Vikings vs Packers (again) for Jennings
Moderator: Moderators
Re: Vikings vs Packers (again) for Jennings
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.
Re: Vikings vs Packers (again) for Jennings
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.
- PurpleKoolaid
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 8641
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 9:52 pm
Re: Vikings vs Packers (again) for Jennings
5 years isnt long?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.
Re: Vikings vs Packers (again) for Jennings
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.
Re: Vikings vs Packers (again) for Jennings
This is the NFL. Not very likely he's still here in 5 years.5 years isnt long?
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.I don't understand why people are lamenting that this signing violates build-through-draft philosophy.
-
- Waterboy
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 5:41 pm
- 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
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.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.
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.
-
- Hall of Fame Inductee
- Posts: 4016
- Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 8:14 pm
- Location: So. Utah
Re: Vikings vs Packers (again) for Jennings
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.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.
Just please let him stay healthy.
- 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
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.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 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.
Re: Vikings vs Packers (again) for Jennings
In that case, I agree with you.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.

Thanks for clarifying your point.
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.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.
-
- Hall of Fame Inductee
- Posts: 4016
- Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 8:14 pm
- Location: So. Utah
Re: Vikings vs Packers (again) for Jennings
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.
-
- Hall of Fame Inductee
- Posts: 4016
- Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 8:14 pm
- Location: So. Utah
Re: Vikings vs Packers (again) for Jennings
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? 

Re: Vikings vs Packers (again) for Jennings
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?
I don't know but hopefully it means he intends to stick around after next season.
-
- All Pro Elite Player
- Posts: 1878
- Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 7:35 pm
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Re: Vikings vs Packers (again) for Jennings





A successful coach needs a patient wife, loyal dog, and great quarterback - and not necessarily in that order.
-- Bud Grant
-- Bud Grant
Re: Vikings vs Packers (again) for Jennings
That's a good question.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?