What can the Vikings learn from the Chiefs?

[StumpHunter]

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.

It wasn't all on him, and the defense making some stops was big. Do they make those stops if KC's offense doesn't put some pressure on SF to make some plays and move away from the run?

Williams was a non-factor on the two scoring drives to take the lead. That final big run was a the result of SF selling out to stop the run, and they are only doing that because Mahomes put his team on his back and scored on two consecutive drives.

[StumpHunter]

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.

I think Shanahan, whether consciously or subconsciously wanted to prove he didn't make a mistake passing over Mahomes and that his guy was just as capable of playing well in the SB.

KC's defense gave up more yards than the Vikings' D, and weren't all that much better against the run. Late in the game, if they had just kept handing it off, and wearing down KC's defense, I think they might have had a chance. Even when it was 24-20 they still should have just run the ball. Shanahan couldn't do it though, since it would be admitting he didn't trust his QB in the final 3 minutes of the SB down a score. They ran it for 17 yards, then 6 straight pass plays before they turned it over on downs. Dumb.

[Dames]

I think Shanahan, whether consciously or subconsciously wanted to prove he didn't make a mistake passing over Mahomes and that his guy was just as capable of playing well in the SB.

KC's defense gave up more yards than the Vikings' D, and weren't all that much better against the run. Late in the game, if they had just kept handing it off, and wearing down KC's defense, I think they might have had a chance. Even when it was 24-20 they still should have just run the ball. Shanahan couldn't do it though, since it would be admitting he didn't trust his QB in the final 3 minutes of the SB down a score. They ran it for 17 yards, then 6 straight pass plays before they turned it over on downs. Dumb.

I think there is some truth to that. He also got screwed himself passing when he was in Atlanta, and that helped the Pats complete their big comeback in the SB a few years back. In both cases he stopped doing what was successful and/or the correct thing to do. I think he was trying too hard to show his "genius" in both cases.

[CharVike]

Mahomes lead a great comeback but overall it wasn't an outstanding performance and he turned the ball over. Usually that's a death sentence and no team wants their QB playing that way. Here's what I learned from the Cheifs. No 1 pound the ball down their throat and have your top back average 6 yards a pop. That's running the football. No 2 have a game breaking WR that scares the crap out of teams like T Hill who is a 4.2 guy. Many have compared Diggs to Moss and it isn't close. Moss was also a 4.2 guy. That type of speed keeps the defense honest. That helps the ground attack. Don't bring a safety up our say good night. Opens up everything. No 3 play solid D and force TOs. No 4 apply heavy pressure on the QB. Make him throw when you want him to throw. No 3 don't give up a ton of points. It's the same old story, There's nothing new here. When we played the 49ers we average 2 yards a pop. At that point the gig is up. Pack your stuff up and go home. A team has no chance of winning that way. Maybe I'm wrong and others have seen it before. Our D didn't do anything. They let that team pound the ball down their throats. Were the hell was this stiff Joseph who cost a ton of CAP. Plug the middle and get penetration. That's your job so do it or go home. He played weak and was pushed all over. Don't allow that. If we would have shut their ground game down to nothing we win easy. They ran through us at will. At that point it was over. I know this guy Jimmy G who is one of the top guys isn't beating you without help. No QB is. But he needs it more than most. As he showed in the SB put heavy heat on him and he will turn it over. He didn't throw a good ball against us. Even the completions left much to be desired. He didn't have to throw and only did it for the hell of it. For us it starts with D. Don't let them run the ball at will. Shut it down. What we did was embarrassing on D.

[mansquatch]

For me, that Superbowl was really depressing. It was basically a rerun of every big time QB comeback win. The format is always the same: Pass Rush dominates high powered offense for 3 1/2 quarters, team with pass rush builds lead, but not huge lead. Pass Rush gets tired in 4Q. Great QB stages come back and wins at end of game. How many times have we seen that story play out?

The lesson from that SB was that it pays to have A HOF QB. It also shows the fallacy of time eating play calling in a big game ie the quality of the opposing QB determined what size of a lead is "comfortable." So you either go up by at least 14 or you find a way to close the game a la the Titans by not giving the ball back. Shanahan's lesson to learn is to go for more points against a different breed QB like Mahomes. He should have learned this after his 2016 loss to Brady while with ATL.

