Cap'n Piranha

Teams with the best QBs are likely to be winning already, and would have the least need to risk giving the other team the ball in plus territory. Even with Mahomes, there's no way it's 30%-40% to pick up a 4th and 15. If that's the case, why would KC ever punt? That high of a chance to retain possession far outweighs giving the opponent 35-40 yards for their possession.

The NFL today dramatically changed kickoffs for 2024 (the current rules will automatically reinstate for 2025 unless this or some other change is made permanent. The new rules state: The kicker will line up at his own 35 yard line All other kicking team players will line up at the opponents 40 yard line At least 9 receiving team players must be between their own 30 and 35 yard line No more than 2 receiving team players can line up anywhere between the goal line and their own 20 yard line Only the kicker and the 1 to 2 players in the "landing zone" can move until the kicked ball hits the ground or a player in the "landing zone" All onside attempts must be announced in advance, and the current onside rules will then apply No fair catches are allowed, and touchbacks are placed at the 30 For me, there are some confusing things here--are receiving team players who line up at the 30 allowed to start moving forward before the ball lands/is caught, so long as they don't cross the 35, or are they required to freeze the moment the ball is struck? If the ball hits a player on the receiving team who is not in the landing zone, is it an automatic touchback, or is that player allowed to attempt to advance? If allowed to advance, wouldn't the new tactic to be to kick the ball at one of those players, and try to have one of your guys pop him as hard as possible to try and force a fumble? Personally, I think a much better way to do this would be to eliminate the kickoff entirely, and instead state that after a team scores (or to start a half/overtime) the kicking team gets a 4th and 15 from their own 35 yard line. They can attempt to run a straight play to pick up the 15 yards, they can go ahead and punt (a 40 yard net would give the other team the ball at their own 25), or they can run a fake punt. This achieves the aim of eliminating the kickoff (thereby reducing injuries), but leaves in place a stronger mechanism for keeping the ball after a score.

I don’t really know what the point of this trade is. Picks 11 and 23 are not going to get you into the top 5–they might only get you to 8, by which point McCarthy (if that’s the target) might very well be gone. If indeed the Vikings are trying to get up, they’ll probably still need to give up a first rounder next year, meaning they would have one first and zero second picks for the next two years. Gonna be hard to build infrastructure unless there are moves on the horizon to amass more capital (like a trade of Jefferson or Darrisaw).

A new rookie QB will probably not be a wizard at getting the ball out fast, right? So extra OL help would be very beneficial to give the QB that extra moment to process. If the IOL wasn't all that bad, what happens if anyone gets injured? At a certain point, you might need to overpay to get better at a position, and offensive line is the single most important position group on the field, especially if you're going to bring in a rooke at QB. I just think the play this year was to do everything you can to maximize the offense, knowing that you could set yourself up for a 3 year window with no glaring needs, meaning you can shotgun the defense.

If the plan is to draft a QB in round 1 (and if it's not, I honestly have no clue what they're doing), then the priority should have been building up the offensive infrastructure to support the rookie; at this point that means IOL. That's my way of saying that I absolutely agree with you that signing IOL help should have been the main focus of the FA period, not redundant defensive players.

It's very true that they could quite easily get rid of every FA they just signed. My point wasn't they're now locked into a bunch of deals. My point was that if you're going to rebuild, then just rebuild. There should be no players on this team who don't project to still be on the team in 2026, because the idea is to find as many young, cost-controlled players as possible. If we're truly rebuilding, the goal is to either be awful in 2024 and 2025, or if we're not awful, it's because we found enough quality young players that we're ahead of schedule. I don't see the point of getting a top 10 defense that will help us win games if we don't have an offense that can score on playoff-caliber opponents. If these new players make our defense better, and keep us from getting the draft ammo to rebuild, these deals were mistakes, since most/all of these players will be gone/part-time players in 2026.

