KOC explaining balance of potential trade acquisitions w/retaining draft capital for Teasley.

IMO trading picks for known producers in the NFL (with consideration to age & injury history) should be a lot more tempting than known producers in college. We know what skills have translated for the pros, whereas in the draft we can only project and hope for the best. Aside from that, transitioning from college to the NFL is a real leap for most as opposed to transitioning team to team. Just my opinion

Vanguard83 wrote:

IMO trading picks for known producers in the NFL (with consideration to age & injury history) should be a lot more tempting than known producers in college. We know what skills have translated for the pros, whereas in the draft we can only project and hope for the best. Aside from that, transitioning from college to the NFL is a real leap for most as opposed to transitioning team to team. Just my opinion

In a non salary cap world, that would be great. Problem is you simply can not build a sustained championship team without draft equity and capital. Can you fill in a couple of spots? Sure Can you pop up and win one for a year? Sure Can you sustain an operation with consistently trading away draft capital at a high level? It quickly becomes un-affordable. The consistent contenders have a line of depth and quality drafts. The 2 Super Bowls teams last year are prime examples. You can bring in guys like Darnold if you have a bunch of draft equity running a top defense.

Very thoughtful response...it's an integrated, balanced approach to roster creation, building and maintenance.

Well hell...

Where's the word salad in that?

Vikesrock wrote:

In a non salary cap world, that would be great. Problem is you simply can not build a sustained championship team without draft equity and capital. Can you fill in a couple of spots? Sure Can you pop up and win one for a year? Sure Can you sustain an operation with consistently trading away draft capital at a high level? It quickly becomes un-affordable. The consistent contenders have a line of depth and quality drafts. The 2 Super Bowls teams last year are prime examples. You can bring in guys like Darnold if you have a bunch of draft equity running a top defense.

This ^

GMs make their bones in talent acquisition. The draft is the main source, but trades and FA are also important. AVG, Cashman, Byron Murphy, Rodgers, Pierre, Redmond (undrafted), Mason, Murray, ... None were drafted. There are plenty of ways for Teasley to put his mark on this team. I am fine with Teasley using a draft pick on a Quenton Nelson or Jonathan Taylor or another current player who can help us win this year. Who knows what we will be next year?

Vikesrock wrote:

In a non salary cap world, that would be great. Problem is you simply can not build a sustained championship team without draft equity and capital. Can you fill in a couple of spots? Sure Can you pop up and win one for a year? Sure Can you sustain an operation with consistently trading away draft capital at a high level? It quickly becomes un-affordable. The consistent contenders have a line of depth and quality drafts. The 2 Super Bowls teams last year are prime examples. You can bring in guys like Darnold if you have a bunch of draft equity running a top defense.

The flip side is the Rams this year. No idea on their depth, but it must not be good. Either that or the merc mentality doesn't make for a good team.

I don't really believe it's about talent acquisition. I think it's more about coaching being able to get the most out of each player. I do agree that a lot of it is about getting a lot of production out of your cost controlled assets.

I think a lot of this is going to come down to Kyler. If you believe that Kyler can take a high quality team to the SB, you should absolutely fill the roster and mortgage the future. This is the singular year where you can maximize the roster around him. We're going to lose $30-50M in talent next year (or borrow from the future). I think we'll wait another week or two and see if KOC can really make it sing with Kyler and then decide to push the chips in or not. There's no point in mortgaging the future if Kyler leading us to a SB looks more like hope than a plan.

Teasley will probably wait till Buffalo game.

If the Vikings somehow get to 8-0 Teasley is gonna be in a difficult spot.

This is the toll of 5 bad drafts-,there's no depth -kwesi

I think the move is sooner than later if we are going to make some moves, lets get them in house now so they are up to speed with the schemes when we hit this next challenging stretch of our schedule instead of arriving in the middle of it.

