mjollnir
β ββ ββ ββ
Posts: 2,186 
|
Post by mjollnir on Feb 21, 2024 9:06:01 GMT -6
Just curious, if the Vikings are looking for a "bridge" QB just to play a year or so while grooming a rookie, do we really want a QB who might win a bunch of games? In the long run, would it be better to not pay any vet FA QB big (or big-ish) money or sign someone for more than a year or two? They could just roll with a low-cost journeyman for a year (even Mullins or Hall), lose more than they win, get some dead cap off the books and end up with higher draft picks next year to build up the team around the rookie. It seems to me if they are committed to drafting a rookie this year and starting him next year, I'm not sure why we are so worried about who is under center this coming season. I do understand that veteran members of the team may not love potentially sacrificing a season. And, if you are not committed to drafting a potential long-term QB this season, then that's another story. Thoughts? I agree with this post. If you are committed to drafting a QB this year you need to start them right away. I don't understand all of this discussion about a bridge QB. BTW, I bet someone signs Mayfield for big money this year. He is still young and proved he can take a team to the playoffs. If David Carr can get the contract he got last year from the Saints, you can bet Mayfield is going to get paid. Way to many QB's came in and started year one and wrecked their career. David Carr, Ryan Leaf, Matt Leinart, Brady Quin. The only way I support starting a rookie year one is if he shows he is head and shoulders above the alternatives. |
|
|
|
Post by odinswrath on Feb 21, 2024 9:55:09 GMT -6
I agree with this post. If you are committed to drafting a QB this year you need to start them right away. I don't understand all of this discussion about a bridge QB. BTW, I bet someone signs Mayfield for big money this year. He is still young and proved he can take a team to the playoffs. If David Carr can get the contract he got last year from the Saints, you can bet Mayfield is going to get paid. Way to many QB's came in and started year one and wrecked their career.Β David Carr, Ryan Leaf, Matt Leinart, Brady Quin.Β The only way I support starting a rookie year one is if he shows he is head and shoulders above the alternatives. Those QBβS you listed weren't going to be any good even if they sat a year or two at the start of their career. The good ones can play right away. The problem with getting a so called bridge QB is that you don't really improve your cap situation. If you roll with a rookie at least you can spend more money on building the rest of the team. I'm ready to move on from Kirk and get a QB of the future this year. |
|
skolvike
β ββ ββ ββ
Posts: 1,628
|
Baker?
Feb 21, 2024 11:36:21 GMT -6
Post by skolvike on Feb 21, 2024 11:36:21 GMT -6
Just curious, if the Vikings are looking for a "bridge" QB just to play a year or so while grooming a rookie, do we really want a QB who might win a bunch of games? In the long run, would it be better to not pay any vet FA QB big (or big-ish) money or sign someone for more than a year or two? They could just roll with a low-cost journeyman for a year (even Mullins or Hall), lose more than they win, get some dead cap off the books and end up with higher draft picks next year to build up the team around the rookie. It seems to me if they are committed to drafting a rookie this year and starting him next year, I'm not sure why we are so worried about who is under center this coming season. I do understand that veteran members of the team may not love potentially sacrificing a season. And, if you are not committed to drafting a potential long-term QB this season, then that's another story. Thoughts? I agree with this post. If you are committed to drafting a QB this year you need to start them right away. I don't understand all of this discussion about a bridge QB. BTW, I bet someone signs Mayfield for big money this year. He is still young and proved he can take a team to the playoffs. If David Carr can get the contract he got last year from the Saints, you can bet Mayfield is going to get paid. I agree! Mahommes, Rodgers, Brees, and even Brady sat for a year or more, and it's absolutely obvious just how badly sitting destroyed them. Let's not ruin our own raw rook QB like it ruined these guys. |
|
mjollnir
β ββ ββ ββ
Posts: 2,186
|
Baker?
Feb 21, 2024 11:43:31 GMT -6
Post by mjollnir on Feb 21, 2024 11:43:31 GMT -6
Jordan Love, Patrick Mahomes, Phillip Rivers, Carson Palmer, Jay Cutler, Aaron Rodgers would prove otherwise.
|
|
purpleberserker
β ββ ββ ββ
From the fury of the Northmen deliver us, O Lord.
