Purple Insider - a Minnesota Vikings and NFL podcast - ESPN graded all Vikings free agent moves (Hour 1)

Episode Date: March 25, 2025

Matthew Coller reacts to ESPN's underwhelming grades of the Vikings free agency moves and answers fan questions.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hey, everybody, welcome to another episode of Purple Inside or Matthew Coller here. And we have reached the point of the NFL offseason where you're going, where's all the news? What's going on here? Adam Schifter, come back. Palisaro, Rappaport, send me something. Tell me something's going on. But for now, it's quieted down significantly, let's say,

to the point where the main storyline today is Cam Ward throwing it as pro day, and one of the reporters from Tennessee saying, yeah, interesting that Tennessee sent their entire crew of entertainment people also to this pro day, along with their executives, their head coach, everybody is there. And it seems that Tennessee is more or less locking themselves in to drafting cam ward. I didn't pay much attention to it. Last year,

I was all about the pro day on NFL network. I was watching McCarthy's and Bo Nicks and Michael Pennings and everybody when they were broadcasting it. And this year's draft will be a lot different for us now because there's a lot more players I have to prepare for. That's for sure. Last year I didn't really prepare for the fact that they could draft Dallas Turner. We all thought that they were going to use the second draft pick to trade up or that for a quarterback or the Dallas Turner was already going to be off the board.

But now I feel like this year it's so much more unpredictable for the Vikings in draft land. So we'll definitely talk about that and questions comments. What I'm saying by telling you there's not a whole lot of news is participation is welcome. Everyone jump into the comments to the chat, ask questions, give hot takes, uh, draft, looking back at free agency. What's next? We are going to hear from the general manager this week and then the owners meetings will be next week.

So there'll be a lot to break down from the brass about what they have to say about this free agency period. Maybe the Lancer, some questions about chasing Rogers. Maybe we'll get some clarity about the general manager situation with his contract, all those questions that we've been answering, but, uh, until then I've got time. So what are you thinking about? And, uh, I'll let you throw the questions and comments in the chat.

And I did put together from ESPN's article of grading every move. Now that we more or less have the Vikings off season complete, or at least we think they could still make some surprise move that we all go, whoa, never saw that coming. That's what they were going to do with all that cap space. Right. I mean, we could, but I don't think so. I think this is your 2025 Vikings, except for whoever is going to be a draft pick. So what do we think of that?

If this is it, what do we think about where they stand? And I'll tell you how ESPN has graded the Vikings moves But I'll give you a warning first and they didn't really love a lot of these moves And so I'll talk about each one individually. I've got up here what they had to say about Each one of these moves and why maybe we might view it a little bit differently than Somebody from the outside because we have a little more context to it, or maybe they have some fair points. So we'll start off. These are ESPN's grades for Vikings free agents.

So we'll start off. They gave Byron Murphy Jr's resigning a C plus. And I think that with Byron Murphy Jr, I understand why you might look at it like this. So here's the writeup on ESPN and they had a bunch of different people write up on these. Seth Walder was one of them really good analytics guy over at ESPN. At the bottom here is quote, I think the price is a little high. I would rather have DJ Reed or Shiverrous ward than Murphy yet both signed cheaper contracts.

Plus, while Murphy's nearest defender numbers have been consistent, they aren't amazing. So there's a few things to break down from that. I mean, first of all, it's hard to put a dollar figure on what Byron Murphy Jr. means in terms of chemistry and the fact that he is such a really good fit for the Vikings defense. I mean, if Brian Flores tells me I want buyer Murphy jr.

That's my guy. He understands my defense. I can ask him to do a lot of different things. He has flexibility. He has intelligence. He has toughness. He has consistency. He has all these things.

And Brian Flores says I want I'm like, okay Well that that all makes sense to me and that's what they showed by signing byron murphy The misnomer is that they paid more they did not pay more. That's not actually true When you look at the real contract when you look at the per year that was put out by byron murphy's agent Okay. Yes, They paid more. But when you actually go to over the cap.com and you take a look, even just look at what it says for average annual value, he could earn up to $22 million per year,

but it's not $22 million a year. In fact, it is right on 18 million average annual value with chauvaria's ward and is two million more than dj read but when you look at the actual i guarantee money it's around thirty five million which is just about the same as all these other corners so the vikings decided to go with their guy who they know who they love his fit in their defense who also led all cornerbacks and interceptions last year, which I know will be tough to repeat, but all of that to me is a little more context with this move that goes beyond it. And look, I brought up DJ Reed and I also thought are they really going to spend big time money on Byron Murphy versus a Reed or a Sharvaris Ward who are more of those one-on-one corners, which I think is always going to get a little more

attention, a little more love from people if you can be that shutdown guy. And I also have just a general uneasiness about analytics that point to the closest defender type of stuff, which, i will cite the stats sometimes but in a brian flores defense to be a little more tricky because sometimes so i'll give you a stat with byron murphy like the average completion into byron murphy's coverage is much shorter than a lot of corners because a lot of the stuff is in front of him and they're they're throwing based on blitzes and they're throwing in front of Byron Murphy. Then they make the tackle. They rarely they don't give up big plays and yes, the numbers will go against Byron Murphy on that because he's the nearest defender.

