2019 Season General Thread (News, Notes, Interviews, etc)

[Maelstrom88]

So I've been thinking lately that if there is ever a quarterback in the first round who has what is perceived to be a great chance to be a franchise quarterback you should always draft that guy. Yes, this would hold true even if you already had a franchise guy. For starters, it would give you big time negotiating power with a guy like Kirk Cousins who is not necessarily franchise caliber but is pretty good. You don't have to get hosed because you always have an option. Also, I think the way to do it is to make sure that quarterback looks good. You don't want to throw him in and have him look like a bust because then it demolishes his trade value. A good idea in my opinion would be to always draft highly thought of quarterbacks if they're on the board when you pick and then you have an honest open competition every camp and preseason. Then say you spent a first-round pick on a guy and he looks great for you in the preseason then a team offers to give you two second-round picks to trade for him. I think two second-round picks trading off with one first round pick is a pretty good deal for the team. That's two starters or at least it can be. Then you also never have to face that you passed up on an Aaron Rodgers for a much lesser player at a need position. That's why if Drew Lock somehow manages to make it to the 18th pick I think they should take him.

[YikesVikes]

So I've been thinking lately that if there is ever a quarterback in the first round who has what is perceived to be a great chance to be a franchise quarterback you should always draft that guy. Yes, this would hold true even if you already had a franchise guy. For starters, it would give you big time negotiating power with a guy like Kirk Cousins who is not necessarily franchise caliber but it's pretty good. You don't have to get hosed because you always have an option. Also, I think the way to do it is to make sure that quarterback looks good. You don't want to throw him in and have him look like a bust because then it demolishes his trade value. A good idea in my opinion would be to always draft highly thought of quarterbacks if they're on the board when you pick and then you have an honest open competition every camp and preseason. Then say you spent a first-round pick on a guy and he looks great for you in the preseason then a team offers to give you two second-round picks to trade for him. I think two second-round picks trading off with one first round pick is a pretty good deal for the team. That's two starters or at least it can be. Then you also never have to face that you passed up on an Aaron Rodgers for a much lesser player at a need position. That's why I've Drew Lock somehow manages to make it to the 18th pick I think they should take him.

Horrible idea. Why draft a guy to risk him losing value. If you want two 2nd rounder, trade your First rounder for them. Most teams will give up two 2nds for a an extra first. Less teams will give up two 2nds for a QB that has been riding the pine for 2 years. Remember potential is the driving point during the draft. After the draft, a players value goes down tremendously.

[PacificNorseWest]

Eh...i don't think when you have a team built to win now and have a QB that you think is a franchise guy, that that is the move to make.

Besides, Drew Lock definitely is not that guy, in my opinion.

[Maelstrom88]

So I've been thinking lately that if there is ever a quarterback in the first round who has what is perceived to be a great chance to be a franchise quarterback you should always draft that guy. Yes, this would hold true even if you already had a franchise guy. For starters, it would give you big time negotiating power with a guy like Kirk Cousins who is not necessarily franchise caliber but it's pretty good. You don't have to get hosed because you always have an option. Also, I think the way to do it is to make sure that quarterback looks good. You don't want to throw him in and have him look like a bust because then it demolishes his trade value. A good idea in my opinion would be to always draft highly thought of quarterbacks if they're on the board when you pick and then you have an honest open competition every camp and preseason. Then say you spent a first-round pick on a guy and he looks great for you in the preseason then a team offers to give you two second-round picks to trade for him. I think two second-round picks trading off with one first round pick is a pretty good deal for the team. That's two starters or at least it can be. Then you also never have to face that you passed up on an Aaron Rodgers for a much lesser player at a need position. That's why I've Drew Lock somehow manages to make it to the 18th pick I think they should take him.

