Vikings QB of the future search list

[Mothman]

I think it is likely the Vikings will end up drafting in the 6-10 range of the upcoming draft. That pretty much means they will not have a shot at Bridgewater unless they trade up. Mariota is going back to school, so he's off the list. I don't know if the other college QBs who still have eligibility have declared their intentions, either, and while I doubt Manziel would stay in college, it's possible. Depending on who comes out and who stays, the pickings for top QB prospects in the 6-10 range might be much slimmer than I expected even a month ago. Couple that with a Vikings team that seems intent on trying to win the rest of their games (witness running AD 35 times), and we have a recipe where it's entirely possible the best option at QB on this team heading into next year may very well continue to be Christian Ponder. That is a scary, sad, and terrifying thought, but Frazier may just make it a reality. It could be his last major gaffe gift to the team, right behind getting that meaningless win against Washington that knocked the Vikings out of the #2 spot in the draft where they could have been the beneficiaries of the blockbuster trade that will stock the Rams or taken Griffin themselves.

As far as FA QBs go, Cutler would be my choice if the Bears are dumb enough to let him go. Vick is done, and I don't see the Rams giving up Bradford. The others guys on that list are possible plays, although mostly unknowns. They could be ready to emerge, or they could tank. Spellman could not afford to go into a season with a guy like Mallet, or even Cousins, without having a viable alternative to compete for the job

The short of it is, the Vikings could very well play themselves right out of a spot where they might be able to land a guy like Derek Carr or even Manziel. They end up with, say, the 8th pick, and I could see Bridgewater, Carr, and Manziel all gone by the time that pick rolls around. Spellman, Frazier, and Wilf better have a heart-to-heart about the future here, because if this team isn't picking closer to 5th than 10th, that could easily make the difference between having at least one viable option at QB in the upcoming draft and being consigned to another season of Christian Ponder at QB while Spellman heaves prayers in FA or via trade.

So basically, it sounds like you're talking about tanking games.

I still think the idea that it's only possible to find a viable option at QB in the draft by drafting in or near the top 5 is ludicrous. Look around the league: there are QBs who weren't drafted anywhere near that high starting and excelling for teams.

I DO NOT want Cutler. I'd rather have Sam Bradford, even though he'd be far from my choice because he's made of glass. Cutler's attitude sucks, and for all his supposed greatness, he's led his team to the playoffs exactly the same number of times as Christian Ponder.

If Mariota was coming out, he'd be my college choice. I know he sh!ts the bed against Stanford, but he's got a ton of upside and great mobility. Bridgewater will be long gone by the time we pick.

Free agents ... I'd take a look at Kirk Cousins. He's got some ability, and he knows he's never going to play in Washington as long as RGIII is there.

I like Cousins but he won't be a free agent. The only way for the Vikes to get him would be to trade for him and I don't see why they'd do that unless he they could get him cheaply. They can probably find a QB with similar potential in the draft.

[VikingLord]

So basically, it sounds like you're talking about tanking games.

I still think the idea that it's only possible to find a viable option at QB in the draft by drafting in or near the top 5 is ludicrous. Look around the league: there are QBs who weren't drafted anywhere near that high starting and excelling for teams.

I'm talking about being realistic. I'm talking about the wisdom of having your star RB who is literally the foundation of your entire offensive philosophy and who has been struggling with a nagging injury all year run the ball 35 times to win a game that means *nothing*.

As for the draft spot, it's about getting your pick of the litter rather than about knowing that pick will pan out.

This topic has been debated ad nauseam here and elsewhere. Higher picks are worth more even without guarantees. Just witness the trade the Redskins made with St. Louis to gain position to get Griffin. That pick was just one before the Vikings that year, and look what the Rams got out of it. So it's not just about the player. It's about position and position can have power. It can have a lot of power under the right circumstances.

All I can say is Ponder better not be the best option at QB next year. If he is that would be a failure that would dwarf any late-season losses this year.

[Mothman]

I'm talking about being realistic. I'm talking about the wisdom of having your star RB who is literally the foundation of your entire offensive philosophy and who has been struggling with a nagging injury all year run the ball 35 times to win a game that means *nothing*.

As for the draft spot, it's about getting your pick of the litter rather than about knowing that pick will pan out.

This topic has been debated ad nauseam here and elsewhere. Higher picks are worth more even without guarantees. Just witness the trade the Redskins made with St. Louis to gain position to get Griffin. That pick was just one before the Vikings that year, and look what the Rams got out of it. So it's not just about the player. It's about position and position can have power. It can have a lot of power under the right circumstances.

