Cassel traded to Buffalo

[jackal]

Brian Hoyer would be my first choice...

He killed us in the home opener two years ago now...

Sanchez I am not sure about. Maybe he would be a good back up, once he gets clear of the New York spotlight
and out limits cynical spotlight.

Vince Young is an interesting choice.. the guy would have to see a sport shrink, before I would consider that

[The Breeze]

I'm not so sure about either one of those things.

First, backup QBs end up playing every year. The results aren't great, but even when they do look good that's how teams end up chasing the Cassel/Flynn/McCown/Schaub/Hoyer type players and being overall disappointed. Also, if these QBs really did have the skill, they would be emerging somewhere, and backup QBs aren't finding much success anywhere, which leads me to think that it probably has more to do with the players' talent than the organizations' support.

Second, you forget that the Vikings did put effort into having solid backups during that tenure. Culpepper was drafted as a third string QB behind Cunningham and Jef George. Once Culpepper took over as the starter, Shaun Hill was drafted. other backups included Gus Frerotte (who posted a perfect rating in a game filling in for Culpepper) and Brad Johnson (whose performance off the bench had a lot to do with the decision to move on from Daunte). Once Culpepper was traded, Tarvaris Jackson was drafted. The position wasn't neglected at all. It didn't turn out to be great group for us long term, but it wasn't due to a lack of trying.

I'm not callng into question their 'amount' of effort as much as the quality or intelligence of it.
My point about the Vikings neglecting the position during Dante's reign was in reference to the draft. Shaun Hill was a great pick for a backup QB. I don't know what if anything the Vikes got for him down the road, but he was the only guy even worth mentioning while Pep was here.
-----
In comparison to the QB draft history of GB and NE since Favre and Bledsoe is where I'm pulling my opinion. I think they 'get it' and set the standard. Both those franchises have consistantly drafted guys who were not considered projects, or D2 guys and have gotten great play, stability, future starters or decent draft picks in return. (1st rounders in a couple of cases)
I can't say that they haven't been lucky or are better evaluators, but I can say they draft as many if not more QBs than anyone, especially the Vikes, and all while they have a current HOFer under center.
They don't pick the Joe Webb/TJack guys who are longshots or continually sign the Bolliger's, Frerottes, etc. (i did like gus) Of course they can afford to miss due to the starter....but that was my point regarding Culpper. I thought Brad Johnson was a stopgap not anything close to a longterm answer, which should have been a guy that was already on the roster IMO....at least a legit young prospect.
-----
Andy Reid has done a good job at this too.
------
I agree that position lacks numbers in terms of talent league wide which is why I question signing careerlong retreads instead of drafting and developing, except in the case of a stopgap or when you need to help mentor a rookie.
I think too many teams settle for mediocre.... choosing from the backup pool vs being a shark in the draft and making some real effort.... they get what they pay for.
Look at what Denver is doing to itself with The QB position.
-----
I would much rather have Garrapolo(sp) after sitting 2-3yrs behind Brady than any other guy from the FA pool just from a potential standpoint. Hopefully we can say the same about whoever they draft to be TB's understudy.
----
I don't think there is enough talent for every team to have a solid second guy...but there sure is enough for one more, that team has to stay active in the draft and be willing to part with that guy after 3-4 seasons.

hope that made sense~
-------
edit:
are we correct saying Hill was drafted during Dante's time? I did some research on this in Jim's backup QB thread in the college forum and found that Vikings didn't draft a QB for 7 seasons (99-06) once Dante became starter....they just signed retreads. That's whiffing IMO.

[808vikingsfan]

I never said YOU were calling it a stupid move. However some are. All I'm saying is that many on here are acting like we lost our best friend in Matt Cassel and are bugging out over our backup situation. Just stay patient is what I am saying. As someone pointed out earlier....is Matt Cassel THAT much better than a guy like Brian Hoyer, Mark Sanchez, etc?? No not at all and those guys will come a lot cheaper than what we had Cassel on the hook for. PLUS we gain two picks for him. One being a fairly good value pick. Matt Cassel isn't impossible to replace.

I think the backup QB job is just as important as many other positions. I never said it wasn't. I'm just saying, we can replace Matt Cassel. We'll be fine

For the 2015 Vikings, I think Cassel wpuld be one to two wins better than any qb named in this thread. How much is a win worth?

[Mothman]

I'm not callng into question their 'amount' of effort as much as the quality or intelligence of it.
My point about the Vikings neglecting the position during Dante's reign was in reference to the draft. Shaun Hill was a great pick for a backup QB. I don't know what if anything the Vikes got for him down the road, but he was the only guy even worth mentioning while Pep was here

I understand why it may look that way in retrospect because Hill had some good games with other teams but he was a nondescript, third-string backup during his time with the Vikes. His only on-field contribution to the Vikings in a regular season game was to take a knee a couple of times in 2005. Johnson, Frerotte and even Todd Bouman contributed more during as backups the Culpepper era than Hill ever did.

