Who did the Vikings want at 8?

[StumpHunter]

I am not claiming I know there is a negative impact. Others are claiming a positive one, which I am asking for evidence of. Which no one provides, because there is none.

People obviously care or they would stop responding. At which point this whole conversation ends.

We have provided the positive again and again and again and again and again and again.
We have got contributing players from those late picks. That is without any question whatsoever a positive. So you move the goalposts and act like for a 6th or 7th round pick to matter at all it has to turn into a HUGE IMPACT PLAYER. We don't need that for the pick to be a positive. You reject all positive picks. So you are lying saying we have not provided that evidence and if you can simply reject the evidence you will in your mind never be wrong. That is really messed up.

I gave you the list above of players we have gotten with this strategy. Highlight, underline, or put an asterisk next to the ones who we would miss if they weren't ever Vikings.

[StumpHunter]

I am not claiming I know there is a negative impact. Others are claiming a positive one, which I am asking for evidence of. Which no one provides, because there is none.

People obviously care or they would stop responding. At which point this whole conversation ends.

Actually I think people are bored. No other reason for this thread to keep going. Next week mandatory mini camp begins. Perhaps then there will be some real meat to discuss.

Hunter showing up or not will be huge. Can't wait.

[VikingsVictorious]

We have provided the positive again and again and again and again and again and again.
We have got contributing players from those late picks. That is without any question whatsoever a positive. So you move the goalposts and act like for a 6th or 7th round pick to matter at all it has to turn into a HUGE IMPACT PLAYER. We don't need that for the pick to be a positive. You reject all positive picks. So you are lying saying we have not provided that evidence and if you can simply reject the evidence you will in your mind never be wrong. That is really messed up.

I gave you the list above of players we have gotten with this strategy. Highlight, underline, or put an asterisk next to the ones who we would miss if they weren't ever Vikings.

I already have. I listed many that were useful. Page 7. I did that from the 48 you listed before. Were there too many good players from that group so you decided to change to another group. Any player who made the team would be missed if they weren't ever Vikings. They may not be HUGE IMPACT PLAYERS, but the Vikings chose them over other possibilities for a reason.

[StumpHunter]

I gave you the list above of players we have gotten with this strategy. Highlight, underline, or put an asterisk next to the ones who we would miss if they weren't ever Vikings.

I already have. I listed many that were useful. Page 7. I did that from the 48 you listed before. Were there too many good players from that group so you decided to change to another group. Any player who made the team would be missed if they weren't ever Vikings. They may not be HUGE IMPACT PLAYERS, but the Vikings chose them over other possibilities for a reason.

Because of the sunk cost fallacy most likely, and to the detriment to the team a number of times (Stephen, Fusco, Weatherly). Essentially your argument is that if a player plays, they help us out. When we actually look at how these players played:

Shamar Stephen - Was an absolute detriment on the team as a starting NT and 3Tech. He was 52nd out of 53 qualifying DTs in pressures last year.
Brandon Fusco - not selected with a pick that we traded back for, but was a 6th round pick. One good year followed up by 3 terrible ones where he was a detriment to the team. Net negative
Oli Udoh we did win that game he started against the bears right? - again, he is benefitting us because he played? As if that spot would have gone unfilled if we hadn't drafted him.
Stephen Weatherly - Started 6 games for the Vikings, including the 2 worst defensive performances of the season. Was 92 out of 109 in pass rushing win % that year. What would we do without that? He is now back despite playing terrible last season, overpaid and will take the spot of a player with actual potential because he is familiar with the system.
Audie Cole - Another one that wasn't drafted with a pick we traded back for. Audie Cole? Really?
Armon Watts - Another one that wasn't drafted with a pick we traded back for. Armon Watts couldn't beat out the two worst starting DTs in football last season.
Bisi Johnson - Another one that wasn't drafted with a pick we traded back for. He was really bad when he got in in 2019, and was supplanted as the #2 then #3 WR by JJ and then Chad Beebe in 2020.
Kris Boyd - Won't make the team this year
Michael Mauti - Those 18 tackles were huge for us. Another one that wasn't picked with picks we traded back for.
David Morgan - What would we do without those 135 yards over 3 seasons?

No hidden gems, just guys who played poorly when they got significant play time. Something any UDFA or waiver wire guy could have done.

[Pondering Her Percy]

I am not claiming I know there is a negative impact. Others are claiming a positive one, which I am asking for evidence of. Which no one provides, because there is none.

People obviously care or they would stop responding. At which point this whole conversation ends.

We have provided the positive again and again and again and again and again and again.
We have got contributing players from those late picks. That is without any question whatsoever a positive. So you move the goalposts and act like for a 6th or 7th round pick to matter at all it has to turn into a HUGE IMPACT PLAYER. We don't need that for the pick to be a positive. You reject all positive picks. So you are lying saying we have not provided that evidence and if you can simply reject the evidence you will in your mind never be wrong. That is really messed up.

I was just about to say the same thing. If you find someone that contributed in the 6th or 7th round, that's a positive. I'm not sure why that's so hard to comprehend. Many of those players across the league dont even make the team.

I actually found a chart where it shows how long these picks stick around from their rookie year to 5 years in.

Round Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
1 99.7% 93.5% 83.9% 77.4% 71.0%
2 96.8% 96.1% 83.9% 74.2% 41.9%
3 96.9% 75.1% 62.5% 37.5% 18.8%
4 91.4% 74.3% 54.3% 34.3% 17.2%
5 81.1% 56.8% 37.8% 24.3% 16.2%
6 70.2% 57.5% 35.3% 20.9% 10.6%
7 58.3% 45.8% 31.3% 21.7% 16.7%

Nearly half of the leagues 7th round picks dont even make the team year 1. By year 5, only 16% are still playing. This isnt just Rick Spielmans picks, this is the entire league. So if you find guys that are contributing in some way whether it be special teams or in a backup role, that's a positive no matter what way you look at it. And I can tell you Spielman is picking well over 58.3% on those picks

[StumpHunter]

We have provided the positive again and again and again and again and again and again.
We have got contributing players from those late picks. That is without any question whatsoever a positive. So you move the goalposts and act like for a 6th or 7th round pick to matter at all it has to turn into a HUGE IMPACT PLAYER. We don't need that for the pick to be a positive. You reject all positive picks. So you are lying saying we have not provided that evidence and if you can simply reject the evidence you will in your mind never be wrong. That is really messed up.

I was just about to say the same thing. If you find someone that contributed in the 6th or 7th round, that's a positive. I'm not sure why that's so hard to comprehend. Many of those players across the league dont even make the team.

I actually found a chart where it shows how long these picks stick around from their rookie year to 5 years in.

Round Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
1 99.7% 93.5% 83.9% 77.4% 71.0%
2 96.8% 96.1% 83.9% 74.2% 41.9%
3 96.9% 75.1% 62.5% 37.5% 18.8%
4 91.4% 74.3% 54.3% 34.3% 17.2%
5 81.1% 56.8% 37.8% 24.3% 16.2%
6 70.2% 57.5% 35.3% 20.9% 10.6%
7 58.3% 45.8% 31.3% 21.7% 16.7%

Nearly half of the leagues 7th round picks dont even make the team year 1. By year 5, only 16% are still playing. This isnt just Rick Spielmans picks, this is the entire league. So if you find guys that are contributing in some way whether it be special teams or in a backup role, that's a positive no matter what way you look at it. And I can tell you Spielman is picking well over 58.3% on those picks

This is my whole point. Why is picking up draft picks in rounds where contributing anything, good or bad, is a good draft pick, an "excellent" draft strategy? Isn't a better strategy one that would get us more players that actually help the team win? Instead of trading back to pick up worthless picks, use those worthless picks to trade up to get a guy like Carl Lawson who could actually help you win?

[Pondering Her Percy]

I was just about to say the same thing. If you find someone that contributed in the 6th or 7th round, that's a positive. I'm not sure why that's so hard to comprehend. Many of those players across the league dont even make the team.

I actually found a chart where it shows how long these picks stick around from their rookie year to 5 years in.

Round Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
1 99.7% 93.5% 83.9% 77.4% 71.0%
2 96.8% 96.1% 83.9% 74.2% 41.9%
3 96.9% 75.1% 62.5% 37.5% 18.8%
4 91.4% 74.3% 54.3% 34.3% 17.2%
5 81.1% 56.8% 37.8% 24.3% 16.2%
6 70.2% 57.5% 35.3% 20.9% 10.6%
7 58.3% 45.8% 31.3% 21.7% 16.7%

Nearly half of the leagues 7th round picks dont even make the team year 1. By year 5, only 16% are still playing. This isnt just Rick Spielmans picks, this is the entire league. So if you find guys that are contributing in some way whether it be special teams or in a backup role, that's a positive no matter what way you look at it. And I can tell you Spielman is picking well over 58.3% on those picks

This is my whole point. Why is picking up draft picks in rounds where contributing anything, good or bad, is a good draft pick, an "excellent" draft strategy? Isn't a better strategy one that would get us more players that actually help the team win? Instead of trading back to pick up worthless picks, use those worthless picks to trade up to get a guy like Carl Lawson who could actually help you win?

