Vikings Message Board.Com

Jim, I'm going to respond to both Dead and you in the same post as you both made similar points.

Underlying both of your responses is the assumption that hey, the Vikings just haven't been able to find the right QB to pay, so may as well give the big contract to the star RB because they did manage to find one of those.

And on the QB front, well, they took a swing at Ponder and missed, so then by necessity they wait four years and take a swing at another QB in the draft. Are there other ways to try to solve that problem? And if the Vikings are sinking star-QB money into their star RB, does that fact impact their ability to go after said star QB *if* maybe FA or a trade could be worked out?

I think the bulk of the evidence points to the Vikings and Spellman (sorry, but spell correction always changes his name to Spellman on the computer I'm using) making a conscious choice as to how to build the team over the last 5+ years from the coaches they've hired and extended right on down to the players they've drafted and the FA moves they've made. These players you mention that are on the other teams you mentioned are not there by some random accident. The GM's of those teams made the moves necessary to get them.

As far as the Packer rushing totals go, GB is still a team that threatens the mid and deep parts of the field on a regular basis. The fact that they ran more was probably as much an overreaction to the prior season when they were too pass-heavy the year before. Add to that the fact that the amount the Packers invested at the RB positions to get that production is probably a fraction of what the Vikings invested to get less, and it's even more depressing.

So the linkage between AD's contract and the Vikings performance over the last 5 seasons is not direct, but neither do I believe it's just a matter of someone throwing the bones. The Vikings are sufficiently far outside the league norms in this particular area, and for long enough, that it's no longer just a statistical anomaly. It's either the worst luck a team could possibly have over a 5 year stretch, or it's part of a really bad bet that a team can win by going demonstrably against the grain.

VikingLord wrote:Jim, I'm going to respond to both Dead and you in the same post as you both made similar points.

Underlying both of your responses is the assumption that hey, the Vikings just haven't been able to find the right QB to pay, so may as well give the big contract to the star RB because they did manage to find one of those.

And on the QB front, well, they took a swing at Ponder and missed, so then by necessity they wait four years and take a swing at another QB in the draft. Are there other ways to try to solve that problem? And if the Vikings are sinking star-QB money into their star RB, does that fact impact their ability to go after said star QB *if* maybe FA or a trade could be worked out?

That's a fair question and I'm betting the answer is no, it didn't impact their ability to sign a free agent QB or trade for a QB. They've managed the cap pretty well over the years and if they'd seen an opportunity like that and wanted to seize it, they could have tried to do something with existing contracts (like Peterson's and Allen's) if it was necessary.

I think they tried to draft and develop a QB because that tends to be the route to success and because in 2011, that looked like their best option. I'm also hard-pressed to think of a free agent QB that was available in the past 3 years that would have been worth signing at a contract which required a big hit and who would have signed with the Vikings (for example, I see no way Peyton Manning would have signed with the Vikes when he was a free agent—they weren't close enough to competing for a title for him to give them serious consideration).

There's no reason this needs to be hypothetical. Was there a top notch free agent QB over the past 3 seasons that Peterson's contract would have prohibited the Vikings from signing?

I think the bulk of the evidence points to the Vikings and Spellman (sorry, but spell correction always changes his name to Spellman on the computer I'm using) making a conscious choice as to how to build the team over the last 5+ years from the coaches they've hired and extended right on down to the players they've drafted and the FA moves they've made. These players you mention that are on the other teams you mentioned are not there by some random accident. The GM's of those teams made the moves necessary to get them.

In the case of Rodgers and Stafford, that was the same move it took to get Ponder: they were drafted. It just didn't work out for the Vikes. Cutler's a different story and remember, the Vikes were reportedly one of the first teams to express interest in trading for him but Childress appeared to put the kibosh on any deal before it started.

Let's also remember that in the 5 year span you mentioned, when the Vikings wanted to give big money to a free agent QB, they were able to do so. Favre made a bundle in his two years with the Vikes.

As far as the Packer rushing totals go, GB is still a team that threatens the mid and deep parts of the field on a regular basis. The fact that they ran more was probably as much an overreaction to the prior season when they were too pass-heavy the year before. Add to that the fact that the amount the Packers invested at the RB positions to get that production is probably a fraction of what the Vikings invested to get less, and it's even more depressing.

They could have said the same thing about the Vikings QB position if Ponder had been great. If their personnel moves had worked out, the Vikes would have had a situation akin to what they have in Seattle, with a highly-paid RB as a key part of their attack and a Super Bowl-winning QB playing under an inexpensive rookie contract. It's the same set-up the Vikes had with Ponder and Peterson but in Seattle, the QB worked out superbly and in MN, not so much...

