Vikings vs Packers (again) for Jennings

A forum for the hard core Minnesota Vikings fan. Discuss upcoming games, opponents, trades, draft or what ever is on the minds of Viking fans!

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Delaqure
Franchise Player
Posts: 420
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:53 pm

Re: Vikings vs Packers (again) for Jennings

Post by Delaqure »

Really Demi? At 30 he's got a bit left in the tank. I think you are missing the big picture. Someone like Jennings can really help us now. We can still draft a decent receiver and should. But young receivers are notorious for not really getting good for about 3 years. So we have two more to go for Wright and another three for the new kid. Jennings could be there to help develop Ponder and the younger receivers.
Demi
Commissioner
Posts: 23785
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 4:24 pm

Re: Vikings vs Packers (again) for Jennings

Post by Demi »

Obviously the team is better with him. But with this new long term through the draft philosophy I'd rather they do build for the long term. And Jennings isn't a long term signing. He's a huge upgrade over everything we have. And a better receiver then Percy. At least now the biggest excuse for our pile of feces QB is gone.
User avatar
PurpleKoolaid
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8641
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 9:52 pm

Re: Vikings vs Packers (again) for Jennings

Post by PurpleKoolaid »

Demi wrote:Obviously the team is better with him. But with this new long term through the draft philosophy I'd rather they do build for the long term. And Jennings isn't a long term signing. He's a huge upgrade over everything we have. And a better receiver then Percy. At least now the biggest excuse for our pile of feces QB is gone.
5 years isnt long?
DCman11
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 10:10 pm

Re: Vikings vs Packers (again) for Jennings

Post by DCman11 »

We still have 2 first round picks that could go towards WR. I don't understand why people are lamenting that this signing violates build-through-draft philosophy. That doesn't mean there are going to be zero FA signings every off-season..and WR was most certainly our greatest lack.
Demi
Commissioner
Posts: 23785
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 4:24 pm

Re: Vikings vs Packers (again) for Jennings

Post by Demi »

5 years isnt long?
This is the NFL. Not very likely he's still here in 5 years.
I don't understand why people are lamenting that this signing violates build-through-draft philosophy.
Signing free agents is one thing. Signing a free agent coming off an injury to big money who's 29 years old is exactly what violates the philosophy Spielman kept preaching.
MVPeterson
Waterboy
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 5:41 pm

Re: Vikings vs Packers (again) for Jennings

Post by MVPeterson »

A little message from our new fellow viking :smilevike: :smilevike: :smilevike:

http://prod.video.vikings.clubs.nfl.com ... 40-450.mp4
User avatar
VikingLord
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8616
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:12 pm
Location: The Land of the Ice and Snow

Re: Vikings vs Packers (again) for Jennings

Post by VikingLord »

Demi wrote: This is the NFL. Not very likely he's still here in 5 years.
Signing free agents is one thing. Signing a free agent coming off an injury to big money who's 29 years old is exactly what violates the philosophy Spielman kept preaching.
The real danger isn't even the money they gave him or the duration of the contract. The real danger is that they go into the draft and allow the "needs" at other positions to over-weight the talent, especially with the 1st rounders. If a pick comes down to a WR or, say, a DL, and they have the WR higher on the board, they might take the DL because they now have Jennings in the fold.

Best way to use FA in my opinion is after the draft, not before it. Extend and sign your own vets you want to keep, then go into the draft, then supplement in FA. That way you never overpay for FA's and you're forced to use the draft your primary means of adding talent to the team.
The Breeze
Hall of Fame Inductee
Posts: 4016
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 8:14 pm
Location: So. Utah

Re: Vikings vs Packers (again) for Jennings

Post by The Breeze »

Demi wrote:Obviously the team is better with him. But with this new long term through the draft philosophy I'd rather they do build for the long term. And Jennings isn't a long term signing. He's a huge upgrade over everything we have. And a better receiver then Percy. At least now the biggest excuse for our pile of feces QB is gone.
This signing never happens if they weren't completely wiped at WR. I'm in agreement with you about building long term and I believe that's what Spielman is committed to In spite of that, this was a move they had to make IMO.