I think too many teams settle for mediocre.... choosing from the backup pool vs being a shark in the draft and making some real effort.... they get what they pay for.

Well said!

are we correct saying Hill was drafted during Dante's time? I did some research on this in Jim's backup QB thread in the college forum and found that Vikings didn't draft a QB for 7 seasons (99-06) once Dante became starter....they just signed retreads. That's whiffing IMO.

Hill wasn't drafted at all. The Vikes signed him as undrafted free agent in 2002 so he was added to the team during the Culpepper years, just not drafted.

[DK Sweets]

I'm not callng into question their 'amount' of effort as much as the quality or intelligence of it.
My point about the Vikings neglecting the position during Dante's reign was in reference to the draft. Shaun Hill was a great pick for a backup QB. I don't know what if anything the Vikes got for him down the road, but he was the only guy even worth mentioning while Pep was here.
-----
In comparison to the QB draft history of GB and NE since Favre and Bledsoe is where I'm pulling my opinion. I think they 'get it' and set the standard. Both those franchises have consistantly drafted guys who were not considered projects, or D2 guys and have gotten great play, stability, future starters or decent draft picks in return. (1st rounders in a couple of cases)
I can't say that they haven't been lucky or are better evaluators, but I can say they draft as many if not more QBs than anyone, especially the Vikes, and all while they have a current HOFer under center.
They don't pick the Joe Webb/TJack guys who are longshots or continually sign the Bolliger's, Frerottes, etc. (i did like gus) Of course they can afford to miss due to the starter....but that was my point regarding Culpper. I thought Brad Johnson was a stopgap not anything close to a longterm answer, which should have been a guy that was already on the roster IMO....at least a legit young prospect.
-----
Andy Reid has done a good job at this too.
------
I agree that position lacks numbers in terms of talent league wide which is why I question signing careerlong retreads instead of drafting and developing, except in the case of a stopgap or when you need to help mentor a rookie.
I think too many teams settle for mediocre.... choosing from the backup pool vs being a shark in the draft and making some real effort.... they get what they pay for.
Look at what Denver is doing to itself with The QB position.
-----
I would much rather have Garrapolo(sp) after sitting 2-3yrs behind Brady than any other guy from the FA pool just from a potential standpoint. Hopefully we can say the same about whoever they draft to be TB's understudy.
----
I don't think there is enough talent for every team to have a solid second guy...but there sure is enough for one more, that team has to stay active in the draft and be willing to part with that guy after 3-4 seasons.

hope that made sense~
-------
edit:
are we correct saying Hill was drafted during Dante's time? I did some research on this in Jim's backup QB thread in the college forum and found that Vikings didn't draft a QB for 7 seasons (99-06) once Dante became starter....they just signed retreads. That's whiffing IMO.

Sorry, Hill went undrafted. That's my mistake, but we were still his first team.

Honestly, I think that streak between 2000-2005 season where we didn't draft a QB sounds worse than it really was. In 99 they drafted their 3rd string QB with the 11th overall pick, in 02 the picked up an undrafted guy who has lasted 13 years in the league, and in 06 they drafted who they hoped to be their QB of the future. As I stated before, they always had other vets on the roster. How many QBs did you expect them to develop with Pep on the roster?

Basically I think you have a decent principle but you're taking it too far. It doesn't matter how many teams draft QBs - after a certain amount of time, you're just going to be getting bad QBs anyways. It's not a bad idea to have a veteran option on the squad, IMO, because then you have somebody to step in if your young guy isn't ready yet. If the young guy is ready, you have a vet giving perspective in the film room.

I think the Vikings tried to follow that approach, and Shaun Hill may not have developed into a starter, but he did become a solid back up. Few teams have two quality starters on their teams, but the Vikings often had a valuable veteran stopgap and developed another solid number two guy. In my mind, that's pretty successful. It's too easy to look back and hindsight and say that they didn't prepare for Culpepper's knee to get shredded when at the time their depth chart looked solid.

[Mothman]

For the 2015 Vikings, I think Cassel wpuld be one to two wins better than any qb named in this thread. How much is a win worth?

Plenty but I'm not sure Cassel's worth many more wins than some of the free agent QBs mentioned in this thread. He's 9-17 as a starter over the last 4 seasons.

To put that in perspective, Ponder is 14-21 over that span.
Sanchez is 18-21.
Locker is 9-14.
Hoyer is 10-7.
Jackson is 7-7.

If I'm not mistaken, those are all better win percentages than Cassel's, although his win percentage over the last 4 seasons is better than McCoy or Whitehurst and obviously, these numbers aren't compiled in a vacuum.

