View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Oct 16, 2017 4:46 pm



Reply to topic  [ 664 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23  Next
 2017 draft thread 
Author Message
All Pro Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:38 pm
Posts: 1536
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
Texas Vike wrote:
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).


If the Pats wouldn't have trade up to 85 we would have had Garica at 86. So they was going to try and pick up a tackle.
It just didn't work out.


Mon May 01, 2017 6:21 pm
Profile
Fenrir
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:28 pm
Posts: 10486
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
Mothman wrote:
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.


I'm not sure they could have landed Ramczyk, Robinson, or Lamp although there was talk they were trying to move up for Lamp. The other thing to consider is guys like Lamp and Moton have been projected at guard by some at the next level. The next OT taken after the Vikings was 44 picks later so it could have been a case that there wasn't value in the 2nd where they were.

One could make a case that a David Sharpe or Zach Banner could have been grabbed in lieu of a pick like Gedeon although both scouting reports indicate they may lack the athleticism to play LT.

Personally, I'm more bummed they didn't take a QB since I think they did have a shot at a pretty good value pick there or another S since it was a deep class. Hopefully Rick's #8 birdshot draft will land a couple of hits.


Mon May 01, 2017 6:29 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
S197 wrote:
I'm not sure they could have landed Ramczyk, Robinson, or Lamp although there was talk they were trying to move up for Lamp. The other thing to consider is guys like Lamp and Moton have been projected at guard by some at the next level. The next OT taken after the Vikings was 44 picks later so it could have been a case that there wasn't value in the 2nd where they were.


All of that's possible and I'm not looking to litigate a case against Spielman here. My point all along was that I understand the frustration being expressed and there were tackles available within range of the Vikings. They've moved up into similar spots to draft players before and they were obviously willing to trade up to get players this year. Perhaps they didn't feel any of these tackles were worth such a move or perhaps they just couldn't pull off a trade up.

Quote:
One could make a case that a David Sharpe or Zach Banner could have been grabbed in lieu of a pick like Gedeon although both scouting reports indicate they may lack the athleticism to play LT.


Yes, they could use better depth at RT too.

Quote:
Personally, I'm more bummed they didn't take a QB since I think they did have a shot at a pretty good value pick there or another S since it was a deep class. Hopefully Rick's #8 birdshot draft will land a couple of hits.


I hope so. There's some good potential there.


Mon May 01, 2017 6:40 pm
Profile
Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 11:35 pm
Posts: 230
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
I heard Pat Kirwan today on Sirius tell a disgruntled caller that you can't fix all of your teams problems through the draft, I believe he is right.


Mon May 01, 2017 7:58 pm
Profile
Strong Safety
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:05 am
Posts: 11318
Location: California
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
I was hoping for QB to grow but other than that I think our draft was great.

_________________
no one expects the Spanish Inquisition!


Mon May 01, 2017 8:48 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4377
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
808vikingsfan wrote:
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.


Yes I mentioned this earlier. That's why I don't know why so many guys were upset we didnt draft a safety.

_________________
Image


Mon May 01, 2017 10:18 pm
Profile
Practice Squad
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 4:35 pm
Posts: 25
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
jackal wrote:
I was hoping for QB to grow but other than that I think our draft was great.


Just a theory here but do you guys think maybe they feel next year's QB class is going to be better than this year? If that's the case maybe they're thinking they can see how things shake out with Teddy this year and draft a QB to develop behind Bradford next year. I know they Signed Wes Lunt as an UDFA. He went to Oklahoma State before transferring to Illinois. I'm not sure how much of a shot he has but as an Ok State alum I'm rooting for the kid.


Tue May 02, 2017 12:04 pm
Profile
Career Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:45 pm
Posts: 2266
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
808vikingsfan wrote:
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.


Yes I mentioned this earlier. That's why I don't know why so many guys were upset we didnt draft a safety.



Missed that. Thanks.

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


Tue May 02, 2017 1:47 pm
Profile
Career Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 1:10 am
Posts: 2220
Location: Seattle, Wa
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
PacificNorseWest wrote:
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...


Read the last two pages...Now, I know why no one responded. Same 'ol ####, different day.

The draft is about value and there was none of that for the Vikings in the 2nd round in regards to offensive linemen. It's a theme across the board, fellas and Minnesota actually made out better than most. College just isn't developing the players people insist on. Dalvin Cook will help mask their issues on the offensive front. Great pick.

I think Spielman executed the draft very well. If you only draft for need, you get burned...Value, value, value. The Vikings will be just fine.


Tue May 02, 2017 9:19 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
PacificNorseWest wrote:
PacificNorseWest wrote:
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...


Read the last two pages...Now, I know why no one responded. Same 'ol ####, different day.

The draft is about value and there was none of that for the Vikings in the 2nd round in regards to offensive linemen. It's a theme across the board, fellas and Minnesota actually made out better than most. College just isn't developing the players people insist on. Dalvin Cook will help mask their issues on the offensive front. Great pick.

I think Spielman executed the draft very well. If you only draft for need, you get burned...Value, value, value. The Vikings will be just fine.


I don't think anybody said they should only draft for need but if a team doesn't address needs in the draft they can get burned too because that neglect can lead to serious problems. They were trying to address a perceived need with the Cook pick anyway.

Reasonable people should be able to disagree about whether or not the Vikings should have drafted a tackle in the first 2 rounds. I think there are legitimate arguments for and against the idea. However, variations on the same basic theme keep coming up implying offensive linemen simply aren't worth drafting early anymore because they aren't safe picks, aren't "plug and play" starters or, as you put it above, because "college just isn't developing the players people insist on". None of those variations strike me as a convincing argument against drafting linemen early. Teams still need them and the OL players of the future are still going to come from the college ranks. If they need more development time than they used to need, that's simply a new reality and teams will have to adjust.

Logically, if the talent pool is getting thinner that seems like an argument for drafting tackles in the earlier rounds when the best talent is still available. If players need more development time, that seems like an argument to draft them and get that process started while there are still qualified starters in place, to be proactive rather than reactive (ie: only drafting them when the need becomes overwhelming).


Tue May 02, 2017 9:45 pm
Profile
Commissioner
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Posts: 23052
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
Mothman wrote:
PacificNorseWest wrote:
PacificNorseWest wrote:
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...


Read the last two pages...Now, I know why no one responded. Same 'ol ####, different day.

The draft is about value and there was none of that for the Vikings in the 2nd round in regards to offensive linemen. It's a theme across the board, fellas and Minnesota actually made out better than most. College just isn't developing the players people insist on. Dalvin Cook will help mask their issues on the offensive front. Great pick.

I think Spielman executed the draft very well. If you only draft for need, you get burned...Value, value, value. The Vikings will be just fine.


I don't think anybody said they should only draft for need but if a team doesn't address needs in the draft they can get burned too because that neglect can lead to serious problems. They were trying to address a perceived need with the Cook pick anyway.

Reasonable people should be able to disagree about whether or not the Vikings should have drafted a tackle in the first 2 rounds. I think there are legitimate arguments for and against the idea. However, variations on the same basic theme keep coming up implying offensive linemen simply aren't worth drafting early anymore because they aren't safe picks, aren't "plug and play" starters or, as you put it above, because "college just isn't developing the players people insist on". None of those variations strike me as a convincing argument against drafting linemen early. Teams still need them and the OL players of the future are still going to come from the college ranks. If they need more development time than they used to need, that's simply a new reality and teams will have to adjust.

Logically, if the talent pool is getting thinner that seems like an argument for drafting tackles in the earlier rounds when the best talent is still available. If players need more development time, that seems like an argument to draft them and get that process started while there are still qualified starters in place, to be proactive rather than reactive (ie: only drafting them when the need becomes overwhelming).


The counterargument here is that if, say, a position (OT) was already one of historic weakness (It was the lowest number of offensive linemen taken in the first round since 1965), then the talent (which was already starting out diluted) would naturally be even further diluted in the later rounds. If you're looking to select the BPA, it may not have been particularly close for the Vikings when they got to rounds 3-4. In fact, I'll be pretty surprised if there are multiple offensive tackles selected in rounds 4+ from this class that are around (and productive) in 5 years. When you look back, while guys like Gedon may not be the cream of the crop, I'm guessing they'll be more productive/lasting than the OT group. But we'll have to wait and see. Maybe Isidora will be one of the few that makes it. I hope so.

_________________
“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that.” --- Bill Shankly


Wed May 03, 2017 6:19 am
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
dead_poet wrote:
The counterargument here is that if, say, a position (OT) was already one of historic weakness (It was the lowest number of offensive linemen taken in the first round since 1965), then the talent (which was already starting out diluted) would naturally be even further diluted in the later rounds.


Exactly. If the talent was already diluted, then it made sense to target a tackle in the earlier rounds of the draft if a team was going to target one at all. That's the same point I made above.

They obviously chose not to target a tackle at all. :)

Quote:
If you're looking to select the BPA, it may not have been particularly close for the Vikings when they got to rounds 3-4.


Perhaps not, although very little about the way they conducted this past draft suggests to me that getting the best player available to them was the Vikings top priority.

Quote:
In fact, I'll be pretty surprised if there are multiple offensive tackles selected in rounds 4+ from this class that are around (and productive) in 5 years. When you look back, while guys like Gedon may not be the cream of the crop, I'm guessing they'll be more productive/lasting than the OT group. But we'll have to wait and see. Maybe Isidora will be one of the few that makes it. I hope so.


I hope so too, although he's a guard, not an OT.

I have to say, I don't have high hopes for Gedeon at all. He strikes me as a player headed straight for a nice, lucrative NFL career as a special teams player and bottom of the depth chart LB.


Wed May 03, 2017 6:45 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:52 am
Posts: 3432
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
Mothman wrote:
Reasonable people should be able to disagree about whether or not the Vikings should have drafted a tackle in the first 2 rounds. I think there are legitimate arguments for and against the idea.



Well said, Jim, I agree whole heartedly. This board has so many virtues, one of which is really well-informed, intelligent posters. One thing that sometimes brings the level down a bit, in my estimation, is when we get polarized into opposing camps without listening and considering what the other side says.


Wed May 03, 2017 7:33 am
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
Texas Vike wrote:
Mothman wrote:
Reasonable people should be able to disagree about whether or not the Vikings should have drafted a tackle in the first 2 rounds. I think there are legitimate arguments for and against the idea.



Well said, Jim, I agree whole heartedly. This board has so many virtues, one of which is really well-informed, intelligent posters. One thing that sometimes brings the level down a bit, in my estimation, is when we get polarized into opposing camps without listening and considering what the other side says.


I agree. It becomes very difficult to convey any nuanced point of view in that environment. When the discussion gets too polarized, it tends to be destructive.

In the case of the draft, I would hope everyone can understand that when some fans say they would have preferred to see a different player or position chosen, that's not automatically a condemnation of the choice that was made or the player that was actually picked. It's possible for a fan to think the team chose a good player but still wish they would have chosen a different player, used a different strategy, etc.


Wed May 03, 2017 8:01 am
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:40 am
Posts: 567
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
Draft time is nutso and draft threads are the funnest ones to ge back and read from years past.
It would be funny to make a thread composed of memorable quotes from past draft threads.


Wed May 03, 2017 8:55 am
Profile
Fenrir
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:28 pm
Posts: 10486
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
dead_poet wrote:
The counterargument here is that if, say, a position (OT) was already one of historic weakness (It was the lowest number of offensive linemen taken in the first round since 1965), then the talent (which was already starting out diluted) would naturally be even further diluted in the later rounds. If you're looking to select the BPA, it may not have been particularly close for the Vikings when they got to rounds 3-4. In fact, I'll be pretty surprised if there are multiple offensive tackles selected in rounds 4+ from this class that are around (and productive) in 5 years. When you look back, while guys like Gedon may not be the cream of the crop, I'm guessing they'll be more productive/lasting than the OT group. But we'll have to wait and see. Maybe Isidora will be one of the few that makes it. I hope so.


I think this is further reinforced by the fact that a tackle did not get taken until 44 picks after the Vikings. That's well over a round, so I think it would be a fair assessment to say most NFL teams did not see value at the tackle position in mid round 2 through 3. Or round 1 for that matter based on history, i.e. the 1965 stat.


Wed May 03, 2017 2:21 pm
Profile
Fenrir
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:28 pm
Posts: 10486
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
Another interesting dynamic in this draft was the trend of taking DB's early and often. It may have been a deep class, identification of changing times, or a little of both. New England always seemed to be ahead of the curve in this respect, as an example looking for athletic TE's to run their 2 TE sets (Gronk & Hernandez for instance) before most teams identified the benefits.

If you look at the Vikings, they've been doing this with early picks in Rhodes, Smith, Waynes, and Alexander. I don't know if they picked up on a shift in the NFL placing a bigger need on DB's and thus put themselves ahead of the curve but it would nice if they did. Not saying the Vikings are trailblazers like the Pats but seeing all those DB's come off the board and knowing we are more or less set in that area was pretty nice. This dynamic allowed them to go in a different direction with guys like Cook and Elflein.


Wed May 03, 2017 2:28 pm
Profile
Commissioner
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Posts: 23052
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
S197 wrote:
dead_poet wrote:
The counterargument here is that if, say, a position (OT) was already one of historic weakness (It was the lowest number of offensive linemen taken in the first round since 1965), then the talent (which was already starting out diluted) would naturally be even further diluted in the later rounds. If you're looking to select the BPA, it may not have been particularly close for the Vikings when they got to rounds 3-4. In fact, I'll be pretty surprised if there are multiple offensive tackles selected in rounds 4+ from this class that are around (and productive) in 5 years. When you look back, while guys like Gedon may not be the cream of the crop, I'm guessing they'll be more productive/lasting than the OT group. But we'll have to wait and see. Maybe Isidora will be one of the few that makes it. I hope so.


I think this is further reinforced by the fact that a tackle did not get taken until 44 picks after the Vikings. That's well over a round, so I think it would be a fair assessment to say most NFL teams did not see value at the tackle position in mid round 2 through 3. Or round 1 for that matter based on history, i.e. the 1965 stat.


Exactly.

_________________
“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that.” --- Bill Shankly


Wed May 03, 2017 2:38 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
dead_poet wrote:
S197 wrote:
dead_poet wrote:
The counterargument here is that if, say, a position (OT) was already one of historic weakness (It was the lowest number of offensive linemen taken in the first round since 1965), then the talent (which was already starting out diluted) would naturally be even further diluted in the later rounds. If you're looking to select the BPA, it may not have been particularly close for the Vikings when they got to rounds 3-4. In fact, I'll be pretty surprised if there are multiple offensive tackles selected in rounds 4+ from this class that are around (and productive) in 5 years. When you look back, while guys like Gedon may not be the cream of the crop, I'm guessing they'll be more productive/lasting than the OT group. But we'll have to wait and see. Maybe Isidora will be one of the few that makes it. I hope so.


I think this is further reinforced by the fact that a tackle did not get taken until 44 picks after the Vikings. That's well over a round, so I think it would be a fair assessment to say most NFL teams did not see value at the tackle position in mid round 2 through 3. Or round 1 for that matter based on history, i.e. the 1965 stat.


Exactly.


:confused:

Value is qualitative, not quantitative so I'm a little confused here. Obviously most NFL teams didn't draft a tackle in R1 but there were clearly 3 or 4 teams (depending on if you see Lamp as a guard, a tackle or both) who saw value at the position between pick #20 and pick #38, when there was a short "run" on big o-linemen.

I agree the 44 pick stretch after the Vikes drafted Cook speaks to how value at the position was perceived at that point in the draft but if teams didn't see value in Bolles, Ramczyk, Robinson and Lamp, why were they drafted in that #20-#38 range?


Wed May 03, 2017 2:55 pm
Profile
Commissioner
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Posts: 23052
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
Mothman wrote:

Value is qualitative, not quantitative so I'm a little confused here. Obviously most NFL teams didn't draft a tackle in R1 but there were clearly 3 or 4 teams (depending on if you see Lamp as a guard, a tackle or both) who saw value at the position between pick #20 and pick #38, when there was a short "run" on big o-linemen.

I agree the 44 pick stretch after the Vikes drafted Cook speaks to how value at the position was perceived at that point in the draft but if teams didn't see value in Bolles, Ramczyk, Robinson and Lamp, why were they drafted in that #20-#38 range?


I look at it like this: If, for example, the Vikings had Cook #1 or #2 on their board (in a strong RB class) with a player/position grade of 86 (out of 100). Lamp could've been, conceivably, #1-#4 in either position group (of weakness), with a player/position grade, though, of 78. If they felt Cook was more of a "blue chip", it makes sense why they would trade up for him if they felt he was a better overall player by enough, even if the "need" at RB may have been a bit less than OT/G.

