[chron.com] Rosenfels "Near Deal" to Vikings [Trade Finalized] - Page 2

WMH · #21 02-23-2009, 07:41 PM

I heard in the news flash on 610, that the Vikes are reported to sign Sage to a 3 year $9MM extension. Didn't hear any specific terms, just raw numbers.

TexanJedi · #22 02-23-2009, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WMH

I heard in the news flash on 610, that the Vikes are reported to sign Sage to a 3 year $9MM extension. Didn't hear any specific terms, just raw numbers.

That's a pretty good deal for Sage and the Vikes. Now they have him for at least 3 years, Sage gets a chance to start and a little financial security. I do wonder why Minnesota did not make the deal last year, I know the Texans wanted a 2, but if you think a guy can help get your team over the top you have to get him. I'm not saying Sage is leading anyone to a Super Bowl, but he just needs to manage the game and they can rely on their running game and defense.

dalemurphy · #23 02-23-2009, 08:26 PM

In response to a question I submitted on McClain's blog, he emailed me this:

paraphrasing: It's a done deal for a 4th rounder but can't be announced until midnight on Thursday.

barrett · #24 02-23-2009, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexanJedi

That's a pretty good deal for Sage and the Vikes. Now they have him for at least 3 years, Sage gets a chance to start and a little financial security. I do wonder why Minnesota did not make the deal last year, I know the Texans wanted a 2, but if you think a guy can help get your team over the top you have to get him. I'm not saying Sage is leading anyone to a Super Bowl, but he just needs to manage the game and they can rely on their running game and defense.

The last thing you want is Sage Rosenfels managing a game for you. He is a turnover machine, but he offsets some of it by making plays and moving the ball up and down the field. If you ask him to be a game manager you handcuff the things he does well, while still probably not solving what his real problem is (forcing plays when the play breaks down to the instinct level).

kravix · #25 02-23-2009, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrett

Thelast thing you want is Sage Rosenfels managing a game for you. He is a turnover machine, but he offsets some of it by making plays and moving the ball up and down the field. If you ask him to be a game manager you handcuff the things he does well, while still probably not solving what his real problem is (forcing plays when the play breaks down to the instinct level).

I would still take him as a starter over Booty, Frerotte, or Jackson. Between their Def and running game Sage may be just good enough to take them to the level of QB play they need.

Perhaps with less pressure on him as a backup trying to prove himself, getting a starting gig upfront may settle him down some. Professional or no some people are just funny that way.

If this happens, every sack will make me cringe next year. But all the best to Sage. He was the second best QB this team has ever had.

Roy P · #26 02-24-2009, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HPF Bob

I'm down for a fourth. After all, it's our best draft round (Domanick Davis, Glenn Earl, Owen Daniels, Fred Bennett, etc.)

Good-bye Sage, hello Stephen McGee.

mussop · #27 02-24-2009, 12:08 AM

Watch Sage go to Mini and light it up.

painekiller · #28 02-24-2009, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roy P

Good-bye Sage, hello Stephen McGee.

Don't discount John Parker, or Hunter Cantwell since he shorten his delivery.

Or it could even be Pat White, instant wildcat, and a decent QB to groom for further down the road.

coloradodude · #29 02-24-2009, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bono

Day 1 is only the first two rounds now. Round 3 starts day 2

I actually laughed out loud when I read your response. I think I'll put myself on probation now. Thanks for the correction.

nunusguy · #30 02-24-2009, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roy P

Good-bye Sage, hello Stephen McGee.

McGee looks like a WC QB to me.
BTW Alex Brink is still on the roster. Does he have a future here, a real shot at being Schaubs primary backup ?

Roy P · #31 02-24-2009, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by painekiller

Don't discount John Parker.

JPW or McGee, either way, I'd be satisfied. Wilson is more polished, while McGee looks like he could make a lot of improvement with more reps.

barrett · #32 02-24-2009, 08:44 AM

I can't stand McGee's attitude. A QB needs to be a cool head in a storm. Not a guy who stands up and wants to fight after getting sacked or who talks trash when down by a few TDs. Way too hotheaded to hand over an NFL offense to him.

Roy P · #33 02-24-2009, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrett

I can't stand McGee's attitude. A QB needs to be a cool head in a storm. Not a guy who stands up and wants to fight after getting sacked or who talks trash when down by a few TDs. Way too hotheaded to hand over an NFL offense to him.

Sounds like Phillip Rivers or Jay Cutler.

nunusguy · #34 02-24-2009, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by painekiller

Don't discount John Parker

He's too pretty.
That boy had better not go on a fishing trip with Jon Voight & Burt down some river in 'Bama or GA.

barrett · #35 02-24-2009, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roy P

Sounds like Phillip Rivers or Jay Cutler.

Is that supposed to make it better?

Rivers is OK and Cutler is solid but do you think it is because of the Attitude problems or in spite of them?

papabear · #36 02-24-2009, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nunusguy

RosenCopter-Hindsight vision is always 20/20 isn't it ?

It's not hindsight when you said it at the time, well before the Rosencopter. I underatood the arguments for having a solid back up QB you are comfortable with. I wasn't mad when it didn't happen, but I think if you have a guy who's been around as long as Rosey and you've got a pretty good idea he's never going to be more than a marginal starter/back up and you can get a third round pick for it you should probably do it. I'm acutally worried the Vikes back out when they start to see all te QB's they can get without giving up a pick. I think Sage will be a good fit there because....well all QB's look better with a good defense and a good running game.

cadams · #37 02-24-2009, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by papabear

I'm acutally worried the Vikes back out when they start to see all te QB's they can get without giving up a pick.

the deal could always fall through, but they already know what Qbs are out there, so it isn't like they will all of the sudden realize that Jeff Garcia is available.

Bigtinylittle · #38 02-24-2009, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by papabear

I think Sage will be a good fit there because....well all QB's look better with a good defense and a good running game.

Glad you mentioned that. A lot of fans don't seem to understand that fact.

Roy P · #39 02-24-2009, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrett

Is that supposed to make it better?

Rivers is OK and Cutler is solid but do you think it is because of the Attitude problems or in spite of them?

I don't think of it as an "Attitude problem" as much as it is cockiness. I'm not sure that you need it, but I don't think it's that big of a problem either.

Roy P · #40 02-25-2009, 12:11 PM

On the old site, I went through all of the Texans drafts and what I would have liked to have seen the Franchise do. The first thing was to draft Julius Peppers instead of David Carr, and there are rumors now that Pepper may be on the Christmas wish list. Anyway, going through it all, I ended up drafting 2 QBs for the Texans.....Matt Schaub and Ryan Fitzpatrick. Well, Schaub was brought in when the Carr experiment was through and now John McClain is saying Fitz along with Orlovsky and Grossman are the probables to take over for Sage. Oh, the irony.