Vikings Message Board.Com

I've edited the subject to a broader topic..
----

He a a solid year as a platoon player for Seattle and started in the SB.

If he could be signed in a cap friendly deal would you do it?
.....
--
Why or why not? What would be a realistic offer for him? Is there enough room on the depth chart?

I would because he can still play in rotation and brings all kinds of tanible tuetalage and leadership to the club.

I think he signed a two year deal with Seattle.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

PurpleMustReign wrote:I think he signed a two year deal with Seattle.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Ohh....that makes for a short thread. I guess I'll go back to sleep.

Lol.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

He only signed a 1 year deal with SEA..If he decides to retire he'll probably sign a 1 day contract here.

Why do we want another old past his prime player when we have two solid young guys at the position? Along with some nice young depth? Because he played here before? Ugh bad enough Twins, Timberwolves bringing back old players to try and relive their glory days.

Demi wrote:Why do we want another old past his prime player when we have two solid young guys at the position? Along with some nice young depth? Because he played here before? Ugh bad enough Twins, Timberwolves bringing back old players to try and relive their glory days.

Why did seattle want him?

The Breeze wrote: Why did seattle want him?

Depth. They were also coming of a Super Bowl win. Vikings ain't there yet.

PacificNorseWest wrote: Depth. They were also coming of a Super Bowl win. Vikings ain't there yet.

That's what I was suggesting..... depth. Particularly knowledgable depth on a team that is very young. Like the youngest to ever win a superbowl with a qb in his second season.
It's moot since he's not avaiable....but really i'm interested in the merits of having some long term stabilty on this team at key positons. A guy on either side of the line, a linebacker, DB and a WR.
---
How did they get in the situation where they basically had not one guy with a clue at LB,WR,DB and QB..... for years either at couple or all of these spots, save for some midling FA or over valued hopeful?

Was it poor planning/drafting? or due to the short lived coaching regimes and schemes from Tice til now?
Can it all just be blamed on salary cap and economics?
Is it an overstated value in the game?...'veteran leadership'
Just wondering what people think.
---
seriously, outside of a few good runs in the 90's, I would say that Vikes haven't had much in the way of 'glory days' since Bud Grant era.

The Breeze wrote: That's what I was suggesting..... depth. Particularly knowledgable depth on a team that is very young. Like the youngest to ever win a superbowl with a qb in his second season.
It's moot since he's not avaiable....but really i'm interested in the merits of having some long term stabilty on this team at key positons. A guy on either side of the line, a linebacker, DB and a WR.
---
How did they get in the situation where they basically had not one guy with a clue at LB,WR,DB and QB..... for years either at couple or all of these spots, save for some midling FA or over valued hopeful?

Was it poor planning/drafting? or due to the short lived coaching regimes and schemes from Tice til now?
Can it all just be blamed on salary cap and economics?
Is it an overstated value in the game?...'veteran leadership'
Just wondering what people think.
---
seriously, outside of a few good runs in the 90's, I would say that Vikes haven't had much in the way of 'glory days' since Bud Grant era.

They had some good teams under Burns in the '80s...

Mothman wrote: They had some good teams under Burns in the '80s...

Ha! I knew that was coming. I keep seeing an incomplete pass at the goaline against the redskins....an Darrin Nelson running draw plays.
----
As to the question of the value of vets, I don't think there is any definite line or formula....or right or wrong. Every situation is unique.
But after thinking about my own questions it continues to come back to the QB.
When you have 'the' guy it creates stability from top to bottom.

Addressing the topic change: I think it depends on where the team is. Last year his leadership was probably invaluable. A team on the cusp of making Super Bowl runs, veteran leadership is probably over-valued assuming the production is average to below-average. If that player is still putting up above-average production, then you probably don't cut him.

PacificNorseWest wrote:Addressing the topic change: I think it depends on where the team is. Last year his leadership was probably invaluable. A team on the cusp of making Super Bowl runs, veteran leadership is probably over-valued assuming the production is average to below-average. If that player is still putting up above-average production, then you probably don't cut him.

I get where you're coming from now with the superbowl cusp issue.
It does seem to me that the quality desired is some aspect of tone. How to finish plays, finish games and knowing where you're supposed be on any given play. Once that is an established trend everyone is a vet...so to speak.
--
Another thing I'm noticing is how much of a difference a veteran coach or coaching staff can make in the place of having a lot of vets on a team.
--
My point of interest stems from how big of a drop the secondary took when Winfield was cut with no viable replacement. I felt the possibility of a simliar glitch with the release of Jennings...even though he hadn't performed like Winfield.
It's not always easy to know but the money speaks loudest in the end.
Defintely not a decision for fickle fans.
--
I always appreciate your take on things PNW.
---