But if you're getting the ball out of the quarterback's hands on a blitz really quickly and he's making the tackle. You're not really saying, Oh, well, Byron Murphy got smoked on that or gave up a big play. So there's all sorts of layers to these corner back statistics. I had a conversation with someone very high in a position with the Vikings about cornerback stats one time and about how difficult they are to look at NFL next gens got its version. PFF has theirs. PFFs of course is better because it's an actual person watching it, not just dots to be able to give the grade on this. Now,

Murphy was great as a top 20 corner and I think he got paid like a top 20 corner. So when you keep the band together of a top five defense, you keep someone that Brian Flores really wants. You keep someone who's a playmaker and not at the price that was reported at the beginning. I would go higher than this. I would not have this as a mediocre move. I think this is actually a really important move to the Vikings off season and I think they probably valued his ability to play in this defense over a DJ Reed's shutdown ability because the NFL is just playing so much more zone than

it ever has before. So they did not love that one, but also didn't hate it. They did hate a move. They hated at ESPN, the Jonathan Allen move. Now I'll get the explanation for this. I got to search it. Okay. The Jonathan Allen move was graded a D plus by ESPN.

And I will read what it says here. It says, I don't love giving Alan $20 million per year. Although we haven't seen the guarantees yet. So this was written before the guarantees came out. And of course, you'll never believe this. It wasn't $20 million a year. Alan missed nine games with a torn Peck returning in December. His play also dropped off after recording 16.5 sacks and reaching the Pro Bowl twice over

2021 and 2022. Alan has just 8.5 regular season sacks over the past two years, albeit only in 24 games, not just the sacks. He was a top 10 pass rush win rate defensive tackle and he had an 8% win rate as a defensive tackle below average for his position last year and his playing time dipped as well. So the point that is being made is that for the money that they paid Jonathan Allen these statistics were not Matching up with that and now in this case I would agree with that concern Now when you cite the average annual value once again like the flags go up for me

Like that's not what that contract really is It's much more of a two-year contract, but at the same time and just if you're just joining, these are ESPN's grades, not my grades on these signings. So I'll just compare what I would give them. The Byron Murphy one, I would give it more of a B plus than I would give a C plus with Jonathan Allen. Here's the way I look at this because some of his statistics have notably slipped and there's no doubt about it that 21, 22, he was one of the premier players at his position.

But last year by pass rush, win rate by PFF, which is a little bit different from the next gen stats that ESPN is using. He was still not one of the elite pass rushers, but then you watch what happened in the playoffs against Jared golf when he had seven pressures and you go, okay, I think that player might be still there and battling the injury would have been a factor last year, but in terms of this one, I look at it as it has the potential to be a D plus if Jonathan Allen does not go back to what he had been and continue to produce pressure at an extremely high rate, then it won't be worth what they gave him.

And it will not be this defense changing defensive tackle move that we've all been asking for. But at the same time, last year he only played something like 400 snaps and had 26 pressures. Jahad Ward was the Vikings best interior rusher with 31 pressures last year and the next best had like 17. So even half a season of Jonathan Allen, he produced way more in his past rush grade from PFF over the last two years has still been above average. It's still been good. His run defense grade has gone down and that could be how they

play or I'm not sure because J Von Hargraves has dropped as well and he's always been a good run defender, but he changed teams. So sometimes they change how they play. I want to give more of a range on a Jonathan Allen. I mean, that's not what they're doing on ESPN with these grades. So I get it. But for me, it has the potential. If he plays at the same level that he played last year in a small sample size, it has the potential to be a signing that does not work out for the dollar figure that they gave him. And it has red flags on it and it has risk on it.

Now it also has the potential to be a great signing. This one is their most risky deal that they gave out because Allen's high end, as we've seen in the past when the Vikings have played against him, you've seen them on a number of big games, including against Detroit in the divisional round. When he has a great game, he is impossible to stop. But if he does slide and he is 30 years old and that's always a concern, if he does slide and his production is similar to what it was last year in pass rush win rate and in pressures and sacks, then paying him even the dollars that they are, which is a really low cap hit this year and a much bigger cap hit next year that's hard to get

out of. And then after that, it's really a two year deal. And that's another factor too, is that if the ESPN is probably grading this on it being a three year contract, it is absolutely not because all of his guarantees more or less run out after two years. And that's what it really is. So for a two year deal for a 30 year old, who's been crazy productive in the recent past, but has also had an injury and has also seen some of his key stats

go down a lot of risk reward there. What you're banking on is that the Vikings have two of the best edge players in the NFL. They have the mad scientist defensive coordinator and that they're going to be able to give him a lot around him with Harrison Phillips and with Javon Hargrave and other people rotating in that he will not have to play 800 snaps to get the type of production that you're looking for from Jonathan Allen, but that that great is pretty harsh and I think that it's also got some justification to it.

I don't think they were just being haters on this one. I think that there is a low end of this deal that ends up not working out based on some of the red flag numbers. And if it goes back to where it was, this could end up being an a signing. So to me, it ranges the entire scale because we have seen this guy play at a pro bowl level over the years and be one of the most dominant players. That's not who he most recently was with that pack injury. And then even before that and going back to 2023, it still was not at the same level that it was in 2021 and 2022. Context matters who you've got playing alongside you matters. They were playing Jalen Holmes.

Remember Jalen Holmes, a guy that could kind of barely make the Vikings team. And he was playing actual reps there on the Washington D line. This is going to be a little bit different. So they are banking on the circumstances, helping out Jonathan Allen, and being able to get the most out of him. But that's a tough grade, that's a harsh grade. All right, onto the next one. Again, these are ESPN's grades,

and I'm comparing my own thoughts to them. So ESPN gave the Wilfries deal a C. Don't you love this sexy graphic I made? It just says Wil deal a C. Don't you love this sexy graphic I made? It just says Will Fries C, but that's ESPN's grade for the Will Fries signing. And I will pull up what they said about Will Fries. Again, part of it is that, you know, their contract, the contract numbers are very high.

