View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Thu Dec 14, 2017 4:59 am



Reply to topic  [ 664 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23  Next
 2017 draft thread 
Author Message
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37219
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
S197 wrote:
To arbitrarily take a tackle because it's round x doesn't make sense to me. The skill simply wasn't there. Every team more or less validated this by the historic lack of line selections


By that logic, if every team had validated that "the skill set simply wasn't there" to justify drafting a tackle, no tackles would have been selected. Instead, 14 or 15 went off the board so clearly, there were tackles teams considered worth drafting.

Quote:
Two in the first round, none in the first 20 picks. When has that ever happened? Never. 2 tackles in the first 5 picks is more commonplace. This seems to be glossed over by those upset with the draft.


Nobody is glossing over it. There's simply a big difference between a draft class not featuring enough talent at the top of the OT group to justify early first day picks and a draft not featuring any OTs worthy of being selected at all. The Vikings didn't have a first round pick anyway so I doubt any of the fans upset by their choice to pass on the OT position had expectations they would be drafting one in the upper 2/3 of round 1. A weak class at a position doesn't mean there aren't still players worth drafting at that position.

Quote:
I mean, read the report on a guy like Davenport, he's a really big project. I'd prefer to take positions where there are depth and skill over shallow positions just because.


Davenport was hardly the only tackle available. There were certainly some who could have provided better depth and good developmental upside behind Remmers and Reiff.


Sun Apr 30, 2017 5:20 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:52 am
Posts: 3488
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
S197 wrote:
To arbitrarily take a tackle because it's round x doesn't make sense to me.



I haven't seen anyone argue for that, exactly. I wrote that I was hoping to see at least a 3rd rounder go towards the position, but not "arbitrarily" (i.e. without regard for the quality of the prospect). I am no expert in evaluating OL talent, but my sense was that Siragusa or Davenport were quite a bit more promising than Aviante Collins. I've seen Collins play, he never stood out to me.

Most of all, I was hoping to see Rick put into action his great off season "epiphany," which he acquired by doing deep research, that OL prospects chosen higher in the draft have a higher likelihood of success. It seems he went to the mountain, meditated on the topic for months, had his EUREKA! moment and then promptly forgot about it once the draft came and reverted to his old ways like Pavlov's dogs.


Sun Apr 30, 2017 5:29 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37219
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
Texas Vike wrote:
I agree that they failed to adequately address our dearth of talent at the OT position. I felt fine with what we had done through our first three picks. From there, my satisfaction dipped considerably. Rick's penchant for trading seemed to overwhelm him, like a child amused by simple pleasures, and it resulted in a common gripe I've had for several years: an approach that favors quantity of players to quality. It reeks of a man who doesn't really know how to judge talent, IMO, so he covers up that inability by taking more shots, hoping to get lucky.


Perhaps it speaks to a man a little too enamored with the draft day process and the fun of wheeling and dealing. It may also indicate that he isn't clear enough on which particular players he wants throughout the draft, that he's targeting positions more than individuals as the draft progresses. He has a reputation for preparing thoroughly so I hope that's not the case but I would hope when the Vikes are sitting in the mid-rounds, there would still be multiple players on the board they have identified as good fits for their team, for their specific plans and philosophies. When they pass on the opportunity to select players by repeatedly trading down for more picks later in the draft, it makes me wonder if they've sufficiently identified those specific fits beyond the early rounds.

Quote:
I think Cook, Eiflein, and Jaleel Johnson will all contribute. I hope Bucky Hodges, and maybe one or two of the rest of the low level picks pan out. I'm unenthused, especially, by the LBs chosen. I really wish we'd have taken some of the OL talent that was available in the third instead of stockpiling low level talent. We also failed to bring in sufficient competition for the K and P positions, IMO. I'll be interested to see if one of the WRs sticks.


We'll see how it all works out. It could be a Vikings draft class full of gold. It's impossible to tell right now but I was feeling increasingly frustrated as the draft moved forward.


