Vikings Message Board.Com

Mothman wrote: True, but I don't think that changes whether they're worth drafting.

I disagree. You have to think about where you may end up on the final cut down date going into the season. If he's promising and worthy of a 6th or 7th round pick, then you have to consider what are the chances that you'll be hanging him out on the waiver wire? That's going to be dictated by the veterans you have or will sign, by the higher round rookie, who you _will_ keep on the roster. By what contracts those veterans are signed to, and by what their futures may look like.

It's one thing to draft a late round QB on a team with an acknowledged starter, a solid backup and then a 3rd string don't-care, but it's different when you may be filling two or even three QB slots.

If the Vikings draft 2 QBs and they both look good in the summer, they can keep them both on the roster. If they end up finishing the preseason with 4 QBs who all appear worth keeping, that's really just good news. Pick the best 3 and if the 4th is eligible for the practice squad, put him there and hope nobody signs him. If they do... well, they've already kept the 3 QBs they considered best.

That may be one approach, but if that third QB is a Christian Ponder, who is in the last season of his rookie contract, then hanging that promising developmental prospect out there doesn't look so smart.

Let's say the Vikings have a pretty successful off-season in the QB hunt and find these four players coming into camp:

Josh McCown
Derek Carr
Christian Ponder
Connor Shaw

McCown is the acknowledged starter, and Carr will make the roster no matter what. Then you decide if you keep Ponder, likely for one last season, and dangle Shaw, or else keep two rookies as you backup QBs and release Ponder. Clearly, Ponder is the better backup option, so he'd be among the "best 3", but would it be the smart move? Chances are good that you'll have only ended up wasting a draft pick on Shaw.

Eli wrote:Let's say the Vikings have a pretty successful off-season in the QB hunt and find these four players coming into camp:

Josh McCown
Derek Carr
Christian Ponder
Connor Shaw

McCown is the acknowledged starter, and Carr will make the roster no matter what. Then you decide if you keep Ponder, likely for one last season, and dangle Shaw, or else keep two rookies as you backup QBs and release Ponder. Clearly, Ponder is the better backup option, so he'd be among the "best 3", but would it be the smart move? Chances are good that you'll have only ended up wasting a draft pick on Shaw.

Ponder's contract is guaranteed so I think they will keep him no matter what. He can come in and play backup better than anyone off the street. Though, if Turner's offensive system is totally different than what we've had in the past, then the value of keeping Ponder decreases some.

720pete wrote: Ponder's contract is guaranteed so I think they will keep him no matter what. He can come in and play backup better than anyone off the street. Though, if Turner's offensive system is totally different than what we've had in the past, then the value of keeping Ponder decreases some.

He couldn't play a better starter then anyone, getting the full snaps, and being named the starter. Full time with all the receivers. Why do you think he's better then anyone off the street as a backup, in a new system, without the benefit of being named the starter? Norv going to wave a magic wand and ponder will blossom?

Eli wrote:I disagree. You have to think about where you may end up on the final cut down date going into the season. If he's promising and worthy of a 6th or 7th round pick, then you have to consider what are the chances that you'll be hanging him out on the waiver wire? That's going to be dictated by the veterans you have or will sign, by the higher round rookie, who you _will_ keep on the roster. By what contracts those veterans are signed to, and by what their futures may look like.

It's one thing to draft a late round QB on a team with an acknowledged starter, a solid backup and then a 3rd string don't-care, but it's different when you may be filling two or even three QB slots

Why? That actually seems like the most logical time to do it. The team needs help at the position. Why not gather options?

That may be one approach, but if that third QB is a Christian Ponder, who is in the last season of his rookie contract, then hanging that promising developmental prospect out there doesn't look so smart.

In that case, they could simply keep the promising prospect and release Ponder.

McCown is the acknowledged starter, and Carr will make the roster no matter what. Then you decide if you keep Ponder, likely for one last season, and dangle Shaw, or else keep two rookies as you backup QBs and release Ponder. Clearly, Ponder is the better backup option, so he'd be among the "best 3", but would it be the smart move? Chances are good that you'll have only ended up wasting a draft pick on Shaw.

That almost makes it sound like the team isn't in charge of the decision. In any scenario, they can keep whichever 3 QBs they want to keep, whichever 3 they feel would serve them best not only in the immediate future but down the road. They don't literally have to keep the best 3 as defined in the moment of the decision.

This isn't difficult and it strikes me that it's better to have more options and possibly "waste" a draft pick than to have fewer options. If they don't feel that late round QB has a legitimate chance to develop into a good player, don't draft him but I don't think it's all that problematic. Having 4 QBs worth keeping would be a better problem to have than only having one!

Mothman wrote:That almost makes it sound like the team isn't in charge of the decision.

It's very close to that. And it's why (if you're smart) you don't put yourself in that position to begin with. Spielman hasn't been very smart about seeing the very near future with regard to several key positions. Let's hope he can get a lot smarter very soon.