When you first look at them, Five years, $88 million. And a five-year contract is pretty attractive here, but after two years, the Vikings have an option with him where bonus money kicks in. And if they want to move on, they can, uh, with, or it's, uh, I think it is bonus money or guaranteed guaranteed money kicks in for Will Fries. So as always, the little asterisk, it's not what you think it is. And it does have big cap hits though, after the first year. So they made a big investment in Will fries and there is absolutely a chance

that he ends up playing a very long time, uh, for the Minnesota Vikings. So here is what ESPN wrote. I would still rather find a cheaper short-term stop gap at guard, but given Fry's age, there's at least upside if he continues to ascend. So that's also the thing about giving Will Fry's and that move a C, is that it's another bet by the Vikings that he's going to take what he started to build on in 2024 and ascend.

But also you have to weigh in the price tag and the fact that you can have him over many years. The Vikings, if they went out and got a Kevin Zeitler, which I like the idea, or a Brandon Sherriff, which I like the idea. You're replacing your guard next year. Once again, I think what they were looking for is to get somebody that they can have over multiple years. And I mentioned the contract detail and that might mean that if they don't love what they've seen, they can move on.

Or if they do love what they've seen, they could redo the deal or, or whatever it might be, or just have a good deal for a right guard for five years. But I think that's a main element of this is if you pay $18 million a year or whatever this works out to 17.8 or something, if you pay $18 million a year right now for the top guard on the market, which the Vikings did in Will Fries, once Trey Smith was off, they went and got the top guard on the market, which the Vikings did in Will fries. Once Trey Smith was off, they went and got the best guard on the market. You can look at that and go, wow, that is a lot because that guy does not have the hugest sample size of playing great.

He was really good in 2023. He was a second tier type of guard in 2023. And then last year through five games, he was a first tier type of guard, which I don't expect over 17 games. I mean, I think that fries has some weaknesses in his game and he's not going to just be a megastar, but if his range of outcomes since he became a starter is runs of being really great or. A full season of being pretty good.

Like that's worth paying a lot for in the NFL right now because it's so hard to replace these guys. And I liked the idea of a short term type of deal with a Zeitler for 9 million bucks. I don't even think Brandon Sheriff has a job yet, but those guys are 34, 35 years old and have a lot of mileage on their body fries is 27 he's coming off an injury, but he's 27 years old and you can build an entire offensive line with him over the years.

So let's say they draft Gray Zabel and then they have O'Neill, Darasaw, Fry's, Zabel, and then maybe Zabel moves to center or something, or they develop Michael Juergens Over the next few years or get a lot out of Ryan Kelly You're looking at some potential continuity here to build on and three years from now What will the top guard be making in free agency? Well, he's under contract for five as of right now and there is that that hold up after two years Which gives the viking some options But that has to be weighed into this that we're talking about a player in his prime who is improving

From the last couple of seasons who will be under contract potentially for a long time So I would I would have given fries a higher grade than this But I also understand that if they're looking at it and saying, well, you know, he's only on the second type of tier and you're overpaying, but of course you're overpaying when there's like three guards. I mean, that has to be to me talked about when you give a grade to a signing, you can't just go, well, you know, his production, it's not an A plus for that dollar. All right. But you're a desperate team for a guard and he's the best one out there

And you got the best one at a price that was less Than another guy who is to me significantly worse in in Aaron Banks than will fries So again a little bit harsh on that one for me SPN, but I get it because if you're just weighing Here's here's his pure production and here's his dollar figure that they don't quite match up, but you have to look at what the market is and what the years and the term are on this type of deal and the fact that if you bring in Zeitler and he plays okay for you this year or potentially good, that you gotta go get somebody else.

I mean, he might just retire and then you have to do this again. And guess what? There ain't going to be more guards next year. So I think this is one where just like a Blake Cashman or just like a Jonathan Grenard, if you can catch a player on the upswing, you have, I think a good chance to hit a home run on a deal. And it doesn't always work that way But if you can catch a player while they're still improving and ascending

like will fries who built on his first year as a starter that was really good and then Gets better and better as he goes forward. That's what they are making a bet on but again, there's a range here This could be a see signing it absolutely could be a sea signing. It absolutely could be a sea signing. If we if every player has a pie chart of outcomes, there's one outcome where Wilfries is just OK and he's not a game changer for the offensive line. And you paid a lot for him and you feel like, OK, man, see. On to the next one, which is Javon Hargrave.

This one, there's not a lot to say about. OK, not popping up on my screen. OK, well, let me throw up Jordan Mason. I don't know why Javon. Hold on. Javon Hargrave. Why that one wasn't popping up. Hmm. OK, well, we can. Oh, there it is. Here it is.

Okay, there we go. Javon Hargrave. And then we'll talk about Jordan Mason. Sorry, I reveal the SPN's grade for Jordan Mason. This is the most like meh type of grade and right up like, oh, they didn't spend a lot of money and Hargrave has been pretty good. And that's that I would also give this similar to like a B

type of signing, but my thing is with Hargrave, if he bounces back to what he was two years ago before the injury, it could be a more than that. But even if he is just a solid contributor, that's the thing about a deal for someone like Hargrave, even if he's just a solid contributor and he gets 35, 40 pressures and a handful of sacks. That is way better than what they've had.

And the investment is pretty significant in year two with that salary cap hit. This is another reason why I have a little trepidation about some of these deals, not a ton, because they can restructure, they can create cap space, they can extend players for next year. But if somebody doesn't play well, restructure, they can create cap space, they can extend players for next year. But if somebody doesn't play well, if, if Hargrave gets hurt again, or does not play well and at 32, you never really know. I mean, we always estimate the best possible outcome on the day. These guys sign.