Horrible idea. Why draft a guy to risk him losing value. If you want two 2nd rounder, trade your First rounder for them. Most teams will give up two 2nds for a an extra first. Less teams will give up two 2nds for a QB that has been riding the pine for 2 years. Remember potential is the driving point during the draft. After the draft, a players value goes down tremendously.

Yeah well I only play GM on the internet. I would probably trade my first-rounder for two second-rounders every year. I don't think there is that huge of a difference between players taken in round one vs. two. Just depends on coaching, fit, and effort. Maybe you are better off taking a Qb later than round one with that plan. As always, it depends on whether the guy making the picks thinks the QB is a franchise caliber talent or not. As a side note: Don't you think New England should have received more than a two for Jimmy G?

[Maelstrom88]

Eh...i don't think when you have a team built to win now and have a QB that you think is a franchise guy, that that is the move to make.

Besides, Drew Lock definitely is not that guy, in my opinion.

I'm not sold on Lock either. I need to research a lot more on him. I think at 18 he might be worth rolling the dice pn though. Still, I think if you were to draft that many QBs the math says you probably would end up with an elite talent. Remember, you're only drafting guys that you think are likely to develop into franchise caliber. You won't have a talent like that fall to you very often so if you are a good gm you should be able to use the first rounders where you don't take a QB in addition to all your other picks and free agency to build a good team around whatever QB wins out.

[halfgiz]

I put my stock in TN thinking Kline wasnt good, not PFF.

Belichik cut Kline also.
Now we're paying Kline 5.25 M a year. To me that is a little rich.

[halfgiz]

Chris Tomasson
@christomasson
13m
About a half dozen teams expressed interest in signing Marcus Sherels. The #Vikings wanted to bring him back but he's the third free agent they've had since last week to move on to New Orleans. Previously, Latavius Murray and Nick Easton.

[YikesVikes]

Horrible idea. Why draft a guy to risk him losing value. If you want two 2nd rounder, trade your First rounder for them. Most teams will give up two 2nds for a an extra first. Less teams will give up two 2nds for a QB that has been riding the pine for 2 years. Remember potential is the driving point during the draft. After the draft, a players value goes down tremendously.

Yeah well I only play GM on the internet. I would probably trade my first-rounder for two second-rounders every year. I don't think there is that huge of a difference between players taken in round one vs. two. Just depends on coaching, fit, and effort. Maybe you are better off taking a Qb later than round one with that plan. As always, it depends on whether the guy making the picks thinks the QB is a franchise caliber talent or not. As a side note: Don't you think New England should have received more than a two for Jimmy G?

Nope a two was what they should have gotten. The issue with Jimmy G was contract. Had he had more years on his deal, he would have gotten more. However, when a team has to sign a guy after trading him, it is a risk that they won't get a contract done. To mitigate this risk, the team with player's rights lowers their asking price or risk losing the player at the end of the season.

[Maelstrom88]

Yeah well I only play GM on the internet. I would probably trade my first-rounder for two second-rounders every year. I don't think there is that huge of a difference between players taken in round one vs. two. Just depends on coaching, fit, and effort. Maybe you are better off taking a Qb later than round one with that plan. As always, it depends on whether the guy making the picks thinks the QB is a franchise caliber talent or not. As a side note: Don't you think New England should have received more than a two for Jimmy G?

Nope a two was what they should have gotten. The issue with Jimmy G was contract. Had he had more years on his deal, he would have gotten more. However, when a team has to sign a guy after trading him, it is a risk that they won't get a contract done. To mitigate this risk, the team with player's rights lowers their asking price or risk losing the player at the end of the season.

Good point

[Bowhunting Viking]

Chris Tomasson
@christomasson
13m
About a half dozen teams expressed interest in signing Marcus Sherels. The #Vikings wanted to bring him back but he's the third free agent they've had since last week to move on to New Orleans. Previously, Latavius Murray and Nick Easton.

