Myles Garrett Is Over It

I think with the money that comes with Garrett you stay with Turner. He is just getting going and is young. I love Garrett and fits our scheme, but we have a player for that position, and I don't think that will have anything to do with the Vikings.

Bleacher Report suggested a trade with Cleveland for CB Denzel Ward. They gave the Browns our 2025 1st rounder, which is too high for a player with his contract, but I think corner is where we'd add, not edge.

I could see them trading him. They’re probably pretty much screwed no matter what happens with him, given the Watson contract. It might take some finagling to make everyone happy though. His contract would be super cheap for the new team, so they would have to compensate the browns for that.

I think there's zero percent chance we would trade for him though.

Garrett you mean. I am assuming.

We are currently stacked at that position, between Greenard, Van Ginkel and Turner sitting in the wings.
We can use that cap space on bigger needs, such as OG and DT (and possibly CB).

Montana Tom wrote:
We are currently stacked at that position, between Greenard, Van Ginkel and Turner sitting in the wings. We can use that cap space on bigger needs, such as OG and DT (and possibly CB).

Yah, I say 0 chance they throw any time/resource into this. He's 29 and what? An 8 year vet now?

I think they are going to prioritize DB much more than many in Viking land might believe. 

Especially with Gilmore most likely retiring.

Canthony wrote:
Garrett you mean. I am assuming.

Doh! Yes all the NBA news had me thinking Myles Turner. :blush:

Myles Garrett!!

Also to respond to some comments-- I'm pretty sure they'll trade him. He's earned it I think, like Stafford did in DET. Team probably knew he was putting out this statement, now 31 other teams will call them.

Minnesota is not trading JJ McCarthy. Now, could they work out something with Darnold? Van Ginkel? Maybe. 

Minn
Wash
Philly
Buff https://t.co/OD0BqgCuCK

— Dan Orlovsky (@danorlovsky7) February 4, 2025

Why the Fck does trading JJM come-up in this scenario spewing?

Ridiculous is what it is...

purplefaithful wrote:
Why the Fck does trading JJM come-up in this scenario spewing?

Ridiculous is what it is...

Pelissero keeps saying there's never been a precedent for a rookie QB to miss his entire 1st season and then be named the starting QB week 1 of his 2nd season. 

I don't know about that but you know what else there's never been a precedent for? A team taking a QB in the top 10--the highest they've ever selected a QB in the franchise's 64 year history--and then trading him before he's taken a meaningful snap.

StickierBuns wrote:

I don't think Tommy P. is as dialed in with this current regime as he'd like to be. I've seen some interesting opinions from him the last 2 years. And you're exactly right.

Agreed. It reminds me a lot of when Ramona Shelburne was the top Lakers insider for years, because she was friends with the owner, Jeanie Buss. Momo nuked that bridge with a pretty scathing article after Magic Johnson left, and never got a crumb of Laker news again and basically disappeared from TV. Pelissero didn't do anything like that aside from changing jobs, but I'm just saying that people who are dialed in one day might not be the next, and I think that's what's happened here. Wolfson seems to have a better line on things now.

Did Pelissero say something extra or are we talking about the Dan Orlovsky thing in this thread?

Looking at the Dan Orlovsky segment, I think it totally makes sense what they are saying from a Browns perspective. Any team that is looking for a QB and can't get it in the draft will likely be calling the Vikings and seeing what we're open to, until we're a little less QB rich. That said, a trade of Garrett for one of our QBs doesn't really make a lot of sense for us and they probably should have mentioned that.

I think the lesson here is if you have a multitude of quality QBs, the trade options will be available for you to recoup your investment in them.

medaille wrote:
Did Pelissero say something extra or are we talking about the Dan Orlovsky thing in this thread?

“All options are on the table” regarding Sam Darnold and J.J. McCarthy for the @Vikings, per @TomPelissero.

Pelissero calls the situation “fluid”. pic.twitter.com/DtXrvrV6Dv

— The Purple Persuasion (@TPPSkol) February 4, 2025

I could actually see the Vikings/Browns making some kind of deal this off-season.

