gunnarthor

Kind of nice that Ole Miss is winning without Kiffin, I suppose.

So, again, we do the dance where you purposefully misrepresent a fact - suggesting that Vikings drafted at a pick rather than trading - to suggest a point that doesn't really work. Again. I'm also not sure focusing on those first round picks is the big win you think it is - you omitted their other first rounder, Devonte Wyatt. As he and Van Ness have been such busts that they had to throw away two future first rounders for a guy on the IR. But, whatever. Let's see - Wide receivers Addison v Golden - not close. Addison was an instant starter, Golden has started four games and has been hurt. Addison is the better receiver. Maybe that's not fair, maybe we're supposed to only compare to the draft class, not position, but whatever, I'm sure you can move the goal posts later. Edge/D-lineman type guys Van Ness and Wyatt v. Turner - Turner doesn't have as many games because he was drafted years later but he's started nine in two seasons, those two have started 17 in a combined 7. In a per-season basis, Turner averages more sacks and tackles than both of them. I know you think Turner is a bust but, actually, I think he's outperformed both of those guys. Kind of the opposite of the Golden/Addison issue, but I think Turner is better. O-line Jackson v. Morgan - Not a perfect comparison again because Morgan has played an extra year but Jackson has more starts in one season than Morgan in two. He also has played a much higher % of possible snaps. Jackson is the better o-lineman. Linebacker Walker v. Safety Cine? Not really sure the best comparison is. Both drafted in 2022 and both defensive players but Walker is arguably the best player drafted of all 10 picks and Cine is the worst. Maybe Turner since both are linebackers but Walker is a MLB and Turner is Edge/OLB? I'm not sure. QB McCarthy v ? Not sure what the best comparison here would be to their pick. Draft position (Van Ness), draft class (Morgan), experience (Golden)? But it doesn't really matter. What looking at those first round picks shows is that the Viking picks are arguably better than the Packer picks. You might want a different comparison, maybe just list them in order? Walker, Addison, Turner, Jackson, Morgan, Van Ness, McCarthy, Wyatt, Golden, Cine? I dunno. If only there was a better way to judge football teams results. But I think this shows that position and number of picks is pretty important but on a straight comparison of those ten players, even though the GB players generally have more years of playing time to back them, the Viking players hold their own or are better. So, now that that stupid thought experiment is over, can we move on? Are we done? Or do you need to put out another post that the Vikings have less drafted players on their roster than someone else and claim it means anything other than that? If you want to blame Kwesi for trading away too many picks, fine. Go for it. After 15 years of Speilman mediocrity, I was sick of the hoarding picks and trading down and crud. Maybe targeting McCarthy and Turner wasn't the right decision. Maybe they should have held pat and taken what the big board delivered. But I'm excited that we have a FO that is listening to the coaches and getting guys the staff wants and using other means to construct a competitive roster. And, so far, it has worked.

Yeah, I thought they were going to lose to the tide and then hear about how the BIG10 can't match up with the SEC.

I apologize for not knowing the Packers starting oline.* But at this point, I'm not even sure what you're trying to say but I'm sure it'll be annoying. I guess the Packers have more drafted players on their roster than the Vikings? But, as we've discussed before, that only means the Packers have had more picks. Your problem is that you want drafts to be apple to apple comparisons but they aren't. Results of drafts depend heavily on the number of picks and how high up those picks are. That the Packers turned 43 picks (16 in the top 100) into more players on their current roster compared to the Vikings 28 picks (8 in the top 100) doesn't really mean much, especially when you compare the age of those picks.** But that the Vikings have acquired average or above average expectations return on the picks they have had relative to draft position. I know that's hard for you to accept but that does seem to be the root of the problem. Do we need to keep fighting or are we done? * Also, that Kwesi inherited guys like O'Neil, Darrisaw, Brandel and Bradbury meant that he didn't have to spend as much time on the o-line, although he's drafted a couple starters there already. Instead, it looked like he used picks to help fortify the roster in other ways, better than GB managed to do. But I guess there are extra points for drafted starters, right? ** Interesting, at least to me, side note. While the pick number is different, the overall percentage of the players drafted by both teams over those four drafts that are still in the NFL is about 75% for both.