Eli wrote: It's very close to that. And it's why (if you're smart) you don't put yourself in that position to begin with. Spielman hasn't been very smart about seeing the very near future with regard to several key positions. Let's hope he can get a lot smarter very soon.

How is it even remotely close to the team not being in charge of the decision? I'm not trying to be difficult. I just don't see it. They're 100% in charge of the decision.

Let's say your hypothetical scenario plays out, the Vikes end up with McCown, Carr, Ponder and Shaw and at the end of the preseason, they like all 4 of them so they have to decide if they want to keep all 4 and risk putting Shaw on the practice squad or if they want to cut Ponder. That's not exactly a dilemma that requires the wisdom of Solomon to resolve and the choice of how to resolve it would be entirely theirs. If Shaw looks too valuable to risk, that assessment alone probably resolves the question.

+

Mothman wrote: How is it even remotely close to the team not being in charge of the decision? I'm not trying to be difficult. I just don't see it. They're 100% in charge of the decision.

Let's say your hypothetical scenario plays out, the Vikes end up with McCown, Carr, Ponder and Shaw and at the end of the preseason, they like all 4 of them so they have to decide if they want to keep all 4 and risk putting Shaw on the practice squad or if they want to cut Ponder. That's not exactly a dilemma that requires the wisdom of Solomon to resolve and the choice of how to resolve it would be entirely theirs. If Shaw looks too valuable to risk, that assessment alone probably resolves the question.

You may be right... I probably can't make you see it.

Because a GM should be able to see the situation coming and not put the team in a position to make a difficult decision like that, with very little benefit from doing so. It's not as simple as just saying "gimme a bunch of guys and I'll pick three". You need to weigh the risks and the potential costs.

Say the Vikings sign Josh McCown before the draft. So they have McCown and Ponder signed. Do they draft two QBs in that scenario? I say no way. That would be dumb, because the second one, no matter how much you like him, is unlikely to bump Ponder off the roster. So the chances are good that he'll be waived in the hopes of floating him to the practice squad. Where he's still vulnerable. That's not so bad if he turns out to be a bum. But if you made a great (or lucky) 7th round pick, then you've put yourself in the position of either releasing the guy who is guaranteed $3M and is your best backup option, or else exposing your great/lucky late round pick. That just isn't a smart move, no matter how good it is to have a house full of QBs.

Mothman wrote:
True, but I don't think that changes whether they're worth drafting. If the Vikings draft 2 QBs and they both look good in the summer, they can keep them both on the roster. If they end up finishing the preseason with 4 QBs who all appear worth keeping, that's really just good news. Pick the best 3 and if the 4th is eligible for the practice squad, put him there and hope nobody signs him. If they do... well, they've already kept the 3 QBs they considered best.

If Ponder is traded by or on draft day, then we either draft a 2nd QB or have another signed up.

I doubt it happens, though. They might draft that 2nd QB for a mid season trade with a team in need because of injury. Teams don't often think like that, but this is one of those situations where teams sometimes do so.

We had no problem throwing 3 mil at Freeman and wasting it, for the greater good of the Vikings, even Rickie should see we would be better off without Ponder on the roster, so just cut his sorry behind and pick up some scrub for 100k for the 3rd string if it comes to that. Ponder=cancer to this team.

PurpleKoolaid wrote:We had no problem throwing 3 mil at Freeman and wasting it, for the greater good of the Vikings

I'm a little amazed that the whole Freeman thing hasn't been discussed more, especially in the media. How can anyone who held Spielman in high regard think the same about him after that WTF signing and what happened afterward?

even Rickie should see we would be better off without Ponder on the roster, so just cut his sorry behind and pick up some scrub for 100k for the 3rd string if it comes to that. Ponder=cancer to this team.

No, I'm afraid Rickie doesn't see a lot of things.

Eli wrote:You may be right... I probably can't make you see it.

Because a GM should be able to see the situation coming and not put the team in a position to make a difficult decision like that, with very little benefit from doing so. It's not as simple as just saying "gimme a bunch of guys and I'll pick three". You need to weigh the risks and the potential costs.

I AM weighing the potential risks and costs and of course I realize it's not as simple as "gimme a bunch of guys and I'll pick three".

Say the Vikings sign Josh McCown before the draft. So they have McCown and Ponder signed. Do they draft two QBs in that scenario? I say no way. That would be dumb, because the second one, no matter how much you like him, is unlikely to bump Ponder off the roster. So the chances are good that he'll be waived in the hopes of floating him to the practice squad. Where he's still vulnerable. That's not so bad if he turns out to be a bum. But if you made a great (or lucky) 7th round pick, then you've put yourself in the position of either releasing the guy who is guaranteed $3M and is your best backup option, or else exposing your great/lucky late round pick. That just isn't a smart move, no matter how good it is to have a house full of QBs.