(A furore Normannorum libera nos, Domine.)
Posts: 548
|
Baker?
Feb 21, 2024 11:57:24 GMT -6
Post by purpleberserker on Feb 21, 2024 11:57:24 GMT -6
I am all for sitting a rookie QB for a year. IMO there will be diminishing returns on subsequent years on the bench. So my original question was essentially why spend big money on a 1-year bridge QB? Unless you believe you are a true contender next year with bridge QB, take your lumps for one year, get your financial house in order and plan everything around the next season.
As for the idea of sitting a rookie for 2-3 years, what happened to all the talk that the best way to compete these days is to have a star QB on a rooking contract. If you sit your rookie for 3 years while paying big money to another QB, you are defeating that process or at least greatly narrowing your window. I've even heard speculation of Miami looking to move Tua because he's going to need a big deal soon and getting another rookie contract QB to keep the process moving forward for the Dolphins.
IMO, if your rookie QB needs 3 years on the bench, you may have drafted the wrong dude.
|
|
|
|
Post by 1angryviking on Feb 21, 2024 12:32:37 GMT -6
Jordan Love, Patrick Mahomes, Phillip Rivers, Carson Palmer, Jay Cutler, Aaron Rodgers would prove otherwise. I'm not ready to compare today's rookie QB's to ones from a previous generation. |
|
|
|
Baker?
Feb 21, 2024 12:32:55 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by smoot4208 on Feb 21, 2024 12:32:55 GMT -6
Way to many QB's came in and started year one and wrecked their career.Β David Carr, Ryan Leaf, Matt Leinart, Brady Quin.Β The only way I support starting a rookie year one is if he shows he is head and shoulders above the alternatives. Those QBβS you listed weren't going to be any good even if they sat a year or two at the start of their career. The good ones can play right away. The problem with getting a so called bridge QB is that you don't really improve your cap situation. If you roll with a rookie at least you can spend more money on building the rest of the team. I'm ready to move on from Kirk and get a QB of the future this year. I agree with this 100%. Either you pay KC the market rate and draft a QB to sit behind him or you draft a QB and have him sit behind Mullens. Signing a bridge QB doesnβt make sense imo with regards to the cap. A bridge QB will want a front loaded contact too since they know they may not play through the contract they signed. Not to mention, Baker is going to want to sign with a team who thinks he is their long term answer, not a 1-2 year gap option who will bench him after his first or second bad performance. |
|
|
|
Baker?
Feb 21, 2024 12:52:51 GMT -6
Post by burntpackerdbs84 on Feb 21, 2024 12:52:51 GMT -6
Those QBβS you listed weren't going to be any good even if they sat a year or two at the start of their career. The good ones can play right away. The problem with getting a so called bridge QB is that you don't really improve your cap situation. If you roll with a rookie at least you can spend more money on building the rest of the team. I'm ready to move on from Kirk and get a QB of the future this year. I agree with this 100%. Either you pay KC the market rate and draft a QB to sit behind him or you draft a QB and have him sit behind Mullens. Signing a bridge QB doesnβt make sense imo with regards to the cap. A bridge QB will want a front loaded contact too since they know they may not play through the contract they signed. Not to mention, Baker is going to want to sign with a team who thinks he is their long term answer, not a 1-2 year gap option who will bench him after his first or second bad performance. Anyone interesting in hitching our wagon to Baker for 5-6 years, cheaper than Kirk and drafting other needs? |
|
drhoades
β ββ ββ ββ
Posts: 1,221
|
Baker?
Feb 21, 2024 12:52:53 GMT -6
Post by drhoades on Feb 21, 2024 12:52:53 GMT -6
Way to many QB's came in and started year one and wrecked their career. David Carr, Ryan Leaf, Matt Leinart, Brady Quin. The only way I support starting a rookie year one is if he shows he is head and shoulders above the alternatives. Those QBβS you listed weren't going to be any good even if they sat a year or two at the start of their career. The good ones can play right away. The problem with getting a so called bridge QB is that you don't really improve your cap situation. If you roll with a rookie at least you can spend more money on building the rest of the team. I'm ready to move on from Kirk and get a QB of the future this year. yes and drafting a prayer is so garaunteed to be successful. and it will only take one down year, some of us are too old to wait around when the talent line is so thin in todays NFL and we have a top 10 QB, draft a QB for sure but dont expect he will start right away and be the future and all will be rosy |
|
shawn3458
β ββ ββ ββ
Enter your message here...
