Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Vikings sign Latavius Murray (#25)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Minnesota Vikings
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
KeithVikings28


Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 2805
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

VikeManDan wrote:
KeithVikings28 wrote:
Cut Price and open up #25

What would Mixon wear? Laughing


#28 haha
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vike daddy


Most Valuable Poster (2nd Ballot)

Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 82918
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In 10 seasons with the Vikings, Peterson caught just 241 passes for 1,945 yards while Murray caught 91 passes - just under half as many - for 639 yards in his three years in Oakland. When it comes to pass protection, Pro Football Focus grades Murray as an average pass protector while Peterson graded out as below average.

http://kfan.iheart.com/onair/vikings-blog-38526/vikings-murray-believes-he-can-improve-15656719/#ixzz4bgGqw8vz[/b]
_________________


Everson Griffen: We can be special. But its up to us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SemperFeist


Joined: 13 Jan 2013
Posts: 7914
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

PFF grades Murray as the 4th best pass blocking running back in 2016. I'd say he's better than average.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CriminalMind


Joined: 25 Aug 2011
Posts: 8623
Location: Toronto, CA
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I know we're trying to look at this with positive googles, but Murray is likely to provide at best/worse, then a RB taken within the first 3 rounds, but at around 4-5 times the cost for the single year.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Purplexing


Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Posts: 5338
Location: Outside Valhalla, looking in.
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CriminalMind wrote:
I know we're trying to look at this with positive googles, but Murray is likely to provide at best/worse, then a RB taken within the first 3 rounds, but at around 4-5 times the cost for the single year.


They now have enough cap space, so that's almost moot.

Spielman may not have wanted to go into the draft with RB as a priority. Signing Murray gives more flexibility for BPA drafting... in regard to areas in need of upgrades (OL) and developmental prospects (DL, TE, CB, WR, etc.).

Think of the relatively high cost of Murray as insurance against 'a Waynes/ Treadwell' type rookie RB. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vikingsrule


Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 52612
Location: Land of 10,000 Lakes!
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CriminalMind wrote:
I know we're trying to look at this with positive googles, but Murray is likely to provide at best/worse, then a RB taken within the first 3 rounds, but at around 4-5 times the cost for the single year.


Signing Murray is basically the same strategy as signing Chester Taylor back in 2006. We could do worse but we could do better. The following year the Vikes drafted Peterson.

I expect the same approach this year. The Vikes will continue to build up the OL and front seven with early picks and then try and add a standout RB in 2018 when McKinnon's deal is up.

2017: Murray, McKinnon, mid round rookie
2018: Blue chipper, Murray and 2017 rookie
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Purplexing


Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Posts: 5338
Location: Outside Valhalla, looking in.
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It seems like that ^ is wasteful use of draft picks.

If the plan is to drop McKinnon, why not sign a FA vet RB after the draft, cheap!... then determine if McKinnon & Murray can develop into an effective RBBC. If not, then drop 'the weak link' after 2017, and draft a RBOTF in rd 1, 2018.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vikingsrule


Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 52612
Location: Land of 10,000 Lakes!
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Purplexing wrote:
It seems like that ^ is wasteful use of draft picks.

If the plan is to drop McKinnon, why not sign a FA vet RB after the draft, cheap!... then determine if McKinnon & Murray can develop into an effective RBBC. If not, then drop 'the weak link' after 2017, and draft a RBOTF in rd 1, 2018.


Using a draft pick is cheaper than signing a vet would be, plus we've got two veterans, it makes more sense to add youth to the position now.

Going forward, McKinnon is going to want a decent contract in 2018, probably similar to what Murray received. I'd honestly rather have Murray than McKinnon if it came down to keeping one or the other. Even if they are an effective duo together, we'd be paying close to $10M on the position in 2018 for a mediocre at best backfield.

I would look for a rookie this year who can fill the void of a true thumper. Murray and McKinnon aren't really that type of player. Maybe C.J. Ham would be okay in that role as the third RB but we know very little about him.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CriminalMind


Joined: 25 Aug 2011
Posts: 8623
Location: Toronto, CA
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

vikingsrule wrote:
CriminalMind wrote:
I know we're trying to look at this with positive googles, but Murray is likely to provide at best/worse, then a RB taken within the first 3 rounds, but at around 4-5 times the cost for the single year.


Signing Murray is basically the same strategy as signing Chester Taylor back in 2006. We could do worse but we could do better. The following year the Vikes drafted Peterson.