Wow. They've got the best thing. Right. But we know again, pie chart of outcomes. There's always one outcome where Javon Javon Hargrave just doesn't play that well. And then they can't really get out of it without any pain. They can move on from him and essentially split the deal. So it would end up like 10 million dead cap, 10 million cap space.

It's not really what you want. If you have to move on from him, there's risk involved in that as well. So that one was, I think less viewed as less of an investment from ESPN because it's a shorter deal and it's only 30 million. But for next year's salary cap, if it goes badly, then they will get hit there. I think that it's a safe bet though, based on his career. He's been a very, very good player through his career. Sometimes an elite player in the NFL. All right.

I accidentally threw the Jordan Mason one up there, a B minus from Jordan Mason, again, kind of a, kind of a meh grade. But the thing about Jordan Mase, the reason I would like to give it higher than that is also to do with the context. The number one, the context of being able to pair him with Aaron Jones is tremendous. So he doesn't have to be your entire offense. He doesn't have to be your entire running game.

He is maybe an answer for the future for that, but to pair those two together, very similarly to what green Bay did with AJ Dylan and Aaron Jones for a long time and had great running games. And I think Mason is probably better than AJ Dillon. That is sort of a final piece to a running game that they've improved with the move for Ryan Kelly and for Will Fries. Did I miss their write-up on Ryan Kelly? I'm gonna look.

I didn't see that. I did not see a write-up from ESPN on Ryan Kelly. They said they graded every move, but they missed one maybe, or, or my search function's not working. Right. Uh, so also when you look at the other options for Jordan Mason, uh, in the backfield for the Vikings drafting one sounds great, but also somebody said the other day, I don't know, was it Daniel Jeremiah or Mel Kuyper?

Somebody said that they counted 31 draftable running backs. 31! So maybe undrafted free agency or maybe the late rounds is a place to grab one of those guys, but going out and getting Jordan Mason allows them not to have to spend a high draft pick on a running back to pair with Aaron Jones. And when we look at the rest of the league, Najee Harris signed a pretty reasonable deal. He's okay. I think he would have been all right in this role, but it's more than Jordan Mason and Mason was better last year. It wasn't really close. And Rico Dowdell had a thousand yards and he signed a pretty reasonable

contract with the Carolina Panthers. That would have been fine, but Jordan Mason's better than him too. So I like this more because the other options were so weak and they gave up hardly anything. They paid him hardly anything. And now they have a thunder and lightning type of pair in the backfield So I liked the Jordan Mason move kind of a lot I would have given it more like an a a minus and the highest grade that they gave a Vikings move

Was trading at Ingram B plus they like that as much as you guys did That was a good trade and then to turn around and use that for Jordan Mason So there were ESPN analysts in this article, which you can see at ESPN calm. There were analysts that liked What the Vikings did and thought that they shored up a lot of weaknesses. I feel the same way I have spent some time over the last few days thinking about something clay the intern asked me about the alternative universe of like, how could this have been different? And there's a lot of different ways that they could have spent their money. They could have tried to get more players who are on the younger side rather than

getting too older defensive tackles. Maybe they could have outbid everybody for Mason Williams. It sounded like Mason Williams just literally went to the highest bidder. So maybe they could have done that, but that to me carried a lot of risk as well with someone who has not played more than 500 snaps and giving them $26 million a year. If the Vikings top that it would have, you know, 27 year. You're really talking about a huge, huge investment in one guy.

So maybe spreading out the risk with older players, potentially planning to draft one. There's a lot of different ways this could have gone. And we're gonna think about that for a long time, depending on the outcomes here, because it does create, and this was a question the other day from the fans only questions that people email in, like, is that, do they kind of create themselves

a two year window here? I don't think so so because these aren't players that they signed other than Byron Murphy and Will Fries to be locked in for a long time, to drive the success of the team. A lot of them are just complimentary pieces at a fairly high price that the Vikings can afford. So I like it from that perspective,

but I also see where if you were grading from the outside with a little less context and without all the contract details where you might go, that guy has not played as well lately or that guy's coming off an injury or that guy, you know, maybe got a little too much versus what some other players did in the market. So I think that these are mostly fair, but some of them are a little more on the like worst case scenario is thatathan allen plays like he did last year but best case scenario is that he's totally totally worth it so you give me your reactions to those along with your questions comments thoughts and we will continue the conversation and if i were to grade the ryan kelly deal i think i would have probably gone gone like a B because I can totally understand it where you have to improve your past protection.

You have to, and his leadership capabilities are very clear from us having one conversation with him. All right. This guy's the man on the offensive line and he's great to going to be great to pair with JJ McCarthy with all of his experience, but the injury risk is very concerning. So a lot of them come along with these, with these bands of, if it's all the way to the best case scenario, wow, is it good? But if it's all the way to the worst case scenario, holy cow. Like, I mean, anything can blow up, but like we will say, if they go to the worst

case scenario, we will say hey That was one where you could have seen coming because you got a guy that had a previous injury history So there's a lot of boomer bus potential with this free agent group overall I think it made them a better team a much better team in the most important areas But I also get it why some of those grades what they were were what they were. All right, let's start off with Edwin says Tannahill. Sure. All right. Sounds good to me. I mean, I'm sure that Ryan Tannahill could still throw it and for a backup quarterback, got no problem with that. He could step in. He could throw it to Justin Jefferson. The last

time he got to play with good wide receivers. He was really good and won 12 games, right? Wasn't that the year he won 12 games with a lot of talent around Ryan Tannehill. I'm sure that he could keep them at 500 if he had to play and beyond that any of the options work for me at the moment. If I was ranking them, though, I probably would put Tannehill at the top. I didn't like what I saw from Joe Flacco last year.

