Vikings trade for Jordan Mason

JustInTime wrote:

Trading away assets? Free agency money? Neither of those dogs hunt. Cmon. Those assets are on rounding error on a balance sheet. The money is at the bottom end of the 51 counting against the cap.

Did we not trade something for Mason and give him a 12 million dollar contract? Why even do it in the first place when we are positioned to grab one of the elite prospects at the position in the draft? If Kwesi uses the Mason acquisition as a reason NOT TO draft Omarion Hampton or Henderson on draft day so he can draft another safety....it's a bad move. Plain and simple. I think you are on that same wagon with me

supafreak84 wrote:

Did we not trade something for Mason and give him a 12 million dollar contract? Why even do it in the first place when we are positioned to grab one of the elite prospects at the position in the draft? If Kwesi uses the Mason acquisition as a reason NOT TO draft Omarion Hampton or Henderson on draft day so he can draft another safety....it's a bad move. Plain and simple. I think you are on that same wagon with me

Cmon. $12 is the maximum value. Half truths aren’t helping your argument. And we gave up a bag of used and soiled jocks in return. Please.

Why do it. Again, we go into the draft with no glaring need. Are we in position to acquire an elite RB? You’re positive Hampton and Henderson are going to be there at 24? I’d say it as likely that none are there. 

Weren’t you all in all Poles? I recall you loving the KC background.

supafreak84 wrote:
I get the guy was leading the league in rushing after the first month of the season and showed some ability, but why make this move with a historically deep and talented running back draft coming up? We could of essentially had out choice (probably) out of any of them not named Jeanty. We could have had a rookie stud at the position on a 4 or 5 year contract but instead we get Mason for 2. I think this is a questionable move especially if we are passing up Omarion Hampton, Henderson etc in the draft because we made this move for Mason.

Mason is a known commodity in the NFL.  More than that I don't think KOC values the ground game enough that the FO and he were going to use the first rounder on RB in a year with so few picks.

JustInTime wrote:

Cmon. $12 is the maximum value. Half truths aren’t helping your argument. And we gave up a bag of used and soiled jocks in return. Please.

Why do it. Again, we go into the draft with no glaring need. Are we in position to acquire an elite RB? You’re positive Hampton and Henderson are going to be there at 24? I’d say it as likely that none are there. 

Weren’t you all in all Poles? I recall you loving the KC background.

We gave up something to acquire him and gave him a new contract, right? Was it the worst compensation, no, but that's besides the point. We all know our illustrious GM has made some dubious draft day decisions, and if he uses the Mason acquisition as justification to bypass one of the elite talents at the position on draft day...it's a bad move, especially when we'd have that talent on a rookie contract. And I think there is a good chance at least one of those two backs I mentioned will likely still be on the board at #24. 

And the only thing I ever said about Ryan Poles was he took the Bears job because he likely didn't want to deal with the competitive rebuild mandates of the Wilfs and could have free reign to build the roster however he wanted. He was widely reported to be our top target for GM before he took the Bears job and we settled on Kwesi.  What does Ryan Poles have to do with anything?

bigbone62 wrote:

Mason is a known commodity in the NFL.  More than that I don't think KOC values the ground game enough that the FO and he were going to use the first rounder on RB in a year with so few picks.

I agree with you that KOC needs to be better about running the football. This is the year to take a RB though. Talent, value, in our draft wheelhouse...it was all there, but yes means nothing if KOC doesn't commit to it more. 

As far as Mason goes, he started out hot in a run first 49er offense and then didn't do much the rest of the year. Had an ankle injury and concussion. Coughed the ball up a bit. I mean it's certainly possible he's as much Alexander Mattison as he is David Montgomery. Not a big sample size to judge from, so he's not really a "known" commodity. I certainly hope he is everything they think he is and compliments Jones well.

JustInTime wrote:

Cmon. $12 is the maximum value. Half truths aren’t helping your argument. And we gave up a bag of used and soiled jocks in return. Please.

Why do it. Again, we go into the draft with no glaring need. Are we in position to acquire an elite RB? You’re positive Hampton and Henderson are going to be there at 24? I’d say it as likely that none are there. 

