A message board dedicated to the discussion of Minnesota Viking Football.
https://beta1.vikingsmessageboard.com/
Interesting point about Henderson. I will be absolutely AMAZED if at least one of those one-year contracts doesn't come back to bite the Vikings in the ####. You can't do business like that in today's NFL. You might hope to, but you won't last very long.Wiederer wrote:Linebackers:
The Vikings say they have interest in all three [UFA] linebackers. But this is the time of year when they say they have interest in all their free agents. Truth is, they do have interest in them, but they’ll also have wandering eyes. Both Henderson and Brinkley are solid players well shy of their 30th birthdays. They played well on a team that won 10 games and made the playoffs. So they’re comfortable options, assuming they even want to return.
That might not be the case with Henderson. He wasn’t happy when he didn’t get a long-term deal last offseason, so he’s more likely to take comparable money from another team.
You can say that again. If they don't improve the roster, especially weaker areas like WR and LB, they'll have a tough time winning 10 games again and, as Eli suggested above, it's possible that they could be a better team and still end up with fewer wins. That said, I think they can improve and compete with even the toughest teams on that schedule. It won't be easy but then again, it shouldn't be easy.losperros wrote:I have to go along with Wiederer about the upcoming schedule. It's tougher than what the Vikings had in 2012.
All the more reason for upgrades at certain positions. A better balanced offense with a more talented WR corps is going to be badly needed.
I suppose it depends on what you mean. I don't see why they can't do business that way in the NFL. Isn't re-signing a player who had a one year "prove it" deal essentially the same as re-signing a player at the end of any other deal? Sooner or later, if a team wants to keep any player, they have to negotiate a new contract. Most of the time, if a team can sign a player to a one-year contract there's a good reason that player is willing to accept a deal like that. If they "find a home" and have success, there's a reasonably good chance they'll want to return to that new home and then it's a question of money. Admittedly, there are other factors involved. If the player found a good role with the team but the team stunk, that player might want to sign with a better team but overall, I think the one year deals offer as many positives as negatives.Eli wrote:Interesting point about Henderson. I will be absolutely AMAZED if at least one of those one-year contracts doesn't come back to bite the Vikings in the ####. You can't do business like that in today's NFL. You might hope to, but you won't last very long.
I couldn't understand the one-year contracts when they were happening before the season. Looking at the roster now and the surprising success of the team, I think it was probably a good move. The players that signed for one year had something to prove. In my judgement some of them proved their mettle while others did not. Those that deserve more than a one-year contract just might get it this time around. Given the 10-6 record and playoff appearance, plus the chemistry that Frazier has going on the team, I'm thinking most of the players will want to return.Mothman wrote: I suppose it depends on what you mean. I don't see why they can't do business that way in the NFL. Isn't re-signing a player who had a one year "prove it" deal essentially the same as re-signing a player at the end of any other deal? Sooner or later, if a team wants to keep any player, they have to negotiate a new contract. Most of the time, if a team can sign a player to a one-year contract there's a good reason that player is willing to accept a deal like that. If they "find a home" and have success, there's a reasonably good chance they'll want to return to that new home and then it's a question of money. Admittedly, there are other factors involved. If the player found a good role with the team but the team stunk, that player might want to sign with a better team but overall, I think the one year deals offer as many positives as negatives.
Anyway, if Henderson isn't back next year, I wouldn't exactly consider that a development that would bite the Vikings in the ###. He's not exactly irreplaceable.
For what it's worth, Henderson would like to return to the Vikes next year:
http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_223 ... -minnesota
Competition vs. $$$ ?CalVike wrote:London game still bugs me. Sacrificing HFA against a team like the Steelers has no upside competitively. I've long since bought in to its being a great event for our fans across the pond.
Orion wrote:Yeah, jeez our schedule next year is ridiculous.
this is true but for many teams you can tell how tough a schedule could be. you're right about teams like seattle. although we got to watch them all year and have determined they're a pretty good, young football team. so while i can't predict the future, i know i'd rather play the browns than the seahawks. i'd rather play the chiefs than the patriots. and i'd rather play the jags instead of the niners. schedules don't run like clocks and teams will always surprse you good and bad. but some teams are just good year in and year out...MrPurplenGold wrote:
looking at the schedule a year in advance means nothing. There are going to be teams that made the playoffs this year that won't make the playoffs next year and vice versa. You have no idea whose going to get hurt or how players will progress or regress. Example, no one could have known how good Seattle would have been at the beginning of the year or how bad New Orleans would have been.