As far as Vikings go, the lesson isn't anything new for the NFL: Find the next HOF passer. That has been a thing since Joe Namath. And don't tell me that means getting another GM. Who exactly? Which GM in the NFL right now has successfully picked multiple HOF QBs? I'll give you a hint: the answer is ZERO!

Consider where the NFL is at today. For the past 15 season there were basically 5 QBs that were ahead of everyone else: Manning, Brady, Brees, Rogers, and Big Ben. Today Manning is retired, the other 4 all now require great players around them to elevate their teams vs. they themselves elevating their teams as they once did. All 4 are either geriatric or physically sliding in to the twilights of their careers. In short, in 2-3 seasons it is likely that all but maybe Rogers will be retired.

So in to come back the original question: In the past decade how many HOF QBs have NFL GMs as a whole found?

ONE. Patrick Mahomes.

This isn't a better GM issue, it is luck.

For those wondering why I didn't include Lamar Jackson. Good question. He isn't on this list because he is not in the mold of the above HOF QBs. All of the above QBs are elite passers. Jackson is a different mold. His coach, upon drafting him commented as follows: "A lot of teams have failed trying to draft that next Passing QB. We need to try something different." How that will pan remians to be seen. So far in two trips to the post season elite defensive game plans have been able to shut Lamar Jackson down. The question fo whether or not this different approach can win the big game remains open.

Another rabbit hole worth going down is how the Big 5 above differ from each other. Their games are different, with Rogers being the most unique of the 5. (At least he was) They are each great at different things.

On Ricks hit/miss record, We've been down this road before... You compile Ricks hit miss record in the first round. Great. Now how do you know his number of misses is good or bad? You need to look at his peers and compile their hit or miss rate so you have an idea of what is normal for an NFL GM and what is exceptional. Only after you've done the peer to peer comparison can you call a duck a duck. Until then any conclusion made is unsupported opinion.

[StpViking]

My personal opinion is that it's time the Vikings organization give Colin Kaepernick a call. Mahomes and Kaepernick basically have the same skill sets. The days of the immobile QB that just sits in the pocket waiting for someone to get open is over with. I think Cousins and his agent understand that if the Vikings do not extend his contract, he'll probably be signed some where as a backup. His style of Quarterbacking is over with.

On the issue of the national anthem. I personally don't care. If I can afford to go to the games, when the national anthem is playing. I'm usually buying something to eat. When they force you to hear the national anthem on TV, I'm usually switching channels because the singers take too long to finish. There are more ways to show how much you love the country than just being a sheep and following what everyone else does.

[StumpHunter]

For me, that Superbowl was really depressing. It was basically a rerun of every big time QB comeback win. The format is always the same: Pass Rush dominates high powered offense for 3 1/2 quarters, team with pass rush builds lead, but not huge lead. Pass Rush gets tired in 4Q. Great QB stages come back and wins at end of game. How many times have we seen that story play out?

The lesson from that SB was that it pays to have A HOF QB. It also shows the fallacy of time eating play calling in a big game ie the quality of the opposing QB determined what size of a lead is "comfortable." So you either go up by at least 14 or you find a way to close the game a la the Titans by not giving the ball back. Shanahan's lesson to learn is to go for more points against a different breed QB like Mahomes. He should have learned this after his 2016 loss to Brady while with ATL.

As far as Vikings go, the lesson isn't anything new for the NFL: Find the next HOF passer. That has been a thing since Joe Namath. And don't tell me that means getting another GM. Who exactly? Which GM in the NFL right now has successfully picked multiple HOF QBs? I'll give you a hint: the answer is ZERO!

Consider where the NFL is at today. For the past 15 season there were basically 5 QBs that were ahead of everyone else: Manning, Brady, Brees, Rogers, and Big Ben. Today Manning is retired, the other 4 all now require great players around them to elevate their teams vs. they themselves elevating their teams as they once did. All 4 are either geriatric or physically sliding in to the twilights of their careers. In short, in 2-3 seasons it is likely that all but maybe Rogers will be retired.