Weren’t you all in all Poles? I recall you loving the KC background.

I think there is a strong chance both will be there.  Henderson probably goes Day 2.  With it being such a strong class, I think the teams that don't get Jeanty will wait on the next tier of RBs.  I don't have Hampton in the same tier as Jeanty. He tested really well, but I don't see the same star power on the field.  

But I agree, I think I'd rather have Mason for a late round pick swap and a couple million per year than use our first or a second (in a trade down) on a RB.  We can probably tap a RB on Day 3 now.  There will be some good prospects on Day 3 to take a swing at and I think we will if we can trade down to accumulate some extra picks (which I think is even likelier now).

The simple response is Mason is a proven commodity where a college rookie is not...this also opens up several options for the organization for the upcoming draft depending on how the draft unfolds. The draft has never gone by the numbers, teams have always surprised everyone with out of nowhere picks. The Vikings now have various ways to strengthen their roster and not be attached to only one necessity.

MAD GAINZ wrote:

I think there is a strong chance both will be there.  Henderson probably goes Day 2.  With it being such a strong class, I think the teams that don't get Jeanty will wait on the next tier of RBs.  I don't have Hampton in the same tier as Jeanty. He tested really well, but I don't see the same star power on the field.  

But I agree, I think I'd rather have Mason for a late round pick swap and a couple million per year than use our first or a second (in a trade down) on a RB.  We can probably tap a RB on Day 3 now.  There will be some good prospects on Day 3 to take a swing at and I think we will if we can trade down to accumulate some extra picks (which I think is even likelier now).

^^^ 

Even a little blue pill wont help me overcome what you just laid out...

ArizonaViking wrote:
The simple response is Mason is a proven commodity where a college rookie is not...this also opens up several options for the organization for the upcoming draft depending on how the draft unfolds.  The draft has never gone by the numbers, teams have always surprised everyone with out of nowhere picks.  The Vikings now have various ways to strengthen their roster and not be attached to only one necessity.

This right here. Having options is never a bad thing.

StickierBuns wrote:

Dude, your rationale is fading on this one. Finding fault with the Mason trade is just searching for ways to bag on KAM. You've got a known quantity in Mason, who's only 25 years old, to unknown quantities in the draft and some of these guys are already 24 years old. He can pass block well. 'Historically loaded' doesn't mean much if you draft the wrong guy. I know you have a hard on for KAM, but this isn't the deal to criticize.

Nailed it.

As I stated on page one and others have also stated, this move gives us the following:

• A proven player in the league. He has done it in the NFL (good runner, runs hard, catches and pass blocks well).
  
• More flexibility in the draft as it fills a glaring need and reduces pressure to focus on RB. We are close to the “best player” available mindset in this draft.
  
• Even if we draft a RB the group becomes better. Even gives us the chance to develop the drafted RB than forcing him early.
  
• We are in a better spot to trading down in this draft as we have fewer needs.
  
• We did not give up much (draft picks or cash or cap) to get Jordan Mason. It’s not like this move affected what we can do in the off season regarding other potential free agent signings.
  

I have no idea how this can be seen as a bad move

StickierBuns wrote:

Dude, your rationale is fading on this one. Finding fault with the Mason trade is just searching for ways to bag on KAM. You've got a known quantity in Mason, who's only 25 years old, to unknown quantities in the draft and some of these guys are already 24 years old. He can pass block well. 'Historically loaded' doesn't mean much if you draft the wrong guy. I know you have a hard on for KAM, but this isn't the deal to criticize.

Agree. Of all the backs we're talking about, only about half will fit what we do and we could easily miss on those. 

I've heard there could be more than 30 backs taken in this draft. Last time the NFL took 30 backs was 2017. This was the McCaffrey, Cook and Mixon draft. The first one take, Fournette, is out of the NFL, and a guy taken after the draft, Ekeler, has been better than about 25 of the 30 drafted. The draft will always be a crap shoot.

MaroonBells wrote:

Agree. Of all the backs we're talking about, only about half will fit what we do and we could easily miss on those. 