Posts: 3,050
Member is Online
|
Post by shawn3458 on Feb 21, 2024 13:09:59 GMT -6
Way to many QB's came in and started year one and wrecked their career.Β David Carr, Ryan Leaf, Matt Leinart, Brady Quin.Β The only way I support starting a rookie year one is if he shows he is head and shoulders above the alternatives. Those QBβS you listed weren't going to be any good even if they sat a year or two at the start of their career. The good ones can play right away. The problem with getting a so called bridge QB is that you don't really improve your cap situation. If you roll with a rookie at least you can spend more money on building the rest of the team. I'm ready to move on from Kirk and get a QB of the future this year. David Carr got his ass brutally beat behind a terrible oline. Heβs one we will never really know what could have been. |
|
|
|
Baker?
Feb 21, 2024 16:07:26 GMT -6
Post by daredevil on Feb 21, 2024 16:07:26 GMT -6
If your drafting a QB to start first year; then imo you draft one that has at least 3-4's years of college ball under his belt. Nix, Penix, or JJ would be their best bet, and may be able to take one of them at #11. If you keep Mullens; then let him sit behind him for the year or less before he really gets his feet wet in the NFL.
If one is planning to start him from day one; then they best make sure he gets 90% of the snaps during training camp and pre-season. Then one doesn't need anybody else behind him more then Mullens and Hall. Hall can battle Mullens for the back up. I'm starting to warm up to JJ or Nix's. I believe JJ has shown to be injury prone free, and he definitely has the fire under him to battle for the starting job. Nix imo is the best to read defenses, and has shown he can play now without the injury concerns. Plus he can start day one. Penix's injury history worries me the most. He'll need to sit a full year just to recoup and get in better physical condition. He is a gamer, and has one of the better arms and ball control and touch to throw any where's on the field. He can definitely fit it into tight windows as good, or better then most pro's I've watched. I believe either one of those three; if can stay healthy; can be a franchise QB for most teams; including us.
I don't believe we need to sell the farm to move up and grab a future; either one of those three I could be happy with.
The kid out of LSU would be the only one I would want out of the so called top three. The only thing that worries me about him; is he likes to run if his first read isn't open. He seems to lack patents. JMO
The other two imo are at the same level as the three I mentioned.
|
|
|
|
Post by daredevil on Feb 21, 2024 16:21:13 GMT -6
If one is going to bring Baker in to replace KC; then I wouldn't draft a QB this year. One might as well stick with Hall as your back up or future.
Then draft either OL or edge at #11. One could go several directions this way. CB, DL, LB. Whatever; the draft would be wide open for us. Trade down and pick up another high pick; a second or third, or both. A second next year and a third this year.
One would most likely have your future QB in Baker and Hall. So why bother drafting a QB in the first or second round? Just sort of rambling.
|
|
|
|
Post by redbird87 on Feb 21, 2024 16:47:47 GMT -6
The team has too much money tied up in prime offensive weapons to have the most critical spot be a total question mark.....that is why you need a bridge QB. This isn't a full blown reboot...you have high end talent getting or about to be getting paid like high end talent....you don't put Mullins or a rookie out there and hope for the best. Anyone who watched the 2nd half of the season should be well aware of how bad our offense was....I mean it was putrid.
Think of it this way. If you are a high end corporation that has just invested a shit ton of money in recruiting the best sales and networking people in the business to promote your service or product.....you don't turn around and hire a college graduate or a CEO that bankrupt 3 other companies to come in and run the place. Once in awhile you might find gold, but more than likely they are going to kill the business because they are too inexperienced and or simply not up to the job and all the talent is going to flee. The product suffers, poor decisions are made, service falls off a cliff and you pissed away all the money you spent on all these great talents you spent recruiting to promote your business.