Nevertheless, there's very little reason Cassel to think would give the Vikes a better chance to win than some of the other backup-level vets available. It's slim pickin's out there...

[The Breeze]

@Jim
Thanks for the Hill info. And yes, Hill's value in my eyes is completely retrospective. I was a Bouman fan,by the way.

This whole topic is quite interesting and the consensous that a backup guy is not considered a guy that will lead you to a trophy except on rare occasions opens up a different perspective for me.
From my recollection, only two backups that have won a SB came from a team that didn't draft them (Dilfer, Plunkett)
----
There might be another, but I can only recall one starter(modern era) who won a superbowl with another team whose original team gave up on them (Brad Johnson) Simms may have played for the Rams but I don't recall what brought him to NY. Favre never played for the Falcons and Elway forced his way off the Colts(if i remember correctly) I can't recall if Steve Young was in Tampa before or after the USFL.

Anyway, these guys are all upper deck guys who only come available but rarely, save for B Johnson.

With that in mind it just makes more sense to me to draft for your backup since the chances are more likely that'll you'll be pleasantly surpised by the unknown commodity vs the guy who everyone agrees isn't that good based on his past performance.
------
Of course it depends on what you have as a starter and how close your team is to a SB. I can't imagine anyone in Buffalo is expecting Cassel to lead them that far....but they will be guranteed to get some great mentorship for their young QB from a guy familiar with their division and the Pats and some overall stability for the passing game and entire offense compared to what they had.
------
I think the Vikings still need a vet until TB is that vet. Afterwhich, are they really any better with some other teams flop on a veteran contract vs some 4th-7th rd wildcard on a rookie contract?
....maybe a guy some other team wanted and will give up a pick for later on?

[DK Sweets]

Excellent post, Jim. Cassel somehow went from being viewed as trash to being viewed as an irreplaceable piece of the puzzle because of this trade and it just doesn't make sense to me. He's serviceable, and if he had stayed I wouldn't be upset...but there are players of equal talent on the market.

[Mothman]

Honestly, I think that streak between 2000-2005 season where we didn't draft a QB sounds worse than it really was. In 99 they drafted their 3rd string QB with the 11th overall pick, in 02 the picked up an undrafted guy who has lasted 13 years in the league, and in 06 they drafted who they hoped to be their QB of the future. As I stated before, they always had other vets on the roster. How many QBs did you expect them to develop with Pep on the roster?

How about one? They could have at least least spent a draft pick on the position between 2000-2005 and made an effort beyond settling for Hill for 4 seasons. Sticking around the NFL for 13 seasons is an impressive accomplishment so I give Hill credit but he's a career journeyman/backup and never really looked like he'd be much more.

I think the Vikings tried to follow that approach, and Shaun Hill may not have developed into a starter, but he did become a solid back up. Few teams have two quality starters on their teams, but the Vikings often had a valuable veteran stopgap and developed another solid number two guy. In my mind, that's pretty successful.

I don't think it's even been close to successful. To me, it's been much closer to a disaster. Over the past 15 years, the Vikes did often have a veteran stopgap but when did they develop a "solid number two guy"? Hill wasn't that guy for them. Bouman? He did alright but there was never much real potential there. Jackson? Webb? MBT? Jackson and Ponder are probably the two most solid #2 QBs they've developed in 15 years and they were both drafted to become starters! Sigh...

It's too easy to look back and hindsight and say that they didn't prepare for Culpepper's knee to get shredded when at the time their depth chart looked solid.

It looked solid enough for that season because of Brad Johnson but It was also easy to look at it at the time, without the benefit of hindsight, and understand that they were ill-prepared for the future if something happened to Culpepper. However, it doesn't matter if hindsight is 20/20 or not because the point isn't to blast them for their behavior then so much as it is to learn from the past. That's the benefit hindsight can provide. The point is there should be an urgency to push, to find and develop good QB talent, potential future starting talent, not to settle for Hills and Webbs and MBTs and devote years to them. Believe me, it was evident by 2005 that Hill wasn't a future starting QB. They were settling for a third string QB who was "good enough" to be at the bottom of the depth chart instead of pushing to get better top to bottom and they've basically taken that same approach ever since.

