What can the Vikings learn from the Chiefs?

[Maelstrom88]

I know they aren't a dynasty yet but I don't see how the Chiefs don't win multiple Super Bowls with Mahomes. So do you need a QB of that caliber to have a dynasty? Is that the most important aspect? I would argue that it is.

When you look back at the teams with the most staying power over many consecutive seasons that have been able to win multiple championships they always have great QBs in the modern era. Montana, Elway, Brady. Defensive teams have a more difficult time winning multiple Super Bowls it would seem. Bears, Bucs, Ravens, Seahawks, Broncos etc.

So the question to me is would you compare Kirk more favorably to Jimmy G or Mahomes? I think that's obvious. The Chiefs realized Alex Smith, as solid as he was, would never get them a championship. Not to say Kirk can't win one as I think he's definitely good enough. But can he win multiples? Can you build a team around him that could elevate him to a championship with how much you pay him?

All I'm really saying is they need to keep drafting them until they get that elite guy if they ever want a dynasty. And yes I'm sure many would be happy just to get one and I'd agree with that but at the same time dynasties are what are remembered and the real goal imo.

What other lessons do you think can be learned from the Chiefs?

[Maelstrom88]

Another potential lesson about the runningback position.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Vikeologist/ ... 2335424513

[StumpHunter]

I know they aren't a dynasty yet but I don't see how the Chiefs don't win multiple Super Bowls with Mahomes. So do you need a QB of that caliber to have a dynasty? Is that the most important aspect? I would argue that it is.

When you look back at the teams with the most staying power over many consecutive seasons that have been able to win multiple championships they always have great QBs in the modern era. Montana, Elway, Brady. Defensive teams have a more difficult time winning multiple Super Bowls it would seem. Bears, Bucs, Ravens, Seahawks, Broncos etc.

So the question to me is would you compare Kirk more favorably to Jimmy G or Mahomes? I think that's obvious. The Chiefs realized Alex Smith, as solid as he was, would never get them a championship. Not to say Kirk can't win one as I think he's definitely good enough. But can he win multiples? Can you build a team around him that could elevate him to a championship with how much you pay him?

All I'm really saying is they need to keep drafting them until they get that elite guy if they ever want a dynasty. And yes I'm sure many would be happy just to get one and I'd agree with that but at the same time dynasties are what are remembered and the real goal imo.

What other lessons do you think can be learned from the Chiefs?

The key to them winning it all was Mahomes. How do you get the next one of those?

If you follow the Chiefs example there, you sign a solid QB to a reasonable and tradeable contract and stick with him until your guy enters the draft and falls to a spot where you can draft him.

It involves not investing so much into a QB who likely is never going to get you to the SB that you can't stomach moving on from him. It also involves a willingness to take a shot at greatness in the draft and having a QB evaluator on the staff who was able to identify that greatness.

So how do we get there?

Step #1: Fire Rick.

Step #2: Find a GM who doesn't suck at finding QB talent in the draft.

Step #3: Do not extend Cousins for the amount of money and commitment he is going to want from this team.

Step 1 and 2 can be replaced with hiring of an OC (perhaps this is Kubiak) who Rick will listen too about the QB spot. There is no getting around Step #3.

[Fat Stupid Loser]

I know they aren't a dynasty yet but I don't see how the Chiefs don't win multiple Super Bowls with Mahomes. So do you need a QB of that caliber to have a dynasty? Is that the most important aspect? I would argue that it is.

When you look back at the teams with the most staying power over many consecutive seasons that have been able to win multiple championships they always have great QBs in the modern era. Montana, Elway, Brady. Defensive teams have a more difficult time winning multiple Super Bowls it would seem. Bears, Bucs, Ravens, Seahawks, Broncos etc.

So the question to me is would you compare Kirk more favorably to Jimmy G or Mahomes? I think that's obvious. The Chiefs realized Alex Smith, as solid as he was, would never get them a championship. Not to say Kirk can't win one as I think he's definitely good enough. But can he win multiples? Can you build a team around him that could elevate him to a championship with how much you pay him?