I've heard there could be more than 30 backs taken in this draft. Last time the NFL took 30 backs was 2017. This was the McCaffrey, Cook and Mixon draft. The first one take, Fournette, is out of the NFL, and a guy taken after the draft, Ekeler, has been better than about 25 of the 30 drafted. The draft will always be a crap shoot.

The guy we just acquired was an UDFA. Crap shoot indeed.

supafreak84 wrote:
I just think in a historically loaded RB draft class, you don't address your need there by trading assets and handing out free agency money when you are positioned to land one of the elite prospects in the draft on a rookie contract. It's called reading the strengths of a draft and projecting where those strengths land when building a roster. We did this same stupid shit when we signed Josh Oliver in a very deep TE draft. Like I said, nobody ever accused Kwesi on being able to identify and navigate the strengths of a draft board.

Dude, your rationale is fading on this one. Finding fault with the Mason trade is just searching for ways to bag on KAM. You've got a known quantity in Mason, who's only 25 years old, to unknown quantities in the draft and some of these guys are already 24 years old. He can pass block well. 'Historically loaded' doesn't mean much if you draft the wrong guy. I know you have a hard on for KAM, but this isn't the deal to criticize.

StickierBuns wrote:

Dude, your rationale is fading on this one. Finding fault with the Mason trade is just searching for ways to bag on KAM. You've got a known quantity in Mason, who's only 25 years old, to unknown quantities in the draft and some of these guys are already 24 years old. He can pass block well. 'Historically loaded' doesn't mean much if you draft the wrong guy. I know you have a hard on for KAM, but this isn't the deal to criticize.

Let's let the draft play out and we can revisit this topic. All I'm saying is if we pass on an elite RB prospect in a historically good draft because we acquired Jordan Mason, who had a good first month of the season then didn't do dick, it's a mistake. Everybody keeps saying, "he's proven" well what exactly has he proven? He's as likely to be Alex Mattison as he is Marshawn Lynch in a small sample size and I hope we don't pass on an elite prospects at the position because of it, but got to let it play out first

supafreak84 wrote:

Let's let the draft play out and we can revisit this topic. All I'm saying is if we pass on an elite RB prospect in a historically good draft because we acquired Jordan Mason, who had a good first month of the season then didn't do dick, it's a mistake. Everybody keeps saying, "he's proven" well what exactly has he proven? He's as likely to be Alex Mattison as he is Marshawn Lynch in a small sample size and I hope we don't pass on an elite prospects at the position because of it, but got to let it play out first

He ran for like 680 yds, 3 TDs, and had 10 receptions for like another 80 yds in 8 starts.  Averaged over 5 YPC as a runner last season and is over 5 YPC in every season since he came into the league.  

He didn't do much in the second half of the season because CMC came back and he went into a backup role.  Then Mason got hurt and wasn't available in December.

With Kwesi's draft history, I like adding proven young talent in FA when we can.  It's his wheelhouse. If we took a RB early, we'd probably pick the one guy who sucks.  I still think we tap into RB3 on Day 3.  This class is DEEP and we may be able to find a guy there.  Once we get past Jeanty, it's anyone's guess if Hampton, Kaleb Johnson, Henderson, Judkins, etc is the 2nd best RB in the draft.

I like the Mason trade, he's only making a million or two more than a rookie would on a first or early 2nd round contract.

StickierBuns wrote:

No worries, its all opinion. Just for the record, I don't think Mason is either Mattison nor Marshawn Lynch, lol. I just think it was a very solid trade and addition to complement Jones. Tough runner. Its not like I have him penciled into my 1st team RB NFL All-Pro ballot.

I think it's about the KIND of runner Mason is. Tough runner is right. It's no secret we struggled in short yardage, goal line and eat-the-clock situations last year. You can blame some of that on the IOL, but between Chandler, Akers and Jones, we just didn't have a back who could punish and wear down would-be tacklers. Mason will never be a back who keeps DCs up at night, but he's that kind of back. He's the most physical back we've had since Peterson. 