I wanted to puke when I saw this one. Even though they aren't a divisional foe, there isn't a team I hate more than the Saints. As long as Big Crying Balloon Headed I Want a Flag Thrown Baby Sean Peyton is part of the organization I will continue to feel that way. Never dreamed that in my lifetime I would hate a team more than the Cowgirls or the Pukers.. but I do

[YikesVikes]

Chris Tomasson
@christomasson
13m
About a half dozen teams expressed interest in signing Marcus Sherels. The #Vikings wanted to bring him back but he's the third free agent they've had since last week to move on to New Orleans. Previously, Latavius Murray and Nick Easton.

I wanted to puke when I saw this one. Even though they aren't a divisional foe, there isn't a team I hate more than the Saints. As long as Big Crying Balloon Headed I Want a Flag Thrown Baby Sean Peyton is part of the organization I will continue to feel that way. Never dreamed that in my lifetime I would hate a team more than the Cowgirls or the Pukers.. but I do

Feaux the Saints for life

[Bowhunting Viking]

I wanted to puke when I saw this one. Even though they aren't a divisional foe, there isn't a team I hate more than the Saints. As long as Big Crying Balloon Headed I Want a Flag Thrown Baby Sean Peyton is part of the organization I will continue to feel that way. Never dreamed that in my lifetime I would hate a team more than the Cowgirls or the Pukers.. but I do

Feaux the Saints for life

[PacificNorseWest]

Yeah, these Saints, man...Really getting on my nerves. Of non-divisional foes, them and Seattle are my enemies 1a and 1b.

Eh...i don't think when you have a team built to win now and have a QB that you think is a franchise guy, that that is the move to make.

Besides, Drew Lock definitely is not that guy, in my opinion.

I'm not sold on Lock either. I need to research a lot more on him. I think at 18 he might be worth rolling the dice pn though. Still, I think if you were to draft that many QBs the math says you probably would end up with an elite talent. Remember, you're only drafting guys that you think are likely to develop into franchise caliber. You won't have a talent like that fall to you very often so if you are a good gm you should be able to use the first rounders where you don't take a QB in addition to all your other picks and free agency to build a good team around whatever QB wins out.

In certain years, I may agree with you. That is, if I'm a GM and I really like a QB and he falls, I'd take him. I just don't feel like this would be one of those years. If the core of our team wasn't an aging group -- and I'm specifically thinking Minnesota's defense here -- I'd consider it as well. It's just that their window is shrinking. And I also don't think the return you'd get in year 1 or 2 from a rookie like that would be equal to Kirk...Maybe said QB turns out to be much better in the long run, but for right now, I'd take the 2 seasons that Kirk has left and go from there. If Kirk fails considerably next season though and it's appearing like he won't be re-signed when his contract is up and also assuming they address the Oline this draft, then I could see something like that happening in next years draft. Especially since it's a much deeper QB draft and a few guys as of today look like they could be pretty good. Same goes for the 2021 class. So, it might just work out for the Vikings, if that's what has to happen.

[S197]

Horrible idea. Why draft a guy to risk him losing value. If you want two 2nd rounder, trade your First rounder for them. Most teams will give up two 2nds for a an extra first. Less teams will give up two 2nds for a QB that has been riding the pine for 2 years. Remember potential is the driving point during the draft. After the draft, a players value goes down tremendously.

Yeah well I only play GM on the internet. I would probably trade my first-rounder for two second-rounders every year. I don't think there is that huge of a difference between players taken in round one vs. two. Just depends on coaching, fit, and effort. Maybe you are better off taking a Qb later than round one with that plan. As always, it depends on whether the guy making the picks thinks the QB is a franchise caliber talent or not. As a side note: Don't you think New England should have received more than a two for Jimmy G?

You also need to consider the contract length of 1st rounders. Having that extra year under a rookie contract can be big.

[PacificNorseWest]

With Sherels departing, who ya'll think is up for punt returner?

You think they put Hughes back there off of the knee injury? Zylstra? Beebe maybe?