VikingLord wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2025 4:43 pmI'd say the number of playoff wins is more important than regular season wins, at least if the measuring stick is playoff success rather than just making the playoffs.
I think so too. But when we're talking about how a team performs over the course of the entire season and we're talking about total yards, etc. Wins is what it's about to me.
The interior OL is weak and I see no immediate relief on the horizon with that group right now. Maybe KAM will luck out in FA or he'll get at least one good IOL in the upcoming draft. But you can have all the skill position talent locked up that you want and if you can't open running lanes or protect the QB you won't win in the playoffs.
I think getting Darrisaw back is going to help tremendously with how the offensive line as a whole performs. I think the IOL can be upgraded but I think it's weakness isn't as easily exploited when that LT position is locked down and the player there is top tier.
I brought up the defensive yardage stats and rankings and you said what mattered most was keeping opposing offenses out of the endzone, and the secondary players you are discounting here were a big part of the defensive statistic you felt mattered the most. That seems a little incongruous. Were they good or not, non-essential or important parts of a team on the cusp of playoff success?
I think the defense as a whole was good-not-great and the biggest "not great" part of it was the secondary. Just like I think the Vikings offense is very good but that doesn't mean parts of it can't be upgraded. If they were needing to replace the entire IOL this offseason it wouldn't bother me either.
I want to make it clear how I see this - a good GM is *always* competing for a Superbowl. What makes the difference between a good GM and an average or bad GM is that a good GM recognizes that Superbowl winning teams have to be built over a period of time. You can't just wade into the FA market, sign a bunch of guys to one-term deals to plug the holes in your starting units because you can't draft, and expect to be competing for Superbowls every season. While I'm sure there are examples of teams that managed to be competitive with such short-term thinking, it's rare and really difficult to duplicate.
I don't see a ton of short-term thinking by the Vikings. They've had a bad draft and it's not looking great for some others but that's not the same as not trying to think long term. To some degree signing FA's to short contracts means they're hoping some rookies are able to step up.
1) Shed dead money. As much of it as possible. Don't consider moving it around or shifting the impact into future years. Head into a future offseason with as much actual cap headroom as possible so the team can be a player for any FA(s) it needs when it's ready to make the run
They've only got $10.7m in "dead" cap money. That's 14th least and definitely in the "lower" tier of dead money teams. The 15th and 16th lowest teams are both about $11.5m and then it jumps to $18m going into 50m at the high end.
And they've got some of the most cap space available to them. I don't think they can sign players to a bunch of long term contracts *and* have extra cap space unless they hit in the draft. Which of course they're trying to do.
2) For the FAs that are signed, *always* give the team an option. Sweeten the deal to a point to make sure the option is there, but if the player overperforms the Vikings should always be first in line to squeeze the juice out of that fruit.
If they are able to find players willing to sign team friendly contracts definitely take them. I think trying to make players sign those kinds of contracts that are longer term with not very much guaranteed money are going to end up having free agents going to other teams.
3) Draft smarter. Trade downs should be rare, especially at the top of the draft. Trade ups even rarer. When trades are made, the increased value to the Vikings should be clear, either in terms of picks gained or talent gained. If it's not clear value, it isn't a good trade (which speaks to why those should be rare in the first place as one side is going to come out on the wrong end of the trade). In this upcoming draft, for example, KAM will be majorly tempted (as in Adam and Eve-level tempted) to trade back from #24 to "get more picks". While there may be deals that objectively would favor the Vikings in such a trade, there may also be truly talented prospects at #24 that could really help the Vikings where they most need help. So maybe just holding pat and taking the single guy at #24 is the best move even if it means KAM has to wait until the 5th round to take two more swings.
They need to draft better but it's not as if they're not trying to do that. I like your strategy but is it really taking a "step back"? It's just a different strategy.
4) Accept reality. The reality is, the team traded up and spent a high 1st rounder to get McCarthy. He cooled his heels his first year. Make him the clear favorite to start and give him that chance, even if it means he may struggle for a while. Make it clear you will tolerate those mistakes, and make sure the team has a viable vet to back him up and help guide him. The last thing you want to do is bring in (or back) a guy who is going to muddy the water you need to see through to understand if your longer-term plan at QB is going to work. Fate took Cousins out of the picture last year, and injury took McCarthy out of it, so there was no pressure on either the Vikings or McCarthy to try to answer that question last year. If they bring Darnold back and pay him starter money, however, all of that resets and it will be that much harder to answer the question as to whether McCarthy is the longer-term answer at QB. How many years do they want to wait before they get that answer? It won't come with McCarthy sitting on the sideline. Maybe sacrifice a few wins this upcoming year to see if your QB of the future is your future.
Those are the four things that come immediately to mind, and all of them may mean taking a little less in the short term to get more in the longer term. And I'd do all of them if I were the GM of this team.
I don't think fate took Cousins out of it at all. Them doing exactly what you said did. They weren't willing to bring Cousins back for a longer term contract and he wasn't willing to sign a 2-year deal. They were honest with him that JJM was the "future" so he left. I also think it's why Darnold isn't going to be coming back. He'll be able to get a 3ish year contract somewhere and KOC has drafted "his" guy. I think they'll bring in at least one QB that was in Darnold's position last year. Someone with talent but a bad history and willing to take a "prove it" 1 or 2 year deal to get their career back on path with a team like the Vikings. Someone that can compete with JJM and allows him to sit for a second season if they decide he needs it, which seemed to be the plan from the beginning.
Darnold had potential so they signed him, but I think it's obvious they didn't expect the level they got out of him. I don't think they expected to have any kind of controversy about resigning him after the 2024 season.
I also don't think sitting JJM has much to do with wins, I think it comes from the understanding that you can ruin a young QB by trying to throw them in too soon.