I thought there's no gas left in that tank. He used all of it in that little burst with Cleveland. There's nothing left there. And Drew Locke, like, okay, it's all right, I guess. I mean, Drew Locke can be a lot of fun and he can have some good games. There's a few other options. Carson Wentz is okay with me.

Played for the Rams, might understand the system. Could definitely come in and play, but not somebody I'd want for the, you know, a long season, something like that. Skywalking McCarthy, I don't trust any of the DT's day one after Mason Graham. Should we wait on DT until day two or three? Um, I mean, I think that there's a couple of guys that I would say are pretty quality prospects. I mean, how did we go from this is the greatest defensive tackle draft you're ever going to see to you're not trusting any of the guys, uh, because I continue to see super high grades from draft analysts on Derek Harmon on Walter Nolan.

Uh, Daniel mentions Derek Harmon. Um, Dan Daniel says the Vikings have Harmon high on their board. No one's seen their board. So we don't actually know that. Uh, we've just. Heard that Derek Harmon was an impressive prospect. And we could put two and two together. So if the Vikings were to bring him in, uh, he fits a lot of the things that I like

for that position for the Vikings. But anybody who's saying where somebody is on their board, you can't believe them because they haven't seen the board. I promise you, they have not been told who's on the board. I also promise you that I've said this a million times No one ever believes me because we love rumors and stuff and we love reports and everything The teams don't tell anybody what they're doing They do not and I'll enjoy this year doing the same thing I did last year, which is going to

Pro-football rumors and going through all the reports that didn't come true It's just you know, we don't know. I, uh, it was kind of one of those things at the combine where a few of us heard that Derek Harmon impressed. That's really all though, as far as high on somebody's board, we don't know. But getting back to your original question, I really do like these defensive tackles in the first round. I like Walter Nolan.

I like Derek Harmon as guys who are penetrating defensive tackles who can rack up sacks rack up pressures develop behind Javon Hargrave and Jonathan Allen and be long-term options. I mentioned this but you look at the defensive tackles in the league. If you hit on a first or second round defensive tackle, they get paid a ton, but they usually don't leave their teams. They're usually with their teams but they usually don't leave their teams.

They're usually with their teams forever. That's what you're looking for. You'd like a guy who comes in at 22 years old or 23 years old, and he's with you until he's 33 years old. And every single year, it's such a consistent position. Every single year, you go into it going, okay, well, Derek Harmon or Walter Nolan or whoever, this guy's gonna be a beast.

You could just write that down. It's one of the or whoever, this guy's going to be a beast. You could just write that down. It's one of the most consistent positions. That's what I like about it. There might not be five defensive tackles in the first round, but there's at least three or four. Kenneth Grant is one of them that I'm not entirely sure on because he doesn't get after the passer.

And I would just prefer that they only draft someone who can get sacks and pressures. You can find Jonathan Buller. Jonathan Buller was great for them last year. What did he cost? $2 million? That's what a run stuffer costs. I much prefer somebody who gets into the backfield and can make plays on the quarterback, but those guys are there. I do think there's a drop off. There's like Graham. There's a second tier that could be drafted in the first. And then it's a lot of run stuffers after that. Kerpluppy says, I've been thinking about the success of J.J. McCarthy. I feel his success is reliant on KOC being disciplined

enough to not ask him to throw 30 times a game run game. Play calling needs love. Well, here's what we know about Kevin O'Connell is that he's always going to put it on the quarterback shoulders. I wouldn't be afraid of that because if you draft a guy in the top 10, that you want him to be that guy, You want him to be your franchise quarterback who can operate the offense and throw 30 times a game. That's the league, right?

But to your point, if you look at the first five games, the way that they handled Sam Darnold, it was a lot of run on first down. Now they were ahead in those games, that matters. But it was a lot of run and play action with Sam Darnold. It was a lot of I mean, that Giants game. I remember coming out of the Giants game doing the postgame podcast saying they played that about as safe as you can play it and good.

Like that's what you should do with Sam Darnold. And then it opened up as it went along. That's what I would like to see with JJ McCarthy as well, where you are establishing a running game. You are having a little more like short passing game. I think Rondale more shows you that at least they want to have that. I saw a chart the other day on Twitter where somebody was just tracking the amount of short or quick game. Maybe it was the ball coming out in a certain amount of time.

I only just sort of scrolled by it, but that Sam Darnold was the last they last in quick game for the amount that his of his throws that were quick. We know that and that's got to change and the success at the goal line with Jordan Mason and now the rebuilt interior line. That's got to change and the success at the goal line with Jordan Mason and now the rebuilt interior line. That's got to change. They do have to take a different approach. So I agree with you there and it's like identifying the problem is the first step toward a solution.

Well identifying the problem and then actually taking a step toward that solution. So we've identified the problem several times throughout the last few years. Well, we need to run the ball better. We've heard that interior offensive line needs to be better. We know that, but they actually did it this time. And then, well, quick game does need to be better, or at least there needs to be a playmaker back there.

Rondale Moore might be the first step. I think they could still do more at that position as well. But I mean, overall, I agree with you. The offense being tailored differently to Sam Darnold than it was Kirk Cousins should give you confidence. Don't worry about the Josh Dobbs day. I mean, that's I don't know where they supposed to go from the least mobile quarterback in the league to a guy who his

major specialty was running and just flipped the offense on his head. I think that would have been hard. I've kind of erased all of that from any analysis because it's just bad backup quarterbacks. But when you look at what they did with Kirk, what they did with Darnold, it was different. But where you can use 2023 is Nick Mullins was still hucking it all over the yard. If you play quarterback for Kevin O'Connell, you better be ready to throw it. And he should be, but not right away. Maybe the first, first half of the season, you're taking it a little bit safer. And then you hope, uh, if you're the Vikings that the, whatever the

restrictor plate can come off and you can run the whole offense like they did late in the season. Uh, Ben says, uh, with the moves specifically along the offensive line and backfield, how do you see them getting tailored to JJ? Should we see more play action? Will we see less deep shot hunting like Sam did? So, oh, Seth Walder messaged me and said, uh, enjoy the breakdown. Thank you, Seth. Thank you. Seth Walder from ESPN.