GB threatens the mid and deep parts of the field on a regular basis because they have the personnel to do so with authority but they clearly featured their running game in 2013. When a team attempts the number of rushes they did last year, their running game is a feature of their offense.

So the linkage between AD's contract and the Vikings performance over the last 5 seasons is not direct, but neither do I believe it's just a matter of someone throwing the bones. The Vikings are sufficiently far outside the league norms in this particular area, and for long enough, that it's no longer just a statistical anomaly.

It's either the worst luck a team could possibly have over a 5 year stretch, or it's part of a really bad bet that a team can win by going demonstrably against the grain.

I don't buy it. They simply struck out at QB and when that happens, there are consequences. I don't know where you're getting 5 years. The "long enough" you're talking about is basically the Ponder era: 3 years. Prior to that, they had an elite QB in 2009 who they thought/hoped would still be elite in 2010 and as I said, they paid him a bundle.

They just drafted Bridgewater. If he works out well, they will have taken exactly the same path GB took with Rodgers and Detroit took with Stafford. They will have drafted a Qb and developed him into a player worthy of the kind of cap hit you want devoted to that position.

I just see very little evidence pointing to the conclusion you've drawn and it almost seems as if you're saying they should be investing the kind of money Peterson is making in a QB just because ideally, that's how you want the cap to break down. However, there's just no reason to do that unless you can actually get a QB who is worth that money. we all wish the Vikes had that player but they haven't lately and I don't think they just passed him up in the FA market either.

McKinnon was drafted to be a third down back, similar to Darren Sproles and Danny Woodhead.

Husker Vike wrote:McKinnon was drafted to be a third down back, similar to Darren Sproles and Danny Woodhead.

I've seen that reported, but to my knowledge that's never been confirmed by the Vikings. I've also read speculation that he could be AD's heir apparent. There's obviously a lot that needs to be done with him in either case.

Husker Vike wrote:McKinnon was drafted to be a third down back, similar to Darren Sproles and Danny Woodhead.

I can see my viewpoint is not going to sway you (i.e. why couldn't he be the 'replacement' for Peterson since ostensibly we had (or so we thought) at least a couple of years to develop him). I think his contribution as a 'third down back' was the 'short term' design, but the assertion was that the Vikings were just not planning for a 'change at running back'. I just disagree with that assessment. And the other 'third down backs' we've had (Chester Taylor, et al) have been pretty competent "all-around" backs as well. If the thought is that a back is going to be 'take Peterson's place,' that is just not going to happen due to Peterson's skill level. It's like saying a back is going to take Barry Sanders', or Jim Brown's place. They just are NOT going to have that skill set. McKinnon is a situational back now, but I'm just not convinced that the Vikings couldn't develop him into something more. Heck, Peterson looked pretty good in blocking at the Rams game. He sure didn't (nor was he expected to) earlier in his career.

Mothman wrote: I don't buy it. They simply struck out at QB and when that happens, there are consequences. I don't know where you're getting 5 years. The "long enough" you're talking about is basically the Ponder era: 3 years. Prior to that, they had an elite QB in 2009 who they thought/hoped would still be elite in 2010 and as I said, they paid him a bundle.

They just drafted Bridgewater. If he works out well, they will have taken exactly the same path GB took with Rodgers and Detroit took with Stafford. They will have drafted a Qb and developed him into a player worthy of the kind of cap hit you want devoted to that position.

I just see very little evidence pointing to the conclusion you've drawn and it almost seems as if you're saying they should be investing the kind of money Peterson is making in a QB just because ideally, that's how you want the cap to break down. However, there's just no reason to do that unless you can actually get a QB who is worth that money. we all wish the Vikes had that player but they haven't lately and I don't think they just passed him up in the FA market either.

Absolutely correct, Jim. The list of "established", highly productive QBs available in the Free Agent market over the last 4 seasons?

Brees, Manning, Flacco, Vick, Alex Smith.

Five. Brees and Manning were never going to come to Minny, in fact Brees was going nowhere. Flacco was way overpaid in Baltimore. Vick would have been the same ol' aging QB routine that has the Vikings spinning their wheels. And Alex Smith, while productive, is hardly worth the incremental cap hit versus drafting and grooming a potential franchise QB like Bridgewater.

