Uhhhh major trade. Hawks have a new QB

[trharder]

The Vikings are being brave and bold. It might work, it might not. But at least they’re trying.

It probably won't work. Good article... how does a team find that guy to orchestrate their offense? The 9-8 seasons are mentioned, but I truly believe that had a lot to do with Pete's style of coaching, the 'play-not-to-lose-rather-than-play-to-win' mentality. In addition, and has been mentioned previously, the players aren't being utilized effectively. I think that changes with Macdonald.

I hope that's right, but my gut is saying the same as Rob Stanton.

[Michael K.]

They had ammunition a year ago in picks #5, #20, #37 and #52 and didn’t come away with a quarterback. Now, they’ve traded away or diminished their stock making it difficult to trade up from #16. You have to wonder if the Howell trade is partly motivated by a growing expectation within the front office that they might not be able to get a quarterback they like this year either.

Bullshit statement. Who would he have liked them to take at 5? Young, Stroud and Richardson were gone. So? They should have passed on Spoon or JSN for who? He wanted us to use both of those to move up one and take Richardson? Who looks like a RB playing QB and will be lucky to every stay healthy? Or should we have taken a the next QB...but at the expense of what pick? I'd have been OK with Richardson, but not at the expense of moving up one spot to lose two first round picks. Levis went at 33, and that dude had ONE GAME last year.

I hate that shit. I think Richardson was a reach, and so was Levis, and? I'd rather have had the two TEs that went AFTER Levis than Levis. Who's to say we didn't try to use that 37 pick we used on Derick Hall to move up and couldn't? Which one of the QBs after Stroud did Mr Stanton want? Because before the draft I was adamant that Stroud was the only one I wanted, and I haven't seen anything to make me change that tune. The next QB was Hendon Hooker at 68. Charbonnet was our pick at 52. So? He'd rather we used that pick on a guy that might not ever see the field?

I get it, we need a QB. But let's not pretend like we have passed on anyone since we passed on Lamar that made sense. They have tried to move up for guys like Mahomes and Allen and couldn't. Did he want them to take Kenny Pickett two years ago? How about Desmond Ritter? Fuck man, I am hard on this organization for some of it's draft day decisions, but let's not act like we have had ample opportunities to fill a gap and just simply didn't.

If he wants to complain? Complain about some of the trades for guys like Sheldon Richardson, Percy Harvin, Jimmy Graham, etc. that have cost us picks. But even the Adams trade, which seemed like a good one...what QB did that cost us? Anyone can look at our roster and say "since Russ left we haven't had a QB", but don't be lazy. Point out what logical move they could have made and didn't. No shit we don't have a Franchise QB. But the Steelers just used a first round pick on one and then made two offseason moves to acquire two more. I guess just throwing a first round pick at one isn't always the answer?

When Richardson gets hurt again, will Stanton rip the Colts for not having an option? Lazy. The Cardinals used an early first round pick on a QB and the very next year used the #1 over all pick on Kyler. But? All you have to do is use a first round pick and your QB problems are over. Again, lazy.

[Sibelius Hindemith]

Yeah, i don't agree with Staton's take either. QBs are either overvalued or not evaluated well enough to merit "taking big risks" on one in the draft.