It's obvious to me that we have a very fundamental disagreement here about how a GM should approach his job.

First, while weighing the potential risks and costs a GM should also be weighing the potential benefits, both short and long term. You seem almost exclusively focused on the downside of this scenario, the risks and costs.

Second, the only reason to draft two QBs in a single draft is if you feel the second one has enough talent to reward the pick. Consequently, the idea that there's "very little benefit" to be derived from the move doesn't hold up, because if there's very little benefit to drafting the second QB, there's no reason to make that pick in the first place. If there IS a potentially significant benefit to drafting him, then doing so even with McCown (or another veteran stopgap) and Ponder under contract isn't "dumb".

Spielman should be asking if he and the coaching staff see Ponder playing a significant role in the Vikings future beyond the 2014 season, as either a backup or a starter. If so, and if they see him as a backup, they also have to determine if that's an ongoing role Ponder would want and accept or if the only way to keep him beyond this season would be to give him a chance to earn the starting job. If they think 2014 is likely his last year in Minnesota, I think he becomes expendable.

Further questions to consider: What are the stakes? Is a Super Bowl win at stake this season? If so, is keeping Ponder going to be the difference between winning and losing that Super Bowl? If so, keep him as "your best backup option" and either don't draft that late round QB or do so with a willingness to accept that he may be lost if put on the practice squad.

If Ponder isn't going to be the difference between winning and losing a Super Bowl in 2014 (and I doubt anyone believes he is) and/or if they don't see him as a part of their QB depth chart beyond 2014, the risk of losing him becomes acceptable when weighed against the potential reward of developing a good, young QB in his stead. The money lost if they cut him isn't a huge price to pay for the choice, especially if the young late-round pick works out, because he's not going to cost much in NFL terms for his first 3 seasons.

The stakes just aren't high enough for this to be a big concern. In the end, it's simply about assessing talent, weighing options, creating competition and taking a big picture view of the roster that goes beyond the 2014 season. Nobody would be put an unforgivably awkward situation. Coaches have to make difficult decisions about which players to keep or cut every year. Adding one more to choice to the mix is something I'm sure they could handle.

Eli wrote: I'm a little amazed that the whole Freeman thing hasn't been discussed more, especially in the media. How can anyone who held Spielman in high regard think the same about him after that WTF signing and what happened afterward?

I think that was a case partially akin to the Herschel Walker situation. We were in trouble and a talent like Freeman pops up. He starts once and was horrible enough to keep him on the bench.

Next thing we all know, the coaches didn't want him, just like Burns didn't ask for Walker.

Mothman wrote:The stakes just aren't high enough for this to be a big concern.

In that regard we're in some agreement. But... the Vikings right now are a bottom of the barrel NFL team. Not scraping it, but certainly in the bottom third of the NFL in terms of overall talent. They have some huge deficiencies at key positions and a roster bereft of any appreciable depth. It's not a good time to be wasting draft picks, even late round picks. There will be next year, when (one hopes) they'll have a better handle on the QB situation. As I said before, the time to take those late round fliers on QBs is when you have two starters and a guy you clearly don't care about who is third on the depth chart.

Eli wrote:In that regard we're in some agreement. But... the Vikings right now are a bottom of the barrel NFL team. Not scraping it, but certainly in the bottom third of the NFL in terms of overall talent. They have some huge deficiencies at key positions and a roster bereft of any appreciable depth. It's not a good time to be wasting draft picks, even late round picks.

That's where the disconnect in our views seems to lie: you keep talking about wasting picks but I'm not suggesting they waste a pick or draft a second QB just for the sake of doing so. There's no reason to make the pick if they don't believe the player has a good chance of being worth the pick. Their status as a team in the bottom third of the league is exactly why they should make it if a player like that is available to them. Ponder's contract and Ponder himself shouldn't be an obstacle. If the Vikings enter next year with an aging stopgap veteran starter and Ponder at QB, they'll have every incentive to try and upgrade their future situation at the QB position.

There will be next year, when (one hopes) they'll have a better handle on the QB situation. As I said before, the time to take those late round fliers on QBs is when you have two starters and a guy you clearly don't care about who is third on the depth chart.

Why? That makes no sense to me. What difference does it make if they take two QBs this year and cut Ponder or if they take one QB this year, Ponder walks in free agency, and they take another QB next year? The end result is the same. Two new QBs get added to the roster.

I think the time to take a late round flier on a QB is when you see a QB you feel is worth that pick. A team shouldn't pass on a player they feel provides good value and can eventually upgrade their team. Unless Christian Ponder figures into the team's long term plans, why should he be any obstacle at all to drafting a second QB if they feel that QB can really help them? It seems to me the best way to stop being in the bottom third of the NFL in terms of overall talent is to upgrade the overall talent.

Bring in a vet if Cassel won't resign, draft 2 QBS and put Ponder on the practice squad