Sun Apr 30, 2017 5:31 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:40 am
Posts: 567
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
The bigger point of drafting a tackle is to give Clemmings roster spot to the next warm body. Nothing against the kid but he was a D lineman his whole career until his junior year(?) He is not NFL caliber period....much less the first tackle off the bench.
Beavers?... is he? I don't think so.
They signed at least 3 wideouts this draft, counting UDFAs.....and 1 tackle.
The big polish guy was drafted...right?
and the german unicorn guy?
Multiple picks for CP84 who walks for nothing.
robbing peter to pay paul comes to mind all too often...YMMV


Sun Apr 30, 2017 5:33 pm
Profile
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm
Posts: 6556
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
CbusVikesFan wrote:
Mothman wrote:
A brief take on each of the 11 players the Vikings drafted from Chris Tomasson of the Pioneer Press:

A look at the Vikings’ 2017 draft choices, all 11 of them

Very brief. :D
So, dede Westbrook was on the board when Johnson was drafted? I guess they thought that Johnson will have more of an impact for the Vikings. I might question that theory.

Johnson was thought to be late first round, early second until the combine, where he stunk up the joint.

On tape and in games, he's really good. Who knows why he was so bad at the combine? Maybe he didn't take his workouts seriously, which is not a good thing.

Hard to tell how he'll pan out. Given that they took him in the fourth, I'm not terribly upset with the choice.

_________________
Image
Go ahead. I dare you.
Underestimate this man.


Sun Apr 30, 2017 5:37 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37219
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
Nunin wrote:
The bigger point of drafting a tackle is to give Clemmings roster spot to the next warm body. Nothing against the kid but he was a D lineman his whole career until his junior year(?) He is not NFL caliber period....much less the first tackle off the bench.
Beavers?... is he? I don't think so.
They signed at least 3 wideouts this draft, counting UDFAs.....and 1 tackle.
The big polish guy was drafted...right?
and the german unicorn guy?
Multiple picks for CP84 who walks for nothing.
robbing peter to pay paul comes to mind all too often...YMMV



i think you're right on target. Spielman just repeatedly fails to learn from past mistakes.

Here are the Vikings tackles right now:

Riley Reiff
Mike Remmers
Austin Shepherd
T.J. Clemmings
Marquis Lucas
Willie Beavers
Rashad Hill
Reid Fragel
Aviante Collins

It's not an encouraging list.


Sun Apr 30, 2017 5:47 pm
Profile
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm
Posts: 6556
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
Mothman wrote:
Texas Vike wrote:
I agree that they failed to adequately address our dearth of talent at the OT position. I felt fine with what we had done through our first three picks. From there, my satisfaction dipped considerably. Rick's penchant for trading seemed to overwhelm him, like a child amused by simple pleasures, and it resulted in a common gripe I've had for several years: an approach that favors quantity of players to quality. It reeks of a man who doesn't really know how to judge talent, IMO, so he covers up that inability by taking more shots, hoping to get lucky.


Perhaps it speaks to a man a little too enamored with the draft day process and the fun of wheeling and dealing. It may also indicate that he isn't clear enough on which particular players he wants throughout the draft, that he's targeting positions more than individuals as the draft progresses. He has a reputation for preparing thoroughly so I hope that's not the case but I would hope when the Vikes are sitting in the mid-rounds, there would still be multiple players on the board they have identified as good fits for their team, for their specific plans and philosophies. When they pass on the opportunity to select players by repeatedly trading down for more picks later in the draft, it makes me wonder if they've sufficiently identified those specific fits beyond the early rounds.

Quote:
I think Cook, Eiflein, and Jaleel Johnson will all contribute. I hope Bucky Hodges, and maybe one or two of the rest of the low level picks pan out. I'm unenthused, especially, by the LBs chosen. I really wish we'd have taken some of the OL talent that was available in the third instead of stockpiling low level talent. We also failed to bring in sufficient competition for the K and P positions, IMO. I'll be interested to see if one of the WRs sticks.


We'll see how it all works out. It could be a Vikings draft class full of gold. It's impossible to tell right now but I was feeling increasingly frustrated as the draft moved forward.

Guys, hang on a minute.

Rick Spielman doesn't do this in a vacuum. It's not like Rick is locked in a room with a whiteboard, a coin to flip and a phone. The Vikings have lots of other coaches, scouts, and executives involved with this. If this draft turns out to be a failure for the Vikings, then the blame goes organization-wide, not just to Spielman. Of course, that's even more depressing.

Here's the irony for me. The Vikings turned one third-round pick into four later picks -- but I HATE the actual third-round pick they DID make. In essence, Ben Gedeon is Audie Cole -- a former 7th-round pick who has good instincts against the run but no speed and not strong in coverage. They're the same player, only Gedeon has never played a down in the NFL. What's the point of taking Gedeon in the 3rd? Why not just re-sign Cole?

I love our second-round picks. Cook is a first-round talent who I believe can end up being a Shady McCoy type of player, and Elflein could very well start from Day One. He was the best O-lineman on a very good OSU team.

Late-round picks? There's some value, I guess, especially with Hodges, but we've seen this "he's got so much talent" thing with Vikings tight end picks before, MyCole Pruitt being the latest. Hodges wants to be a legend.

Quote:
“I want to be great,’’ said Hodges, who had 48 catches last season for 691 yards. “I want to be a legend. I want to be a name that’s remembered forever in the NFL.’’
Link.

Prove it on the field, bud.

I don't hate the pick of Ifeadi Odenigbo. The guy was only a starter for half a season but had 25 career sacks. He's really raw -- only been playing football for six years -- and needs to add strength, but he can get after the QB. Dude made a mockery out of Iowa last year.

Opinions vary on the overall grade. It's about a B for me. Higher if you consider Sam Bradford's value, which is, in my opinion, higher than anybody the Vikings could have taken with a first-round pick. It's all luck, of course, but if you ask me, the Vikings couldn't have picked a better year to not have a first-round pick. YMMV.

EDIT: Crap! Gedeon was taken in the 4th round. Ugh!

Oh well. Still hate the pick.

_________________
Image
Go ahead. I dare you.
Underestimate this man.


Sun Apr 30, 2017 6:05 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 10:40 am
Posts: 796
Location: Detroit, MI
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
"Opinions vary on the overall grade. It's about a B for me. Higher if you consider Sam Bradford's value, which is, in my opinion, higher than anybody the Vikings could have taken with a first-round pick. It's all luck, of course, but if you ask me, the Vikings couldn't have picked a better year to not have a first-round pick. YMMV."

I agree.... Given the Vikings didn't have a 1st round pick, it was a pretty good draft. It could have been a lot worse.


Sun Apr 30, 2017 6:31 pm
Profile
Starting Wide Receiver
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:48 pm
Posts: 17787
Location: Crystal, MN
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
I am ok with a couple of the picks but to essentially trade into four 7th round picks is completely asinine. It's stupid. You will never win games relying on 7th round picks. Rick clearly has no idea what he is doing come draft day.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

_________________
The Devil whispered in the Viking's ear, "There's a storm coming." The Viking replied, "I am the storm." ‪#‎SKOL2016‬


Sun Apr 30, 2017 6:35 pm
Profile YIM WWW
Starter

Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 10:22 am
Posts: 190
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
I don't get the stockpiling of seventh round picks, passing up on more talent by trading farther and farther down. Reminds me of a fantasy football auction draft when an owner saves up money by not spending on the elite players and trying to get cute. In the end you have a garbage team you over-paid for and $60 left of salary.


Sun Apr 30, 2017 7:32 pm
Profile
Fenrir
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:28 pm
Posts: 10703
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
Mothman wrote:
By that logic, if every team had validated that "the skill set simply wasn't there" to justify drafting a tackle, no tackles would have been selected. Instead, 14 or 15 went off the board so clearly, there were tackles teams considered worth drafting.


Reductio ad absurdum. Obviously there are some good tackles in all of college football, that's not the logic nor the point. The point is the depth at the position was shallow. Unless you can show me some GM or scout glowing about the tackles in this draft, I'll let the board argue my point.

Quote:
Nobody is glossing over it. There's simply a big difference between a draft class not featuring enough talent at the top of the OT group to justify early first day picks and a draft not featuring any OTs worthy of being selected at all. The Vikings didn't have a first round pick anyway so I doubt any of the fans upset by their choice to pass on the OT position had expectations they would be drafting one in the upper 2/3 of round 1. A weak class at a position doesn't mean there aren't still players worth drafting at that position.


Actually you are. Here's Mayocks top 100, a total of six tackles. 6 out of 100 players. That's not lack of talent at the top, that's lack of talent.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000802568/article/mike-mayocks-2017-nfl-draft-top-100-prospect-rankings
Quote:

Davenport was hardly the only tackle available. There were certainly some who could have provided better depth and good developmental upside behind Remmers and Reiff.


Ok, if not Davenport then who? And at what pick?

Maybe we missed a great tackle, I'll be the first to admit I can't evaluate linemen. Clearly you must have someone in mind if you are so adamant.


Sun Apr 30, 2017 8:25 pm
Profile
Fenrir
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:28 pm
Posts: 10703
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
vatusay wrote:
I don't get the stockpiling of seventh round picks, passing up on more talent by trading farther and farther down. Reminds me of a fantasy football auction draft when an owner saves up money by not spending on the elite players and trying to get cute. In the end you have a garbage team you over-paid for and $60 left of salary.


There's a nice article in the draft section Raptorman just posted that has an interesting take.


Sun Apr 30, 2017 8:26 pm
Profile
Fenrir
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:28 pm
Posts: 10703
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
Texas Vike wrote:
S197 wrote:
To arbitrarily take a tackle because it's round x doesn't make sense to me.



I haven't seen anyone argue for that, exactly. I wrote that I was hoping to see at least a 3rd rounder go towards the position, but not "arbitrarily" (i.e. without regard for the quality of the prospect). I am no expert in evaluating OL talent, but my sense was that Siragusa or Davenport were quite a bit more promising than Aviante Collins. I've seen Collins play, he never stood out to me.

Most of all, I was hoping to see Rick put into action his great off season "epiphany," which he acquired by doing deep research, that OL prospects chosen higher in the draft have a higher likelihood of success. It seems he went to the mountain, meditated on the topic for months, had his EUREKA! moment and then promptly forgot about it once the draft came and reverted to his old ways like Pavlov's dogs.


Davenport was graded a 5.35. Collins was graded a 5.42.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2017/profiles/julien-davenport?id=2557963
http://www.nfl.com/draft/2017/profiles/aviante-collins?id=2558251

The bottom line says Davenport is a project and will need time. Similar to Collins. Neither seems like they would be ready to contribute this year.

Saragusa grades a little higher but struggles in pass protection.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2017/profiles/nico-siragusa?id=2557874

Spielman traded up for a top center. Isidore is a top 100 pick according to PFF. They also shelled out for 2 tackles in free agency as clearly the talent was thin in the draft. Look, I don't think Spielman is perfect but a lot of this does feel arbitrary because the complaints are backed up by very little (in general not specifically you).


Sun Apr 30, 2017 8:38 pm
Profile
Career Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 1:10 am
Posts: 2265
Location: Seattle, Wa
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
Cliff notes on the 21 pages, please. Specifically, where do we stand after the draft? Do we still suck? Is there promise? Should the Wilf's fire Spielman? Please advise...


Sun Apr 30, 2017 9:39 pm
Profile
Career Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:45 pm
Posts: 2746
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
2017 Consensus Big Board: The Consensus Grades Your Draft

Quote:
By assigning pick value to each rank and subtracting it from the actual value of the picks used to select players, we can create pretty good approximate grades that—while not accounting for positional need or scheme fit—give us a good idea who did the best job of acquiring value.

The biggest problem with this approach is that it hurts those with the number one overall pick, because the most valuable player they can get earns them zero points; all they can do is avoid value loss.


Quote:
The Vikings are perennial favorites with this method, going all the way back to 2014. They consistently place in the top three of these rankings and place first once again this year. They make almost all of this value with second-round selections, with headliners like Eric Kendricks, Mackensie Alexander and this year, Dalvin Cook.

In this case, the Vikings didn’t only do well because of that second-round pick. Out of 11 draft picks, the Vikings gained value on nine of them, only missing out with Ben Gedeon and Rodney Adams.

_________________
Joined: Aug 2006
Deleted: Sept 12 2014
Reborn: Sept 17 2014


Sun Apr 30, 2017 9:44 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4617
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
S197 wrote:
Spielman traded up for a top center. Isidore is a top 100 pick according to PFF. They also shelled out for 2 tackles in free agency as clearly the talent was thin in the draft. Look, I don't think Spielman is perfect but a lot of this does feel arbitrary because the complaints are backed up by very little (in general not specifically you).


Exactly. Well said!

_________________
Image


Sun Apr 30, 2017 10:17 pm
Profile
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 9:52 pm
Posts: 7974
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
Mothman wrote:
Nunin wrote:
The bigger point of drafting a tackle is to give Clemmings roster spot to the next warm body. Nothing against the kid but he was a D lineman his whole career until his junior year(?) He is not NFL caliber period....much less the first tackle off the bench.
Beavers?... is he? I don't think so.
They signed at least 3 wideouts this draft, counting UDFAs.....and 1 tackle.
The big polish guy was drafted...right?
and the german unicorn guy?
Multiple picks for CP84 who walks for nothing.
robbing peter to pay paul comes to mind all too often...YMMV



i think you're right on target. Spielman just repeatedly fails to learn from past mistakes.

Here are the Vikings tackles right now:

Riley Reiff
Mike Remmers
Austin Shepherd
T.J. Clemmings
Marquis Lucas
Willie Beavers
Rashad Hill
Reid Fragel
Aviante Collins

It's not an encouraging list.


Thats one of the most disappointing things ive ever seen on this board. Thank god, at least for me, im very happy with Cook, Elf, and and somewhat with Johnson. Bucky may work out, but I still like Morgan, dont know what he wasnt used more. But for all the late picks, I wish Rick had just trade them all for 1 good LB and punter.


Mon May 01, 2017 12:35 am
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37219
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
S197 wrote:
Mothman wrote:
By that logic, if every team had validated that "the skill set simply wasn't there" to justify drafting a tackle, no tackles would have been selected. Instead, 14 or 15 went off the board so clearly, there were tackles teams considered worth drafting.


Reductio ad absurdum. Obviously there are some good tackles in all of college football, that's not the logic nor the point. The point is the depth at the position was shallow. Unless you can show me some GM or scout glowing about the tackles in this draft, I'll let the board argue my point.

Quote:
Nobody is glossing over it. There's simply a big difference between a draft class not featuring enough talent at the top of the OT group to justify early first day picks and a draft not featuring any OTs worthy of being selected at all. The Vikings didn't have a first round pick anyway so I doubt any of the fans upset by their choice to pass on the OT position had expectations they would be drafting one in the upper 2/3 of round 1. A weak class at a position doesn't mean there aren't still players worth drafting at that position.


Actually you are. Here's Mayocks top 100, a total of six tackles. 6 out of 100 players. That's not lack of talent at the top, that's lack of talent.


Shallow isn't the equivalent of empty. If Mayock had 6 tackles in his top 100 players, the obvious conclusion to draw from that is he saw at least 6 tackles worthy of being drafted, not that the ""the skill set simply wasn't there" to justify drafting a tackle in 2017. 6 doesn't equal zero.

I think the people who have expressed frustration about this have a reasonable point that shouldn't be dismissed by rationalizing away the entire tackle class as unworthy of a Vikings draft pick.


Mon May 01, 2017 7:25 am
Profile
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 6:28 pm
Posts: 6601
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
HardcoreVikesFan wrote:
We didn't draft a single tackle. Pretty typical, I don't know why I am even surprised. Not a single safety? Who gives a #### about depth there I guess. No quarterback - which is the typical ignorance and arrogance I have come to expect from this organization.

We traded back and STILL failed to draft Brad Kaaya and Zane Gonzalez - both players who we were targeting heavily. :lol:

Best Picks: Jaleel Johnson, Bucky Hodges, Elijah Lee

Worst Picks: Ben Gedeon, Rodney Adams, Stacy Coley


Dude we have Kearse, Harris and Exum as safety depth. Plus Newman can play there. That's the definition of depth. But continue on.....



Ask and you shall receive.

One of our starters is still Andrew Sendejo. He played well last year, but there is no one on this board who would argue that he shouldn't be upgraded. Yet, the position wasn't even addressed in free agency and the draft.

Our back-ups: A former fifth round pick who hasn't been able to significantly contribute for the past three seasons due to injuries and ineffectiveness. An un-drafted free agent who took a step backward in his development last year. Finally, PURE speculation about a 38 year old corner who could 'theoretically' play safety effectively. As much as you want to harp on it, safety and corner are two different positions with different defensive responsibilities. Different nuances. It's like expecting a LG to slide over to RT and play at a high level immediately (it doesn't happen often).

I like Jayron, but he is one dude and a was a 7th rounder for a reason. He needs to take another big step forward this year. To expect him to play effectively if an injury occurs is risky thinking.

If you are fine with that depth, good for you. I am not. I don't see why this team likes to settle for 'good enough.' Why not strive to better than average?

_________________
A Randy Moss fan for life. A Kevin Williams fan for life.


Mon May 01, 2017 7:31 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:52 am
Posts: 3488
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
S197 wrote:
Texas Vike wrote:
S197 wrote:
To arbitrarily take a tackle because it's round x doesn't make sense to me.



I haven't seen anyone argue for that, exactly. I wrote that I was hoping to see at least a 3rd rounder go towards the position, but not "arbitrarily" (i.e. without regard for the quality of the prospect). I am no expert in evaluating OL talent, but my sense was that Siragusa or Davenport were quite a bit more promising than Aviante Collins. I've seen Collins play, he never stood out to me.

Most of all, I was hoping to see Rick put into action his great off season "epiphany," which he acquired by doing deep research, that OL prospects chosen higher in the draft have a higher likelihood of success. It seems he went to the mountain, meditated on the topic for months, had his EUREKA! moment and then promptly forgot about it once the draft came and reverted to his old ways like Pavlov's dogs.


Davenport was graded a 5.35. Collins was graded a 5.42.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2017/profiles/julien-davenport?id=2557963
http://www.nfl.com/draft/2017/profiles/aviante-collins?id=2558251

The bottom line says Davenport is a project and will need time. Similar to Collins. Neither seems like they would be ready to contribute this year.

Saragusa grades a little higher but struggles in pass protection.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2017/profiles/nico-siragusa?id=2557874


Good stuff. I can see your point. Mine was a more general one: I wanted to see Rick make OL a priority. I wanted him to show me that he'd learned that his pre-epiphany approach didn't work. Then, he just did it again. This offseason, we got this message:
Quote:
Spielman admits he has experienced a “much lower percentage” of success when drafting offensive linemen after the third round. Because of that, he’s been doing a lot of research, even issuing studies and evaluating analytics.

http://thevikingage.com/2017/02/24/minn ... e-lineman/
.... Only to turn around and trade away that 3rd for a lot of lower picks.

Now, I completely get your argument. If the talent that is available at that 3rd round pick is no better than what you could snag in the 6th or 7th, your best move is to do what the Ricker did. I'm fine with that, if the premise holds. I do suspect, however, that Rick just gets his jollies from making those trades.

S197 wrote:
Spielman traded up for a top center. Isidore is a top 100 pick according to PFF. They also shelled out for 2 tackles in free agency as clearly the talent was thin in the draft. Look, I don't think Spielman is perfect but a lot of this does feel arbitrary because the complaints are backed up by very little (in general not specifically you).


I praised him for the Elflein pick and I think it was a smart move to get some Tackles in FA. We STILL have a dearth of talent at the position, IMO.

Lastly, are you sure you don't think Spielman is perfect? Some of you guys defend him like he's your older brother. :lol: Maybe he comes from a huge family? (I'm kidding, in case it's not clear, and I'm enjoying the back and forth here).


Mon May 01, 2017 7:37 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4617
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
HardcoreVikesFan wrote:
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
HardcoreVikesFan wrote:
We didn't draft a single tackle. Pretty typical, I don't know why I am even surprised. Not a single safety? Who gives a #### about depth there I guess. No quarterback - which is the typical ignorance and arrogance I have come to expect from this organization.

We traded back and STILL failed to draft Brad Kaaya and Zane Gonzalez - both players who we were targeting heavily. :lol:

Best Picks: Jaleel Johnson, Bucky Hodges, Elijah Lee

Worst Picks: Ben Gedeon, Rodney Adams, Stacy Coley


Dude we have Kearse, Harris and Exum as safety depth. Plus Newman can play there. That's the definition of depth. But continue on.....



Ask and you shall receive.

One of our starters is still Andrew Sendejo. He played well last year, but there is no one on this board who would argue that he shouldn't be upgraded. Yet, the position wasn't even addressed in free agency and the draft.

Our back-ups: A former fifth round pick who hasn't been able to significantly contribute for the past three seasons due to injuries and ineffectiveness. An un-drafted free agent who took a step backward in his development last year. Finally, PURE speculation about a 38 year old corner who could 'theoretically' play safety effectively. As much as you want to harp on it, safety and corner are two different positions with different defensive responsibilities. Different nuances. It's like expecting a LG to slide over to RT and play at a high level immediately (it doesn't happen often).

I like Jayron, but he is one dude and a was a 7th rounder for a reason. He needs to take another big step forward this year. To expect him to play effectively if an injury occurs is risky thinking.

If you are fine with that depth, good for you. I am not. I don't see why this team likes to settle for 'good enough.' Why not strive to better than average?


Because you can only address so many positions. It's not that they're just settling for "good enough" players. It's just we felt more comfortable going with other positions and felt like there was a stronger need there. And don't forget, Tocho (our 7th round pick) might end up playing safety. So you could technically say we did draft one or at least a guy that can play that position. I would say just about every position we drafted was a bigger need than safety. So you can't really blame them

_________________
Image


Mon May 01, 2017 7:45 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:52 am
Posts: 3488
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
S197 wrote:
Davenport was graded a 5.35. Collins was graded a 5.42.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2017/profiles/julien-davenport?id=2557963
http://www.nfl.com/draft/2017/profiles/aviante-collins?id=2558251

The bottom line says Davenport is a project and will need time. Similar to Collins. Neither seems like they would be ready to contribute this year.



Funny thing about this website: Why is Collins' grade higher, but his projected draft round is lower? I guess their editor had the day off. :mrgreen:


Mon May 01, 2017 7:46 am
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37219
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
808vikingsfan wrote:
2017 Consensus Big Board: The Consensus Grades Your Draft

Quote:
By assigning pick value to each rank and subtracting it from the actual value of the picks used to select players, we can create pretty good approximate grades that—while not accounting for positional need or scheme fit—give us a good idea who did the best job of acquiring value.


Unfortunately, fit and positional need are major considerations.


Mon May 01, 2017 8:45 am
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37219
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
Texas Vike wrote:
S197 wrote:
Davenport was graded a 5.35. Collins was graded a 5.42.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2017/profiles/julien-davenport?id=2557963
http://www.nfl.com/draft/2017/profiles/aviante-collins?id=2558251

The bottom line says Davenport is a project and will need time. Similar to Collins. Neither seems like they would be ready to contribute this year.



Funny thing about this website: Why is Collins' grade higher, but his projected draft round is lower? I guess their editor had the day off. :mrgreen:


Is there something they describe in their evaluations of the two players that might account for the difference?


Mon May 01, 2017 8:47 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:52 am
Posts: 3488
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
Mothman wrote:
Texas Vike wrote:
S197 wrote:
Davenport was graded a 5.35. Collins was graded a 5.42.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2017/profiles/julien-davenport?id=2557963
http://www.nfl.com/draft/2017/profiles/aviante-collins?id=2558251

The bottom line says Davenport is a project and will need time. Similar to Collins. Neither seems like they would be ready to contribute this year.



Funny thing about this website: Why is Collins' grade higher, but his projected draft round is lower? I guess their editor had the day off. :mrgreen:


Is there something they describe in their evaluations of the two players that might account for the difference?


Could be that Davenport has more upside due to a better NFL frame, but I would expect the grade and projected round to be in synch. Perhaps the grade reflects sheer talent level, whereas projected round is their estimate of how NFL teams will value the prospect. whether that's giving them too much credit or not is up to everyone to decide. :)


Mon May 01, 2017 9:59 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4617
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
The more I think about it, I absolutely love the Cook pick. But I almost think I like the Elflein and Johnson picks even more if that's even possible. I think Spielman's first 3 picks were exceptional.

Gedeon reminds me of Greenway. Just a tough, well rounded football player.
Isidora is a solid 5th round talent.
We added WR depth and KR potential in BOTH Smith and Coley.
Hodges is a steal in the 6th.
Didnt know much about the kid from Northwestern. Analysts seemed to have liked the pick
Shocked Lee lasted until the 7th. Another steal IMO
Tocho is a decent pick that adds versatility.

I really dont care that Spielman traded down a lot. Dont forget, we traded up twice and lost picks. Then he turned around and traded back to give us more picks back. He did his trading back mostly in the later rounds and those rounds are a crapshoot. I would much rather have 11 drafted rookies on this roster than 6. It adds depth along the entire roster by doing what he did AND increases our chances of hitting on more players because we drafted more players

_________________
Image


Mon May 01, 2017 11:38 am
Profile
Career Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:45 pm
Posts: 2746
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
Quote:
Chris Tomasson‏
@christomasson

I'm hearing the #Vikings are planning to look at Jack Tocho, a 7th-round pick, as a safety. He played cornerback at North Carolina State.

_________________
Joined: Aug 2006
Deleted: Sept 12 2014
Reborn: Sept 17 2014


Mon May 01, 2017 1:57 pm
Profile
Fenrir
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:28 pm
Posts: 10703
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
Mothman wrote:
S197 wrote:
Mothman wrote:
By that logic, if every team had validated that "the skill set simply wasn't there" to justify drafting a tackle, no tackles would have been selected. Instead, 14 or 15 went off the board so clearly, there were tackles teams considered worth drafting.


Reductio ad absurdum. Obviously there are some good tackles in all of college football, that's not the logic nor the point. The point is the depth at the position was shallow. Unless you can show me some GM or scout glowing about the tackles in this draft, I'll let the board argue my point.

Quote:
Nobody is glossing over it. There's simply a big difference between a draft class not featuring enough talent at the top of the OT group to justify early first day picks and a draft not featuring any OTs worthy of being selected at all. The Vikings didn't have a first round pick anyway so I doubt any of the fans upset by their choice to pass on the OT position had expectations they would be drafting one in the upper 2/3 of round 1. A weak class at a position doesn't mean there aren't still players worth drafting at that position.