LEAFMAN THE PURPLE FAN

dead_poet wrote: I've seen that reported, but to my knowledge that's never been confirmed by the Vikings. I've also read speculation that he could be AD's heir apparent. There's obviously a lot that needs to be done with him in either case.

Wow, if their idea of McKinnon is the replacement for AD, we are in trouble.

He was rarely used as a RB, that ran straight up the gut. He was an option guy. And a good receiver. There were SO many pure RB's left at the time we took McKinnon, im a little mad at Rickie.

I still think for a low price, we could get BGE. Much more experience then anything we have now, not too old, and was a solid RB, who is faster then Asiata. Since they don't seem to want to give Banyard a try (which really sucks imo) BGE should be a really easy fit. Now our Oline, well that's another story. So sad we have so much invested in it, when the best player on the Oline next week is going to be Loadholt. Unless Sully and Fuesco can play.

edit: I really need to start proffreading my posts

PurpleKoolaid wrote:Since they don't seem to want to give Banyard a try (which really sucks imo)

I'll grant you I think Banyard would be a better pure runner now than McKinnon is, so I'm a little confused at their reluctance on him too.

Just Me wrote: I'll grant you I think Banyard would be a better pure runner now than McKinnon is, so I'm a little confused at their reluctance on him too.

I believe I read once that his big main issue was ball security. Evidently he tended to fumble a fair amount in practice.

EDIT: Here's where I read that, took me a bit to find it. http://vikingsterritory.com/2014/analys ... tice-squad

McKinnon is a two year project to become a Darren Sproles type player. The adjustment from an option QB in college to a RB in the NFL is significant. Taking him in the 3rd round was a bit of a stretch. Think Spielman may have been mesmerized by his combine performance.

And then there's this:

Chris Mortenson @mortreport
Sources: Irony of developments w Vikings is they were among teams that passed on giving up 4th round pick for Darren Sproles during draft.

Pseudo Everything wrote:McKinnon is a two year project to become a Darren Sproles type player. The adjustment from an option QB in college to a RB in the NFL is significant. Taking him in the 3rd round was a bit of a stretch. Think Spielman may have been mesmerized by his combine performance.

And then there's this:

Screw Mort. The rebuilding Vikings have no business giving up a 4th round pick for a 31 year-old running back that already had AD at the time. Jeez. And people are mad we haven't traded Adrian Peterson yet and devoting so many millions to the running back position. Oh, and Sproles' contract? Three-year, $10.5 million, including a $3 million signing bonus, and $5.5 million guaranteed. If we did that I think there would've been some people on this board that would've given themselves a hernia. We're in a much better position to groom an athletic freak (that has shown fairly well so far in limited action) to be a potential Sproles -- or more (FWIW McKinnon has three inches and nearly 20 pounds on Sproles, he's two inches shorter but 10 pounds heavier than Jaamal Charles). Signing Sproles would've been pretty short-sighted for a team that was/is a long-shot for a deep playoff push.

dead_poet wrote: Screw Mort. The rebuilding Vikings have no business giving up a 4th round pick for a 31 year-old running back that already had AD at the time. Jeez. And people are mad we haven't traded Adrian Peterson yet and devoting so many millions to the running back position. Oh, and Sproles' contract? Three-year, $10.5 million, including a $3 million signing bonus, and $5.5 million guaranteed. If we did that I think there would've been some people on this board that would've given themselves a hernia. We're in a much better position to groom an athletic freak (that has shown fairly well so far in limited action) to be a potential Sproles -- or more (FWIW McKinnon has three inches and nearly 20 pounds on Sproles, he's two inches shorter but 10 pounds heavier than Jaamal Charles). Signing Sproles would've been pretty short-sighted for a team that was/is a long-shot for a deep playoff push.

Well ... I didn't know we had a shot a Sproles for just a 4th round pick, but I don't see having AD on the roster as a reason to preclude bringing him in. Sproles worked well with LaDainian Tomlinson as the workhorse in San Diego and now he's doing the same with Shady McCoy as the workhorse in Philly.

You've got a point about the contract the Eagles gave Sproles. A little rich. On the other hand there are many posters here who seem to think that Peterson's contract is not an impediment to trading him.

The issue with McKinnon is how long it will take him to transition to an NFL RB from a small school option QB. And it's not assured that he even will be able to make that transition (which probably accounts for why he was working out as a DB at the combine). I think fans in general underestimate this. Thought at the time that taking a "project" type player like this in the 3rd was at least a round too high and I still feel that way (of course we didn't have a 4th round pick so if we were in love with him we had to take him with our 3rd).