sigh I'm not ignoring inconvenient facts, what I've done was explain and given context to things you've said to explain why your fact - followed by an opinion - was usually wrong or don't go together. This quoted section is just another example. You claim the Packers have 4 OL drafted by the Packers are starting to imply Kwesi drafts aren't good. (I guess). But you use different criteria for the Packers than you do for Kwesi. While I'm no expert on the Packers, pro-football reference indicates that the main five by snap count are Rhyan, Banks, Morgan, Jenkins and Belton. So the first problem is that you are allowing the Packers to use drafts prior to 2022, Kwesi's first, to show that they have more drafted players starting for them than Kwesi. Sure, makes sense. Under this criteria, O'Neil and Darrisaw would count. But you're limiting Kwesi to four drafts and giving GB more so you can count Banks and Jenkins. So it's not an apples to apples comparison and you knew it. You also say that Kwesi has only four starters, counting Redmond (I count Addison, JJ, Turner, Jackson). Again, in a vacuum, sounds bad. But you omit a few things, like using picks to trade for starting players, former starting players, and, most importantly, the number of picks we've actually had and where those picks were. In the last three drafts, we've had 4 first round picks - all starting - and no other picks in the top 100. The Packers have had 12. So when I say the Viking draft results have been at or better than what should be expected by number and draft position, that's what I'm looking at. Yes, it's my opinion but I've shared a number of articles about that with you. I think GB is actually a well run org. But the results have been that the Vikings are better since KOC/Kwesi came. 42-25 v. 37-29-1.

The reason the Vikings are going to win 8 or 9 wins is because JJ McCarthy was bad. That's it. That's the entire reason. It's the reality of growing pains with a top 10 QB pick. It's something I think had to happen, others can - and do - disagree. Had we kept Darnold, we'd be worried about how he'll hold up in the playoffs but we'd be in the playoffs. The rest of the roster - especially the defense - was pretty darn good. If you think this roster would have capped out at 9 wins with better QB play, we will just disagree. As to the rest of you rant, it's a pretty good example of what I was saying earlier, you live in your own reality and demand that we live there. You spew a bunch of opinions and say those opinions "are facts". No, they aren't. You think we got on a lucky bender at the end of the year, fine. I think it's because we got healthier and our QB improved. Both are opinions, neither fact. The Vikings invest in FA like every team, we didn't spend a lot because of discarded failed draft picks, we invested in areas we were weak in because our GM got us out of the massive cap hell the prior regime put us in and then used the money to improve the team. Again, opinions. I also don't recall us drafting any can't miss DL/NT under Kwesi that Hargrave and Allen are covering for but perhaps I misremember a name. In any event, we can continue this if you want but I truly hate it when these threads devolve into this kind of ****. For ease, I think it might be better if you want to criticize Kwesi, you might want to say things like "Kwesi seems to undervalue draft picks, he trades too many away for players where drafts are crap shoots and quantity is better, stand pat and take BPA or trade back a little for an extra pick rather than moving up or getting players." Or, "Kwesi's lack of a scouting background means he is too reliant on his coaching staff for players, which is how we get guys like Theilen or Ackers, rather than simply raiding a practice squad for a fourth running back."

I missed almost all of the college bowl games this year but it seems like Arch Manning had a heck of a game. I know he isn't in the draft, but where is it in comparison to the three likely first rounders?

I lived in Oklahoma for a while and I couldn't believe how many Sooners fans hated Bob Stoops and wanted him gone.

Love is cleared to play but the Packers are going to play Tune. https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-news-roundup-latest-league-updates-from-thursday-jan-1 Tune has thrown 27 passes in three years, and three of those were interceptions. He's also been sacked 8 times. I have no idea if they do over/unders for sacks in Vegas but take the over if they do.

It's absolutely wrong to say grandiose things like "they handed out a bunch of cash to win 9 games. The talent acquisition department whiffed badly on those cap allocations and we will pay for it next year and in the years ahead" and not expect to be called out on it. That was just wrong, and instead of admitting it, you double down and say Allen was a horrible run defender. Yeah, he is. We knew that when we signed him. He performed just in line with his career norms. What did you think the Vikings expected? He, Hargrave, Rodgers, Wilson were all expected to be parts of a strong defense and, surprise, they were. Again, this team was likely the #1 seed with Darnold. This is a well constructed team. But this is the big problem you have. Everything has to be huge. You make mountains out of molehills and you end up losing the forest for the trees. You hate it when I point out that Kwesi and KOC have won at a .620+ clip for four years because that shows they know how to construct a football team, from coaches, to players, to culture. As for "reasons", you constantly ignore reality and want us to live in a world where you know best, despite evidence to the contrary. You've ignored studies that discuss draft expectations and results and want us to live in your version of what should be. It gets annoying constantly reading the same BS.