Actually you are. Here's Mayocks top 100, a total of six tackles. 6 out of 100 players. That's not lack of talent at the top, that's lack of talent.


Shallow isn't the equivalent of empty. If Mayock had 6 tackles in his top 100 players, the obvious conclusion to draw from that is he saw at least 6 tackles worthy of being drafted, not that the ""the skill set simply wasn't there" to justify drafting a tackle in 2017. 6 doesn't equal zero.

I think the people who have expressed frustration about this have a reasonable point that shouldn't be dismissed by rationalizing away the entire tackle class as unworthy of a Vikings draft pick.


No, but shallow is a strong reason why you may not want to take a T. The Vikings spent the majority of their free agency AND high draft picks on the line. Yet people are still complaining. And when I ask why, I don't get any real support for their argument other than, "just because."

I'll ask again (to everyone), who did we miss out on? At what point in the draft? I mean, does it matter that Collins was taken as an UDFA vs say, in the 5th? If people are so adamant Rick is stuck in his ways then is it too much to ask for some substance to substantiate that? 808vikingsfan has posted numerous grades on the draft that indicate the Vikings did rather well. SBNation, in fact, gave the Vikings their only A grade (next was A-). Yes, this is all on paper in April but that's what we're discussing.

Counterpoints spark dialogue and discussion. Without that substance, it seems like arbitrary complaining.


Mon May 01, 2017 2:26 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:52 am
Posts: 3488
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
S197 wrote:

I'll ask again (to everyone), who did we miss out on? At what point in the draft? I mean, does it matter that Collins was taken as an UDFA vs say, in the 5th? If people are so adamant Rick is stuck in his ways then is it too much to ask for some substance to substantiate that? 808vikingsfan has posted numerous grades on the draft that indicate the Vikings did rather well. SBNation, in fact, gave the Vikings their only A grade (next was A-). Yes, this is all on paper in April but that's what we're discussing.

Counterpoints spark dialogue and discussion. Without that substance, it seems like arbitrary complaining.


Instead of Gedeon, give me Siragusa.

Instead of years of neglect, give me a steady and real investment in the OL. (Most importantly).


Mon May 01, 2017 2:58 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37219
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
S197 wrote:
No, but shallow is a strong reason why you may not want to take a T.


It's certainly a limiting factor.

Quote:
The Vikings spent the majority of their free agency AND high draft picks on the line.

Yet people are still complaining. And when I ask why, I don't get any real support for their argument other than, "just because."

I'll ask again (to everyone), who did we miss out on? At what point in the draft? I mean, does it matter that Collins was taken as an UDFA vs say, in the 5th? If people are so adamant Rick is stuck in his ways then is it too much to ask for some substance to substantiate that? 808vikingsfan has posted numerous grades on the draft that indicate the Vikings did rather well. SBNation, in fact, gave the Vikings their only A grade (next was A-). Yes, this is all on paper in April but that's what we're discussing.

Counterpoints spark dialogue and discussion. Without that substance, it seems like arbitrary complaining.


I don't think it's necessary for people to provide a specific name, trade proposition, etc. and there's no mystery as to why people wanted the Vikes to draft a tackle. TexasVike has already made the basic point clearly and succinctly in this thread: Rick Spielman did some research this offseason and came to the (rather obvious) conclusion that OL prospects chosen higher in the draft have a higher likelihood of success. When you combine that with the team's clear need to improve their depth at tackle it's easy to see why some people thought they needed to invest in the position early, especially because it wasn't a deep draft at tackle so the best prospects were likely to go off the board relatively quickly once they started being selected.

Spielman drafted a lineman higher than he's drafted any lineman other than Loadholt and Kalil so just by spending a third round pick on Elflein, he followed through on the results of his research to some extent. I think it's reasonable for people to think he should have followed through more aggressively by drafting a tackle in R2 and I also think it's reasonable to disagree with that idea. It certainly seems understandable for people to think the Vikes should have drafted a tackle somewhere in this draft.

The names of the potential tackles who were available within range of the Vikings in the early rounds are easy enough to find so in terms of drafting a tackle in the first 3 rounds, we all know who we're talking about: Ramczyk, Robinson, Lamp, Moton...

Roderick Johnson was available in R5 and he could have been a nice addition.


Mon May 01, 2017 3:10 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 664 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.