Minnesota Set to Trade for Sage Rosenfels
by John Morgan on Feb 23, 2009 3:11 PM PST
Email
PrintTriple Mediocre Quarterback Package Yet Revealed
A little good news/bad news for Seahawks fans: Minnesota, in desperate need for a quarterback after twice doing what some many fans think is a brilliant, unprecedented move: taking mid and late round flyers on marginal quarterback prospects, is on the verge of trading a fourth round pick for another marginal, but much older and semi-accomplished, quarterback: Sage Rosenfels. Rosenfels is known for his exceptional ability to both throw to Andre Johnson and the guy completely open opposite Andre Johnson. Johnson, much to the future surprise of (hated) Vikings GM Rick Spielman, is not included in the trade. Rosenfels is also very different than Gus Frerotte because duh and like whatever. He's also old but less old. Doddering rather than decrepit. Feisty rather than ambulatory.
The good news is that this probably doesn't solve Minnesota's quarterback problem and makes them again only a marginal contender despite their abundance of maximal talent. The rest of the good news is that this likely takes Minnesota out of the running for both Matthew Stafford and Mark Sanchez. The Vikings being a dark horse contender to trade up and draft one of the two. That's kind of the bad news, too. Minnesota is no longer a potential trading partner for Seattle's fourth overall pick, a pick Seattle should do its damnedest to trade down from, no longer a destination for Seneca Wallace, every bit Rosenfels' equal but fast, and no longer a destination for Matt Hasselbeck should Seattle decide on the complete teardown. Another dead opportunity; so it goes.
Except, of course, Tim Ruskell and Rick Spielman hate each other.
46 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Dan Orlovsky has opted for free agency as well.
Minnesota may as well snap him up as well.
^ And I should explain that I just read an email where someone used "as well" in one form or another at least 8 times.
Apparently my mental mocking of said email has not stopped it from permeating into my brain. That’s shameful.
You can't...
have a fifth of me… though I’d be okay with you getting rid of Frye for some scotch.
I'm kinda sad Shanahan is gone... I liked the Donkeys being 8-8 every year...
by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 23, 2009 4:51 PM PST up reply actions
I wonder why.
‘Raged Goesandfails’ totally blew the Indy game by morphing into a helicopter at the worst possible time.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
How can the Vikings trade for anything?
Didn’t they give up their entire draft for that one dbag from KC?
"It's just one big guy against another big guy, both teams know what's at stake. The one of them comes out on top and it feels good."
-Chris Collinsworth, Madden 09
IIRC, they gave last season's first and swapped thirds or something like that for Jared Allen.
Not a bad move, really.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Feb 23, 2009 4:32 PM PST up reply actions
A little steep, I think
Of course I guess they thought they could get away with poor QB play if their d was stout enough.
"It's just one big guy against another big guy, both teams know what's at stake. The one of them comes out on top and it feels good."
-Chris Collinsworth, Madden 09
by Wayward Llama on Feb 23, 2009 5:12 PM PST up reply actions
Not terrible, considering Allen's an excellent player in his prime who's still improving.
Still a deep price, but it’s not like he failed to make an impact.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Feb 23, 2009 5:16 PM PST up reply actions
a first and TWO THIRDS?
this was a gamble, rolling the dice on “can tavaris jackson be a league average quarterback?” and they lost.
two years from now i’m going to be very curious to see what players (picks) they gave up and how they are panning out.
There's still the NY Jets
They would probably want a franchise QB considering how much money they spent on free agents last season.
Oak and SF
AL always wants the ‘best’ player in the draft - maybe he has been clearing cap room to move up and draft who he wants (a WR – either Crabs or Maclin – maybe HeyBey). They have the QB, the RB now they need the WR -—-while across the bay, SF is in dire need of a QB – and I am sure they want Sanchez… I think that we have trading partners in one or both of them…..also Buffalo may want to trade up. Thing is we have no clue as to who these GMs/managers want, that they think they can not live without. Keep the hopes up.
I disagree
The Raiders wouldn’t have to move up to take any WR except maybe Crabtree.