So in to come back the original question: In the past decade how many HOF QBs have NFL GMs as a whole found?

ONE. Patrick Mahomes.

This isn't a better GM issue, it is luck.

For those wondering why I didn't include Lamar Jackson. Good question. He isn't on this list because he is not in the mold of the above HOF QBs. All of the above QBs are elite passers. Jackson is a different mold. His coach, upon drafting him commented as follows: "A lot of teams have failed trying to draft that next Passing QB. We need to try something different." How that will pan remians to be seen. So far in two trips to the post season elite defensive game plans have been able to shut Lamar Jackson down. The question fo whether or not this different approach can win the big game remains open.

Another rabbit hole worth going down is how the Big 5 above differ from each other. Their games are different, with Rogers being the most unique of the 5. (At least he was) They are each great at different things.

On Ricks hit/miss record, We've been down this road before... You compile Ricks hit miss record in the first round. Great. Now how do you know his number of misses is good or bad? You need to look at his peers and compile their hit or miss rate so you have an idea of what is normal for an NFL GM and what is exceptional. Only after you've done the peer to peer comparison can you call a duck a duck. Until then any conclusion made is unsupported opinion.

Russel Wilson is also a sure thing HOF QB drafted in the past decade.

[CharVike]

My personal opinion is that it's time the Vikings organization give Colin Kaepernick a call. Mahomes and Kaepernick basically have the same skill sets. The days of the immobile QB that just sits in the pocket waiting for someone to get open is over with. I think Cousins and his agent understand that if the Vikings do not extend his contract, he'll probably be signed some where as a backup. His style of Quarterbacking is over with.

On the issue of the national anthem. I personally don't care. If I can afford to go to the games, when the national anthem is playing. I'm usually buying something to eat. When they force you to hear the national anthem on TV, I'm usually switching channels because the singers take too long to finish. There are more ways to show how much you love the country than just being a sheep and following what everyone else does.

We have had many mobile QBs and guess what happened. We had Randall Cunningham who was far superior at movement than Mahomes and we couldn't get to the show. His problem was he had bad accuracy and was a one read guy. We had Culpepper who had great movement but IMO wasn't a very good passer. He was shut out in the champ game because he throwing was off. Plus he had two HOF WRs. I don't agree that Kap is equal to Mahomes. Mahomes is a dam good passer of the football. Kap has limited passing ability and that's why he's not in the NFL. Jimmy G just made the Super Bowl and I wouldn't call him a mobile guy. Lamar Jackson who was the MVP couldn't put up enough points in a home playoff loss. That mobility didn't help much. His ability to pass that day was off which made scoring difficult. Mahomes is the Super Bowl winner but that entire team played a great game. They ran the ball effectively. They also played some D. Rodgers is a pocket passer and made it to the champ game. I doubt they would have beat that 49er team even if he was a great runner of the football. Their D played like crap. Bottom line a team like the Packers need to dump Rodgers because those type of QBs are no longer any good in the NFL. I don't agree with that at all. Give me a great passer over a great runner at that position. Keep this in mind a guy like Jackson eventually will take a shot while running and then turn out the lights. Typically teams don't want their QBs taking big hits. Bring back the wish bone if that's the case.

[StumpHunter]

My personal opinion is that it's time the Vikings organization give Colin Kaepernick a call. Mahomes and Kaepernick basically have the same skill sets. The days of the immobile QB that just sits in the pocket waiting for someone to get open is over with. I think Cousins and his agent understand that if the Vikings do not extend his contract, he'll probably be signed some where as a backup. His style of Quarterbacking is over with.

On the issue of the national anthem. I personally don't care. If I can afford to go to the games, when the national anthem is playing. I'm usually buying something to eat. When they force you to hear the national anthem on TV, I'm usually switching channels because the singers take too long to finish. There are more ways to show how much you love the country than just being a sheep and following what everyone else does.

