Report: Vikes looking to "get rid of" AP (AD)

[Mothman]

For how long? A year? I don't think that explains how the Indy offense succeeded for years. Demi's argument makes more sense.

Faulk played in Indy for 5 years but only one with Manning. However, I think the point of bringing him up was to refute the idea that Indy just had an average rushing attack with average rushers while Manning was there. Faulk's not the player who best undermines that position but Edgerrin James does. He spent 7 years playing for the Colts, all of them with Manning, and he topped 1500 yards rushing in 4 of those 7 years. He topped 1200 in another and injuries kept him under 1000 in the remaining two seasons.

In three of James' seasons in Indy, he gained over 2000 yards from scrimmage. He was WAY beyond average. Throw in Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clark and some of the other weapons they had over the years and it just reinforces the underlying point that Manning, like every other highly successful QB in NFL history, had plenty of help. That's what explains how the Indy offense was so successful for such a long period of time. They had an excellent QB and they surrounded him with talent, putting him in position to excel.

[Funkytown]

With that being said would it not make more sense to keep A.p (sense we already have him) build a great defense and look for an above average qb rather than search for a Manning type qb? Reasons being we already have one piece in Peterson; second Manning type qbs are hard to find and the vikings don't have the best track record.

Pretty much.

[Just Me]

You lost me there. I thought it took a total team effort. (Right?) I think Mr. Joe MVP Flacco played a pretty big role in the win, too. Probably why he ended up getting a big, sexy contract shortly after. Anyways, from what I remember, the Ravens D wasn't all that spectacular that year...or that game. I think their offense and defense were pretty much in the middle of the pack that year, nothing special. They were just a good team with a lot of heart...and good coaching. And maybe a little help from the football Gods with the whole Ray Lewis retiring thing. lol.

You are correct. I worded it poorly and meant to indicate the body of work for the season, not just the game, but the seasonal stats indicate the Ravens had the 12th defense and the 10th offense that year, so I was giving too much credit to the defense. It still supports what I have been saying that all aspects (including rushing) are important to winning and you can't just "dismiss" that aspect as somehow "not important" to winning the game. I stand corrected on that point.

And I think Lewis had like 7 tackles that game. How many guys did McKinnie let get by him? If he managed to hold back that tough Niners D, I don't think it's fair to say Lewis played a bigger role, especially with so much certainty. I don't know the numbers, though. Just sayin'. But how do you even measure and compare that? Regardless, I think the point is, he started throughout the playoffs and the freakin' Super Bowl; he must not be completely worthless.

I'm not saying McKinnie is 'worthless' as the Vikings were still willing to pay some amount for his services, but if he was so valuable, why did the Ravens unload him later?

[Funkytown]

Faulk's not the player who best undermines that position...

...which was my point. Good job for catching on. In the part that I quoted, Demi had the stronger argument. Pointing towards Faulk's one season with Peyton in regards to the sustained success that Manning and the Colts offense had...is weak. It just doesn't work for me. All of the other talent around him that you mentioned? Yes, that works! Faulk? Still...no.

[allday1991]

Faulk played in Indy for 5 years but only one with Manning. However, I think the point of bringing him up was to refute the idea that Indy just had an average rushing attack with average rushers while Manning was there. Faulk's not the player who best undermines that position but Edgerrin James does. He spent 7 years playing for the Colts, all of them with Manning, and he topped 1500 yards rushing in 4 of those 7 years. He topped 1200 in another and injuries kept him under 1000 in the remaining two seasons.

In three of James' seasons in Indy, he gained over 2000 yards from scrimmage. He was WAY beyond average. Throw in Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clark and some of the other weapons they had over the years and it just reinforces the underlying point that Manning, like every other highly successful QB in NFL history, had plenty of help. That's what explains how the Indy offense was so successful for such a long period of time. They had an excellent QB and they surrounded him with talent, putting him in position to excel.

Good point, mind you the Indy offense still is looking pretty good with Luck Manning is a great qb however the Colts franchise has proved they're able compete without Manning so I cant fully agree with the above statement that they just succeed because of Manning but rather agree with Moth and that Indy as of recently has had a eye for finding talent.

[Funkytown]

I'm not saying McKinnie is 'worthless' as the Vikings were still willing to pay some amount for his services, but if he was so valuable, why did the Ravens unload him later?

And I never said he was so valuable. My guess is, he lands somewhere in between worthless and so valuable, and the Ravens felt it was time to move on. That happens all of the time, for a variety of reasons, for players both less valuable and more valuable than McKinnie. It is what it is. Still doesn't take away from the role he played in the playoffs and Super Bowl.

[Raptorman]

You don't ask him to take a pay cut before cutting him if it isn't a cap issue. So he's ok to be on the roster and starting at a lower salary but the same other issues? We had to be under the cap by Thursday of that week, and suddenly it comes up. There were other issues, but if he had agreed to take a pay cut, he was still on the roster. Despite being 400 lbs and a bad practice away from a heart attack. And then left tackled a super bowl team.

Let's keep one thing straight here. McKinnie started left tackle for the 4 playoff games. He was not the starter in Baltimore in 2012. Oher was the starting LT. Until Reid, LG, was hurt at the end of the year. They moved their RT to the guard spot, Oher back to RT and McKinnie to start at LT.

[Just Me]

And I never said he was so valuable. My guess is, he lands somewhere in between worthless and so valuable, and the Ravens felt it was time to move on. That happens all of the time, for a variety of reasons, for players both less valuable and more valuable than McKinnie. It is what it is. Still doesn't take away from the role he played in the playoffs and Super Bowl.

Nor should it. McKinnie was the LT for the playoffs. Michael Oher the RT, and Matt Birk (he went to Harvard - ) the Center. I'm not sure I can even say McKinnie played the best of the players on that line (OL stats are a little thin). McKinnie was benched during the 2012 season, so he wasn't at least consistently perceived to be the best solution for them on the OL. Here's what I can say about Ray Lewis, though.