To get one of the top 3 picks, the Vikings are giving up #9, their first next year, and probably even more. Every team in the Top 10 knows the Vikings are desperate for a QB now, and they will exact a toll for that. If the QB they take is CJ Stroud, that's an acceptable deal to make--I think we would all gladly trade that package for CJ Stroud. If the QB they take is Bryce Young, or Zach Wilson, or Mitch Trubisky, or Sam Darnold? Forget about even sniffing the playoffs until 2027, while enjoying the fun that Carolina gets right now--sending your first overall pick to someone else. I definitely think a rebuild is necessary, and I have for a couple of years. It starts with getting a rookie-scale QB--its very dangerous to attempt to do that by trading picks to make it happen. I would have preferred that the Vikings actually commit to it, and not sign free agents at all.

If the Vikings don't have Kirk or Hunter, I'd argue they'd be unlucky to win 6 games, since the goal for that team should be to win no more than 3 games and lock down the top pick in the 2025 draft. If you can get a developmental QB that allows you to trade out of 1-1 in 2025, that's a plus, but the #1 organizational goal has to be to get a guy who could potentially be a great/elite QB for the next 10-15 years between now and the end of the 2025 draft. Interesting that you assign most of the blame to the prior regime, while going on to state they need DBs like crazy. You do realize that Kwesi in his two drafts has spent a 1st, a 2nd, a 3rd, and two 4th round picks on DBs, right? That's an insane amount of capital to spend on a position group that apparently still needs an immense amount of help.

He was The Guy in Seattle (at least as far as fans were concerned--as a resident of Seattle, I can assure you of this). For the Seahawks to trade the fan favorite player on the team, who QBd them to their only Superbowl title, and coming off a year where he was top 10 in QBR... Guy must have been really not popular in the clubhouse. If Kwesi signs him, I will personally burn TCO to the ground.

Depends. Fans that want the Vikings to avoid finishing 4th in the division should feel not good. Fans (like me) that think a tear-down rebuild should be quite happy with the increased odds of going 0-6 in the division for the next couple of years, while also depriving the Bears of 2 shots at high-end talent in a loaded draft, while having to commit a bunch of new money to Allen; potentially $60M a year (if Kirk off an injury at 35 is going to get close to $50M, certainly Allen will get $60M, especially considering the insane leverage he will have over the Bears).

He is 21, that much is true. For your other two points, it’s probably more accurate to say that Michigan only lost one game while he was there, and Michigan won a title. I’m not so sure that McCarthy was the prime mover behind either of those things. if he can go back to school and become the top pick, why not do that? Probably because there’s a pretty good risk that outside of the system that featured the most dominant run game in college football he starts to struggle without the easy reads and simple coverages, along with the pressure of having to actually win games instead of just not lose them. I don’t think needing an overtime period to get to 17 completions, 221 yards, and 27 points qualifies as “pretty good” even against a great defense. If the draft gurus have him top 10, I’m sold. Draft gurus are never wrong about players. McCarthy might be a good NFL QB, but I think only if he lands on a team with a great O-Line and great run game (like BAL, SF, or DET). The Vikings have neither of those things, which means he’d likely be overwhelmed here, and because of that, bad.

As Brian pointed out, you are ignoring a lot of people for this. The populations of Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Tennessee, and Mississippi combine to equal 42.4M; this ignores Louisiana, northern Florida, and southern Virgina/Kentucky which might well be considered Braves territory. The populations of Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota combine to equal 7.4M; this ignores Iowa (where the Twins have competition from MIL and the Chicago teams), as well as western Wisconsin and eastern Montana. Even if you added the totality of those 3 states you only get to 17.7M, which means a complete pie-in-the-sky comparison gives the Twins 41.7% of the Braves population number. A more reasonable number is probably about 12M, which equates to 28.5%; your 60% number is likely too high by double. Have you ever thought that maybe DSP avoiding directly answering the question because he didn't want his bosses (as well as the other 29 owners) screaming at him for de facto opening baseball's books? DSP probably can't talk about the revenue/payroll too openly without incurring significant ire.