We have had many mobile QBs and guess what happened. We had Randall Cunningham who was far superior at movement than Mahomes and we couldn't get to the show. His problem was he had bad accuracy and was a one read guy. We had Culpepper who had great movement but IMO wasn't a very good passer. He was shut out in the champ game because he throwing was off. Plus he had two HOF WRs. I don't agree that Kap is equal to Mahomes. Mahomes is a dam good passer of the football. Kap has limited passing ability and that's why he's not in the NFL. Jimmy G just made the Super Bowl and I wouldn't call him a mobile guy. Lamar Jackson who was the MVP couldn't put up enough points in a home playoff loss. That mobility didn't help much. His ability to pass that day was off which made scoring difficult. Mahomes is the Super Bowl winner but that entire team played a great game. They ran the ball effectively. They also played some D. Rodgers is a pocket passer and made it to the champ game. I doubt they would have beat that 49er team even if he was a great runner of the football. Their D played like crap. Bottom line a team like the Packers need to dump Rodgers because those type of QBs are no longer any good in the NFL. I don't agree with that at all. Give me a great passer over a great runner at that position. Keep this in mind a guy like Jackson eventually will take a shot while running and then turn out the lights. Typically teams don't want their QBs taking big hits. Bring back the wish bone if that's the case.

I think what you are getting at is that there are lots of ways for a QB to be successful in the NFL.

I prefer the scrambling, Mahomes/Tark/Rodgers/Wilson type myself, they don't require as much talent around them to be successful and are exciting to watch. The Brees/Brady/Manning type as had a ton of success as well though. They get rid of the ball quickly, avoid costly mistakes and make the players around them better with precision and a quick release.

Big Ben and Phillip Rivers are the hold the ball forever while remaining a statue in the pocket type QB. They throw picks, take sacks and make up for it by being able to drive 80 yards in 40 seconds on 4 big pass plays.

Running QBs win more early in their careers on average than pure passers, but have shortened careers do to the number of hits they take, and the inability to pass effectively when they age and can't run as well.

[CharVike]

We have had many mobile QBs and guess what happened. We had Randall Cunningham who was far superior at movement than Mahomes and we couldn't get to the show. His problem was he had bad accuracy and was a one read guy. We had Culpepper who had great movement but IMO wasn't a very good passer. He was shut out in the champ game because he throwing was off. Plus he had two HOF WRs. I don't agree that Kap is equal to Mahomes. Mahomes is a dam good passer of the football. Kap has limited passing ability and that's why he's not in the NFL. Jimmy G just made the Super Bowl and I wouldn't call him a mobile guy. Lamar Jackson who was the MVP couldn't put up enough points in a home playoff loss. That mobility didn't help much. His ability to pass that day was off which made scoring difficult. Mahomes is the Super Bowl winner but that entire team played a great game. They ran the ball effectively. They also played some D. Rodgers is a pocket passer and made it to the champ game. I doubt they would have beat that 49er team even if he was a great runner of the football. Their D played like crap. Bottom line a team like the Packers need to dump Rodgers because those type of QBs are no longer any good in the NFL. I don't agree with that at all. Give me a great passer over a great runner at that position. Keep this in mind a guy like Jackson eventually will take a shot while running and then turn out the lights. Typically teams don't want their QBs taking big hits. Bring back the wish bone if that's the case.

I think what you are getting at is that there are lots of ways for a QB to be successful in the NFL.

I prefer the scrambling, Mahomes/Tark/Rodgers/Wilson type myself, they don't require as much talent around them to be successful and are exciting to watch. The Brees/Brady/Manning type as had a ton of success as well though. They get rid of the ball quickly, avoid costly mistakes and make the players around them better with precision and a quick release.

Big Ben and Phillip Rivers are the hold the ball forever while remaining a statue in the pocket type QB. They throw picks, take sacks and make up for it by being able to drive 80 yards in 40 seconds on 4 big pass plays.

Running QBs win more early in their careers on average than pure passers, but have shortened careers do to the number of hits they take, and the inability to pass effectively when they age and can't run as well.

Thank you Stump you explained it much better than me. I tend to even confuse the readers which I guess is bad writing. I rambling because thoughts keep coming up. My top guy based on your response to me was Rodger Stauback. He could do it all. He was a terrific movement guy and could take off. Landry would get pissed when he did it because he knew it could be lights out. Plus he was a great passer and clutch guy. I think that's the type you are also referring to. Not a statue.

[VikingLord]

I think what you are getting at is that there are lots of ways for a QB to be successful in the NFL.

I prefer the scrambling, Mahomes/Tark/Rodgers/Wilson type myself, they don't require as much talent around them to be successful and are exciting to watch. The Brees/Brady/Manning type as had a ton of success as well though. They get rid of the ball quickly, avoid costly mistakes and make the players around them better with precision and a quick release.

Big Ben and Phillip Rivers are the hold the ball forever while remaining a statue in the pocket type QB. They throw picks, take sacks and make up for it by being able to drive 80 yards in 40 seconds on 4 big pass plays.

Running QBs win more early in their careers on average than pure passers, but have shortened careers do to the number of hits they take, and the inability to pass effectively when they age and can't run as well.

One other key characteristic is what I would call "moxie", or an underlying belief in their ability to make a play or to take a risk. Sometimes that characteristic comes about subconsciously, such as when Case Keenum took the reins of a strong team and felt he had nothing to lose. Other times it's a built in personality trait, often reinforced over a lifetime of success at all levels. Most successful QBs, regardless of their style, have this trait. It can't really be taught, IMHO. Someone either has it or they don't.

I will also draw a distinction between degrees of this trait, because there are some people who possess it to the detriment of their ability to be successful, while it accentuates the success of others. A great example of this would be guys like Jay Cutler or Geoff George who have tons of physical talent but it doesn't translate to the team and overall success as compared to guys like Peyton Manning and Tom Brady who are capable of transforming the players around them into more than they might otherwise be. I think this is why a lot of great QBs perform at a high level almost regardless of who they have available as receivers. They make the team around them better, not vice-versa.

And this is perhaps the key difference between a guy like Kirk Cousins and a guy like Patrick Mahomes. Cousins needs a high-performing team around him to be successful, while Mahomes can elevate the team around him to high performance.

Anyway, if there is a key characteristic to look for in evaluating a potential QB in the draft, it's that element of leadership IMHO. You're not looking for a "good guy". You're not looking for a guy who looks the part or has the big arm, great speed or even great accuracy. You're looking for the guy who elevates his play and the play of everyone around him consistently and especially when under pressure. A guy who has confidence, but isn't cocky. A guy who studies and understands the tendencies of his opponents, but doesn't follow a script. A guy who takes chances but isn't reckless. A guy who is capable of inspiring while holding himself and his teammates accountable. You're looking for a characteristic that might not show up in the stats, but will show up on the tape.

[Mothman]

For me, that Superbowl was really depressing. It was basically a rerun of every big time QB comeback win. The format is always the same: Pass Rush dominates high powered offense for 3 1/2 quarters, team with pass rush builds lead, but not huge lead. Pass Rush gets tired in 4Q. Great QB stages come back and wins at end of game. How many times have we seen that story play out?

The lesson from that SB was that it pays to have A HOF QB. It also shows the fallacy of time eating play calling in a big game ie the quality of the opposing QB determined what size of a lead is "comfortable." So you either go up by at least 14 or you find a way to close the game a la the Titans by not giving the ball back. Shanahan's lesson to learn is to go for more points against a different breed QB like Mahomes. He should have learned this after his 2016 loss to Brady while with ATL.

As far as Vikings go, the lesson isn't anything new for the NFL: Find the next HOF passer. That has been a thing since Joe Namath. And don't tell me that means getting another GM. Who exactly? Which GM in the NFL right now has successfully picked multiple HOF QBs? I'll give you a hint: the answer is ZERO!

Consider where the NFL is at today. For the past 15 season there were basically 5 QBs that were ahead of everyone else: Manning, Brady, Brees, Rogers, and Big Ben. Today Manning is retired, the other 4 all now require great players around them to elevate their teams vs. they themselves elevating their teams as they once did. All 4 are either geriatric or physically sliding in to the twilights of their careers. In short, in 2-3 seasons it is likely that all but maybe Rogers will be retired.