I understand all of the above but the bottom line is that you're talking about intentionally losing games, correct? Let's not sugar coat it by calling it "realistic". I'd argue that it is distinctly unrealistic to ask professional coaches and players with integrity to lose intentionally. Why would Frazier do it unless they assured him he's returning next year and if they're willing to do that, why would he undermine his relationship with his players by trying to lose games? Somehow I don't think that would sit too well with the star RB who is "literally the foundation of your entire offensive philosophy".

I'd also love to know where this lose-for-power mentality ends. what's the W/L threshold for tanking each year? Vikes fans have been advocating it for weeks now, long before the team has been mathematically eliminated from the postseason. Should the Vikings just go into the tank every season if they have a poor record at the half way mark so they can be in more of a power position in the next draft?

All I can say is Ponder better not be the best option at QB next year. If he is that would be a failure that would dwarf any late-season losses this year.

... and if it happens, it won't be because the Vikes drafted 8th, 10th or 12th instead of 3rd or 5th. The Vikings ability to improve their options at QB is not conditional on finishing with a record that will land them one of the top 5 or 6 picks in the draft. The "pick of the litter" won't necessarily be there anyway.

[Webbfann]

Losing is for losers. And its just a game for crying out loud. People who take it so seriously that they want us to lose might consider adding some other interests to their lives and not take it so seriously.

The missing piece to the Viking puzzle is NOT a high draft pick, its competent coaching, a Winfield, and a reliable slightly above average QB. And if you're really concerned about AP, the best chance for him to win a title in purple is just that, not a draft pick QB that takes several years to develop. Sure we should draft a QB anyway but the odds that it will solve the problem quickly enough for AP to reap the benefits are extremely slim.

[IrishViking]

I am totally against tanking but I would be extremely bummed if Green Bay somehow ended up picking before us this year. That would be crushing to me

[joe h]

Watched college football the last couple weeks and I am the least excited about any of the QBs in this years draft, what was once hyped as the strongest draft class, now looks like bums. 2011 all over again!

[Mothman]

I am totally against tanking but I would be extremely bummed if Green Bay somehow ended up picking before us this year. That would be crushing to me

Really? I'd view it as a good thing. I'd rather see the Vikings win more games than Green Bay than see them draft higher than Green Bay.

[Webbfann]

Really? I'd view it as a good thing. I'd rather see the Vikings win more games than Green Bay than see them draft higher than Green Bay.

me too.

[dkoby]

I DO NOT want Cutler. I'd rather have Sam Bradford, even though he'd be far from my choice because he's made of glass. Cutler's attitude sucks, and for all his supposed greatness, he's led his team to the playoffs exactly the same number of times as Christian Ponder.

If Mariota was coming out, he'd be my college choice. I know he sh!ts the bed against Stanford, but he's got a ton of upside and great mobility. Bridgewater will be long gone by the time we pick.

Free agents ... I'd take a look at Kirk Cousins. He's got some ability, and he knows he's never going to play in Washington as long as RGIII is there.

I'm all over this. The guy has played well when given an opportunity. Probably wouldn't cost much either.

[saint33]

Kirk Cousins isn't a free agent. We would need to trade for him and I'd imagine the Redskins would ask for a pretty penny in return considering RG3's injury concerns

[saint33]

I feel like Kirk Cousins is one of those guys who people are enamored with because he had 1 fantastic game, and since he's a back up and isn't exposed regularly, he's now somehow hyped up to be some amazing starter if given the chance. Now I'm not saying he couldn't be a solid starter, but for all his hype Washington is going to ask for a looooooooooot for what I think will be a mediocre starter in the long run. The most I'd offer for him is a 3rd rounder, and I'm sure Washington will want a 2nd or even 1st (some people might even agree to a 1st). Don't get caught up in the hype!

I agree with this.

If teams have a great backup behind a great player, they generally don't let them go. Trading/signing backups who had a few great games nets you at best Matt Schaub. But usually results in a Kevin Kolb, Matt Flynn, Matt Cassel, AJ Feeley, or Charlie Whitehurst situation.

[mondry]

Indeed. However, there is one back up that intrigues me, and he is Ryan Mallet.

Well he's not Ponder so at least he's got that going for him...

[headless_norseman]

Let's make a list.

College QBs
Johnny Manziel
Teddy Bridgewater
Derek Carr
Marcus Mariota
Zach Mettenberger

NFL QBs
Jay Cutler - Chicago Bears
Sam Bradford - St. Louis Rams
Michael Vick - Philadelphia Eagles
Kirk Cousins - Washington Redskins
Ryan Mallett - New England Patriots
Brock Osweiler - Denver Broncos

The only one I like from the college list is Manziel and then Bradford, but he's been out with a season ending injury.