I perceive his contribution to the team as being of more benefit than McKinnie's but there is no direct comparison that really can quantify that belief. There is the "weighted value" of each player at his respective position found here and here which tends to better illustrate their respective performances during their careers. But suffice to say, I believe a 13 time pro-bowler probably impacts the team's performance to a greater degree than a 1 time pro-bowler (McKinnie made the pro-bowl for the 2009 season (when still with the Vikings). Not that this selection is the 'end-all' to his evaluation, but it does point to a measure of performance (however accurate or inaccurate that may be). There is also the fact that in the postseason, Lewis led the NFL with 51 tackles. He also contributed 2 tackles for loss and 1 pass deflection in the Super Bowl run.

[Demi]

Good point, mind you the Indy offense still is looking pretty good with Luck Manning is a great qb however the Colts franchise has proved they're able compete without Manning so I cant fully agree with the above statement that they just succeed because of Manning but rather agree with Moth and that Indy as of recently has had a eye for finding talent.

Yeah, finding QB talent. How'd they look without Manning and Luck?
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/clt/
Before and after Manning offensive numbers!

I'm not saying McKinnie is 'worthless' as the Vikings were still willing to pay some amount for his services

Yep from the articles they point at his weight, and work ethic as the reason they let him go. With no mention whatsoever of the fact that the team was over the salary cap and had less then a week to make cap room. And you can say with a straight face salary wasn't the biggest reason he was let go? Or the reason Winfield as let go?

[720pete]

This isn't any better than your last post. Which QBs are "elite". I would take Peterson over almost any of the QBs in this league, several of them being considered "elite" by people who like to throw the term around. It is a fallacy, there's no other way to describe people who think that every QB that plays well and wins SBs as elite. The only real consistent statistical giant for all QBs is Peyton Manning and maybe Aaron Rodgers. Tom Brady and Drew Brees have both had periods where they were more like how we consider Eli Manning and Ben Roethlisberger.

Do Super Bowl teams usually have great QBs, or do great QBs usually play for Super Bowl caliber teams?

So you would rather have AP and Ponder over Drew Brees and, say, Matt Asiata?

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

[Just Me]

Yep from the articles they point at his weight, and work ethic as the reason they let him go. With no mention whatsoever of the fact that the team was over the salary cap and had less then a week to make cap room. And you can say with a straight face salary wasn't the biggest reason he was let go? Or the reason Winfield as let go?

McKinnie was benched for most of the Raven's Super Bowl season. He went to the coach and asked to play in the playoffs, and Harbaugh told him to practice harder. Can you say with a straight face that his work ethic was NOT the primary reason for wanting him to take a pay cut.

Winfield was a move to get younger. They didn't even try to get him at the salary that Seattle paid him (and we could have afforded to do that under the cap). Do I think paying an aging QB 7M to play factored in? Yes, but that doesn't mean it's a cap issue. Good management of a football team involved getting/keeping players getting paid for what their worth so that they can distribute salaries when needed. The point is: these items are all inter-related. Cap management is what the front office of every team deals with. Heck, Favre made $16M in 2010. Talk about something that was not worth the money...

But to answer your question: I think in McKinnie's case it was (but not like you think) in that they offered a contract which seemed in line with his perceived value and McKinnie didn't want it. Why would you overpay a questionable player who has issued with his 'new team' even after his 'fresh start?'

Winfield was never about money (apparently) as the Vikings never even offered him a reduced contract (or so the reports say). With his age, I think the Vikings made the decision to let their best CB walk in order to "go with youth." It turned out to be a bad decision as Robinson couldn't perform nearly as well as Winfield, and the Viking front office may have been better served to have dealt better with Winfield (at least offering him a reduced contract). He couldn't make the team in Seattle (which was a shame - I'd have liked to seen him get a ring before he retired) but he was still our best CB. (Just not worth 7M)

[mosscarter]

i don't think anyone believed favre's drop off would have been totally off a cliff from 09 to 10. the season he had in 09 tells you the importance of a top notch qb in today's league. peterson's best years are behind him its high time to realize that. he may have several good seasons left, but after this year i would look long and hard about making a trade.

[Just Me]

i don't think anyone believed favre's drop off would have been totally off a cliff from 09 to 10. the season he had in 09 tells you the importance of a top notch qb in today's league. peterson's best years are behind him its high time to realize that. he may have several good seasons left, but after this year i would look long and hard about making a trade.

No one predicted that drop off, obviously, but not many thought Favre still had the ability to turn in the performance he did in 2009, either (Look up his stats in 2008 with the Jets). So to say Peterson's best years are behind him (without a doubt) seems to assume facts not in evidence. The probability this is the case increases with every passing year, but I don't know you can definitively say that now. If the deal is good for the team, then no one (including Peterson) is exempt from being traded. I just don't see a scenario where another team is going to make it worth it the Vikings to trade a player of Peterson's caliber at this point in time. If someone offers a Herschel Walker deal, then you take it. Sadly, I think the rest of the league learned from our mistakes so I don't see that happening.

[DarthBrooks]

I still wonder why fans would want to trade AD, and why they can't see the logical flaw against such a trade happening.

All the reasons why they wouldn't keep AD (age, salary) = All the reasons a team (with even less emotional involvement with AD) wouldn't trade for AD.

[mosscarter]

i agree just me i think its a long shot we trade him. which is fine, as long as he still runs as hard as he can, and that is exactly what he's done from day 1 then i'm okay with it. i just hope he doesn't turn out like tomlinson, or chris johnson. he has spoiled us viking fans because up until this point he's looked like superman, but no one can defy age.