I was wondering if Zimmer's "monetary" mark was another oblique shot at Kirk? That is, pointing out how much of the team's resources were already invested in the QB position.
The Vikings can "overpay" on an extension for O'neil since nobody else on that line is making any money right now. When comes to Smith, let him play out his contract save the money for Hunter or corners. If he has a great year they can always tag him!
Fun mailbag. I am loving the back-and-forth vibe of Vikings fans lately, it is really amusing/interesting/captivating to wade through the mix of people convinced that it will all crash and burn versus those that are convinced that this team is going to dethrone the Packers as NFC North powerhouse (I feel like I just end up playing devils advocate to whatever narrative is put out there). What is amazing is that there are plenty of storylines and developments that can support either position, between the positive performance of our IOL where our new guards handle DeForest Buckner with ease (who would have guessed that we would have two guards performing well two weeks before the NFL season and no one seems to care?) and the re-emergence of Danielle Hunter (a few weeks ago it was easy to find arguments about whether the Vikings would even want Hunter on the team after this year, and now he is apparently utterly unstoppable in preseason and few are commenting on this fantastically positive development) and then going towards Barr's tweak to Kurt's plexiglass to the current concerns at left tackle to Jefferson's AC joint to PatPete's age... Everyone has so much ammo to make arguments right now.
Outside of the Vikings, probably my favorite storyline for the NFL this year is seeing how it works out for the rookie QBs and also the teams that passed on QBs. There seems to be an assumption in the national media (not here nearly as much, as PI has done good about saying that we don't really know but that analytics just supports taking a shot) that all of the rookie QBs are going to be great and that everyone was fools for passing on them. Personally, I don't mind a team that wants to set up everything great for a QB, where these teams wait for a QB that they can tailor their scheme towards rather than reflexively taking a QB that they weren't all sold on. I mean, I remember back in 2017 when the Browns were split between taking Myles Garrett and Mitch Trubisky; I'm going to to ahead and take a lil guess and say that the browns didn't mind passing on the well-regarded QB prospect in that draft and instead took Garrett. Heck, you could even argue that the Bills don't regret not drafting Mahomes but instead using that draft pick to functionally take Tre'Davious White, Josh Allen, and Dion Dawkins (given the haul that the Chiefs traded to the Bills).
NFL history, including recent history, includes many teams with unclear futures at QB that were shown to make the right decision (or at least not objectively make the wrong decision) by not taking a well-regarded QB in the draft when they had a chance to. Frankly the Vikings should be exhibit 1A when it comes to reasons why you shouldn't take a QB if the power structure in the building isn't excited about him, even if that QB falls to you/you have a chance to take him, given how the Vikings have never leaned into the Kirk and how much that has led to awkward and painful half-in-half-out situations. Drafting a QB that you don't have the resources/inclination to define your team around can be a very efficient way to get fired. I think it was on the Ringer podcast the other day where they were commenting on how differently the NFL seemed to think about Justin Fields than the media. As I recall, they argued that this was true being as (arguably) the entire NFL passed on Fields in round 1 as the price that the Bears had to pay (a future 1st and a low 1st round pick) is one that every team would have paid in a heartbeat if they were half as high on Fields as the media was. It is just like Coller said here regarding Dede Westbrook being cheap - in many/most the NFL gets this right, and the guys that are gotten for cheap and the guys that fall in the draft usually (but not always!!) do so for a reason. Just like the NFL may be proven "right" for thinking that Dede Westbrook was not worth much, they may also be proven "right" for collectively not being nearly as high on Fields as the media was. Of course, a 1.1 mil one-year contract for Dede is juuuuust a bit different than being selected 11th overall in the draft for Fields, but the point remains that often it means something when the NFL values you less than the general public does. It will be fascinating to watch and see who was correct.
Matthew, I disagree with the framing "desperate to have a good defence". Sending a no. 2 for Ngakoue was a material use of resources. It is impossible for a depth signing on a 1 year deal for the vet minimum (which only costs $850K against the cap) with zero guaranteed dollars to be bad. A potentially good player was available and added at the cheapest possible cost, that's the sort of roster churning good teams do.
Hard pass on Mac Jones. Looking at the last 20 years, none of the best QBs played on stacked college teams and they tended to be multi-year starters. It's too easy for a qb to look good playing on a college team with 30-40 NFL players on it. Maybe Lawrence proves the exception, but at least he was a multi-year starter.
Glad to hear Purple Insider is going so well, kudos for turning lemons into an Arnold Palmer.
Thanks on that Andrew, always appreciate your support. I don't think any of us knows exactly how it's going to go with Jones. Could they end up regretting spending their own pick on a QB with potential? For sure. Could he be a bust? For sure.
I don't have actual data, but my close personal friend K. Seifert wrote earlier this week that Burrow was top four in accurate passes with protection, but dead last when facing pressure with a QBR of 3.8.
All investments come with risk, but there is seemingly less risk taking an accurate qb with a lot of starts on a less-talented team, where the QB had to deal with imperfect situations (as opposed to great pockets and wide-open receivers). Put Ponder on last year's Bama team and he throws for 5,000 yards.
I don't think that playing for a good team means you're not good as a QB prospect. Baker played for a great Oklahoma team. The reality is: We never really know who's going to make it as a prospect QB until it happens.
Jim has moments that are funny, but once you start seeing him as a jack@$$ rather than how the show wants you to view him, it's hard to ever go back. It's painful going back and watching a lot of his episodes. Particularly when he goes into his management mode.
About Viking fans being fatalistic.....To paraphrase Pink Floyd..... We are hanging on in quiet desperation.
I was wondering if Zimmer's "monetary" mark was another oblique shot at Kirk? That is, pointing out how much of the team's resources were already invested in the QB position.