All I'm really saying is they need to keep drafting them until they get that elite guy if they ever want a dynasty. And yes I'm sure many would be happy just to get one and I'd agree with that but at the same time dynasties are what are remembered and the real goal imo.

What other lessons do you think can be learned from the Chiefs?

The key to them winning it all was Mahomes. How do you get the next one of those?

If you follow the Chiefs example there, you sign a solid QB to a reasonable and tradeable contract and stick with him until your guy enters the draft and falls to a spot where you can draft him.

It involves not investing so much into a QB who likely is never going to get you to the SB that you can't stomach moving on from him. It also involves a willingness to take a shot at greatness in the draft and having a QB evaluator on the staff who was able to identify that greatness.

So how do we get there?

Step #1: Fire Rick.

Step #2: Find a GM who doesn't suck at finding QB talent in the draft.

Step #3: Do not extend Cousins for the amount of money and commitment he is going to want from this team.

Step 1 and 2 can be replaced with hiring of an OC (perhaps this is Kubiak) who Rick will listen too about the QB spot. There is no getting around Step #3.

Yes, but that is exceptionally hard to do. Which is why all but 3 teams every year are in the Viking's position or (in most cases) worse. There are very few dynasty level QBs every generation. And 31 other teams are trying to get lucky enough to be in a position to get them. Not to mention the best QB evaluators in the game miss on their picks routinely, even if they are lucky enough to get the pick they want, for the very reason I mentioned already. There are only a couple or 3 true dynasty level QBs on the planet at any one time. That is why GMs don't move on from QBs as good as Kirk or Stafford or Rivers or the dude in Atlanta to take their shot. Very low odds of that working out.

So I don't disagree with either one of you in theory. But I don't believe your steps above increase the chance of getting that guy in any significant way.

[S197]

Anyone remember John David Booty? He's the only QB EVER drafted by Spielman unless a QB was absolutely necessary (Ponder, Bridgewater). You can maybe add Joe Webb but it was pretty obvious from Childress he was drafted to play WR and they left him at QB after camp.

Either way, you have over a decades worth of drafts to see that Spielman simply doesn't draft QBs. So I agree, he needs to go otherwise it will be Cousins, a journeyman and the next great UDFA to light up the preseason.

As for what is potentially possible, a penetrating DT like a Chris Jones would be nice. Also a pure speed gadget type of guy ala Deebo Samuel or Hardman.

But the main thing is to be able to adapt and add in wrinkles on key plays. The Chiefs ran some really nice plays on 4th down and in the redzone that you could tell they specifically practiced for those situations and this game. And they executed them flawlessly. They also adapted well on defense, switching from their initial 2 safety high into tighter coverages, making Jimmy try to beat them.

[Pondering Her Percy]

The key to them winning it all was Mahomes. How do you get the next one of those?

Eh, I wouldnt say it was all Mahomes. He was obviously a big reason but the defense finally stepped up when they needed them to and Damien Williams went off.

Step #2: Find a GM who doesn't suck at finding QB talent in the draft.

Bottom line is, it's if the QB is in that draft or not. There are years where the draft has guys like Geno Smith and Matt Barkley. Or maybe years like 2014 where the best QB to come out was maybe Carr? Even though Jimmy G was in that class, he sat behind a GOAT for however many years and then was just carried by his defense. Point is, there isnt a Mahomes in every draft. Sometimes nowhere near that. So to think there is just non-GMs sitting out there that can so easily find a good QB, you're dreaming. Hate Spielman all you want but the only reason we have the talent we do is because of him and he's considered a top 10-12 GM across the league. Guys use to say some years back that he "didnt know how" to draft LBs, CBs and WRs. Pretty sure we're now (or at least were) loaded at all those positions recently. It's about making the right move at the right time with these guys. Spielman could just as easily land the next Pat Mahomes as any other GM in the NFL. 31 others teams passed on Pat Mahomes. Doesnt mean they all have zero clue how to find a QB.

commitment he is going to want from this team.

