2017 draft thread

A forum for the hard core Minnesota Vikings fan. Discuss upcoming games, opponents, trades, draft or what ever is on the minds of Viking fans!

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
halfgiz
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1767
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:38 pm

Re: 2017 draft thread

Post by halfgiz » Mon May 01, 2017 6:21 pm

Texas Vike wrote: 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.
0 x

User avatar
S197
Fenrir
Posts: 11263
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:28 pm
Location: Hawaii

Re: 2017 draft thread

Post by S197 » Mon May 01, 2017 6:29 pm

Mothman wrote:

It's certainly a limiting factor.
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.
0 x

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 37384
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: 2017 draft thread

Post by Mothman » Mon May 01, 2017 6:40 pm

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.
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.
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.
0 x

User avatar
Husker Vike
Transition Player
Posts: 306
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 11:35 pm

Re: 2017 draft thread

Post by Husker Vike » Mon May 01, 2017 7:58 pm

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.
0 x

User avatar
jackal
Strong Safety
Posts: 11568
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:05 am
Location: California

Re: 2017 draft thread

Post by jackal » Mon May 01, 2017 8:48 pm

I was hoping for QB to grow but other than that I think our draft was great.
0 x
no one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

User avatar
Pondering Her Percy
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5311
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Location: Watertown, NY

Re: 2017 draft thread

Post by Pondering Her Percy » Mon May 01, 2017 10:18 pm

808vikingsfan wrote:
Yes I mentioned this earlier. That's why I don't know why so many guys were upset we didnt draft a safety.
0 x
Image

User avatar
Dakotavike
Rookie
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 4:35 pm

Re: 2017 draft thread

Post by Dakotavike » Tue May 02, 2017 12:04 pm

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.
0 x

User avatar
808vikingsfan
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:45 pm
Location: Hawaii

Re: 2017 draft thread

Post by 808vikingsfan » Tue May 02, 2017 1:47 pm

Pondering Her Percy wrote: 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.
0 x
Joined: Aug 2006
Deleted: Sept 12 2014
Reborn: Sept 17 2014

User avatar
PacificNorseWest
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2360
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 1:10 am
Location: Seattle, Wa

Re: 2017 draft thread

Post by PacificNorseWest » Tue May 02, 2017 9:19 pm

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.
0 x

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 37384
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: 2017 draft thread

Post by Mothman » Tue May 02, 2017 9:45 pm

PacificNorseWest wrote: 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).
0 x

User avatar
dead_poet
Commissioner
Posts: 24447
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: 2017 draft thread

Post by dead_poet » Wed May 03, 2017 6:19 am

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

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 37384
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: 2017 draft thread

Post by Mothman » Wed May 03, 2017 6:45 am

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. :)
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.
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.
0 x

User avatar
Texas Vike
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3604
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:52 am

Re: 2017 draft thread

Post by Texas Vike » Wed May 03, 2017 7:33 am

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.
0 x

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 37384
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: 2017 draft thread

Post by Mothman » Wed May 03, 2017 8:01 am

Texas Vike wrote:
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.
0 x

Nunin
Pro Bowl Elite Player
Posts: 567
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:40 am

Re: 2017 draft thread

Post by Nunin » Wed May 03, 2017 8:55 am

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.
0 x

Post Reply