2017 draft thread

[Texas Vike]

I definitely don't think it was a laughable move but honestly, I don't think it's absurd to question it either and I like Bradford. Teams paid a hefty price to move up and select QBs yesterday but the Vikings obviously wouldn't have been obligated to use the first round pick they traded for Bradford on a QB. They could have used it to address any position.

There's a lot to consider, including Bradford's uncertain future with the team. Did the Vikings give up first and fourth round picks so Bradford can be a two year "rental" for them at QB? In terms of team-building and resource allocation, how do we weigh a first round pick for 2 years of service at a very high salary against 4 years of potential service at a rookie salary with the option for a 5th year at a higher rate?

Eventually, we can factor in how Bradford performs, what happens with him after 2017, etc. but if he's not a Viking after 2 years, I'd consider it a debatable use of a first round pick.

In terms of R2 and R3: I'm just hoping for interior line and good decisions. I really hope they stay away from Mixon.

Who would be our QB, Jim? I think the essential fact that has to be considered about the SB trade is that the FO felt that they had the talent to compete for the SB, therefore we did not want to develop a young QB, which would almost inevitably be a 2-3 year process at best. SB solves that problem. Whom else could we have acquired at a better price that would provide the same talent level now, not possibly in three years?

Regarding the financial issue: I don't see him as a rental. I think he showed plenty of reasons to extend him last season. We need what he offers and he fits well with Shurmur.

You're against drafting Mixon, eh?

I'm not too excited about that prospect either. That punch... ugh. And yet, I so fully understand that self-control develops late; literally, the part of the brain associated with judgment does not fully develop until mid twenties. But still... that punch. I'd like a higher character guy.

[Mothman]

That's a pretty unlikely scenario, but sure, suppose he had an All Pro year for Philly. They could get him for a 1st or 2nd, or pursue Cousins/Garrapolo/McCarron if they like one of those players better long term, or draft a QB if they like one of those guys. Basically they'd have options. There's really no way to around the fact that the return on the 1st/4th round picks was used up last year.

There are too many variables to reliably say the Vikings could have simply waited and traded for Bradford after 2017 for a much lower price. At best, it was a potential scenario, a possibility.

The price they paid bought them Bradford for two years and the opportunity to keep him around longer than that if they decide to go in that direction.

[fiestavike]

Who do you most NOT want to see GB select with the first pick in the 2nd round?

[Texas Vike]

Who do you most NOT want to see GB select with the first pick in the 2nd round?

Good Q.

ON the one hand, Lamp, because I want him to somehow slide to us, however unlikely that is.

But as far as biggest impact that would help our arch rival? Dalvin Cook or Mixon.

[fiestavike]

Good Q.

ON the one hand, Lamp, because I want him to somehow slide to us, however unlikely that is.

But as far as biggest impact that would help our arch rival? Dalvin Cook or Mixon.

Lamp is my answer too. I'm kind of hoping they take a RB, and especially Mixon, so we don't have to deal with the controversy. Also, i think there are great RBs availabe later, so I see taking a RB in their spot is a bad value. The Bears and Lions have so far screwed the pooch pretty good. Trading up for Trubisky, and selecting a LB with terrible tackling technique doesn't send any shivers of fear up my spine.

[mansquatch]

There are too many variables to reliably say the Vikings could have simply waited and traded for Bradford after 2017 for a much lower price. At best, it was a potential scenario, a possibility.

The price they paid bought them Bradford for two years and the opportunity to keep him around longer than that if they decide to go in that direction.

Here is my view on the SB trade: He was basically our 1st round pick in the 2017 draft, similar to Jared Allen in 2008. There is an argument that we got a steal in this deal. Consider: A rookie QB is FAR from a guarantee to ever turn into anything in the NFL. Plus you have to spend 2-3 season to find out if that kid is going to be anything. So in addition to having less risk on the downside, we also gave up the 2-3 season learning curve. That is not insignificant.

The downside is we gave up the opportunity cost of whomever else we could have drafted with that pick and we gave up 2-3 years on a rookie QB contract where if the rookie had panned out we would have gotten competitive play on the cheap. So from a Cap perspective, the trade was more expensive. In addition potentially the ceiling on SB is lower than one of those rookie hopefuls. This last item is debatable IMO. SB is starting at age 29. Most QBs are backups or washed out of the league by their 6th season. So statistically speaking, SB is above average, at least in terms of the draft.