Dont think he will want nearly as much as many think

[VikingLord]

The key to them winning it all was Mahomes. How do you get the next one of those?

Mahomes had to play well for the Chiefs to come back and win it, just as he did in the previous 2 playoff games, but I also think the 49ers contributed to their downfall in multiple ways yesterday.

- The 49ers beat the Vikings and Packers to a bloody pulp by running on 1st and 2nd downs and minimizing Garrapolo's exposure. Against the Chiefs they seemed to think getting cute would work, especially late. On the one drive towards the end of the game where the 49ers had a 3-and-out (I think that was their first punt of the entire game), Shanahan called a run on 1st down that picked up like 5 yards, followed by 2 pass attempts, one of which was batted down and could have ended in disaster, while the other was wildly overthrown under pressure. In addition to resulting in a quick 3-and-out, both of those stopped the clock for the Chiefs. For all his purported genius, going away from what worked so well all year at the time he could least afford to help KC by stopping the clock for them was not Shanahan's finest moment.

- Likewise, the 49er defense stayed in their base set, rushing 4 and choosing to try to blanket and disguise coverages. That works great when the QB is trapped in the pocket, but Mahomes was able to sense and evade the pressure consistently late and extend plays. The funny part about that is, the 49ers actually got pressure even with 4 and did get home sometimes, but when they were up by 10 late they needed to bring more as they knew KC would have to start throwing more. Shanahan stuck with his base approach and didn't add any wrinkles and Mahomes put it together just in time to beat that.

- The limits of the 49ers philosophy were on display at the end. When they were up by 10, I really though they would grind it out like they did against the Packers and Vikings. They were in control of the game and should have been able to do that. But as soon as they got down it became apparent that they weren't built to come back in those situations. Garrapolo had a receiver open on a deep route and badly overthrew him (seems to be a theme with Garrapolo, especially when he's under pressure). He had Kittle down the field too and while he completed that pass, it was nullified by offensive PI. The 49ers offense simply isn't built to play from behind. The Chiefs, mostly because of Mahomes and his ability to extend plays, can do that. The 49ers needed to be ahead or close, because once down by more than a score, they simply didn't have the explosive personnel to claw their way back into it.

Shanahan got needlessly creative on offense when he should have gotten conservative, and stayed conservative on defense when he needed to get creative. IMHO, he cost his team the game more than Mahomes won it for the Chiefs.

Agree with everything else in your post.

[YikesVikes]

The key to them winning it all was Mahomes. How do you get the next one of those?

If you follow the Chiefs example there, you sign a solid QB to a reasonable and tradeable contract and stick with him until your guy enters the draft and falls to a spot where you can draft him.

It involves not investing so much into a QB who likely is never going to get you to the SB that you can't stomach moving on from him. It also involves a willingness to take a shot at greatness in the draft and having a QB evaluator on the staff who was able to identify that greatness.

So how do we get there?

Step #1: Fire Rick.

Step #2: Find a GM who doesn't suck at finding QB talent in the draft.

Step #3: Do not extend Cousins for the amount of money and commitment he is going to want from this team.

Step 1 and 2 can be replaced with hiring of an OC (perhaps this is Kubiak) who Rick will listen too about the QB spot. There is no getting around Step #3.

Yes, but that is exceptionally hard to do. Which is why all but 3 teams every year are in the Viking's position or (in most cases) worse. There are very few dynasty level QBs every generation. And 31 other teams are trying to get lucky enough to be in a position to get them. Not to mention the best QB evaluators in the game miss on their picks routinely, even if they are lucky enough to get the pick they want, for the very reason I mentioned already. There are only a couple or 3 true dynasty level QBs on the planet at any one time. That is why GMs don't move on from QBs as good as Kirk or Stafford or Rivers or the dude in Atlanta to take their shot. Very low odds of that working out.

