th year option though. If you don't, you're saying you don't have faith he's your guy - so you're just wasting another year of the franchise. 2/29 Million. Still saving a ton for 2 years. Again if you are justifying the move is to save money(you are saving around 50 million compared to what Kirk is getting). Fields and Lance can end up being better than the top 4 options if put in our dynamic offense. Gives you 2 years to build around them... And most likely sets you back 2 years, so we're having this same conversation in 2026... Same thing could happen with a QB you draft....

Mark C. Johnson -> RE: General Vikes Talk (3/5/2024 3:54:20 PM)
I have a good feeling about Penix despite the injury issues. It's a risk, but he's got a great arm and he has the one thing that I covet most in a QB...he's accurate.

Mark Anderson -> RE: General Vikes Talk (3/5/2024 3:54:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen Looks 5th year options are all the rage! - Break The Bank $20 million - Lance/Fields $22 million - Darrisaw $16 million Spend... spend! Then have Brzez backload what you spent! Pfff... flush with cap! Jefferson's 5th year option figure is already counted to where we are right now. Cap number will probably be reduced if we extend him. Yeah, basically it is a one year tryout for Lance/Fields and then we have to pony up or cut bait. That would be worth a 4th rounder imo. Also draft QB at #11 or trade back(Penix) Worry about Darrisaw next year.

Mark C. Johnson -> RE: General Vikes Talk (3/5/2024 3:56:06 PM)
Agreed. Fields isn't the answer. If he was, Chicago would keep him and I've heard that there isn't much of a trade market for him which speaks volumes. More importantly, he isn't an accurate passer. That's a deal killer right there.

Mark Anderson -> RE: General Vikes Talk (3/5/2024 3:56:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mark C. Johnson I have a good feeling about Penix despite the injury issues. It's a risk, but he's got a great arm and he has the one thing that I covet most in a QB...he's accurate. Where do you think his draft range is? #20 to #40??

Page: << < prev 332 333 [334] 335 336 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode