The Single Best Reason to Sign the Old Veterans

[DanAS]

Obviously, the big topics of discussion in Vikings Nation are whether to re-sign Winfield, whether to sign Urlacher, and who to draft. What isn't discussed enough is that these topics are interrelated.

Do you want to know the single best reason to sign Urlacher? It's not because of his leadership skills (and certainly not because of his playing skills). It's because if we don't, we're likely to take a middle linebacker with a #1 draft pick whether or not there is a MLB available who is worthy of being picked in the first round. To a lesser degree, that same issue applies to the decision as to whether to re-sign Winfield : if we feel that we are severely undermanned at a position, we are more likely to reach to sign a guy who plays that position.

I cannot overemphasize the need, within limits, to draft the best player available regardless of team need. In the long run, that is the formula for a successful franchise. It explains why a guy like Ray Guy was drafted so high by Al Davis -- back when he truly was a visionary -- and why a bum like JaMarcus Russell was drafted so high by Al Davis after he lost his football mind. Bad teams reach to fill needs, good teams stock up on quality ballplayers.

Remember when we needed a fast WR to replace Randy Moss and reached for Troy Williamson? What a terrible waste of not only a first rounder but a high first rounder. Yet at the time, I'm sure some "experts" praised us for "plugging a hole."

If you want to plug holes, try to do it in free agency. If you want to build top flight franchises, draft incredibly talented players even if they don't play the position of greatest need. Who knows, maybe some starter will get injured and they'll fit right in ... and make the Pro Bowl.

And by the way -- while my point here is a general one, please don't read into anything I said above about Winfield as a reflection on his skills. I am truly one of Winfield's biggest fans. To quote Travolta from Pulp Fiction, I think we should pull the trigger on re-signing Winfield "on general principles." It's guys like that who make me want to watch football.

[Mothman]

Obviously, the big topics of discussion in Vikings Nation are whether to re-sign Winfield, whether to sign Urlacher, and who to draft. What isn't discussed enough is that these topics are interrelated.

Do you want to know the single best reason to sign Urlacher? It's not because of his leadership skills (and certainly not because of his playing skills). It's because if we don't, we're likely to take a middle linebacker with a #1 draft pick whether or not there is a MLB available who is worthy of being picked in the first round. To a lesser degree, that same issue applies to the decision as to whether to re-sign Winfield : if we feel that we are severely undermanned at a position, we are more likely to reach to sign a guy who plays that position.

I cannot overemphasize the need, within limits, to draft the best player available regardless of team need. In the long run, that is the formula for a successful franchise. It explains why a guy like Ray Guy was drafted so high by Al Davis -- back when he truly was a visionary -- and why a bum like JaMarcus Russell was drafted so high by Al Davis after he lost his football mind. Bad teams reach to fill needs, good teams stock up on quality ballplayers.

Remember when we needed a fast WR to replace Randy Moss and reached for Troy Williamson? What a terrible waste of not only a first rounder but a high first rounder. Yet at the time, I'm sure some "experts" praised us for "plugging a hole."

If you want to plug holes, try to do it in free agency. If you want to build top flight franchises, draft incredibly talented players even if they don't play the position of greatest need. Who knows, maybe some starter will get injured and they'll fit right in ... and make the Pro Bowl.

And by the way -- while my point here is a general one, please don't read into anything I said above about Winfield as a reflection on his skills. I am truly one of Winfield's biggest fans. To quote Travolta from Pulp Fiction, I think we should pull the trigger on re-signing Winfield "on general principles." It's guys like that who make me want to watch football.

I see your point, Dan but while drafting the best talent available and avoiding reaches is a good philosophy, I think you're taking it to a bit further than necessary here. The draft is highly subjective so what even constitutes a reach is often highly debatable. In the end, teams usually draft the best player available at a position of need and in this draft, there are several MLBs that would be appropriate choices for a late first round draft pick. Consequently, signing Urlacher to avoid the need to draft one makes little sense, especially since he'd be a short term solution at best and they could easily be right back in the same needy situation next year.

[saint33]

I disagree with this point for a couple reasons. First of all, signing urlacher only masks our need at MLB, not fill it.

Second of all there are number of Mlbs in this draft that should be high value picks in the early-mid twenties, we wont need to reach for one like we did with Williamson.

Lastly, with 2 first round picks and 11 picks total, we have the freedom to move around the draft board of needed to land the talented players at positions of need without reaching

[mondry]

I get what dan is saying and to some extent I agree with it. For example I think Jennings helps us a lot in the sense that we don't have to "force" what would have likely been 2 more WR picks in the draft. Now we can really take one anywhere between the 1st and 4th rounders and probably be okay.

I guess it comes down to if you think Jennings is an "old veteran" or if we're strictly talking about guys on their last legs like Urlacher.

On the other hand, I really think it would take an inexperienced GM and a poor scouting department to fall into the "well we have to get a MLB no matter what with our #1." I think Spielman knows well enough that if he improves 3 out of 5 area's that really need it while maintaining everything else we'll be fine. I don't expect him to change his long term plan, he should realize if it really would be a huge reach that it can wait till the next round or even next year.

[jackal]

if we could get Urlacher cheap for two years and he is healthy I wouldn't mind it ..

The bears offered him a one year two million dollar deal, so it wouldn't take much..

[Eli]

I think you have the process backward.

It's very difficult for me to believe that there won't be wide receivers, linebackers and cornerbacks worthy of being picked at #23 and #25. When the dust settles after the draft, if you haven't filled all the holes (and TBH, few teams can fill all of them in one draft), then you go out and sign some retreads to one year contracts.

[Demi]

Consequently, signing Urlacher to avoid the need to draft one makes little sense, especially since he'd be a short term solution at best and they could easily be right back in the same needy situation next year.

But he buys you that year. If there is someone there you feel is worth it, you can still draft them and that need is still going to be there. If our pick comes up and you're 3 or 4 deep and the next best linebacker has a 4th round grade, or is a tier 2 or 3 guy. Do you take that player simply because you have a need? Even if there's a tier 1 defensive linemen or guard? We need a middle linebacker, they could just as easily be in the same position next year whether or not they sign Urlacher.

if you haven't filled all the holes (and TBH, few teams can fill all of them in one draft), then you go out and sign some retreads to one year contracts.

And you get guys who've been sitting in free agency for two months that aren't even worth a roster spot.

[Eli]

You don't sign a big name stop-gap with maybe one or two years left, and _then_ draft a starting caliber replacement. It's different if that older player is already on the roster and you're replacing him - you have some continuity. But signing someone like Urlacher (or Winfield if you're any team in the NFL except the Vikings) seldom works out.

[PurpleKoolaid]

If he comes for 2 mil a year why not? And draft a LB to learn from him.

[Mothman]

If he comes for 2 mil a year why not? And draft a LB to learn from him.

He turned down $2 million and a one year contract. He said he was willing to play for $3.5 million or even $3 million had the Bears been willing to keep negotiations ongoing.

[PurpleKoolaid]

He turned down $2 million and a one year contract. He said he was willing to play for $3.5 million or even $3 million had the Bears been willing to keep negotiations ongoing.

Ahh didnt know that. I dont see him getting much more then that. And the Vikings need one about as much as anyone.

[DanAS]

I disagree with this point for a couple reasons. First of all, signing urlacher only masks our need at MLB, not fill it.

Second of all there are number of Mlbs in this draft that should be high value picks in the early-mid twenties, we wont need to reach for one like we did with Williamson.

Lastly, with 2 first round picks and 11 picks total, we have the freedom to move around the draft board of needed to land the talented players at positions of need without reaching

Let me clarify that I am not saying we should sign Urlacher if he can no longer play.

I am saying that we should -- within reason -- concentrate on drafting the best player available. And if drafting a guy who can't play and convincing ourselves that he can permits us to draft a great player who plays a position of less need (like, say, a great DT), then it would be a blessing in disguise.

Obviously, if a guy stinks, we shouldn't sign him. But nor should we feel compelled to draft the "best WR available" and the "best MLB available" with the first two picks. That was the attitude that got us Troy Williamson.

[DanAS]

I think you have the process backward.

It's very difficult for me to believe that there won't be wide receivers, linebackers and cornerbacks worthy of being picked at #23 and #25. When the dust settles after the draft, if you haven't filled all the holes (and TBH, few teams can fill all of them in one draft), then you go out and sign some retreads to one year contracts.

In the first round, I think you try to draft great players. Some times, you think you've spotted a great player -- but maybe he doesn't play the perfect position of need. You take him anyway.

On the other hand, if you are the Vikes and that "great player" plays running back, then yes -- that guy, you probably pass on. That's what I mean by drafting the BPA "within reason."

[VikingLord]

I think you have the process backward.

It's very difficult for me to believe that there won't be wide receivers, linebackers and cornerbacks worthy of being picked at #23 and #25. When the dust settles after the draft, if you haven't filled all the holes (and TBH, few teams can fill all of them in one draft), then you go out and sign some retreads to one year contracts.

Agree 100%. Teams that go into FA before the draft generally pay more to get less, plus they think that spackle job resolves the "needs" they have so they then go into the draft and focus on other positions of greater "need" at that moment, potentially passing on better players. Waiting to venture into FA until after the draft does the exact opposite. Teams may not get the flashy FA talent, but the guys they do get won't be overpaid generally, nor will the team be likely to get through the draft without addressing their real needs.

The problem for the Vikings right now is that they have such gaping holes in some areas they literally have to make moves in FA, and they've made their situation worse in many ways. Why, for example, did they need to trade Harvin before this year's draft? Why not wait until after the draft and see what came out of the draft before making the move? Harvin wasn't going anywhere. Sure, they wouldn't have gotten the Seahawks' first rounder this year, but so what? Spielman could have still landed Jenkins in FA if he really wanted, kept Harvin around to see if that situation changed at all, and/or still traded him for probably the same compensation after the draft. Depending on who they drafted, that might have been a no-brainer move if they really felt Harvin needed to go.

Generally speaking, Spielman has done a good job, but I didn't understand the timing of the Harvin trade and still don't, and I'm equally afraid that now that Jenkins is in the fold Spielman will focus on other positions in the draft.

[PurpleJarl]

Agree 100%. Teams that go into FA before the draft generally pay more to get less, plus they think that spackle job resolves the "needs" they have so they then go into the draft and focus on other positions of greater "need" at that moment, potentially passing on better players. Waiting to venture into FA until after the draft does the exact opposite. Teams may not get the flashy FA talent, but the guys they do get won't be overpaid generally, nor will the team be likely to get through the draft without addressing their real needs.

The problem for the Vikings right now is that they have such gaping holes in some areas they literally have to make moves in FA, and they've made their situation worse in many ways. Why, for example, did they need to trade Harvin before this year's draft? Why not wait until after the draft and see what came out of the draft before making the move? Harvin wasn't going anywhere. Sure, they wouldn't have gotten the Seahawks' first rounder this year, but so what? Spielman could have still landed Jenkins in FA if he really wanted, kept Harvin around to see if that situation changed at all, and/or still traded him for probably the same compensation after the draft. Depending on who they drafted, that might have been a no-brainer move if they really felt Harvin needed to go.

Generally speaking, Spielman has done a good job, but I didn't understand the timing of the Harvin trade and still don't, and I'm equally afraid that now that Jenkins is in the fold Spielman will focus on other positions in the draft.

Thats a pretty huge caveat just sorta tossing the first rounder aside with a "sure, but" Who knows, maybe Harvin made it clear that he was going to make life hell for the Org. if they didn't trade him, maybe Spielman REALLY REALLY wants two people in the first round. All I know is that after last years draft, I am willing to give him the BotD on this one.