To be fair, that's me building his value off of being a borderline all-pro LT. If that's true, he's (when healthy) one of the 20-30 most valuable non-QBs in the league. and any player taken at #7 would be unlikely to be that good. That said, he doesn't have a history of health, and he's about to get very expensive, so you would need to get someone who wants to bet on him being available, and wants to win now.

Maybe you can sucker TN into giving us #7 for Darrisaw and a third? If so, you can either use #7 and next year's first to get to #3, or you can probably get either Alt or Fashanu (whichever LAC passes on, if mocks are to be trusted) to be a low-cost replacement with the potential to be as good, but should hopefully be at least less injured.

In other news, just saw the article linked below, wherein Kwesi talks about JJ. A couple things that jump out for me; Kwesi claims trading JJ has never even crossed his mind. I assume this is boilerplate GM lies; if it's true, Kwesi should be immediately fired for massive incompetence--every player should always be regularly assessed for potential trade value. Kwesi claims that last summer the Vikings and JJ were "unbelievably close" to a deal before they suspended negotiations. In my opinion, that has to either be a lie, or Kwesi being completely out of touch. You're unbelievably close to a deal with an elite player (in the article Kwesi calls him the best receiver in the league, and one of the best non-QBs in the league), and you just decide to give up? If you're unbelievably close, just get it done, especially in an offseason where you're theoretically pushing for a superbowl. https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/39610208/vikes-gm-considered-trading-justin-jefferson

Two things I've read over the last couple days that, if true, definitely have me thinking rebuild. Peter King says the wind is blowing towards CHI keeping Fields. The idea is that they would first trade down to 2, and then trade even lower (one individual suggested ATL at 8). Doing this could give the Bears as many as 8 first/second round picks in the next 2 drafts--that's a lot of ammo to surround Fields. Bill Barnwell on ESPN projected that Cousins would get $51M in AAV--I can't see the Vikings doing that, given that they surely could have gotten him for less than that with an extension last year, and didn't. Accordingly, a writer at ESPN is also predicting Cousins to ATL. If both of those things are true, here's what I do if I'm the Vikings. Pass on signing Hunter, unless you can tag him and trade him (I'm not sure if that's an option) Field any and all offers on O'Neil, Darrisaw, Bynum, Metellus, Hockenson, and anyone else that might return anything more than a 5th round pick Explore extending JJ, but if you can convince either Arizona or LAC to trade their #4 or #5 for him straight up, do it. Use that pick along with 2nd/3rd rounders either this year or next year to get to #3 at a minimum, and draft the QB of the future. Pray that one of the top 3 WR (Harrison, Nabers, Odunze) drop to #11. If they don't, trade back moderately and take IOL help. If a team is willing to give you an extra first in 2025 for a bigger drop (into the mid-late 20's, do that). Understand that 2024 will be a horror show on the field, albeit with hopefully an exciting offense between the new QB, new WR, and Addison. Hopefully a top 3 pick and additional draft ammo in 2025 allows the team to add 3-5 1st/2nd round players in 2025 to accelerate out of the 1 year rebuild. Of course, all of this depends on Kwesi being competent, so take it with a grain of salt.

I might be committing heresy here, but I think I would rather have 3 good/great guys on the IOL than 2 good/great tackles. It's much easier to give a tackle blocking help (attach a blocking specialist TE, send the RB out to chip which gets him closer to the flat as well). If it's me, I'm gauging the market for Darrisaw (who can't stay healthy), and see what I can get for him. I then invest heavily in center/guard.

Are those WAR numbers bWAR? Fangraphs puts him at 2.6, 6.3, 5.7, 1.1, 4.1, 4.2, and 3.5 for a total of 27.4. Pretty close, but not so close that it's unimportant. It's also worth noting that a large percentage of Chapman's worth comes from his defense--if you look at wRC+ (which strips out defense), Chapman's career number is 118; that's his exact figure for 2020 and 2022, but 2021 was 101, and 2023 110. Last year, the Twins as a team had a 109 wRC+; Polanco was 7th on the team with a 118 wRC+, and Willi Castro was 9th at 109. If the Twins are signing Chapman, they're either moving him to 1B (where his defense no longer matters nearly as much, and his bat is below average, as all 1B in the league put up a 120 wRC+ in 2023), or they're moving Lewis off third, which doesn't make much sense either. Chapman is a meh because he might be the worst fit of any of the top free agents available; he's such a bad fit that his one true positive (elite third base defense) is essentially null, meaning for the 2024 Twins, barring an injury to Lewis that lets him play every day at third, Chapman is very meh. I can think of better things to do with $25M than buy a Royce Lewis insurance policy.

