Minnesota Sports Forum

Ah...so you talk a little football here too? I hated this trade. Here's why:

1.) We didn't get value. Easton was undrafted. The 49ers picked him up for what is said to be a conditional 7th round pick. The 49ers were going to cut him. We traded a young starting LB. I would have expected a young, starter back. Think of the reverse...it would be like if we traded Zac Kerin for a young starting LB.

2.) We got worse. People are saying we have depth at LB. We really don't. Audie is mainly a MLB. Greenway is in his last year. That means we'll be short a LB at the end of this year. Easton might never see the field this year. Hodges was going to play.

3.) People are saying Hodges wasn't that great here. Yet, he was clearly their second best LB to start the year. So much so, that they put him at MLB to get him on the field even though he'd never played that position.

4.) Easton can only play Center based on reports I've read. He's not going to be great depth. Berger has been fine at Center. And Sully is eligible to come back in about a month.

I would have been OK with trading Hodges for the right piece. Example, Hodges for a starting RT which would allow Clemmings to play back up Tackle. But we got a practice squad type Center. Maybe he turns into something. But on the surface, I don't like this at all. I liked Barr/Kendricks/Hodges as a good young LB group. Greenway screwed things up by staying another year IMO.

Carlos Danger wrote:Ah...so you talk a little football here too? I hated this trade. Here's why:

1.) We didn't get value. Easton was undrafted. The 49ers picked him up for what is said to be a conditional 7th round pick. The 49ers were going to cut him. We traded a young starting LB. I would have expected a young, starter back. Think of the reverse...it would be like if we traded Zac Kerin for a young starting LB.

2.) We got worse. People are saying we have depth at LB. We really don't. Audie is mainly a MLB. Greenway is in his last year. That means we'll be short a LB at the end of this year. Easton might never see the field this year. Hodges was going to play.

3.) People are saying Hodges wasn't that great here. Yet, he was clearly their second best LB to start the year. So much so, that they put him at MLB to get him on the field even though he'd never played that position.

4.) Easton can only play Center based on reports I've read. He's not going to be great depth. Berger has been fine at Center. And Sully is eligible to come back in about a month.

I would have been OK with trading Hodges for the right piece. Example, Hodges for a starting RT which would allow Clemmings to play back up Tackle. But we got a practice squad type Center. Maybe he turns into something. But on the surface, I don't like this at all. I liked Barr/Kendricks/Hodges as a good young LB group. Greenway screwed things up by staying another year IMO.

A couple things to consider.

Here is an I drafted guy that has now ended up on his 3rd team and been traded for TWICE. That's saying something. So they were going to waive him. There is no assurance they were going to get him if that happened and the Vikings wanted to sign him as an UFA. How much difference is there really between a 5th rounder and an undrafted guy? At this point you may have a better idea of Easton is worthwhile than a future draft pick because he has at least some NFL preseason work to go off of. It looks like he is signed for dirt cheap for 3 years.

Adding a C may add depth at other positions. Maybe this pushes other guys to G or a guy like Sirles to only get work at Tackle.

Let's be honest here it's very difficult to know how the Vikings especially Zimmer feels about any LB aside from Barr and Greenway. When Kendicks was drafted and minicamp it sounded like he would play a bunch right away. Maybe he wasn't quite ready. Everyone was getting a shot at playing time in preseason etc.

I don't like it because it reeks of Spielman getting a jump start on his 10 draft pick policy. I don't think we got even value for what we gave up.

monsterpile wrote:
A couple things to consider.

Here is an I drafted guy that has now ended up on his 3rd team and been traded for TWICE. That's saying something. So they were going to waive him. There is no assurance they were going to get him if that happened and the Vikings wanted to sign him as an UFA. How much difference is there really between a 5th rounder and an undrafted guy? At this point you may have a better idea of Easton is worthwhile than a future draft pick because he has at least some NFL preseason work to go off of. It looks like he is signed for dirt cheap for 3 years.

Adding a C may add depth at other positions. Maybe this pushes other guys to G or a guy like Sirles to only get work at Tackle.

Let's be honest here it's very difficult to know how the Vikings especially Zimmer feels about any LB aside from Barr and Greenway. When Kendicks was drafted and minicamp it sounded like he would play a bunch right away. Maybe he wasn't quite ready. Everyone was getting a shot at playing time in preseason etc.

Getting traded "TWICE" and ending up on his third team is saying something. It's saying that the teams that looked at him have found him to be very disposable vs. someone they want to hang onto. The 49ers were going to waive this guy. I read today that they were not targeting Hodges. The trade just presented itself to the 49ers and, yeah - if someone is going to give you a young, proven NFL player for a practice squad type player, you pull the trigger immediately. It doesn't matter if the guy is "dirt cheap for 3 years". Football contracts are not guaranteed. They gave up too much to take a look at this guy. The Ravens signed him off the street for a look and the 49ers got him for a conditional 7th round pick. Normally, the "condition" is if the guy actually plays, so they probably didn't actually give up anything either. So, why would the Vikings give up one of their top 3 LBs? That's way too much.

Hodges didn't look great at MLB. But he'd never played the position. They stuck him there to get him on the field. If you watched the games last year, Hodges looked very good filling in for Barr on the outside. If one of our LB's goes down, we don't have anyone close to Hodge's ability to step in on the outside. Audie might be OK in the middle. But I think he'd be a disaster on the outside as he doesn't have the speed.

5 reasons what CD is wrong.

http://www.dailynorseman.com/2015/10/8/9483129/5-reasons-why-i-like-the-gerald-hodges-trade

bleedspeed177 wrote:5 reasons what CD is wrong.

http://www.dailynorseman.com/2015/10/8/9483129/5-reasons-why-i-like-the-gerald-hodges-trade

Please tell me you don't believe that Bleed. I hold you to a higher standard than that! :-) That article is a total homer take on the deal. The only reason they state for favoring the trade that is actually valid is the "if you like Audie Cole" reason. The other four reasons stated are just plain false. Our O-line is NOT better because nothing has changed. As of now, this new guy is a backup Center only and may never see the field. Especially if Sully can come back. I don't think another 6th round pick adds much value for giving up a starting LB.