Uh, sorry. My only apologies. I don't know if Seth, you're going to have to tell me if you wrote all of the, the write-ups or if it was like a cumulative effort. Cause that's, I saw Seth tweet it and that's where I picked it up. But thank you for that. I did think it was a good breakdown, but I also think that There's ranges and and if you're doing the article you can only give one grade, but I think there's ranges on those things anyway so as far as it's a similar question with Ben about tailoring the offense to JJ McCarthy and

question with Ben about tailoring the offense to JJ McCarthy. And I think that what you're identifying there, will they deep shot hunt less? Yes. Those are, they're two different players. Now McCarthy could throw the ball down the field, but I mean, Sam Darnold over seven years in the NFL had clearly improved greatly on his accuracy downfield and his timing and his anticipation. It does take some time for somebody like JJ McCarthy who just hasn't thrown a lot of passes to be as sharp and throw with anticipation and

hit the back foot every time and have the timing be perfect and things like that. That's going to take a little more time. I also noticed last year in training camp. I think JJ McCarthy where he's very strong is in the middle of the field. I think he sees the middle of the field. Well processes it well and a lot of his successful passes as a Michigan quarterback were crossing routes guys coming across the middle him finding

them and that same thing happened in the preseason game. We remember those deep shots down the sideline to wide open Trent Sherfield or Tristan Jackson, who the Raiders just completely failed to cover. But there were a few impressive plays that were just over the middle, just crossing routes that maybe he gets to a second, third read and then find someone. He was doing that at a higher level than Sam Darnold in camp last year with the over the middle stuff specifically, which I think Kevin O'Connell has probably taken note of and they'll do more

of so underneath crossing route type stuff, slant type stuff. I know O'Connell doesn't love that. Uh, he would prefer to go deep all the time, but I think that, yeah, I think it will be tailored in that way, but more play action They did run a lot of play action last year for Sam Darnold. They had a pretty high percentage For Sam Darnold, so I think they'll do that again, and I think they'll run on first down again John says the cap will go up what 15 to 20 million next year I would assume so That it will be every single year so that will play a role in some of those cap hits

restructures will play a role in some of those cap hits and I also think rolling over their cap space is why they're keeping some for right now that they can roll it over they'll be okay cap I mean, they've filled so many starting spots for the next two seasons. And I think next year they'll go in with the mentality of maybe hunting one big fish rather than trying to fill all these different spots that they've had to fill because they have not hit on draft picks, but it'll be more of adding maybe one player on a big deal and then restructuring or doing what you

have to do to work around it. But this is kind of your team for the next two seasons. And yeah, there's a lot of bets there. I mean, that's what we went through in the grades. There's a lot of bets there. Uh, not now says, is there a blue chip running back available with their first pick? I don't think there's someone worth spending the 24th pick on. Oh, Marion Hampton is a really great athlete. There's a bunch of other guys. I really like Trevion Henderson's fit with the Vikings. Quinchon Judkins has a heck of an athletic profile and he's got power.

Um, but. Are those guys worth the 24th pick? No, I don't think so. Not in a draft like this in a draft like this, you could probably wait till the fifth round. Take someone that your long term plan over the next few years is to have as a role player, someone who could come in if Aaron Jones gets banged up. I think you gotta have three running backs on this team that you can trust because Aaron Jones, he survived all of last year, but you just never know with running backs on this team that you can trust because Aaron Jones, he survived all of last year, but you just never know with running backs.

Both these guys have some injury history. Jordan Mason missed what from week 13 on last year. So you're always getting running backs banged up. They don't trust Ty Chandler. So they should look for somebody but in a draft with this many guys, I mean you get into the like Damien Martinez Range of this guy's supposed to go in the fifth round and then you watch a player like that guy's supposed to go the fifth round Like there's just a bunch of running backs. The running back is not dead. That's for sure

Edwin says the Vikings were supposed to win six point five games over under last year, too Well, that was a Vegas thing, not an ESPN thing, but most of the prognosticators did not like where the Vikings were going to land last year. And part of the reason of course is Sam Darnold, but it was also a lot of free agent bets as well. And every single one of those bets hit for the Vikings last year. It's a rare situation where every one of them hit the best case scenario. Every single player, Stefan Gilmore was the best case scenario.

Cashman, Ben Ginkle and Sam freak and Arnold by far a better case scenario than any of us ever could have predicted to win 14 games. Although Justin Jefferson, that was my argument for last year's like, Hey, I don't think a team that's coached this well and has Justin Jefferson's winning six games. If they do, and I wrote this last year, if they do, then they've got a problem. If they can't get over six games, even with bad quarterback play because the previous year they got to seven with half a

season of Kirk and then Dobbs and Jaren Hall and Mullins. So. Um, Matt Max says after Rogers, let's get to the real questions. Are we worried about will the thrill? That's the real questions, Max. Hey, that's a good question. You know what?

That has not been asked this year. That has not been asked this year. That has not been asked this year about will the thrill, uh, will Riker and I think we'll be fine. There is some concern there if he has an injury. And I think last year, at least the sense that I got from what he said to Mark Craig, I think of the star Tribune about feeling something in practice and then going out and kicking anyway, and they had another kicker on the roster,

they could have sat out a week and maybe let it heal, and instead he hurt himself. That's a little concerning. Percentage-wise, he was fine overall, but you just, I mean, kickers, asking me to solve kickers, who knows? He is the most talented kicker I've ever seen in my life. Truly. From watching, I don't know how many practices with kickers, I've seen a million.