Very interesting to me that the majority of posters on this thread seem uninterested in spending money on the available free agents, yet in a different thread the majority of posters were borderline apoplectic that the Twins weren't spending more on payroll. Either the sampling of posters is almost mutually exclusive, or some people are suffering from severe cognitive dissonance.

Sometimes you spend a lot more, and make a lot less. Go look at what's happening in San Diego. There are multiple ways to improve on the field, and handing out free agent contracts is not universally the best option. There's maybe 3 teams that could truly attempt to buy a championship; the Mets tried (and failed spectacularly) last year, the Dodgers are trying this year.

To outline the fact that the Twins have uncertain revenue outlooks for next year, and due to the combination of that and a near guarantee of increased payroll, the historically conservative Twins are operating conservatively.

No one is saying the Twins don't make an annual profit. People are saying that the Twins operate the way they do to ensure they turn an annual profit. Nashville was specifically asking if the expectation from some posters (the ones expressing disappointment in the Pohlads not spending more) is that the Twins will lose money if it serves the purpose of having a higher payroll.

Agreed. If you're not going to keep Kirk here, and you're not going to move up to a top 3 spot in the draft, I don't see the point of having JJ on the team (unless Kwesi thinks one of the second tier QBs is actually the best QB in the draft). That being said, Orlovsky opined on ESPN today that the Vikes can't afford both Cousins and JJ (I haven't crunched numbers to see if that's true, but I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest those 2 would cost between $70M-$80M a year). If that's the case, then signing Kirk suggests the responsible thing to do for the future of the franchise is to trade JJ. Either way, unless the Vikings get truly lucky with a QB in the draft, it seems more likely than it ever has been that JJ plays for a different team in the next year or two.

You are WAY overvaluing JJ in this one. Bill Barnwell on ESPN wrote an article a week ago (behind the pay wall, but link is below) scrutinizing what the Bears might get for the #1 pick this year. He reminds us that just last year the Panthers gave up a legit WR (not at JJ's level of course, but still a borderline #1 receiver), and two first AND second round picks. In 2021, the 49ers went from 12 to 3 by giving up pick 12 and two more first rounders, plus a third rounder. I think if the Vikings wanted to shop Jefferson, they'd likely get 2 first rounders, which suggests you MIGHT be able to turn 1/11 and JJ into 1/3. The idea that the Vikings would get anything back at all is just ludicrous. In particular, why would the Patriots give up their first round pick this year and next year, plus a second this year for a wide receiver, even if that receiver is the best in the league? You really think the Patriots are going to give up all that capital just to have Mac Jones/Bailey Zappe throw JJ the ball? You think JJ is going to be ok with that scenario, and sign an extension (which I'm sure the Pats will make the deal conditional upon)? If the Vikings want one of the top 3 QBs this year, they probably have to give up their next 3 first round picks (and maybe more) or this year's pick plus JJ (and maybe more). The only difference might be Chicago, who could look at it as acquiring a superstar WR plus keeping their pick at 9, and going all in on Fields. In that scenario, the Vikings get their choice of QB to pair with Addison, and probably hope that one of the top WR (Odunze or Nabers) fall to 11. That leaves the offense in pretty great shape, and the rest of the draft can be all about defensive help. https://www.espn.com/nfl/insider/insider/story/_/id/39378525/trade-justin-fields-top-2024-nfl-draft-pick-bears-offseason-options-offers-interested-teams

Don't forget E-Rod.