Vikes OT McKinnie gets new seven-year, $48.5M deal

[Patler]

I don't necessarily think the O-line is a bad place to invest cap dollars. For the size of the cap at the time, the Packers were actually pretty heavily invested in the O-line a few years back, when all five received new contracts within a couple years. It worked for a while.

The important thing is that cap dollars go to players that remain healthy and play well. It's the Joe Johnson, Cletidus Hunt, Jamal Reynolds type signings that hurt more than the KGB type.

[Patler]

Re: Vikes

IF McKinnie plays as well as last year then it's an ok move by me.

Obviously I never see him play all that much, but McKinney is a strange case in my mind. Coming from college he was hyped as much as any recent tackle. He really did not play well at first. Now I hear a lot of good things about him, yet I can't really say I have seen a game in which he looked impressive. Again, I see only a few each year, but everytime he seems to get overmatched several times a game. That doesn't happen game in and game out for dominant tackles, which he should be at this stage of his career.

[Rastak]

Re: Vikes

IF McKinnie plays as well as last year then it's an ok move by me.

Obviously I never see him play all that much, but McKinney is a strange case in my mind. Coming from college he was hyped as much as any recent tackle. He really did not play well at first. Now I hear a lot of good things about him, yet I can't really say I have seen a game in which he looked impressive. Again, I see only a few each year, but everytime he seems to get overmatched several times a game. That doesn't happen game in and game out for dominant tackles, which he should be at this stage of his career.

I saw one play this year where he absolutely just stood the DE up. He had chance, yet a real fast guy can sometimes get by him. With his size and speed (for a huge guy) he should be a good run blocker...Hutchinson is an outstanding run blocker so maybe he'll elevate Bryant's game.


I think part of his problem is he's such a mellow guy, you need a little fire on the OL.

[Tarlam!]

I see the Queens have decided to journey on the "Road to Cap Hell". It'll be fun to watch the wheels fall of Ras. You know it will be, since you're a closet Packer fan!

[Rastak]

I see the Queens have decided to journey on the "Road to Cap Hell". It'll be fun to watch the wheels fall of Ras. You know it will be, since you're a closet Packer fan!

Your predictions sometimes look like they came from a magic eightball.

[mngolf19]

I see the Queens have decided to journey on the "Road to Cap Hell". It'll be fun to watch the wheels fall of Ras. You know it will be, since you're a closet Packer fan!

Your predictions sometimes look like they came from a magic eightball.

And this will hardly put them on the "road to cap hell". Tarlam, perhaps you prefer to go down the "road to unused, thrown away cap money"? Will that be put into your imaginary wallet for a rainy day?

It was said earlier, you win and lose with OL and DL. There isn't a better place to invest your money. Those guys make everyone else better. Hey, I'd be the first to tell you if I thought is was a stupid move.

[Rastak]

I will say if he plays the way he did his first two years, which I thought was very average then it's not the greatest move, however, if he's top 5 at his position when all is said and done then it's well worth the investment.



Let me put it to you guys this way, when Green Bay was kicking the shit out of people they had one of the best OL's in the league.


If the Vikes are wrong then it's 18mil wasted and if they are right, it makes perfect sense.

[Tarlam!]

Your predictions sometimes look like they came from a magic eightball.

If I knew what a magic eightball was, I'd know to be offended or not

[Rastak]

Your predictions sometimes look like they came from a magic eightball.

If I knew what a magic eightball was, I'd know to be offended or not

Nah no offense to be taken.....it's a toy in the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_8_Ball

[Rastak]

Re: Vikes

I like the Vikings aggressive style. That's the way a GM is suppossed to be. Take chances and not sit around for 3-4 yrs of being laughed at. The cap keeps going up so the money is there and will continue to be there, ya just gotta have someone who knows how to work it.

The cap goes up, but usually no where near what it did this year. Rounded off, the cap has been

1994 - 34.6
1995 - 37.1
1996 - 40.8
1997 - 41.5
1998 - 52.4
1999 - 58.4
2000 - 62.2
2001 - 67.4
2002 - 71.1
2003 - 75.0
2004 - 80.6
2005 - 85.5

2006 - 102
2007 - 109 (as agreed during the negotiations this summer)

The only time the cap has increased dramatically was when new TV contracts kicked in. The big one was 1998, when it increased over 26%. Otherwise, you can expect less than 10% annually, and more typically in the 5-7% range.

