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

Pondering Her Percy
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9241
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Location: Watertown, NY
x 1117

Re: 2017 draft thread

Post by Pondering Her Percy »

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!
The saddest thing in life is wasted talent and the choices you make will shape your life forever.
-Chazz Palminteri
User avatar
PurpleKoolaid
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8641
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 9:52 pm
x 28

Re: 2017 draft thread

Post by PurpleKoolaid »

Mothman wrote:
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.
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: 2017 draft thread

Post by Mothman »

S197 wrote: 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.
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.
HardcoreVikesFan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6652
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 6:28 pm
x 21

Re: 2017 draft thread

Post by HardcoreVikesFan »

Pondering Her Percy wrote: 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.
User avatar
Texas Vike
Hall of Fame Inductee
Posts: 4672
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:52 am
x 405

Re: 2017 draft thread

Post by Texas Vike »

S197 wrote: Davenport was graded a 5.35. Collins was graded a 5.42.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2017/profiles/ ... id=2557963
http://www.nfl.com/draft/2017/profiles/ ... 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/ ... 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:
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).
Pondering Her Percy
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9241
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Location: Watertown, NY
x 1117

Re: 2017 draft thread

Post by Pondering Her Percy »

HardcoreVikesFan wrote:
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
The saddest thing in life is wasted talent and the choices you make will shape your life forever.
-Chazz Palminteri
User avatar
Texas Vike
Hall of Fame Inductee
Posts: 4672
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:52 am
x 405

Re: 2017 draft thread

Post by Texas Vike »

S197 wrote: Davenport was graded a 5.35. Collins was graded a 5.42.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2017/profiles/ ... id=2557963
http://www.nfl.com/draft/2017/profiles/ ... 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:
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: 2017 draft thread

Post by Mothman »

Unfortunately, fit and positional need are major considerations.
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: 2017 draft thread

Post by Mothman »

Texas Vike wrote: 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?
User avatar
Texas Vike
Hall of Fame Inductee
Posts: 4672
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:52 am
x 405

Re: 2017 draft thread

Post by Texas Vike »

Mothman wrote: 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. :)
Pondering Her Percy
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9241
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Location: Watertown, NY
x 1117

Re: 2017 draft thread

Post by Pondering Her Percy »

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
The saddest thing in life is wasted talent and the choices you make will shape your life forever.
-Chazz Palminteri
808vikingsfan
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3927
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:45 pm
Location: Hawaii
x 151

Re: 2017 draft thread

Post by 808vikingsfan »

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
S197
Fenrir
Posts: 12790
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:28 pm
Location: Hawaii
x 662

Re: 2017 draft thread

Post by S197 »

Mothman wrote: 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.
User avatar
Texas Vike
Hall of Fame Inductee
Posts: 4672
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:52 am
x 405

Re: 2017 draft thread

Post by Texas Vike »

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).
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: 2017 draft thread

Post by Mothman »

S197 wrote:No, but shallow is a strong reason why you may not want to take a T.


It's certainly a limiting factor.
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.
Post Reply