But it wont be for JJM and it wont be for MG.

It could very well be a tag/trade as part of a deal for Darnold for a CB.

At some point Browns will be transparent about their need to tear it down and start over. It starts with the QB.

purplefaithful wrote:
I could actually see the Vikings/Browns making some kind of deal this off-season.

But it wont be for JJM and it wont be for MG.

It could very well be a tag/trade as part of a deal for Darnold for a CB.

At some point Browns will be transparent about their need to tear it down and start over. It starts with the QB.

They have the cap space to pull something off. Tag and trade for Darnold could work, if that is what the Browns want to do. I like the CB idea.

MaroonBells wrote:

“All options are on the table” regarding Sam Darnold and J.J. McCarthy for the @Vikings, per @TomPelissero.

Pelissero calls the situation “fluid”. pic.twitter.com/DtXrvrV6Dv

— The Purple Persuasion (@TPPSkol) February 4, 2025

There’s nothing controversial with what Pelissero said.  He’s not really making much for commitments at all or saying any hot takes.  Basically said water is wet.

The Vikings like Darnold.  The Vikings like JJM.  The Vikings would like to keep Darnold for a certain price.  Above that price they wouldn’t keep him.  That is just standard offseason speak.  Regarding JJM and his experience, the team is probably treating him closer to having ½ a year of experience than a full year of experience.  He got a bunch of mental reps, but missed a bunch of physical reps.  You probably still want a guy that’s going to push him in the offseason rather than anointing him the uncontested starter, but you don’t want to spend a ton.  That’s just being responsible.

medaille wrote:

There’s nothing controversial with what Pelissero said.  He’s not really making much for commitments at all or saying any hot takes.  Basically said water is wet.

The Vikings like Darnold.  The Vikings like JJM.  The Vikings would like to keep Darnold for a certain price.  Above that price they wouldn’t keep him.  That is just standard offseason speak.  Regarding JJM and his experience, the team is probably treating him closer to having ½ a year of experience than a full year of experience.  He got a bunch of mental reps, but missed a bunch of physical reps.  You probably still want a guy that’s going to push him in the offseason rather than anointing him the uncontested starter, but you don’t want to spend a ton.  That’s just being responsible.

Right, but that's different than what many Viking fans have been saying: that's it's over with Darnold, he's said his goodbyes and it's now JJ's team. To his credit, Pelissero is not floating the trade JJ idea like Orlovsky and others, but he is suggesting that starting JJ week one would be "unprecedented," that there is a chance Darnold is back, and that the conversation about that is ongoing and fluid. 

Now, that may not be controversial to you, or even me, but I just had a text conversation with a Viking fan this morning who was pretty livid to hear that we might still be considering bringing Sam back. I told him this could just be a message to QB-desperate teams from the Vikings thru Pelissero, basically saying, "we like him, we want him, we may sign him, we may tag him, but the bottom line is we're not going to just let him walk for free."

The good news is:

It should be clear (soon) as to the Vikings plan for Qb1/Qb2
Free Agency should be a blast this year, more fun than the draft?
Might be the most fun since 09 and Bert or when we picked-up Winfield/Pat W in one fell swoop

I thought about something, Garrett wants out because he knows there is no chance of winning, especially with Watson out most likely all next year. The Browns can appease Garrett with trading for Darnold. Stefanski is close to our organization as well. You bring in Darnold, only way you can guarantee that is if they trade for him, that may entice Garrett to stay.

Canthony wrote:
I thought about something, Garrett wants out because he knows there is no chance of winning, especially with Watson out most likely all next year. The Browns can appease Garrett with trading for Darnold. Stefanski is close to our organization as well. You bring in Darnold, only way you can guarantee that is if they trade for him, that may entice Garrett to stay.

I could see us being very in on Garrett if they trade him, but I do not see the Browns wanting Sam. Those moves seem counterintuitive unless they think they can shoot the moon with the roster they got plus Sam and picks, and contend next year. That'd be tough.