And he's number one. For most talented in practice and then he came out in the regular season and just, well how many in a row did he hit? Hitting from distance with plenty of room to spare. And he's, he's got a ton of talent and I think he has a good mindset. It really is. I think the physical nature, it's just, is he going to be able to stay healthy after this injury and if he is banged up, is he going to actually tell someone and sit out a game or two to make sure that he's healthy? Right? So Yeah, I mean, it's not a huge concern. But like what happened last year might be a little bit like

Make sure you have another kicker just in case that injury continues to pop up because I think it was something that he dealt with In college. There's how about that? First day we talked about the kicker of the off season, March 24th. Anthony says, bet they graded Van Ginkle Low. Love to see their grades for what turned out to be a great free agency period from last year. That's an interesting question. I wonder if we can look that up.

I wonder if we can see, can we get get 2024 can we go old takes exposed? I'm not seeing it. Let's see. Well, maybe we got something here 2024 Okay All right. Okay. We got something here. Let's see you said Van Ginkle Let's see, okay, they gave Van Ginkle a B last year. All right. That makes sense.

I mean, he took who would have get though to be fair, would you have guessed second team all pro? I mean, multiple pick sixes double digit sacks for a guy who had never had double digit sacks before, but they were not down on that move about Granard. Jonathan Granard was a B plus. Oh wait. No, that's the Neil Hunter. They just mentioned Granard. digit sacks before but they were not down on that move about Grenard Jonathan Grenard was a B plus. Oh wait. No, that's the Neil Hunter. They just mentioned Grenard. Let me see Okay, Grenard was an a okay, so yeah, see you're calling out their grades but looks like they liked it they love the Jonathan Grenard deal that one got an a and I don't see a great on Blake Cashman.

So seems like they liked it last year. Look, I get it. It's when it's a 30 or 32 year old player, but especially a 30 year old player who has not played his best football recently. And you give them a big contract and the write up was done before the contract details came out so that was important. What would you give them a big contract and multi years of commitment at thirty years old with injury you're not gonna give it. A great great you're going to say if you're analyzing this from a analytical perspective which is what set the world is pn do.

I'm for this particular article you're not going to say, wow, what a great move. My point on that is I agree with it. Like I agree with that, that logic, but I also think, man, the way that this guy might fit in, if he gives them 40 pressures, 45 pressures to this defense, that was top five, like that could be absolutely worth it. And it, and it has a range of outcomes that could be tremendous, but there's a lot of risk there. So I get it. But no, yeah, they, um, they liked the moves from last year. They definitely did. Uh, Alex says the way too early power rankings are doing the Vikings dirty. Yeah. I mean,

but how would you do it? This is the point. If you were on the outside and you were looking at this and now I watched AJ McCarthy last year in training camp. I was very impressed and there have been quarterbacks in the past who I have not been impressed by. Trust me. I saw Kellen Mons starting in the UFL and I hope he succeeds because he's a really nice guy, but that was very bad to watch in practice. So I've given you that information. because he's a really nice guy, but that was very bad to watch him practice.

So I've given you that information. You guys have seen him play the preseason game. You're excited about the rookie quarterback. You buy into him. The fact that the Vikings and KOC did not bring in Rogers, did not bring in Darnold is a data point that we can use to say how much they like McCarthy. So we can say it should be better than where the power rankings have them. And I think we could also say like, Hey, some of these moves were massive weaknesses and now they're not anymore.

These are, this is a big deal. But if you're looking at the other NFC North teams, I mean, it's so much easier to predict the Packers. It's so much easier to protect predict the lions or Washington or you know, the Eagles or the Rams because they're bringing back their quarterbacks. When you have this is why everybody was so down on the Vikings last off season was because it was just impossible to predict what Darnold was going to be his His previous sample size was so poor. How, if you were setting a line, would you go, you know what? I think he's actually going to be incredible. Now we've all seen this

story before we've seen Chris Carter and Randy Moss do this for people in the past. We've seen Justin Jefferson do it for people in the past, like of course Kirk, but also Nick Mullins and the way that he played with Justin Jefferson. So we knew that and we had that, I think in talking about where the expectations should be. I picked them to win 10 games last year because I, I figured, I mean, if Sam Darnold can even do anything, just the Jefferson's going to make it right. But none, nobody ever would have predicted 14 games, but also if every, every prediction, I mean, if it all went right, if we all knew the answers, if Vegas got it right every time, what fun would sports be?

I've been trying over the last few days in the women's NCA tournament to hit on Pick'ems on underdog and I've missed every single one. It's tough. It's tough to predict stuff, right? So you, you make a decision now you think, well, this one's got a lot of risk. So we're going to lower that grade. Okay. I mean, that makes sense.

I liked the Jordan Mason thing more because of the context, but if they were just bringing him in on a pure, like just looking at that move, just for example, here's what you paid, here's what you got for Jordan Mason. It's basically a half a season of really good play. Maybe that looks like too much as compared to a Rico dowdell for almost nothing. But when you think about how they're going to play, what they want to do with Jordan Mason, you can see,

all right, that actually makes a lot of sense. So, yeah, Adam has got this right. So many of the Vikings had short seasons last year because of injuries. Right. And when we're talking about health, that's always something that is very difficult to predict. But if you're grading signings, you go, well, this guy didn't play, this guy didn't play, this guy didn't play.