Vikesrock wrote:

In a non salary cap world, that would be great. Problem is you simply can not build a sustained championship team without draft equity and capital. Can you fill in a couple of spots? Sure Can you pop up and win one for a year? Sure Can you sustain an operation with consistently trading away draft capital at a high level? It quickly becomes un-affordable. The consistent contenders have a line of depth and quality drafts. The 2 Super Bowls teams last year are prime examples. You can bring in guys like Darnold if you have a bunch of draft equity running a top defense.

You have to draft well, but I think the best approach is a mix. Seattle may not be the best example of a team who avoided adding veteran talent since that was probably a bigger factor in their success than the draft. Sure they drafted well, but six of their starting front seven (not to mention their QB) were acquired either in free agency or trade. In fact, of the 11 starters on that defense, only 3 were drafted. To compare, Vikings have 7.

I'm not really sure what 'all in' moves are, but I'd be cautious with that. We have a 'super team' that attempted all in moves and they are 2-4. Micah Parsons has already missed 10 games for the Packers. What kind of impact has Sauce Gardner had for the Colts? Are we sure what we have in Kyler Murray as it stands today? This isn't even devil's advocate stuff I'm asking or statements I'm making here, just the truth. Contrary to what appears on the surface to be logical thinking with 'get a traded player in ASAP so we can get him up to speed', it might make more sense to wait 2 more weeks to see where the team is at. KOC certainly sounded conservatively guarded yesterday on this subject....my impression is the staff likes this team as is for the most part?

StickierBuns wrote:

I'm not really sure what 'all in' moves are, but I'd be cautious with that. We have a 'super team' that attempted all in moves and they are 2-4. Micah Parsons has already missed 10 games for the Packers. What kind of impact has Sauce Gardner had for the Colts? Are we sure what we have in Kyler Murray as it stands today? This isn't even devil's advocate stuff I'm asking or statements I'm making here, just the truth. Contrary to what appears on the surface to be logical thinking with 'get a traded player in ASAP so we can get him up to speed', it might make more sense to wait 2 more weeks to see where the team is at. KOC certainly sounded conservatively guarded yesterday on this subject.

I think we will wait. It's better for both the trading and acquiring team to have a better idea about where the team stands. That picture is obviously clearer after 8 games than in it is after 5. And yes, for every Jalen Ramsey, Von Miller and Christian McCaffrey, there's a Micah Parsons and a Sauce Gardner. Although Parsons was not quite the same thing. That trade happened before the season.

MaroonBells wrote:

I think we will wait. It's better for both the trading and acquiring team to have a better idea about where the team stands. That picture is obviously clearer after 8 games than in it is after 5. And yes, for every Jalen Ramsey, Von Miller and Christian McCaffrey, there's a Micah Parsons and a Sauce Gardner. Although Parsons was not quite the same thing. That trade happened before the season.

And additionally, we've got some guys that need to get paid (Addison, Redmond, etc.) soon and taking on another huge contract for an all in move might prove very problematic. Tread lightly here I think, its not as easy as it appears on the surface.

StickierBuns wrote:

And additionally, we've got some guys that need to get paid (Addison, Redmond, etc.) soon and taking on another huge contract for an all in move might prove very problematic. Tread lightly here I think, its not as easy as it appears on the surface.

I think the biggest and best bang for the buck would be Nelson. He’s in the last year of his deal and when he leaves as a FA you’d recoup what you likely would have to give up for him.

It’s basically a free half year plus rental.

StickierBuns wrote:

And additionally, we've got some guys that need to get paid (Addison, Redmond, etc.) soon and taking on another huge contract for an all in move might prove very problematic. Tread lightly here I think, its not as easy as it appears on the surface.

We also have to either pay Kyler Murray or a bridge QB. That won't be cheap. But this is all problematic next year. We'll figure that out when we get there. But if the conditions are right and the right player is made available, I think they have to make the move.

As others have said, we're in a one-year window right now with a QB making $1.3M and the NFL's best DC who could finally get an HC gig next year. I think we'd be fools if we didn't find a way to get everything possible out of this window.