That is why you get a bridge QB
|
|
purpleberserker
β ββ ββ ββ
From the fury of the Northmen deliver us, O Lord.
(A furore Normannorum libera nos, Domine.)
Posts: 548
|
Baker?
Feb 21, 2024 17:23:23 GMT -6
Post by purpleberserker on Feb 21, 2024 17:23:23 GMT -6
The team has too much money tied up in prime offensive weapons to have the most critical spot be a total question mark.....that is why you need a bridge QB. This isn't a full blown reboot...you have high end talent getting or about to be getting paid like high end talent....you don't put Mullins or a rookie out there and hope for the best. Anyone who watched the 2nd half of the season should be well aware of how bad our offense was....I mean it was putrid. Think of it this way. If you are a high end corporation that has just invested a shit ton of money in recruiting the best sales and networking people in the business to promote your service or product.....you don't turn around and hire a college graduate or a CEO that bankrupt 3 other companies to come in and run the place. Once in awhile you might find gold, but more than likely they are going to kill the business because they are too inexperienced and or simply not up to the job and all the talent is going to flee. The product suffers, poor decisions are made, service falls off a cliff and you pissed away all the money you spent on all these great talents you spent recruiting to promote your business. That is why you get a bridge QB I just disagree with this premise. We are not talking about the "future of the corporation". We are talking about a 1-year reset. If Mullins were to start for example, our star players on offense would still get their stats. Mullens turning the ball over may lead to some losses, but if that happens it just sets them up better for the following season when you insert the rookie QB. And who knows, maybe Mullins sees the light and pulls a Case Keenum. If you insist on a corporation analogy, think of it like a company that is relocating a large manufacturing facility to a more tax-friendly, regulation-friendly, non-union state rather than spending on much needed upgrades at their current location. Their bottom line will suffer in the short-term but their business will be better off for many reasons once they make the transition. |
|
|
|
Baker?
Feb 21, 2024 17:32:50 GMT -6
Post by redbird87 on Feb 21, 2024 17:32:50 GMT -6
If one is going to bring Baker in to replace KC; then I wouldn't draft a QB this year. One might as well stick with Hall as your back up or future.
Then draft either OL or edge at #11. One could go several directions this way. CB, DL, LB. Whatever; the draft would be wide open for us. Trade down and pick up another high pick; a second or third, or both. A second next year and a third this year.
One would most likely have your future QB in Baker and Hall. So why bother drafting a QB in the first or second round? Just sort of rambling.
I agree you don't have to go QB in Rd 1...but you probably need to at least go after one in the 2nd. However, the reason you would still draft a QB is because Baker isn't guaranteed to turn into a "Franchise QB". Signing a Bridge and still drafting a QB provides the team flexibility to go with the best option long term and trade away the other in a year or two. If the QB you draft is the real deal, you trade Baker and probably get back a lot of draft capital if he's played well and still have a QB on cheap deal for 2-3 years. If the QB you draft shows promise but Baker is tearing it up, you trade away the young guy for a lot of draft pics. Good QB's are in short supply and teams will drop good capital to get a young QB with promise particularly on a rookie deal. Look at all the QB's that played behind Brady that people gave up 1st and 2nd day pics for. Matt Cassel, Jacoby Brissett, Jimmy Garoppolo all fetched good draft pics. And if the guy you pick flops and Baker doesn't progress they way you hope, you still have a QB that can run efficiently while you still search for the heir to the QB helm. While Baker appears to have made huge strides and has a lot of upside if he continues to put things together....there is no guarantee he turns out to be the Franchise QB you seek. My opinion as a GM is you always want to allow yourself as much flexibility as possible...particularly when it comes to unknowns at the most critical positions and at QB, every semi high pick at QB you can put your hands on, particularly if they aren't forced to play right away, increases the probability for success in the long run. Many of the great QB's of all time were drafted while the team already had a sound QB. Steve Young was brought in while the 49's had Montana, GB went and got Farve while Majkowski was playing well, Brady was brought in behind Bledsoe, Rodgers brought in behind Farve, Rivers came in behind Brees, Mahomes came in behind Alex Smith ...obviously Love was brought in behind Rodgers. Just because you have a good QB doesn't mean you can't draft a good one. |
|