Just please let him stay healthy.
User avatar
VikingLord
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8616
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:12 pm
Location: The Land of the Ice and Snow

Re: Vikings vs Packers (again) for Jennings

Post by VikingLord »

Mothman wrote: Better receivers will only help Ponder's development. If he drops back, makes his read and actually sees an open receiver to throw to, then throws a completion, that's going to help him more than dropping back, looking for an open receiver, not seeing one and being forced to buy time, scramble and throw under pressure or throw the ball away. I doubt there's a QB or coach in the league who would agree that putting inferior weapons around a QB helps him develop. Most of them would probably agree that dealing with adversity can be helpful because it encourages problem-solving but that adversity should come from the opposition, not from within. Intentionally surrounding a QB with inferior complementary players because you think that would make him better would be a disservice to the QB and the team.
I'm not advocating they don't give him talent to work with. I'm saying it's not the end of the world if they resist the urge to spend a ton of money seeking a quick fix, that Ponder can still develop as a QB even if he must work with a rookie WR and a 2nd year guy and maybe a middle-of-the-road FA.

I see they have signed Jennings to what appears to be a fairly sizeable deal. Hope it works out that Jennings earns the contract and that the Vikings don't use that signing as an excuse to pass on a WR in the draft because they've got their immediate need at WR "fixed" with this signing.
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Vikings vs Packers (again) for Jennings

Post by Mothman »

VikingLord wrote:I'm not advocating they don't give him talent to work with. I'm saying it's not the end of the world if they resist the urge to spend a ton of money seeking a quick fix, that Ponder can still develop as a QB even if he must work with a rookie WR and a 2nd year guy and maybe a middle-of-the-road FA.
In that case, I agree with you.:) Ponder could still improve under those circumstances.

Thanks for clarifying your point.
I see they have signed Jennings to what appears to be a fairly sizeable deal. Hope it works out that Jennings earns the contract and that the Vikings don't use that signing as an excuse to pass on a WR in the draft because they've got their immediate need at WR "fixed" with this signing.
I think they'll still draft a WR, although they might wait until R2 depending on what scenarios they're looking at in the first round. One of the things I like about the Jennings signing is that I think he can be a mentor to the team's younger receivers and hopefully, they'll be adding one or two of those young WRs in the draft.
The Breeze
Hall of Fame Inductee
Posts: 4016
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 8:14 pm
Location: So. Utah

Re: Vikings vs Packers (again) for Jennings

Post by The Breeze »

VikingLord wrote: The real danger isn't even the money they gave him or the duration of the contract. The real danger is that they go into the draft and allow the "needs" at other positions to over-weight the talent, especially with the 1st rounders. If a pick comes down to a WR or, say, a DL, and they have the WR higher on the board, they might take the DL because they now have Jennings in the fold.

Best way to use FA in my opinion is after the draft, not before it. Extend and sign your own vets you want to keep, then go into the draft, then supplement in FA. That way you never overpay for FA's and you're forced to use the draft your primary means of adding talent to the team.

There's no way they are going into the draft believing that their needs are met at WR. No one could be that blind. I'd be absolutely shocked if they didn't grab a WR with 1 of the first 3 picks. I would guess the first 2.
The Breeze
Hall of Fame Inductee
Posts: 4016
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 8:14 pm
Location: So. Utah

Re: Vikings vs Packers (again) for Jennings

Post by The Breeze »

So, since JA was at the dinner to woo Jennings, does that mean he is likely to restructure his contract in a way that makes everything cap cozy? :confused:
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Vikings vs Packers (again) for Jennings

Post by Mothman »

The Breeze wrote:So, since JA was at the dinner to woo Jennings, does that mean he is likely to restructure his contract in a way that makes everything cap cozy? :confused:

I don't know but hopefully it means he intends to stick around after next season.
headless_norseman
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1878
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 7:35 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Vikings vs Packers (again) for Jennings

Post by headless_norseman »

:rock: :rock: :rock: :rock: :rock:
A successful coach needs a patient wife, loyal dog, and great quarterback - and not necessarily in that order.

-- Bud Grant
Eli
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7946
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2004 5:52 pm

Re: Vikings vs Packers (again) for Jennings

Post by Eli »

The Breeze wrote:So, since JA was at the dinner to woo Jennings, does that mean he is likely to restructure his contract in a way that makes everything cap cozy?
That's a good question.
Post Reply