You're not going to give them higher numbers. Son of a Beaver said with roughly 30 million in cap, who the heck are we waiting to sign in may? Well, that might be a backup quarterback, but it might be nobody. And this is what I was talking about the other night when we talked about, like, are they going to do something with this cap space? They might, but they also might just roll it over and help mitigate some of these cap hits from this year.

That's they may have structured the big cap hits for next year. I mean, with this year's free agent class, they may have structured them in part so they could roll over cap and then get the cap increasing. So then it looks like right now they're like $10 million over the cap for next season. Well, if you roll over 20 million or whatever it is, after you sign your draft class, a backup quarterback, a handful of other players, and then you also get that 20, $30 million boost.

Now all of a sudden you're not over the cap as much as it looks like. Uh, Bron Frickett solo. Nice to see you. Uh, the team should be more solid, but the play of the quarterback will be the question mark. Quacey betting on himself. Seems to be putting himself and the Vikings in a good spot for the future. Yeah, I mean, making the bet on JJ McCarthy

and moving on from Darnold and not getting Aaron Rodgers is, it is certainly the type of bet that if it doesn't work out, you know, people will go back and go, Oh, they let Darnold go after 14 wins or right. So you're going to get that. But when it comes along with being able to make risky signings, and this is why context is so important when we're grading every signing. It's like if one of these doesn't go right, it doesn't ruin the franchise. There have been years in the past where they've signed one guy in the off season

because their quarterback was making so much and they would sign Delvin Tomlinson. It's like, or Michael Pierce. I use this as an example. The other day, if it, if that doesn't work out, like they're in a lot of trouble with that one big signing they were able to make, but instead they signed two defensive tackles if one of them is good. Okay. big signing they were able to make, but instead they signed two defensive tackles. If one of them is good, okay. Maybe you blew some cap space, but like you had the cap space.

They spent all that and still have cap space leftover. That's the point. The point about the JJ McCarthy and that's the bet that you have to make in letting Sam Darnold go is that cap space will give you a lot of freedom to add that many players. And even if I take all those grades, add them all up and go, all right, so what if the whole class turns out to be a B? So some they liked some they didn't like. What if it turns out to be a B?

Well, if you have a B free agent class with that many players who come in and that's what they contribute and they're not asked to be the franchise players like Jefferson, Dara Saw, Grenard, etc. Then you've done really well for yourself in terms of upgrading from last year, which is what they were trying to do So you can be more risky in Quasidafel Mensa's spot You can try to aim for a high-end Jonathan Allen and know that it might blow up in your face But you go well, that's okay potentially because you got Hargrave, you could draft one and that wasn't all of your cap space in that one basket.

So every team's moves are just different, different like ways of weighting the factors with the franchise. Hunter says, what's your opinion on drafting Quinn yours with the compensatory pick for the future backup quarterback? I do not like the idea of drafting anyone outside of a first round quarterback to be the starter. I just, it's usually here's what it is normally. It is taking the draft pick, pulling out a lighter and igniting the draft pick, pulling out a lighter, woof, and igniting the draft pick. Every once in a while there's Tom Brady and there's Brock Purdy and Dak Prescott. Every once in a while. But I remember looking at this a few years ago when they

drafted Kellen Mond because of course everybody loved the idea of drafting Kellen Mond but and when you draft a quarterback everyone loves them. Everyone loved Jaren Hall. Jaren Hall was not good and just wasn't and Neither was Kellen Mond But I looked at how many guys had been drafted past the second round at any point and how many had succeeded and I think I came up with maybe three or four guys in the last up with maybe three or four guys in the last 15 years who had succeeded in any fashion. I think I looked at it since Kirk, since Kirk came in with Russell Wilson, that year was crazy

to have Wilson and Kirk. And I think it was three guys after that had actually been successful. I mean, I'm not spending a draft pick on a backup quarterback There's 14 backup quarterback how many backups have already signed and they're still available out there even at this point So I would not spend a draft pick on any other quarterback like Plus it just makes noise. I mean the Packers did this once upon a time with Brian Brom Where they picked him while they still had? Aaron Rodgers That was weird Mark says

Saw some talk of Case Keenum haven't paid attention to case last couple years any gas left in the tank. No, probably not But every backup that you bring up There's gonna be like I don't probably not like Ryan Tannehill wasn't in the league last year. And I'm like, sure. I mean, Carson Wentz hasn't started in years and the last time he did, it was pretty much a disaster, but sure. What else you got? I mean, look around the league.

One of my favorite articles, I think nfl.com will do like a backup quarterback ranking and once you get past like four, it's a disaster, you wouldn't want any of those guys starting. There's not 64 human beings who could play quarterback in the NFL. No way. And once you get past like four, it's a disaster. You wouldn't want any of those guys starting. There's not 64 human beings who could play quarterback in the NFL. No way. At a high level. Absolutely not. So, you know, I mean, case Keenum, if that's what they wanted to do,

that's fine. I know that we always love the idea of bringing somebody back that was here before. We joked about that the other night of like Brooks Bollinger or Todd Bowman or Spurgeon win or whatever case is a great dude. There you go. Sure. But I don't think that case could win at this point in his career.

I don't think that he could win half of his games if he had to play. So just for example, the Vikings started out. Five and three and you needed someone to keep the thing on the tracks for five games. Could you win three out of five with Carson Wentz or Ryan Tannehill? I think the chances are better than case Kenam. I don't think the chances are very high at this point in his career with Kenam because those other guys were first round draft picks who are big giant dudes

who still have arms and could still huck it. I mean, we know this about case. That's not him as a leader, as a dude. Yeah. They could also try to trade for somebody. I mean, that's the Nick Mullins point. They got Nick Mullins in the last, you know, half of training camp. It was fine.