The Vikings can "overpay" on an extension for O'neil since nobody else on that line is making any money right now. When comes to Smith, let him play out his contract save the money for Hunter or corners. If he has a great year they can always tag him!
Fun mailbag. I am loving the back-and-forth vibe of Vikings fans lately, it is really amusing/interesting/captivating to wade through the mix of people convinced that it will all crash and burn versus those that are convinced that this team is going to dethrone the Packers as NFC North powerhouse (I feel like I just end up playing devils advocate to whatever narrative is put out there). What is amazing is that there are plenty of storylines and developments that can support either position, between the positive performance of our IOL where our new guards handle DeForest Buckner with ease (who would have guessed that we would have two guards performing well two weeks before the NFL season and no one seems to care?) and the re-emergence of Danielle Hunter (a few weeks ago it was easy to find arguments about whether the Vikings would even want Hunter on the team after this year, and now he is apparently utterly unstoppable in preseason and few are commenting on this fantastically positive development) and then going towards Barr's tweak to Kurt's plexiglass to the current concerns at left tackle to Jefferson's AC joint to PatPete's age... Everyone has so much ammo to make arguments right now.
Outside of the Vikings, probably my favorite storyline for the NFL this year is seeing how it works out for the rookie QBs and also the teams that passed on QBs. There seems to be an assumption in the national media (not here nearly as much, as PI has done good about saying that we don't really know but that analytics just supports taking a shot) that all of the rookie QBs are going to be great and that everyone was fools for passing on them. Personally, I don't mind a team that wants to set up everything great for a QB, where these teams wait for a QB that they can tailor their scheme towards rather than reflexively taking a QB that they weren't all sold on. I mean, I remember back in 2017 when the Browns were split between taking Myles Garrett and Mitch Trubisky; I'm going to to ahead and take a lil guess and say that the browns didn't mind passing on the well-regarded QB prospect in that draft and instead took Garrett. Heck, you could even argue that the Bills don't regret not drafting Mahomes but instead using that draft pick to functionally take Tre'Davious White, Josh Allen, and Dion Dawkins (given the haul that the Chiefs traded to the Bills).
NFL history, including recent history, includes many teams with unclear futures at QB that were shown to make the right decision (or at least not objectively make the wrong decision) by not taking a well-regarded QB in the draft when they had a chance to. Frankly the Vikings should be exhibit 1A when it comes to reasons why you shouldn't take a QB if the power structure in the building isn't excited about him, even if that QB falls to you/you have a chance to take him, given how the Vikings have never leaned into the Kirk and how much that has led to awkward and painful half-in-half-out situations. Drafting a QB that you don't have the resources/inclination to define your team around can be a very efficient way to get fired. I think it was on the Ringer podcast the other day where they were commenting on how differently the NFL seemed to think about Justin Fields than the media. As I recall, they argued that this was true being as (arguably) the entire NFL passed on Fields in round 1 as the price that the Bears had to pay (a future 1st and a low 1st round pick) is one that every team would have paid in a heartbeat if they were half as high on Fields as the media was. It is just like Coller said here regarding Dede Westbrook being cheap - in many/most the NFL gets this right, and the guys that are gotten for cheap and the guys that fall in the draft usually (but not always!!) do so for a reason. Just like the NFL may be proven "right" for thinking that Dede Westbrook was not worth much, they may also be proven "right" for collectively not being nearly as high on Fields as the media was. Of course, a 1.1 mil one-year contract for Dede is juuuuust a bit different than being selected 11th overall in the draft for Fields, but the point remains that often it means something when the NFL values you less than the general public does. It will be fascinating to watch and see who was correct.
Matthew, I disagree with the framing "desperate to have a good defence". Sending a no. 2 for Ngakoue was a material use of resources. It is impossible for a depth signing on a 1 year deal for the vet minimum (which only costs $850K against the cap) with zero guaranteed dollars to be bad. A potentially good player was available and added at the cheapest possible cost, that's the sort of roster churning good teams do.
Hard pass on Mac Jones. Looking at the last 20 years, none of the best QBs played on stacked college teams and they tended to be multi-year starters. It's too easy for a qb to look good playing on a college team with 30-40 NFL players on it. Maybe Lawrence proves the exception, but at least he was a multi-year starter.
Glad to hear Purple Insider is going so well, kudos for turning lemons into an Arnold Palmer.
Thanks on that Andrew, always appreciate your support. I don't think any of us knows exactly how it's going to go with Jones. Could they end up regretting spending their own pick on a QB with potential? For sure. Could he be a bust? For sure.
I don't have actual data, but my close personal friend K. Seifert wrote earlier this week that Burrow was top four in accurate passes with protection, but dead last when facing pressure with a QBR of 3.8.
All investments come with risk, but there is seemingly less risk taking an accurate qb with a lot of starts on a less-talented team, where the QB had to deal with imperfect situations (as opposed to great pockets and wide-open receivers). Put Ponder on last year's Bama team and he throws for 5,000 yards.
Let's revisit it next off-season.
I don't think that playing for a good team means you're not good as a QB prospect. Baker played for a great Oklahoma team. The reality is: We never really know who's going to make it as a prospect QB until it happens.
With almost 50 NCAA starts, and he still got his first two HCs fired.
lol please.
One contrasts that with, e.g., Mr. Luck who was good enough to keep Grigson employed for 5 years.
I used to think you knew something, but then I read your Office vs PnR comment
Haha well everyone has their preferences
Jim has moments that are funny, but once you start seeing him as a jack@$$ rather than how the show wants you to view him, it's hard to ever go back. It's painful going back and watching a lot of his episodes. Particularly when he goes into his management mode.
You truly can't unsee it once you think of it that way. Though I'll give the writers credit for him getting hit with snowballs in the face