-They did that last year by trading back from 25 to 31 to land Gladney and 2 mid rounders.
-Also did it this year by trading back from 14 to 23 to land Darrisaw and gain a bunch of mid rounders.
-They did it in 2014 by trading down from 8 to 9 to land Barr and a 5th rounder.
-Also did it in 2012 by trading down from 3 to 4 to land Kalil and 2 mid rounders and a late rounder. One of the mid rounders then landed them Harrison Smith in a trade up

You act like they also dont stock pile on mid rounders. When the mid rounds come after these trades, if they decide to move back again from those picks to gain more late rounders, what is wrong with that? Especially if there are 4-5+ guys you like equally. If there isnt a stand out player you like in the mid rounds but more like a group of players you like equally, why not move back? It makes your decision easier and gives you late freebies.

If it was such a bad move to trade down for freebie late round picks, no team would ever do it. Like I dont understand why you keep fighting this. You really dont have much of an argument at all.

[StumpHunter]

This is my whole point. Why is picking up draft picks in rounds where contributing anything, good or bad, is a good draft pick, an "excellent" draft strategy? Isn't a better strategy one that would get us more players that actually help the team win? Instead of trading back to pick up worthless picks, use those worthless picks to trade up to get a guy like Carl Lawson who could actually help you win?

-They did that last year by trading back from 25 to 31 to land Gladney and 2 mid rounders.
-Also did it this year by trading back from 14 to 23 to land Darrisaw and gain a bunch of mid rounders.
-They did it in 2014 by trading down from 8 to 9 to land Barr and a 5th rounder.
-Also did it in 2012 by trading down from 3 to 4 to land Kalil and 2 mid rounders and a late rounder. One of the mid rounders then landed them Harrison Smith in a trade up

You act like they also dont stock pile on mid rounders. When the mid rounds come after these trades, if they decide to move back again from those picks to gain more late rounders, what is wrong with that? Especially if there are 4-5+ guys you like equally. If there isnt a stand out player you like in the mid rounds but more like a group of players you like equally, why not move back? It makes your decision easier and gives you late freebies.

If it was such a bad move to trade down for freebie late round picks, no team would ever do it. Like I dont understand why you keep fighting this. You really dont have much of an argument at all.

They hadn't done a good job of stock piling in the rounds they do really well in, the 2nd and 3rd, prior to this season. 18 picks in those rounds in 10 seasons.

21 by the Saints
25 by KC
23 by GB
26 by Seattle
24 by Pitt
31 by NE
28 by Baltimore
20 by AZ

The only team I can find with fewer is Atlanta at 17 and their GM was just fired. Chicago has had 18 as well and their GM should have been fired after the Turdbiscuit draft.

So you have a GM who is arguably the best in the NFL at finding talent in the 2nd and 3rd rounds trading away/not acquiring at a rate lower than most GMs, while simultaneously going out of his way to pick up picks in rounds he hasn't found any good players in since becoming GM. That is a bad strategy, and I don't know how anyone could argue otherwise.

[VikingsVictorious]

This is my whole point. Why is picking up draft picks in rounds where contributing anything, good or bad, is a good draft pick, an "excellent" draft strategy? Isn't a better strategy one that would get us more players that actually help the team win? Instead of trading back to pick up worthless picks, use those worthless picks to trade up to get a guy like Carl Lawson who could actually help you win?

-They did that last year by trading back from 25 to 31 to land Gladney and 2 mid rounders.
-Also did it this year by trading back from 14 to 23 to land Darrisaw and gain a bunch of mid rounders.
-They did it in 2014 by trading down from 8 to 9 to land Barr and a 5th rounder.
-Also did it in 2012 by trading down from 3 to 4 to land Kalil and 2 mid rounders and a late rounder. One of the mid rounders then landed them Harrison Smith in a trade up

You act like they also dont stock pile on mid rounders. When the mid rounds come after these trades, if they decide to move back again from those picks to gain more late rounders, what is wrong with that? Especially if there are 4-5+ guys you like equally. If there isnt a stand out player you like in the mid rounds but more like a group of players you like equally, why not move back? It makes your decision easier and gives you late freebies.

If it was such a bad move to trade down for freebie late round picks, no team would ever do it. Like I dont understand why you keep fighting this. You really dont have much of an argument at all.

4th and 5th round picks IMO are mid rounders. 3rd round picks are premium. Stump just keeps up the same nonsense. Our efforts to try to help him have done no good.