From everything Singletary has said, I don’t think the Niners are going to draft a QB in the first round. Could be wrong, but I think its either defense or offensive tackle.
by Brendan Scolari on Feb 23, 2009 5:34 PM PST up reply actions
u can disagree if you like
did you know that there are many rumors to the effect that Crabs will be taken by the time we draft? Did you know that if SF moved up 6 spots, that they can take whoever they like whether it be defense, offense, or WR, or even a QB providing Sanchez is still there,….and why shouldn’t he be? I see Curry, Stafford, Crabs off the board at worst. – next maybe j Smith, or Orokapo, or any other player… no matter who is drafted before us, it remains there will be a player that SF (or another team) will likely want… most the time, if a trade to the top 5 is not done, it is because the team with the top 5 pick does not like the deal proposed, or wants to keep the pick. As I said above – Thing is we have no clue as to who these GMs/managers want, that they think they can not live without. Keep the hopes up.
I hate to sound like a grammar nazi.
But it would be much appreciated if you would take the minor care to correct your spelling to a moderate degree of readability, and separate your sentences with single periods rather than 3 or dashes.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Feb 23, 2009 7:05 PM PST up reply actions
I never said you can't have your hopes up
but I don’t see much reason for either of those teams to trade with the ‘Hawks. The Raiders are only three picks after, and most likely any player they want will be available at 7 as well. With Al as crazy as he is you never know but I’m not sure why they’d trade up. And yes, I said Crabtree might already be taken.
Why would the Niners trade up? Of course there will be players they like at 4 but there will be players they like at 10 as well. There will be a good OT and OLB, the Niner’s biggest needs, available at 10, so I don’t really see the point.
by Brendan Scolari on Feb 23, 2009 7:17 PM PST up reply actions
This is a bit gutsy, and way too what-if
but draft Crab under the assumption that the Raiders really want him, if they (or some other team doesn’t really want him) great, we have Crabtree, if they do we trade down (yes unlikely, hasn’t happened in the last 10 years) and get one of the remaining OL or Mark Sanchez (assuming Stafford is gone, plus I’m starting to like him, I don’t know why) and a 3rd round pick. Trade two second rounders to move up to the 2nd round, get Robiskie and Chung with our two second rounders.
What is the value of a number #4 pick?
Obviously it depends on where you trade from, but if it’s say SF do we get like a 2nd rounder and say a 5th along with there 1st? Or is it like a 3rd and a 4th value? I’d love to see some data on top 5 picks trading down.
I think that's part of the problem.
The system GM’s have been using weighted top 5 picks as being incredibly valuable, demanding ludicrous amounts of picks to even jump up just a few places. I think GM’s have been re-evaluating the points system that weights the picks a bit, and thinking it over-emphasizes top 5 picks. So while I’m not saying we will move out of the 4 spot, if we do we will probably be giving a team a better deal than the points system that most teams use says we should. Which is fine with me.
there's not a lot of data out there,
because there’s not a lot of data. it is very rare for a team to successfully trade out of a top 5 pick, the contracts are huge and the players aren’t that much better than those picked 5-10 spots later. bill parcells put together a ‘draft value chart’ this EXTREMELY weighted to the top.
<http://www.draftcountdown.com/features/Value-Chart.php>
so per the chart (and i’m not sure GMs follow it) our first round pick (1800 points) is worth the Niner’s first and second round picks (1300 and 480, respectively). but if we wanted to trade up for the first overall (3000 points) it would take literally our entire draft to get there.
IF a trade gets done moving us from 4 to the 8-12 range, i expect it to get a first and second rounder back. but i really do not think anybody wants our pick, too much money tied up into one unproven player.
by cro-mag! on Feb 24, 2009 7:17 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Thanks for the link.
Here’s a question, would you rather have the 4th pick, or picks 44,45,46, and 47? I’d rather have the later, but I’d take it just if it’s 40, 41, 42 or something like that. Crabtree or Duke, Chung, Robiskie (and theoretically Alex Mack as well)?
personally?
definitely 44, 45, 46, and 47. no doubt in my mind. the 4th pick is gonna sign a contract something like 5 years, $40 mil, and those mid second rounders will probably COMBINED be 5 years $40M.
i would take that (completely impossible) deal in a heartbeat. you guys did that awesome work running regressions about ‘success/wild success.’ how does my (our?) preconceived bias towards MORE players fit with the numbers you came up with?