Pseudo Everything wrote:Well ... I didn't know we had a shot a Sproles for just a 4th round pick, but I don't see having AD on the roster as a reason to preclude bringing him in. Sproles worked well with LaDainian Tomlinson as the workhorse in San Diego and now he's doing the same with Shady McCoy as the workhorse in Philly.

You've got a point about the contract the Eagles gave Sproles. A little rich. On the other hand there are many posters here who seem to think that Peterson's contract is not an impediment to trading him.

The issue with McKinnon is how long it will take him to transition to an NFL RB from a small school option QB. And it's not assured that he even will be able to make that transition (which probably accounts for why he was working out as a DB at the combine). I think fans in general underestimate this. Thought at the time that taking a "project" type player like this in the 3rd was at least a round too high and I still feel that way (of course we didn't have a 4th round pick so if we were in love with him we had to take him with our 3rd).

I don't blame the Vikes one bit for not going after Sproles. He, as stated, didn't fit the front office philosophy of getting younger at positions and with AD there wasn't any way they were going to pay him that kind of money to spell Adrian on occasion or to even play that hybrid role that he has successfully done in the past. Although selfishly, I love cheering for him on behalf of all short guys out there

I also don't think people should expect too much from McKinnon at this point. He is from a small school who didn't even play running back in college and as stated above, was a player picked based on potential. He may have unique athletic gifts but watching him in the preseason and in the few touches he's gotten this regular season shows that he clearly has a lot to learn about vision, following blockers among other aspects of being a successful back in the NFL. He is definitely not ready to handle bell cow duties. Although I hope they continue to give him touches so he can progress and gain that experience.

I hope they start to incorporate Banyard a little more. He has looked promising in some preaseason action, albeit against 2nd and 3rd stringers, but I think he has a little more experience than McKinnon at this point and I'd like to see if any of that success would carry over. He may not be successful either but I don't think we have many options at this point and honestly the run production can't get much worse than it has been the last couple weeks.

Pseudo Everything wrote:Well ... I didn't know we had a shot a Sproles for just a 4th round pick, but I don't see having AD on the roster as a reason to preclude bringing him in. Sproles worked well with LaDainian Tomlinson as the workhorse in San Diego and now he's doing the same with Shady McCoy as the workhorse in Philly.

With Turner in the mix and Toby gone, AD was set to play more on third downs, making him what I've always thought he could be, a true three-down back. I'm not sure there would've been the volume to back up the contract. The Vikings were already spending more than $12 million on the running back position. I think the biggest reason, again, is that the Vikings weren't/aren't in the position in the next year (possibly even two) to contend for the title. It makes more sense to keep that 4th round pick and not "waste" it on a 31-year-old role player on a rebuilding team.

You've got a point about the contract the Eagles gave Sproles. A little rich. On the other hand there are many posters here who seem to think that Peterson's contract is not an impediment to trading him.

It's an awfully big hurdle. Few teams could absorb it without some kind of restructure.

The issue with McKinnon is how long it will take him to transition to an NFL RB from a small school option QB. And it's not assured that he even will be able to make that transition (which probably accounts for why he was working out as a DB at the combine). I think fans in general underestimate this. Thought at the time that taking a "project" type player like this in the 3rd was at least a round too high and I still feel that way (of course we didn't have a 4th round pick so if we were in love with him we had to take him with our 3rd).

It's not like he doesn't have experience with the position. He scored 42 rushing TDs on a 6.3 YPC clip. He has the size and speed to eventually become a feature-caliber NFL running back. Of course, he could be out of the league in three years, too. Like Patterson, the potential is there due to his freakish athleticism. I also questioned the pick at the time, but so did a lot of people with Toby and (IMO) he performed well in the role he was asked to fill.

PurpleKoolaid wrote:Wow, if their idea of McKinnon is the replacement for AD, we are in trouble.

He was rarely used as a RB, that ran straight up the gut. He was an option guy. And a good receiver. There were SO many pure RB's left at the time we took McKinnon, im a little mad at Rickie.

I still think for a low price, we could get BGE. Much more experience then anything we have now, not too old, and was a solid RB, who is faster then Asiata. Since they don't seem to want to give Banyard a try (which really sucks imo) BGE should be a really easy fit. Now our Oline, well that's another story. So sad we have so much invested in it, when the best player on the Oline next week is going to be Loadholt. Unless Sully and Fuesco can play.

edit: I really need to start proffreading my posts

You should start proofreading them too.

Sorry, I had to do it. The irony was too much to resist. From master of typos to another: you have my sympathy.