Allow me some latitude to engage in rosterbation, if you please
by sideshow bob on Aug 25, 2010 7:00 AM PDT
Email
PrintCheerfully ignoring the minutiae of the salary cap, I see potential for a trade with the Vikings. Yes, them. However this is now Schneider's team and whatever baggage came to the fore with Hutch, Schneider doesn't own.
If I may...the Vikes are now very thin at WR (Javon Walker seems like desperation, no?) with Rice out for half a season and Harvin looking medically iffy as well. They have a strong DL with good depth even amongst the backups. Meanwhile, we have an assortment of viable WRs in the fold, but we apparently are not able to consistently bring a pass rush.
The guy I'm thinking of currently on the Vikes roster: Brian Robison. He's a DE, only 27 years old, backing up Jared Allen at RDE. Seems like he's in the Kerney mold - fast, but certainly not brawny. The Vikes still have Everson Griffen on the roster as another RDE, on whom they spent a high draft pick, younger than either Robison or Allen, and perhaps more upside. He's had 11 sacks in three years, but then again, he's rarely started in three years given the presence of Allen. The Vikes are built to win now, not next year. God forbid Favre gets frustrated enough with a lack of quality at WR early in the season, and decides to head back to Hattiesburg.
Would you part with a Deion Branch - someone who can serve as a WR safety blanket for Favre, assuming he's healthy, which it seems like he is - in order to generate more pass rush from someone who is still on the right side of 30? I would. I would rather give more time to Butler and Tate, let them develop.
27 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I'd be willing
but it seems dubious to me that the Vikes would go for it; it’s not just Branch’s contract, it’s that if their problem is a collection of porcelain wideouts, why would they want to add another who’s likely to give them more yards of medical reports than receptions?
by The Ancient Mariner on Aug 25, 2010 7:25 AM PDT reply actions
Perhaps out of desperation with the Vikes staring at a narrow window of opportunity
Although certainly there are 31 teams with whom the Vikes might trade, not just us. Maybe the question is, how much faith is there on Branch holding up this season?
by sideshow bob on Aug 25, 2010 8:06 AM PDT up reply actions
Branch or Housh?
I’d suggest trading Housh. I have no problem with Housh as a Hawk, but he’s a bit more expensive, definitely for this year, probably next year as well (Branch is towards the end of his contract and has less guaranteed money). He was interested in the Vikings before Favre went there, and came to Seattle for More (gone) and Hasselbeck (final year?). I doubt the Vikings would be interested in Branch, but I’m sure they’d take Housh.
Alternatively, how about the USC product in exchange for a wideout like Housh?
Maybe the Vikes would consider mortgaging their RDE of the future in Everson Griffen (former USC product) who presumably has prior knowledge of a Pete Carroll defense.
Ah, but he is an athletic 4-3 end...
And we haven’t had any of those.
OK, so that’s hyperbole. But he does have more upside than either Jackson or Tapp. Grit = ??
by PerryCollective on Aug 25, 2010 10:54 PM PDT up reply actions
So the Vikings are going to solve their injury problems at wide receiver by trading for a chronically injured wide receiver?
by Nate Dogg on Aug 25, 2010 10:03 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
So far in preseason, he's looked much more spry, no?
Unless we’re assuming it’s simply a matter of time before another season-ending injury arrives. If we replace Branch with Housh in this hypothetical trade, does that strike you as (a) a better fit for the Vikes’ needs, and (b) fair value for what we would get in return?
by sideshow bob on Aug 25, 2010 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions
a) Good enough
b) No. Housh is a go-to receiver on short yardage. The guy makes the catch if its all that catchable and we don’t have that ability in anyone else right now. Not even Carlson.
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
I wouldn't trade Housh to add another Leo in the mix.
You’re solving the wrong problem anyways. No line is going to create pressure with Bryant at end and Cole.
Was kinda hoping to replace Cole, but keep Bryant.
Assuming no changes going forward, where is our pass rush coming from? The lightbulb suddenly going on in Curry’s head? I’m willing to be charitable that he’s still in the midst of growing pains as a young player, but I do worry that he’s a $40 million airport with a 40-cent control tower.
by sideshow bob on Aug 25, 2010 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions
For the amount of run-stoppage Bryant brings
I’m willing to settle for less pass-rush from him. In my mind he’s more of a second 3-tech than a DE anyway. Ideally I think we get an elite Leo type in the upcoming draft, continue to develop Aaron Curry, and for Pete’s sake start Vickerson over Cole and continue to look for better 1-tech tackles.
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
I'm fine with rosterbation
Just really tired of scenarios involving Branch. Nobody wants him!
inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
So rosterbations rumortoid
Lombardi reported Arizona is considering getting rid of Leinart. PFT reports a trade to Seattle is in the works. Which makes no sense even if all we give up is a 6th or 7th rounder, since Leinart isn’t the mobile type of QB we’re looking for in our system, and while the PC-likes-USC-alumni shit is obvious, it’s too obvious and already proven bullshit.
Bleh, is my opinion. What’s yours?!
If he's cheap he'd be really interesting.
And I think he might be a better fit for Bate’s offense than you give him credit for. Doesn’t have Cutler or even Whitehurst arm strength, but he’s got a decent arm and he’s mobile enough.
Can we trade our backup kicker for him?
and Losman.
That’s fair, right? Our backup kicker is a pro-extra point maker!
We'll trade Leinart for their third round pick
There. Perfect. We get another camp body and our third round pick back.
Wait… what do you mean it doesn’t work that way?
by chrees on Aug 26, 2010 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Wow, would the Cards seriously go into the season with Derek Anderson and no net?
Even if DA got the starting nod, is there anyone else on the roster (other than Leinert) that would be considered a legitimate backup? If these rumors are true this is a dangerous path the Cards are walking….and as a Seahawks fan I’m delighted by it!
(It would totally suck if the Seahawks gave up anything more valuable than a 6th round pick to acquire Leinert, however. That probably goes without saying.)
Plus
it’s a “tip” sent in by an unnamed source. No mention of how reliable this source is or why he might know this. And all it really says is that “Leinert was told the Cardinals are working on a trade to Seattle”. Doesn’t say the Cardinals are working on a trade to Seattle, just says Leinert was told they are. A lot of “I heard this from a guy who heard from a guy that this was going to happen”. I’d just ignore it until something more substantial comes up.
Now with more lemon bars!
The genius of it is in Leinart's left-handedness
Starting an unproven 2nd stringer at LT because of injuries? No problem! Go with the southpaw, and all of a sudden your blindside is protected by the sturdier Sean Locklear. So when Hass and Charlie get blown up by Darnell Dockett or someone like that, it’s all good. Sort of.
(bring on Jake Locker)
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.