I also look at it through the lens that I'm not as upset they didn't take a tackle in such a weak class. I was upset when they didn't take a G/C in a strong G/C class in 2015. 2018's OT class is poised to be strong. I'll equally be as upset if they don't take a premiere tackle in the first two rounds next year. Just my perspective.

_________________
“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that.” --- Bill Shankly


Wed May 03, 2017 6:53 pm
Profile
Commissioner
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Posts: 23052
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
Coley is fast

https://twitter.com/Carmered/status/859072983024848896

_________________
“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that.” --- Bill Shankly


Wed May 03, 2017 9:32 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
dead_poet wrote:
I look at it like this: If, for example, the Vikings had Cook #1 or #2 on their board (in a strong RB class) with a player/position grade of 86 (out of 100). Lamp could've been, conceivably, #1-#4 in either position group (of weakness), with a player/position grade, though, of 78. If they felt Cook was more of a "blue chip", it makes sense why they would trade up for him if they felt he was a better overall player by enough, even if the "need" at RB may have been a bit less than OT/G.

I also look at it through the lens that I'm not as upset they didn't take a tackle in such a weak class. I was upset when they didn't take a G/C in a strong G/C class in 2015. 2018's OT class is poised to be strong. I'll equally be as upset if they don't take a premiere tackle in the first two rounds next year. Just my perspective.


I understand. I'm just looking at it from a more generalized point of view. I can easily see how the Vikes thought process could have led them to the choice(s) they made.


Thu May 04, 2017 8:25 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4377
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
dead_poet wrote:
Mothman wrote:

Value is qualitative, not quantitative so I'm a little confused here. Obviously most NFL teams didn't draft a tackle in R1 but there were clearly 3 or 4 teams (depending on if you see Lamp as a guard, a tackle or both) who saw value at the position between pick #20 and pick #38, when there was a short "run" on big o-linemen.

I agree the 44 pick stretch after the Vikes drafted Cook speaks to how value at the position was perceived at that point in the draft but if teams didn't see value in Bolles, Ramczyk, Robinson and Lamp, why were they drafted in that #20-#38 range?


I look at it like this: If, for example, the Vikings had Cook #1 or #2 on their board (in a strong RB class) with a player/position grade of 86 (out of 100). Lamp could've been, conceivably, #1-#4 in either position group (of weakness), with a player/position grade, though, of 78. If they felt Cook was more of a "blue chip", it makes sense why they would trade up for him if they felt he was a better overall player by enough, even if the "need" at RB may have been a bit less than OT/G.

I also look at it through the lens that I'm not as upset they didn't take a tackle in such a weak class. I was upset when they didn't take a G/C in a strong G/C class in 2015. 2018's OT class is poised to be strong. I'll equally be as upset if they don't take a premiere tackle in the first two rounds next year. Just my perspective.


Good post. I agree. Also, is the difference between Pat Elflein and Forrest Lamp THAT much different?? Not from what I have seen on tape. They are actually quite similar mechanically and physicality wise.

Next question: Is there a difference between Dalvin Cook and a guy like Kareem Hunt?? Yes very much so. So it comes down to, would you rather have a combo of Lamp/Hunt or Cook/Elflein? I take the latter any day of the week

_________________
Image


Thu May 04, 2017 10:52 am
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
Good post. I agree. Also, is the difference between Pat Elflein and Forrest Lamp THAT much different?? Not from what I have seen on tape. They are actually quite similar mechanically and physicality wise.

Next question: Is there a difference between Dalvin Cook and a guy like Kareem Hunt?? Yes very much so. So it comes down to, would you rather have a combo of Lamp/Hunt or Cook/Elflein? I take the latter any day of the week


How about Lamp/Elflein or Robinson/Elflein or maybe Ramczyk/Elflein/Perine? :) That might have been nice if they could have pulled it off!


Thu May 04, 2017 11:18 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4377
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
Mothman wrote:
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
Good post. I agree. Also, is the difference between Pat Elflein and Forrest Lamp THAT much different?? Not from what I have seen on tape. They are actually quite similar mechanically and physicality wise.

Next question: Is there a difference between Dalvin Cook and a guy like Kareem Hunt?? Yes very much so. So it comes down to, would you rather have a combo of Lamp/Hunt or Cook/Elflein? I take the latter any day of the week


How about Lamp/Elflein or Robinson/Elflein or maybe Ramczyk/Elflein/Perine? :) That might have been nice if they could have pulled it off!


I was never a fan of Robinson. I would've loved the 3rd option. Either way, we would've had to give up a ton to pull option 1 or option 3 off.

_________________
Image


Thu May 04, 2017 12:09 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:52 am
Posts: 3432
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
halfgiz wrote:
Texas Vike wrote:
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).


If the Pats wouldn't have trade up to 85 we would have had Garica at 86. So they was going to try and pick up a tackle.
It just didn't work out.


Actually, I am almost 100% certain that we traded out of 86 way ahead of the Pats' pick. At least, I remember seeing it appear on NFLN's tracker at least 7 picks before.


Thu May 04, 2017 1:04 pm
Profile
Career Elite Player

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 12:57 pm
Posts: 2460
Location: Melbourne,Fl
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
Texas Vike wrote:

Actually, I am almost 100% certain that we traded out of 86 way ahead of the Pats' pick. At least, I remember seeing it appear on NFLN's tracker at least 7 picks before.


It's impossible to know, they were so far behind on announcing the picks that night. They were openly admitting it on air they were off track with them. Keep in mind the teams are all notified who was picked the pick before. The vikes could've known 30 minutes before they got to announcing 86 and made arrangements, the trade and pick were made and the order shuffled on the scroll.

It's one of the reasons I was so irritated with the coverage, after years of trying to speed it up they turned around and bogged it down with all of the clown show garbage.


Thu May 04, 2017 2:48 pm
Profile
Fenrir
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:28 pm
Posts: 10486
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
Mothman wrote:
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
Good post. I agree. Also, is the difference between Pat Elflein and Forrest Lamp THAT much different?? Not from what I have seen on tape. They are actually quite similar mechanically and physicality wise.

Next question: Is there a difference between Dalvin Cook and a guy like Kareem Hunt?? Yes very much so. So it comes down to, would you rather have a combo of Lamp/Hunt or Cook/Elflein? I take the latter any day of the week


How about Lamp/Elflein or Robinson/Elflein or maybe Ramczyk/Elflein/Perine? :) That might have been nice if they could have pulled it off!


I think trading up into the 1st for Ramczyk would have been too costly but Lamp/Elflein/Perine looks pretty good on paper. The only issue being there's some debate on whether Lamp can play tackle in the NFL.


Thu May 04, 2017 3:12 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:52 am
Posts: 3432
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
nightowl wrote:
Texas Vike wrote:

Actually, I am almost 100% certain that we traded out of 86 way ahead of the Pats' pick. At least, I remember seeing it appear on NFLN's tracker at least 7 picks before.


It's impossible to know, they were so far behind on announcing the picks that night. They were openly admitting it on air they were off track with them. Keep in mind the teams are all notified who was picked the pick before. The vikes could've known 30 minutes before they got to announcing 86 and made arrangements, the trade and pick were made and the order shuffled on the scroll.

It's one of the reasons I was so irritated with the coverage, after years of trying to speed it up they turned around and bogged it down with all of the clown show garbage.


Right, that's possible. But it would mean that while they were slow on announcing picks, they were on time with announcing trades, which is dubious. You're probably right that we'll never know, but if I were a reporter with access to the Ricker, I'd ask him about that.


Thu May 04, 2017 3:16 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: 2017 draft thread
S197 wrote:
I think trading up into the 1st for Ramczyk would have been too costly but Lamp/Elflein/Perine looks pretty good on paper.


I think so too.

Ramczyk was probably in range for them at a reasonable price, assuming they could have found a trade partner, which isn't always the case. Every season and trade situation is different but just a few years ago, the Vikes traded into the bottom of the first round to draft Bridgewater and it cost them the No. 40 pick (their second-rounder) and a fourth-round selection (No. 108 overall).

In 2012, they traded up to #29 to draft Harrison Smith for the 35th overall pick and their fourth-rounder (pick #98).

This year, they made a very similar trade (second round pick and a 4th-rounder) to go up and get Cook. They had two picks in R3 and R4 so they definitely had the ammo to make a move if they had chosen to target Ramczyk (or Robinson for that matter).


Thu May 04, 2017 3:34 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 664 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alaskan 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.