[The Breeze]

@DK
I agree about having the vet guy until your starter is that guy....then you can experiment some. That seems to be the luxury GB and NE share and they are ahead of the curve. I thought Shanahan was really onto something drafting both Cousins and RG3...but they really botched that situation up front on their line.
----_

As for who the Vikes drafted and developed or didn't: The list of Packer QBs drafted since Favre started his first game for them include: Mark Brunell, Matt Hassleback, Aaron Brooks, Aaron Rodgers.
I don't mean to sound like i'm nitpicking on the Vikes as they are probably the norm vs the Pack and Pats being an exception. I don't know. I only looked at Minny's picks during Dante's career.
---
The point is you can't develop guys if you don't draft them and it is probably an advantage when you have an established guy already there.
If TB becomes that guy I hope the philosohpy goes from just having a vet who can win a game or two, or some unproven freak athlete backup, to having possibly the next Brady, Rodgers,Wilson etc. There's no way to know for sure but you'll never have him or decades long stability without drafting for it, at least from I can see. (unless you have a horseshoe up your a$$ like the colts)

[Mothman]

Excellent post, Jim. Cassel somehow went from being viewed as trash to being viewed as an irreplaceable piece of the puzzle because of this trade and it just doesn't make sense to me. He's serviceable, and if he had stayed I wouldn't be upset...but there are players of equal talent on the market.

Thanks.

I hope my last post doesn't sound tough on you. It's really just that I'm frustrtaed with the way the Vikes have handled the QB position and I've felt that way for a long, long time.

[The Breeze]

I think the gist of this portion of the debate is the difference between two types of insurance policies. One is for minor collisions and the the other is for catastophic damage. Or liabilty vs full coverage.

maybe lol

[DK Sweets]

I don't think it's even been close to successful. To me, it's been much closer to a disaster. Over the past 15 years, the Vikes did often have a veteran stopgap but when did they develop a "solid number two guy"? Hill wasn't that guy for them. Bouman? He did alright but there was never much real potential there. Jackson? Webb? MBT? Jackson and Ponder are probably the two most solid #2 QBs they've developed in 15 years and they were both drafted to become starters! Sigh...

You arguing things that are outside of the parameters of my discussion. I'm speaking about Culpepper's tenure, not the past 16 years.

It looked solid enough for that season because of Brad Johnson but It was also easy to look at it at the time, without the benefit of hindsight, and understand that they were ill-prepared for the future if something happened to Culpepper. However, it doesn't matter if hindsight is 20/20 or not because the point isn't to blast them for their behavior then so much as it is to learn from the past. That's the benefit hindsight can provide. The point is there should be an urgency to push, to find and develop good QB talent, potential future starting talent, not to settle for Hills and Webbs and MBTs and devote years to them. Believe me, it was evident by 2005 that Hill wasn't a future starting QB. They were settling for a third string QB who was "good enough" to be at the bottom of the depth chart instead of pushing to get better top to bottom and they've basically taken that same approach ever since.

Jim, how many teams do you think have a starting caliber backup guy that would come in and not miss a beat if the franchise guy went down? If Luck, Rodgers, Brees, etc. lost their careers this season, they would go the same way the Vikings did. Honestly, theos teams probably wouldn't even fare as well as that 05 Vikings squad did.

It's nice to dream of having Rodgers backing up Favre, but that is so incredibly rare that it's not even necessary to explain. A third of the league is usually looking for a starting QB, so expecting the Vikings to have TWO on their roster in what was assumed to be the prime of Culpepper's career is having incredibly unfair expectations.

I will again stand by the opinion that they had a franchise guy, a veteran who proved he was capable of coming in and stabilizing a season, and a young guy they saw potential in (who despite not being a great talent, obviously did have a fair amount of potential to stick for this long). I strongly feel like the QB management of that period was not as poor as you two are implying, even if it was not perfect.

[PurpleKoolaid]

A good way I have been trying to figure out a FA backup, is how do they play in what looks like Norvs system now. Teddy was made for it, imo. Not a read option, yet can run and throw the ball yet, or just run till ya have to slide. A pure pocket passer. Reads D's fast. Thats the backup we want, and imo, thedraft QB we want. I sill like Malllet (have since the very first time I saw him on ESPN breakdowns), and Mettenberger. OFC now they are starters...

[Pondering Her Percy]

You arguing things that are outside of the parameters of my discussion. I'm speaking about Culpepper's tenure, not the past 16 years.
Jim, how many teams do you think have a starting caliber backup guy that would come in and not miss a beat if the franchise guy went down? If Luck, Rodgers, Brees, etc. lost their careers this season, they would go the same way the Vikings did. Honestly, theos teams probably wouldn't even fare as well as that 05 Vikings squad did.

It's nice to dream of having Rodgers backing up Favre, but that is so incredibly rare that it's not even necessary to explain. A third of the league is usually looking for a starting QB, so expecting the Vikings to have TWO on their roster in what was assumed to be the prime of Culpepper's career is having incredibly unfair expectations.

I will again stand by the opinion that they had a franchise guy, a veteran who proved he was capable of coming in and stabilizing a season, and a young guy they saw potential in (who despite not being a great talent, obviously did have a fair amount of potential to stick for this long). I strongly feel like the QB management of that period was not as poor as you two are implying, even if it was not perfect.

Good post Dakota. I agree as well.