I think between adding Kelly, Fries, Mason and that drill sergeant OL coach, the Vikings want to get much more physical. We can still add a RBOTF in the draft, but even if we don't, I like that at the very least we've added that dimension to our offense.

supafreak84 wrote:

Let's let the draft play out and we can revisit this topic. All I'm saying is if we pass on an elite RB prospect in a historically good draft because we acquired Jordan Mason, who had a good first month of the season then didn't do dick, it's a mistake. Everybody keeps saying, "he's proven" well what exactly has he proven? He's as likely to be Alex Mattison as he is Marshawn Lynch in a small sample size and I hope we don't pass on an elite prospects at the position because of it, but got to let it play out first

So let me get this straight…

1. Playing in the NFL for one year does not meet your definition of “proven” but you are absolutely sure a player (that we are not even sure will be available when we pick) who has never practiced with an NFL team nor played an NFL down has proven enough to you.
   
2. You are also certain that Mason will flame out but your unknown player will be better.
   

I am not trying to pick a fight but it’s really hard to follow your line of thought here.
Lastly, no one said signing Mason means we will pass on a RB. All it does is gives us more options and flexibility to do any of the following: 

1. Draft the best player available (be it a running back or not)
   
2. Trade out of the pick if we don’t have a high enough grade for any of the players instead of drafting for need. Signing Mason makes RB need less critical position to fill.
   
3. Have a better running back group and overall team going into the draft so we can be flexible on our targets. It’s no different than the other moves we have made. 
   
4. Look at it this way, I am sure if one of the top DL or OL prospects were available when we pick we will definitely consider them despite the FAs we have signed.
   

mblack wrote:

So let me get this straight…

1. Playing in the NFL for one year does not meet your definition of “proven” but you are absolutely sure a player (that we are not even sure will be available when we pick) who has never practiced with an NFL team nor played an NFL down has proven enough to you.
   
2. You are also certain that Mason will flame out but your unknown player will be better.
   

I am not trying to pick a fight but it’s really hard to follow your line of thought here.
Lastly, no one said signing Mason means we will pass on a RB. All it does is gives us more options and flexibility to do any of the following: 

1. Draft the best player available (be it a running back or not)
   
2. Trade out of the pick if we don’t have a high enough grade for any of the players instead of drafting for need. Signing Mason makes RB need less critical position to fill.
   
3. Have a better running back group and overall team going into the draft so we can be flexible on our targets. It’s no different than the other moves we have made. 
   
4. Look at it this way, I am sure if one of the top DL or OL prospects were available when we pick we will definitely consider them despite the FAs we have signed.
   

I guess we all have different definitions of "proven." To this point Mason hasn't "proven" anymore then someone like Alex Mattison, who is a similar type player and runner. I'd like to see a larger body of work before I'd declare Mason a proven talent, but that's just me. If his one month of production is good enough for you to reach that conclusion, more power to you. My preference would have been to take advantage of a deep and talented draft crop of running backs where there's a higher ceiling. I'd absolutely take any of the top 4 backs in this draft over Mason in a head to head and to have that player on a rookie deal for 4 or 5 years instead of playing musical running backs every year. I think the addition of Mason reduces that possibility significantly.

Whatever happens, happens though at this point.
Like I said, got to let the draft play out and we can all revisit this topic at a later time.

StickierBuns wrote:

Yabbut, it’s a small sample size.  :rolleyes:

supafreak84 wrote:
Let's let the draft play out and we can revisit this topic. All I'm saying is if we pass on an elite RB prospect in a historically good draft because we acquired Jordan Mason, who had a good first month of the season then didn't do dick, it's a mistake. Everybody keeps saying, "he's proven" well what exactly has he proven? He's as likely to be Alex Mattison as he is Marshawn Lynch in a small sample size and I hope we don't pass on an elite prospects at the position because of it, but got to let it play out first

No worries, its all opinion. Just for the record, I don't think Mason is either Mattison nor Marshawn Lynch, lol. I just think it was a very solid trade and addition to complement Jones. Tough runner. Its not like I have him penciled into my 1st team RB NFL All-Pro ballot.