So I don't disagree with either one of you in theory. But I don't believe your steps above increase the chance of getting that guy in any significant way.

We have missed on almost every first rounder we have now. Sitting still isnt helping. There are certain guys you know to blow the farm for. Trevor Lawrence is not going to be a bust unless the organization he goes to is poorly ran. I would mortgage the farm for him. We draft average to bad players in the first round and we refuse to get rid of them because they are good enough to start. 1st rounder should be franchise-altering players.

[YikesVikes]

10 years of Vikings 1st round draft picks. Busts based on position drafted in bold. This is why we aren't a team in serious contention.

2011 12 Christian Ponder QB Florida State
2012 4 Matt Kalil † OT USC [25] (wanted to leave non bust due to injury but... BUST)
29 Harrison Smith † S Notre Dame [26]
2013 23 Sharrif Floyd DT Florida
25 Xavier Rhodes † CB Florida State
29 Cordarrelle Patterson † WR Tennessee
2014 9 Anthony Barr † LB UCLA
32 Teddy Bridgewater † QB Louisville
2015 11 Trae Waynes CB Michigan State
2016 23 Laquon Treadwell WR Ole Miss
2017 — No pick — — [31]
2018 30 Mike Hughes CB Central Florida
2019 18 Garrett Bradbury C NC State

Thats a whole lot of misses in the first round. Thing how much dominating we could be if we could pair our late round gems with franchise-altering picks in the 1st. Like, instead of Barr we had Aaron Donald. Instead of Waynes. Peat from the Saints. The only reason our team looks halfway decent is because of our mircles in the late round. Why does that excuse the crap we draft in the first rounds.

[Fat Stupid Loser]

Yes, but that is exceptionally hard to do. Which is why all but 3 teams every year are in the Viking's position or (in most cases) worse. There are very few dynasty level QBs every generation. And 31 other teams are trying to get lucky enough to be in a position to get them. Not to mention the best QB evaluators in the game miss on their picks routinely, even if they are lucky enough to get the pick they want, for the very reason I mentioned already. There are only a couple or 3 true dynasty level QBs on the planet at any one time. That is why GMs don't move on from QBs as good as Kirk or Stafford or Rivers or the dude in Atlanta to take their shot. Very low odds of that working out.

So I don't disagree with either one of you in theory. But I don't believe your steps above increase the chance of getting that guy in any significant way.

We have missed on almost every first rounder we have now. Sitting still isnt helping. There are certain guys you know to blow the farm for. Trevor Lawrence is not going to be a bust unless the organization he goes to is poorly ran. I would mortgage the farm for him. We draft average to bad players in the first round and we refuse to get rid of them because they are good enough to start. 1st rounder should be franchise-altering players.

I agree generally with you other than Trevor is not going to bust. No way to know. And how to define bust? Bust is Josh Rosen. Not busting could be Marcus Mariotta or Ryan Tannehill. Or any of the others on the endless list of not Mahomes. If your QB is Keenum or Fitzpatrick or Geno Smith, you mortgage the farm. If its Kirk or Matt Ryan, you are going to lose that wager.

[YikesVikes]

We have missed on almost every first rounder we have now. Sitting still isnt helping. There are certain guys you know to blow the farm for. Trevor Lawrence is not going to be a bust unless the organization he goes to is poorly ran. I would mortgage the farm for him. We draft average to bad players in the first round and we refuse to get rid of them because they are good enough to start. 1st rounder should be franchise-altering players.

I agree generally with you other than Trevor is not going to bust. No way to know. And how to define bust? Bust is Josh Rosen. Not busting could be Marcus Mariotta or Ryan Tannehill. Or any of the others on the endless list of not Mahomes. If your QB is Keenum or Fitzpatrick or Geno Smith, you mortgage the farm. If its Kirk or Matt Ryan, you are going to lose that wager.