For anyone curious, Kurt Warner looks at Flores defense and explains how it should be countered. Fun if you like to hear him calling the Lions (paraphrasing) idiots and/or you like him calling Smith "hot" a lot.

The talent acquisition department (TM) did fine. I'm not really sure what you expect but Allen is fifth on the team in tackles, his stats are pretty much in line with his career numbers, and he has been pretty healthy, starting all 16 games so far. Hargrave has missed one. The idea of the two was that they would help create less double teams for the other rushers, and the Vikings are sixth in the NFL in sacks, so that seemed to work. (And the defense is very good overall and Flores seems to lean on both, but Allen moreso). And the reason this was a nine win team had nothing to do with the free agent haul, it was completely because of QB play. Darnold probably made this team the #1 seed but that's the risk of playing McCarthy. He needed to grow. As for yet another cheap shot on Kwesi, he has consistently shown he knows how to create winning football teams. Ownership correctly gave him an extension, he will be around for several more years, which is good for the football, less so for people who dislike him for "reasons".

Has Ryan Day been fired yet?

Here's the ESPN article on Trevon Diggs. Sounds like he and the team weren't getting along, the team didn't activate him in time for the Vikings game and then denied his request to stay in DC after the Washington game, he stayed anyway. https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/cowboys-release-trevon-diggs-nfl-waivers/ That the Cowboys don't like him isn't a huge red flag for me and I don't think he's had the off-the-field stuff that his brother has had. I'd be curious on how Flores/KOC view him. My guess is that he'll have to sign a one-year make good deal next year. He's had a lot of injuries the last three seasons - only starting 18 games in that span. But he's still young.

Most of this is wrong but this should stay a draft stuff thread. So here's a new mock draft today that had Styles falling to the Vikings! https://www.draftcountdown.com/nfl-mock-draft/2026-nfl-mock-draft-brads-1st-round-version-3/

I've posted it a few times so I won't again but the Vikings cap space isn't as dire as people think. They'll be fine. I imagine Smith and Kelly retire. I think Allen is gone but Hargrave could stick around/extension/something. The Vikings only have two real free agents - Nailor and Wilson - and Redmond who is in a different category that makes him easier to keep. I think Wilson walks, Nailor stays and we might very well trade Addison but I think it would be a player for player trade, not a pick. The Vikes have a first, second, and two thirds in this draft so they'll likely have four picks in the top 100.

This mock has us taking a corner, safety, than a center. https://atozsports.com/nfl-draft/2026-3-round-nfl-mock-draft-browns-quarterback-raiders-dolphins-dante-moore-fernando-mendoza-carnell-tate/

Atlanta not tanking.

I think that sounds right. The Wilfs have shown a willingness to pay coaches as needed. Obviously, he'll leave for a HC job but if he doesn't get that, it doesn't make sense for him to leave MN. He's been able to make his defense and has had a huge role in both the draft (Turner) and free agency (AVG, Rodgers, among others). I think he stays but might get an assistant HC title as well as a big raise.

Georgia LB CJ Allen also can apparently cover a bit too. I'm not sure where this draft sits safety wise. Last year there were a couple guys who were top 15 (maybe top 10) talents - Starks and Emmanwori - who fell to 27 and out of the first round. So I'm hoping the same biases can let Downs drop. I think he's probably better regarded than both those guys but we also don't need him to drop as far. It'll be interesting to see how draft stuff starts to play out. Some QB will rise a bunch. There seem to be a lot of OT in this draft as well. Teams looking for line help might be willing to jump up a bit, especially for guys who can play guard and tackle.

And that's fair. Thanks for responding. I'm hoping Darnold* gets a ring this year and I hope Love never does. * And even if he does get a ring, the Vikings did the right thing.

I disagree a bit with you and Nick on the thought that some QBs are special and can win and others can't. I think in right situation, Cousins could have won a super bowl while others thought he was the perfect example of a guy who couldn't. That said, I think all of these QBs could, if healthy and in the right circumstance, lead (not tag along) a good NFL team - not the 2000 Ravens - to a super bowl (in absolutely no particular order): Allen, Burrow, Prescott, Stafford, Mahomes, Maye, Darnold, Hurts, Mayfield, Herbert, Love, Purdy, Stroud, Jackson. That's 14 and doesn't include Goff, Daniels, Lawrence, and Nix.

Bears lose!

Fans diss Purdy too much. He could legit win the super bowl.

So Trent Williams had been playing for like, forever, right? Can't believe he's still in the league.