I think it was a good deal. We needed a QB and got a bona fide starter for a single first round pick.
Compare against the Bear's trade yesterday and we look like friggin geniuses. The pick that hurts is potentially losing out on TB after only three seasons due not to poor play, but a fluke injury. Such is the NFL though, that scenario is unpredictable, and something had to be done. As we saw earlier this week the Vikings have yet to pick up Teddy's 5th year option and there is no time table for his return. If they had not done the SB deal we'd be dealing for someone else are probably paying more to get them. We could be doing a lot worse than Sam Bradford right now and for what? A chance at some completely unproven prospect? We should be so lucky...

[Mothman]

[Who would be our QB, Jim?

I have no idea. That's obviously a problem they would have had to solve. My point was simply that there's room for people to reasonably disagree on whether trading those picks for Bradford was a good choice or not. I'm on the fence on this whole subject, especially because the Vikings long-term intent at the QB position is so unclear.

I think the essential fact that has to be considered about the SB trade is that the FO felt that they had the talent to compete for the SB, therefore we did not want to develop a young QB, which would almost inevitably be a 2-3 year process at best. SB solves that problem. Whom else could we have acquired at a better price that would provide the same talent level now, not possibly in three years?

I think your first sentence in that paragraph is an important consideration. Did the front office accurately assess the team's readiness to compete for the Super Bowl and if not, was the trade still justified? Was it wise? Those are probably questions best addressed in another thread.

Regarding the financial issue: I don't see him as a rental. I think he showed plenty of reasons to extend him last season. We need what he offers and he fits well with Shurmur.

I don't think it matters if we see him as a "rental" or not because if they choose to part ways with him after 2017, that's basically how it will play out. He will have been a "rental". If they don't part ways, the trade will turn out to be the first step in a long-term investment in a starting QB, which obviously puts it in a very different light. I'd rather see it play out that way, with Bradford continuing to improve his game and the Vikings improving the team around him. If it does, the trade could turn out to be an excellent investment.

You're against drafting Mixon, eh?

I'm not too excited about that prospect either. That punch... ugh. And yet, I so fully understand that self-control develops late; literally, the part of the brain associated with judgment does not fully develop until mid twenties. But still... that punch. I'd like a higher character guy.

Obviously, I would too.

I didn't know that about the development of the part of the brain associated with judgment! That's really interesting.

[fiestavike]

We could be doing a lot worse than Sam Bradford right now and for what? A chance at some completely unproven prospect? We should be so lucky...

I just don't understand the assumption that Bradford would be out of play if we hadn't traded for him last year. It doesn't follow. Plus 2018 currently has 3 young promising QBs with contracts set to expire. The Browns are playing things right by playing the long game. Meanwhile we fall into an all too familiar pattern for Vikings fans.

[autobon7]

I just don't understand the assumption that Bradford would be out of play if we hadn't traded for him last year. It doesn't follow. Plus 2018 currently has 3 young promising QBs with contracts set to expire. The Browns are playing things right by playing the long game. Meanwhile we fall into an all too familiar pattern for Vikings fans.

I understand what you are saying about the Browns but our rosters are at much different levels (of competitiveness) so that would be an apples to oranges for me. Especially considering the start of the 2016 season. I think Jim made a good point about the front office and if they felt they could make a super bowl run. They obviously felt that a run was possible hence the trade. The big question is......was their assessment accurate? Given the state of the OL I dunno. Consider that we were 5-0 at one point maybe validates that reasoning.

[Husker Vike]

My guess is that GB takes Lamp, they let Sitton go last year and lost TJ Lang so I would think O line would be priority ,but they also let Datone Jones walk and they are suspect on the D line also .

[fiestavike]

My guess is that GB takes Lamp, they let Sitton go last year and lost TJ Lang so I would think O line would be priority ,but they also let Datone Jones walk and they are suspect on the D line also .

CB and RB are also big needs for them. Could see them coming back for Feeney with their next pick if they pass on Lamp at 33. He would be a good fit for what they do.

[maplegrovevikings]

Any reason why we did not try and move into round 1? We had extra picks why not use them and get a 1st round pick.

[fiestavike]

Any reason why we did not try and move into round 1? We had extra picks why not use them and get a 1st round pick.

I read somewhere that they did try to move into round 1. No idea if that's true. If not, I suspect its because there is a lot of talent available in the span of their first 5 picks, and they didn't want to spend that capital to move up. If the cards fall right, they could get a lot of guys who can contribute this year with those picks.

[mansquatch]

There is also a view articulated by some scouting sources that says that the talent drop from mid first round through the 3rd round is not that great, therefore having more picks could be better.

[Texas Vike]

I didn't know that about the development of the part of the brain associated with judgment! That's really interesting.

The frontal lobes don't communicate efficiently with the rest of the brain until mid twenties.

When I think back to some of the decisions I made in late teens / early twenties, the science corresponds!

What we have discovered about the brain in the past 50 years is nothing short of astonishing. Lots to read in the field of neuroscience.