2017 draft thread

[S197]

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.

[S197]

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.

[dead_poet]

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.

[Mothman]

Exactly.

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?

[dead_poet]

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.

[dead_poet]

Coley is fast

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

[Mothman]

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.

[Pondering Her Percy]

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

[Mothman]

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!

[Pondering Her Percy]

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.

[Texas Vike]

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.

[nightowl]

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.

[S197]

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.

[Texas Vike]

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.

[Mothman]

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).