So in to come back the original question: In the past decade how many HOF QBs have NFL GMs as a whole found?

ONE. Patrick Mahomes.

This isn't a better GM issue, it is luck.

It's not luck. The Chiefs didn't "luck" into Mahomes. They understood what kind of QB they wanted. They scouted him, assessed him, aggressively traded to get him, coached him up and surrounded him with the personnel to succeed.

For the Vikings, there's clearly a GM issue when it comes to QB. Spielman's approach to the position has been to draft a QB when desperation requires it and otherwise, to hope he can adequately address it with free agents, castoffs, stopgaps, etc. Overall, they've lacked a vision for the offense and the position and it shows.

[J. Kapp 11]

It's not luck. The Chiefs didn't "luck" into Mahomes. They understood what kind of QB they wanted. They scouted him, assessed him, aggressively traded to get him, coached him up and surrounded him with the personnel to succeed.

Isn't that what we did with Christian Ponder?

[mansquatch]

KC had no idea Mahomes was going to be what he would be today and neither did anyone else. Think about it. If you are any of the 32 NFL GMs (Even BB) and you KNOW a guy is going to be the next king at QB what do you do? You trade it all to pick #1. TRADE IT ALL. Because if you have that guy at QB, then the rest of your roster is easy. If you are the GM and HC, you have job security like no other. Mahomes is what 24 years old? All the other elite QBs are over 35. Mahomes stands alone and KC gets to enjoy at least 12 more years of winning seasons and being playoff relevant just by virtue of having him under center. Any NFL GM would have bet the ranch if they knew Mahomes would be that kind of player. The fact that none of them did is revealing.

Getting a Mahomes is LUCK. You didn't see any NFL GMs betting the farm to draft him. Chicago bet big on Trubisky and picked him ahead of him. I guess we all have proof of at least one GM we don't want. But to say KC figured it out is to me a bridge too far. If they had they would have traded more to pick at the top.

Per Russel Wilson: I agree he is a certain HOF candidate at QB, but so is Eli Manning who has two rings to Wilson's one. I do not view Wilson to be in the same league of passing QBs as the other 5 I listed just as I would not put Eli Manning on that list either. Nothing against Wilson, I'd love it if he were a Viking, but Wilson is in his physical prime and he does not elevate his team in the same way that a guy likeMahomes does or a guy like Rogers used to. If you could pick between Wilson and Mahomes you would pick Mahomes and you wouldn't think twice about it.

[J. Kapp 11]

Yesterday on ESPN radio, they posed the question, "Who is most likely to stand in the way of a potential Chiefs dynasty?"

Most people were saying, "Tennessee" or "San Francisco" or even (LOL) "Pittsburgh."

But to me, it's not WHO stands in the way. It's WHAT.

And that what is the Salary Cap.

Patrick Mahomes had a cap hit this year of about $5 million. To put that in perspective, 26% of the Vikings' roster made as much or more than Patrick Mahomes this year. On the Chiefs, Frank Clark and Sammy Watkins both made more than $20 million.

Very soon, the Kansas City Chiefs are going to have to pay the piper. If Dak Prescott is worth $40 million per, as is being widely reported, then what on earth is Patrick Mahomes worth? He's a great kid, good head on his shoulders ... but will he really accept a salary that doesn't make him the highest-paid player in the NFL?

What if he commands $45 million per year? Some are predicting the first $400 million contract in history. That means you can, right now, take a minimum of $35 million in available cap off the Chiefs' payroll. That, my friends, is a LOT of money. Mahomes would be sucking up nearly a quarter of the Chiefs' salary cap. In that case, whose salary gets dumped? Which of his great weapons does he NOT have anymore? Do the Chiefs beat the 49ers without Tyreek Hill ($17.7 million)? How about Travis Kelce ($11.2 million)? Tyrann Mathieu ($16.3 million)?

I realize a new CBA is on the horizon, but it's not here yet, and we don't know what changes it will hold. So all we can do is assume the Chiefs will have to give up some of the talent around Mahomes.

If anything stops the dynasty, it'll be that. Which begs the question: Is that really something to "learn" from?