So you're asking me to compare the average
top 10 pick with the average 2nd round pick? I’ll look into it.
yes, thanks
also i was giving this a little bit more thought. i think to an extent it would depend on the philosophy and situation of the drafting teams. some teams really might be ONE PLAYER AWAY from the superbowl, for example I see the Viks being a franchise QB away from a deep playoff run and several consecutive years of success. In their case it might make sense to take Stafford at 4, throw him into the fire and hope that he pulls a Matt Ryan right off the bat.
On the other hand, I think the Hawks (and most teams) should and would prefer the chance at 4 separate solid starters over one probably starter, possible star.
I don't know how to look to see what a 'replacement' level player looks like,
but the average top 10 pick goes to 1.74 pro bowls, starts for 6.16 seasons, and plays 109.75 games.
The average 2nd round pick goes to .155 pro bowls, starts for 3.20 seasons, and plays 78.51 games.
I didn’t realize 2nd round picks were so bad and unlikely to produce, but I guess if their ‘success’ rate is only 54% that makes sense.
As for your Vikings example.
Yes, that’s why I don’t know why they’re trading for Rosenfels. What they really need is an above average QB to get them over the top. With that line and AP, and that defensive line, they seem to be a really solidly built team with just one piece of the puzzle left.
even an average QB would be a big help...
…and they better do it fast.
I would hate to be a Vikings fan
You have a top talent in Adrian Peterson, a terrific offensive line with Hutch, a top WR talent in Berrian, the best DT combination in football, one of the best DEs in football, one of the best CBs in football, and since they haven’t been able to get a QB, they haven’t been able to take advantage of their current window.
They are exhibits A, B, C, and so on as to why I am such a proponent of the Hawks needing to fill that QB void behind Hasselbeck this year.
"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch
by crushedoptimist on Feb 23, 2009 5:48 PM PST reply actions
By the time the new QB matures into a starter the rest of the team will be at the end of their primes or in decline.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Feb 23, 2009 6:41 PM PST up reply actions
That's what they get for that poison pill
And wearing purple
"It's just one big guy against another big guy, both teams know what's at stake. The one of them comes out on top and it feels good."
-Chris Collinsworth, Madden 09
by Wayward Llama on Feb 23, 2009 6:46 PM PST up reply actions
....I'm talking about the Seahawks.
=X
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Feb 23, 2009 6:48 PM PST up reply actions
Interesting statement. Also wrong.
At what point do we look at replacing the QB then? Never? At the auspicious timing when we can draft the entire rest of the team the same year? You are also assuming that Ruskell has zero additional good drafts during the time period that a young QB would be learning on the bench, which seems to be a somewhat ludicrous place to be.
Also… I would recommend reading this, as a fairly decent roster analysis shows that we have a good young core in place that will still be around as a new QB would mature. It’s not perfect, but it’s not awful.
"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch
by crushedoptimist on Feb 23, 2009 6:57 PM PST up reply actions
I've read that.
I’m still not optimistic about our offense. I don’t think it will reach the levels of the early 90s where great defenses were overshadowed by horrendous offensive play, but really, there isn’t much to get excited about in upcoming years. And while I’m not anti-Ruskell by any means, I think his gauge for offensive talent is questionable.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Feb 23, 2009 7:08 PM PST up reply actions
I'm not going to be optimistic about our future offense...
if we don’t have a QB. Then we will turn into the ’92 Seahawks. Those were the days.
"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch
by crushedoptimist on Feb 23, 2009 7:19 PM PST up reply actions
Why hire Brad Childress?
Incompetence I guess.
by Brendan Scolari on Feb 23, 2009 7:18 PM PST up reply actions
Why keep Brad Childress for so long?
Ultra-incompetence.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Feb 23, 2009 7:48 PM PST up reply actions
Because you might be able to win with him for one year?
Football windows are much more narrow than baseball or even basketball. You need so many more high-caliber players to make a legit run at the top. In baseball you only really need three or four superstars to build around, and careers last quite awhile for those talents. In football, you need that many on each side of the ball to really have a chance at top-level contention.
If signing Garcia allows the rest of your talent to take a real shot at winning for one year, you do it in a heartbeat. If all it does is plug an organizational hole with an aging, declining vet who has little or zero chance to be part of the team long-term, then you go with other options.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
Honestly, can you blame him?
The Vikings aren’t pursuing him so they can have shit like Tarvaris Crapson and an old mummified dinosaur in Gus Frerotte compete for snaps. I’d be pissed too.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Feb 23, 2009 10:23 PM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