[VikingLord]

I understand all of the above but the bottom line is that you're talking about intentionally losing games, correct? Let's not sugar coat it by calling it "realistic". I'd argue that it is distinctly unrealistic to ask professional coaches and players with integrity to lose intentionally. Why would Frazier do it unless they assured him he's returning next year and if they're willing to do that, why would he undermine his relationship with his players by trying to lose games? Somehow I don't think that would sit too well with the star RB who is "literally the foundation of your entire offensive philosophy".

I'd also love to know where this lose-for-power mentality ends. what's the W/L threshold for tanking each year? Vikes fans have been advocating it for weeks now, long before the team has been mathematically eliminated from the postseason. Should the Vikings just go into the tank every season if they have a poor record at the half way mark so they can be in more of a power position in the next draft?

What's the goal for each team each year? It's to win the Superbowl, isn't it?

Once a team is out of contention for that goal, what good does it do them to expend prime resources to win meaningless games? It might be good for individuals like the coach and maybe the GM, but what good does that do to move the team in the direction they want to go?

You could say "it builds momentum", but does it? In the modern NFL? In the NFL where a team can be vastly different from one season to the next, and where most teams are lucky if they can hold a core group of a few key players together over a few years? The team the Vikings just played won the Superbowl and then proceeded to lose 9 key players in a single offseason. This modern version of the NFL isn't the one I grew up watching. It's the NFL of the here-and-now, where to have a realistic shot at that ring a team needs to fill a few key spots and get competent play from the rest. It's the NFL where a Green Bay Packers team can lose a single key player and go from a Superbowl competitor to a team as bad as the Vikings.

So no, I don't buy into the romantic idea that this is a league of one-for-all, all-for-one anymore. I buy into the reality that each season is about one thing and that is winning the Superbowl, and if a team can no longer do that in *this* particular season, then it needs to play to put itself into the best possible position to do it in the *next* season.

And as far as "tanking" games goes, I'm not saying a team should play to lose per se. What I am saying is that a coach and GM should get their younger players on the field. Get them experience. Let them make mistakes. Heck, who knows, some of those younger guys might actually make some plays (witness, for example, the play of Audie Cole at MLB, Rhodes at CB, and Patterson at WR). Heck, they might even be better than the guys they replaced and the team could in theory win a few, but at least those wins would have the *context* of the future. They would show what the team, and fans, can look forward to in the following season. Those types of wins would possess some substance of meaning. I'm also saying reduce the workloads of your core players who are key to your chances next season. Showcase the skills of the players who are likely to leave via FA or who you can maximize their future value to your team via tenders or trades. Basically, let the games that can no longer help you get to the Superbowl at least have some value to the team for the following season.

Anyway, to each his own, but I'm not getting younger and this team is in dire, dire need of quality QB play if they are likely to enter any of the upcoming seasons as Superbowl contenders. Nobody can argue the point that drafting high is no guaranteed solution to the problem of finding a quality QB, but it does provide one key thing and that is choice. You draft at #12 and you need a QB, you might be driven to gamble. You draft at #1, and you get the pick of the litter. It does make a difference.

There is nothing depressing about this. It's cold, hard reality, and there is no point in railing against it. In fact, I'd argue that the truly depressing thing here is staying stuck on a romantic notion of an NFL long gone, which in turn leads those in charge to act against their own interests.

At least Frazier is finally putting his younger guys on the field, and they are showing some of what they can do. At least we have that going for us...

[mondry]

What's the goal for each team each year? It's to win the Superbowl, isn't it?

Yep! And once you have essentially a 0% chance to do that I agree whole heartedly that it's about the future. Of course I don't believe in losing on purpose, but I do believe in looking towards the future and seeing some young guys take the field and trying to find solutions even if you don't think there is one.

What I hate is trying to win the game with guys like Ponder, Mitchell, Allen, and Johnson to name a few. All of these guys are not the long term answer so to me, trotting them out there just because they were the starters to begin the year is really a let down for the future imo. It's HURTING US for next year!

To describe my point further, let's say instead of those names just above, what if we won the game because players like MBT, Hodges, Griffen, and Berger got the start and LOOKED GOOD while doing it. THAT is the type of WIN that you could feel good about imo, and one that could perhaps "build momentum." Though I'm with Vikinglord in that I don't think anything we do this season as far as the W column goes matters at all next year. The reason it would in this situation is because YOUNG PLAYERS THAT WILL BE AROUND FOR NEXT YEAR, played a role in winning the game.

I highly doubt this team, which should have a lot of turnover, is going to be influenced one way or the other by a 3-12-1 season or a 4-11-1 season. It's a clean slate every year.