With a fixed cap, a team can have only a limited number of "mega-deals." The Vikings have committed two to the O-line, and it seems they are the same duration with similar terms (if what I read is accurate), That means neither offsets the other in terms of high and low cap impact years. This could present problems in the future, similar to what GB had last year with high cap values for Sharper and Wahle, plus the need to sign Rivera.

With the "average" cap impact floating at near $2 million/player (somewhat less when you factor in IR, practice squad, dead money, etc), for every mega-deal you need a few rookies and first year players on the roster to offset the money committed. You can be successful if your young players are good. With fewer mega-deals you can carry more experienced veterans, even at the higher vet minimums.

Basically, it seems that the Vikings gave up on Moss and Culpepper, and used those "spots" in their cap to sign long term deals with Hutchinson and McKinnie. The Vikings will be successful if McKinnie and Hutchinson stay healthy and the Vikings draft well so that players still in their rookie contracts contribute significantly. They will likely have room for only one more big deal in the next few years.

From PFT.com


McKINNIE DEAL FAIR TO BOTH SIDES, FOR NOW

We've tracked down even more details regarding the seven-year extension signed on Tuesday by Vikings left tackle Bryant McKinnie, and in our view it's definitely a win-win proposition.

For now.

A source familiar with the terms of the deal tells us that McKinnie will make $25 million over the first three years of the eight-year contract. It's good money for McKinnie, but hardly a backbreaker for the Vikings. Indeed, if McKinnie had forced the team to use the franchise tag on him for multiple seasons, he would have earned roughly $9 million in 2007, $10.8 million in 2008, and because the new CBA bases the third franchise season on the franchise tag for quarterbacks or a 144 percent increase over the prior year's salary, whichever is greater, McKinnie would have earned $15.55 million under the tag in 2009.

That's $35.35 million over three years, and he then would have been eligible for a long-term deal on the open market, at age 30.

By way of comparison, Seahawks left tackle Walter Jones signed his big-money long-term deal at age 31, after three seasons of franchise tenders.

Because the risk of injury for left tackles is lower than it is for, say, running backs, it's very possible that, like Jones, McKinnie would have remained healthy and effective through the next four seasons. "These guys are a relatively low injury risk," said a league source. "They play forever. Eleven years, 13, 15."

Instead of playing the franchise game and then getting a long-term deal later, McKinnie inked a contract that places him at No. 5 on the list of left tackles, behind Jonathan Ogden, Orlando Pace, Walter Jones, and Chris Samuels.

We've also learned that McKinnie's cap number in the final year of the deal will be only $7.5 million. At a time when the salary cap is expected to be well over $150 million, that's not much at all to have tied up in a left tackle. Moreover, significant money is tied to McKinnie's participation in offseason conditioning and workouts, which will prompt him to do the things necessary to remain effective.

So the deal represents a very good outcome for the Vikings, especially since it's generally accepted in league circles that high-end left tackles don't grow on trees. Or in free agency. Or in the bottom half of round one of the draft. Or lower.

Unlike other positions, there's a strong correlation between the draft status of a left tackle and his level of eventual NFL performance. Ogden was the fourth overall pick in 1996. Pace was the first overall selection in 1997. Jones was the sixth pick in 1997. Samuels was the third pick in 2000. And McKinnie was the seventh pick in 2002.

It's not a recent trend, by any means. Willie Roaf, whom the Chiefs are still begging to change his mind about retirement, was the No. 8 overall selection way back in 1993. Tony Boselli, the only premier left tackle over the past 15 years or so whose career was cut short by injury, was the second overall pick in 1995.

(The only bust in this regard (albeit a big one) was Tony Mandarich, the second overall selection in 1989.)

The potential downside as to the McKinnie deal, as we see it, is that the player might regard the package as substandard as the cap continues to climb, and as other left tackles get contracts worth more than his. As we've said recently with respect to extensions signed by Steelers running back Willie Parker, Cowboys quarterback Tony Romo, and Steelers cornerback Ike Taylor, McKinnie has made a conscious decision to take the money now, and to commit for eight total years. If he thinks at some point that he has "outperformed" the deal, he needs to keep in mind that the team has dumped plenty of money into his pockets despite the risk that he'll "underperform."

But if McKinnie continues to develop into one of the top left tackles in the game, we've got a feeling that the Vikings will do whatever is necessary to keep him happy and effective over the long haul