Like anything, I think you have to gauge what was spent to acquire the player and what was missed. MM is a bust because he was the #1 pick and a plethora of draft picks could have been had. I get less mad about misses with the 31st pick but we have missed with picks 4, 9 and two 11s, in less than 10 years. That is horrible.

[Mothman]

What can the Vikings learn from the Chiefs?

1.) Know what kind of team you want to be and build accordingly. That vision is necessary to find a mix of players that can thrive within the offensive and defensive systems.

2.) A charismatic, young game-changer at QB is absolutely invaluable, easily worth an expensive trade to acquire. The Vikes spent a 1st (2017) and a 4th to get Bradford. The Chiefs spent a two 1st round picks (2017, 2018) and a 3rd (2017) to move up and draft Mahomes. It's pretty obvious which player was worth the investment.

The key to #2 is #1. That clear vision is helpful in identifying the right QB for the team.

[Passepartout]

Clock management and coming down clutch. While it is about finishing the game not starting it that is key.

[Dmizzle0]

10 years of Vikings 1st round draft picks. Busts based on position drafted in bold. This is why we aren't a team in serious contention.

2011 12 Christian Ponder QB Florida State
2012 4 Matt Kalil † OT USC [25] (wanted to leave non bust due to injury but... BUST)
29 Harrison Smith † S Notre Dame [26]
2013 23 Sharrif Floyd DT Florida
25 Xavier Rhodes † CB Florida State
29 Cordarrelle Patterson † WR Tennessee
2014 9 Anthony Barr † LB UCLA
32 Teddy Bridgewater † QB Louisville
2015 11 Trae Waynes CB Michigan State
2016 23 Laquon Treadwell WR Ole Miss
2017 — No pick — — [31]
2018 30 Mike Hughes CB Central Florida
2019 18 Garrett Bradbury C NC State

Thats a whole lot of misses in the first round. Thing how much dominating we could be if we could pair our late round gems with franchise-altering picks in the 1st. Like, instead of Barr we had Aaron Donald. Instead of Waynes. Peat from the Saints. The only reason our team looks halfway decent is because of our mircles in the late round. Why does that excuse the crap we draft in the first rounds.

Waynes and Barr aren't busts. Hughes is still too early.

It also helps to have Mahommes with an offensive mind like Andy Reid. Unfortunately the Vikings end up play well the same season great draft picks are available compromising the draft position. Maybe they need to get bold and trade for a high spot when the opportunity arises.

[YikesVikes]

10 years of Vikings 1st round draft picks. Busts based on position drafted in bold. This is why we aren't a team in serious contention.

2011 12 Christian Ponder QB Florida State
2012 4 Matt Kalil † OT USC [25] (wanted to leave non bust due to injury but... BUST)
29 Harrison Smith † S Notre Dame [26]
2013 23 Sharrif Floyd DT Florida
25 Xavier Rhodes † CB Florida State
29 Cordarrelle Patterson † WR Tennessee
2014 9 Anthony Barr † LB UCLA
32 Teddy Bridgewater † QB Louisville
2015 11 Trae Waynes CB Michigan State
2016 23 Laquon Treadwell WR Ole Miss
2017 — No pick — — [31]
2018 30 Mike Hughes CB Central Florida
2019 18 Garrett Bradbury C NC State

Thats a whole lot of misses in the first round. Thing how much dominating we could be if we could pair our late round gems with franchise-altering picks in the 1st. Like, instead of Barr we had Aaron Donald. Instead of Waynes. Peat from the Saints. The only reason our team looks halfway decent is because of our mircles in the late round. Why does that excuse the crap we draft in the first rounds.

Waynes and Barr aren't busts. Hughes is still too early.

It also helps to have Mahommes with an offensive mind like Andy Reid. Unfortunately the Vikings end up play well the same season great draft picks are available compromising the draft position. Maybe they need to get bold and trade for a high spot when the opportunity arises.

They are bust compared to where they were drafted.
A player drafted with the 9th overrall pick should be a top 30 player in the league. He's not even top 150.