[Pondering Her Percy]

-They did that last year by trading back from 25 to 31 to land Gladney and 2 mid rounders.
-Also did it this year by trading back from 14 to 23 to land Darrisaw and gain a bunch of mid rounders.
-They did it in 2014 by trading down from 8 to 9 to land Barr and a 5th rounder.
-Also did it in 2012 by trading down from 3 to 4 to land Kalil and 2 mid rounders and a late rounder. One of the mid rounders then landed them Harrison Smith in a trade up

You act like they also dont stock pile on mid rounders. When the mid rounds come after these trades, if they decide to move back again from those picks to gain more late rounders, what is wrong with that? Especially if there are 4-5+ guys you like equally. If there isnt a stand out player you like in the mid rounds but more like a group of players you like equally, why not move back? It makes your decision easier and gives you late freebies.

If it was such a bad move to trade down for freebie late round picks, no team would ever do it. Like I dont understand why you keep fighting this. You really dont have much of an argument at all.

4th and 5th round picks IMO are mid rounders. 3rd round picks are premium. Stump just keeps up the same nonsense. Our efforts to try to help him have done no good.

Agreed, just a waste of time and energy. I think I'm more upset at myself that I actually wasted time out of my day(s) to have that discussion.....Wow.

[StumpHunter]

-They did that last year by trading back from 25 to 31 to land Gladney and 2 mid rounders.
-Also did it this year by trading back from 14 to 23 to land Darrisaw and gain a bunch of mid rounders.
-They did it in 2014 by trading down from 8 to 9 to land Barr and a 5th rounder.
-Also did it in 2012 by trading down from 3 to 4 to land Kalil and 2 mid rounders and a late rounder. One of the mid rounders then landed them Harrison Smith in a trade up

You act like they also dont stock pile on mid rounders. When the mid rounds come after these trades, if they decide to move back again from those picks to gain more late rounders, what is wrong with that? Especially if there are 4-5+ guys you like equally. If there isnt a stand out player you like in the mid rounds but more like a group of players you like equally, why not move back? It makes your decision easier and gives you late freebies.

If it was such a bad move to trade down for freebie late round picks, no team would ever do it. Like I dont understand why you keep fighting this. You really dont have much of an argument at all.

4th and 5th round picks IMO are mid rounders. 3rd round picks are premium. Stump just keeps up the same nonsense. Our efforts to try to help him have done no good.

You just keep saying I am wrong and provide no evidence of why, aside from saying that players Rick drafted in the 6th and 7th round have played a few snaps here and there. Not necessarily that they played well, but they played and that is good enough I guess.

[VikingsVictorious]

4th and 5th round picks IMO are mid rounders. 3rd round picks are premium. Stump just keeps up the same nonsense. Our efforts to try to help him have done no good.

Agreed, just a waste of time and energy. I think I'm more upset at myself that I actually wasted time out of my day(s) to have that discussion.....Wow.

I have him on ignore because of his stance on Cousins, but I look at his comments that likely aren't Cousins related. I must resist temptation to look any longer, because it will only upset me.

[CharVike]

Rick has been here 9 seasons. We are basically in the same spot as when he took over. If he was drafting great we would have closed the gap with the Packers by now. We should be in a draw situation. The problem with trading down for nothing picks is the energy he's wasting to get them. Use that energy more wisely.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Rick has been here 9 seasons. We are basically in the same spot as when he took over. If he was drafting great we would have closed the gap with the Packers by now. We should be in a draw situation. The problem with trading down for nothing picks is the energy he's wasting to get them. Use that energy more wisely.

Not going to lie this is a pretty ridiculous stance. His energy? Come on. And no this team isnt even close to being where it was when he took over. Now that Hunter is locked up and if they go through with bringing in Richardson. This team has a legit shot to win the division. If Rodgers doesnt play, it should be a near guarantee. If he does play, with the distraction going on in GB, the Vikings are in a draw situation or even better than the Packers.

[StumpHunter]

Rick has been here 9 seasons. We are basically in the same spot as when he took over. If he was drafting great we would have closed the gap with the Packers by now. We should be in a draw situation. The problem with trading down for nothing picks is the energy he's wasting to get them. Use that energy more wisely.

To put it another way, if you look at Rick's 4th and 5th round picks his only real hit was Diggs in the past 10 seasons, a pick that he was apparently just very lucky to hit on.

I wonder if Rick spent more time, energy and effort identifying players in those rounds who he really liked, and trading up for them with the 6th and 7th rounders he covets, if he might have more hits in those rounds?