I expect the same approach this year. The Vikes will continue to build up the OL and front seven with early picks and then try and add a standout RB in 2018 when McKinnon's deal is up.

2017: Murray, McKinnon, mid round rookie
2018: Blue chipper, Murray and 2017 rookie


Thats too much resources.
I'm assuming by 2017 mid-round rookie, ur thinking 3rd or 4th rounder. Then in 2018 a 1st rounder on RB?

If your thinking 2018 1st round RB then you should use ur 3rd / 4th rounders in 2017 on non RB positions.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vikingsrule


Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 52612
Location: Land of 10,000 Lakes!
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think we are in disagreement over semantics. When I say mid round, i'm thinking 4th or 5th round pick.

Early picks for us this year are the 2nd and 3rd rounders, which i'd rather use on more OL help (need a RG and OT), DT and LB as you said.

I'm not thrilled with the RB class in terms of top end talent given where we are drafting, is there really much that separates the 3rd round RBs from the 5th round RBs? I want no part of Joe Mixon and I have little reason to believe Spielman would use a draft pick on him given his history in highschool and college, seems like a psychopath with a short temper. Some GM will take a chance but it won't be Spielman.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CriminalMind


Joined: 25 Aug 2011
Posts: 8623
Location: Toronto, CA
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

History shows us that Mixon is not a player Rick wiĺl be drafting.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cearbhall


Joined: 08 Mar 2017
Posts: 14
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Purplexing wrote:
They now have enough cap space, so that's almost moot.


I disagree with this line of thought. Just because a team has a few cap dollars right now is not make it better to overpay players. The team can use that to extend contracts of current players or save it for next year to use on players that are truly game changers.

Successful NFL teams need to be manage the cap well and every dollar should be scrutinized. Teams need to look for value with each dollar and must not fall into the line of thought that it is moot if they are not currently pressed up against the cap ceiling.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vikingsrule


Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 52612
Location: Land of 10,000 Lakes!
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cearbhall wrote:
Purplexing wrote:
They now have enough cap space, so that's almost moot.


I disagree with this line of thought. Just because a team has a few cap dollars right now is not make it better to overpay players. The team can use that to extend contracts of current players or save it for next year to use on players that are truly game changers.

Successful NFL teams need to be manage the cap well and every dollar should be scrutinized. Teams need to look for value with each dollar and must not fall into the line of thought that it is moot if they are not currently pressed up against the cap ceiling.


Agreed. Its useless to spend money just to spend. Especially on a group of free agents that simply isn't that desirable.

I'd rather roll that money over into 2018 so that we can afford another Riley Reiff type free agent contract in a year. Obviously, we as fans will hope that the Vikes spurge on a tier one free agent in 2018 to avoid the "sky is falling" overreactions. Extending Rhodes, Barr, and Kendricks will certainly make a splurge more difficult.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
North


Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Posts: 462
Location: Twitter
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Call me crazy but I think getting McKinnon a new contract next year should be a priority. McKinnon has been WAY closer to Peterson in terms of talent since the day he arrived here than people are willing to admit. The OL was terrible in 2016, but that didn't stop him from looking like our best RB in every game & heating up towards the end of the season.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CriminalMind


Joined: 25 Aug 2011
Posts: 8623
Location: Toronto, CA
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cearbhall wrote:
Purplexing wrote:
They now have enough cap space, so that's almost moot.


I disagree with this line of thought. Just because a team has a few cap dollars right now is not make it better to overpay players. The team can use that to extend contracts of current players or save it for next year to use on players that are truly game changers.

Successful NFL teams need to be manage the cap well and every dollar should be scrutinized. Teams need to look for value with each dollar and must not fall into the line of thought that it is moot if they are not currently pressed up against the cap ceiling.


More money can be opened up by extending Bradford.
I think we are sold a bill of goods (sometimes) about planning for next year, and not making moves now. Instead of getting truly game changers now to add to the team to bring us into potential contender status, we don't acquire that extra talent, and we keep our winning ceiling low and our basement medium. Its a very safe play for Rick, but does little in terms of fielding a team that can win 2-3 playoff games.

We're "wasting" the years of cheap Rhodes/Barr/Kendricks/Hunter/Diggs, and not adding game changers to join the squad (to be ultra competitive), in favour of running out a 8-9 win team, and planning for contracts for the above players in future years.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Minnesota Vikings All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 6 of 9

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group