Vikings Message Board.Com

VikingsTommy wrote:What about Joe Webb?

Dual threat (guy can make things happen with his legs), knows the team/system well

Rather run with him than he likes of Sanchez or Hill

I really liked Joe Webb but I doubt he is the answer and doubt his name has even been brought up amongst the staff.

Texas Vike wrote:
The hole in your argument is "multiple drafts". I am not arguing for investing in a QB by the 3rd round in every draft. You do it ONCE and you're good for at least five years. You have a truly VIABLE plan B at the single most important position for the team. That's a gimme.

It is not a hole. Given the rate of QB busts vs. QBs that pan out, in order to have a viable back up you are likely to require multiple picks to get to the desired state. Unless you find a franchise guy who you can keep for 8+ years, this is going to be a frequent scenario. This is why I think this line of thinking is short sighted.

I think we should just toss a 6th or 7th rounder at Kansas City and get Aaron Murray. He's got some untapped potential from being stuck behind Alex Smith and he was extremely productive in college. Let Hill start for a few weeks while Murray gets acquainted with the playbook and then throw him in there.

mansquatch wrote:It is not a hole. Given the rate of QB busts vs. QBs that pan out, in order to have a viable back up you are likely to require multiple picks to get to the desired state. Unless you find a franchise guy who you can keep for 8+ years, this is going to be a frequent scenario. This is why I think this line of thinking is short sighted.

Unless they find a franchise guy, it should be a frequent scenario. Success and stability at the QB position is one of the keys to success for an NFL team.

Other teams have managed to do this successfully so why is it short-sighted? If anything, it's an approach that shows foresight.

TSonn wrote:I think we should just toss a 6th or 7th rounder at Kansas City and get Aaron Murray. He's got some untapped potential from being stuck behind Alex Smith and he was extremely productive in college. Let Hill start for a few weeks while Murray gets acquainted with the playbook and then throw him in there.

mansquatch wrote: It is not a hole. Given the rate of QB busts vs. QBs that pan out, in order to have a viable back up you are likely to require multiple picks to get to the desired state. Unless you find a franchise guy who you can keep for 8+ years, this is going to be a frequent scenario. This is why I think this line of thinking is short sighted.

I think it's terribly short sighted to not invest in a viable backup for the most important position on the field. Jim's response upthread is golden, so I won't repeat it here. I share it completely and his explanation is very clear and well thought out.

Of the chiefs qbs I like Kevin Hogan. He is a rookie and I think has a lot of potential.

Bill Polian on @Broncos QB Mark Sanchez & potential trade market: "Someone with a turnover gene you simply do not want." @SiriusXMNFL
4:47 PM - 30 Aug 2016


I would like to see us go after Glennon....Heck if Beavers is worth a 4th round pick.
I would think Glennon would be worth one.

halfgiz wrote:Bill Polian on @Broncos QB Mark Sanchez & potential trade market: "Someone with a turnover gene you simply do not want." @SiriusXMNFL
4:47 PM - 30 Aug 2016


I would like to see us go after Glennon....Heck if Beavers is worth a 4th round pick.
I would think Glennon would be worth one.

I just saw Adam Schefter discussing him on NFL Insiders and he implied the Bucs would want more than that. He didn't say that specifically but it was definitely the impression I had.

Incidentally, former Eagles president Joe banner cited Arran Murray as the best option for the Vikes to pursue.

Mothman wrote:
I just saw Adam Schefter discussing him on NFL Insiders and he implied the Bucs would want more than that. He didn't say that specifically but it was definitely the impression I had.

Incidentally, former Eagles president Joe banner cited Arran Murray as the best option for the Vikes to pursue.

Thanks for the heads up Jim.

One think I liked about Glennon was he had game experience. And it doesn't hurt he's only 26.

I know it was mentioned Murray could be had for cheap. So that might be a plus.

TSonn wrote:I think we should just toss a 6th or 7th rounder at Kansas City and get Aaron Murray. He's got some untapped potential from being stuck behind Alex Smith and he was extremely productive in college. Let Hill start for a few weeks while Murray gets acquainted with the playbook and then throw him in there.

Prolly best option available......I could get behind that idea.

The Chiefs spent a 2014 fifth-round pick on Murray, who would have gone much higher if he wasn't coming off an ACL tear. The former Georgia Bulldog flashed some potential early in the preseason, tossing some nice balls, but he's clearly behind Foles at this stage. If the Chiefs can get anything in exchange for the QB project, it'll make life easier. If nothing materializes, expect Murray to be cut outright.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300000 ... -cuts-loom

I could see it for a 7th or just try to snag him if he gets cut.

Texas Vike wrote: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300000 ... -cuts-loom

I could see it for a 7th or just try to snag him if he gets cut.

A 7th for what could be a starting QB is cheap.

Probably if your Cowboys or Vikings the price will go up.

Mothman wrote: Unless they find a franchise guy, it should be a frequent scenario. Success and stability at the QB position is one of the keys to success for an NFL team.

Other teams have managed to do this successfully so why is it short-sighted? If anything, it's an approach that shows foresight.

Lets say they do that and they keep tossing 2nd-4th round picks at the back up role. How many busts will be tolerated before someone asks "We keep blowing picks on backups, but our OL sucks, umm what?" Also, why would they toss another early round pick at QB after drafting a guy 3 years ago? Does any NFL team do that? GB didn't use one on Rogers until what, 12-13 years into Favre's tenure there?

I guess another way to look at it is to go this route: What team with a QB under 28 years of age that is considered a franchise guy is investing early (round 1-3) picks in Quarterbacks? AJ McCarron was a 5th round pick BTW. We've got our Joel Stave on the roster, so how come he represents bad roster management but a 5th rounder, ergo McCarron is drafting foresight? Just not seeing it.

Or put it even a third way: Which NFL team could have their starting QB have happen to them what we just had with TB and not be up turd creek without a paddle? Does ANYONE here really think the Cowboys are going to have a solid season this year with their current QB situation? To me this is just silly. You guys are ragging on the front office because they do not do something that hardly any other NFL team does. Most teams take a shot with a high pick on a QB prospect when the current franchise guy is aging. When they don't have "that guy" they have to spend high picks until they find him, but it also takes a few years to determine whether or not the current high pick is "that guy." We are going into year 3 of the TB era and you guys are ticked off that after year 2 they didn't toss another pick on another QB in the early rounds. As I always ask on this stuff, what are willing to give up for that because if you draft a QB in round 2, then you are not drafting something else there. Should we have given up on Kendricks or Alexander to have a Jimy Garropolo on the roster instead? That is basically what you are advocating.

As is usual, Mothman is totally on target here.....Spielmans approach is faulty and hasnt worked.