Do not understand why Vikings always trade out of third round

[mansquatch]

IMO, the biggest deficiency we have as fans when it comes to the draft is that we do not really have a meaningful way to assess the relative value of the players versus not just their peers in the draft, but also their peers in the NFL.

This conjecture, but it might be case that Spielman felt that the 3rd rounders available had maybe a 60% chance of contributing. At the same time he felt that due to the depth of the draft that maybe the 4th-6th rounds were a 40-50% shot. So then it made more sens to take 4 shots at the bullseye vs. one or two.

It could also be the case that they didn't think the rating of the players available was that much greater the guys behind them and thus it made more sense to take more shots. Note that the rating could be equally good or equally bad. We don't know.

At the end of the day it is a question of hits and how misses that determines a drafts success. As I've said for YEARS on this board, no one has compiled what the average GM hit rate is in the NFL. So it is really hard to say Spielman sucks or not when it comes to drafting. I know some will say it anyways, but I challenge them to try to answer this question: As Compared to What?

On that RB they took. The criticism is based on what exactly? That Mel Kiper or some other reporter had someone rated better? Is Mel doing our drafting now? What is his hit rate on talent? Anyone ever assessed that? And for that matter, how are the other better? Based on what? Have some seen this alleged rookie play some NFL snaps and they now know something we do not? I wouldn't be so hasty to judge. If he is off the team in three years AND one of the other guys is a stud then you can complain. Right now, we know nothing.

[fiestavike]

I wouldn't close the door on Ifeadi Odenigbo yet. Other than that, it is a question of degree. Obviously trading all your picks for 32 7th rounders is not good value. Trading all your picks for one 1st rounder probably isn't good value. Moving back 20 spots in the middle of the draft and getting 4 extra picks probably is good value. As has been pointed out, a 7th rounder is basically a priority FA. No one of them is likely to pan out, but having 3 or 4 more priority FAs is valuable across time. The Vikings clearly take this philosophy to heart, which is why they have been paying above market value to secure college FAs as well as trading back to acquire picks over the last several years. Finding a backup or special teams contributor from that pool is tremendously valuable to a team's success, the occasional starter or star makes an even more massive impact. There are only about 30 starting positions to be filled. Filling any of them with 6th-7th round or priority FAs is a huge leg up...or failing to do so is a huge disadvantage.

All good points, which is why I said in another thread there is an inflection point.

The main reason I don't particularly like it is because of the value that was on the board. Or my perceived value because who knows.

AJ Brown was sitting there and we passed. I think that was a mistake even if I think Irv will play an integral role. I'd rather have Rudolph/Conklin/Morgan and Diggs/Thielen/Brown.

Had we gone McGovern in the 3rd, we wouldn't need Samia in the 4th. And Amani Hooker was sitting there in the 4th, which was a great value BPA pick.

You could still grab Watts, Boyd and a few other late picks including a RB, which is really the only place you lose.

Basically, I'll take Bradbury, AJ Brown, McGovern, and Hooker over Bradbury, Irv, Mattison, Samia, and a bunch of guys who are unlikely to make the team.

I could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong. But seeing what we passed on makes it real tough to give this draft a good grade.

That's fair. I think Samia is a better fit for us than McGovern, so I'm happy with that, but it did sting to miss out on Hooker. On the whole, I would take Bradbury, Irv, Mattison, and Samia over Bradbury, Brown, McGovern and Hooker...adding extra picks is just a cherry on top. I would rather have Bradbury, Hooker, Mattison and Samia if I could choose any configuration of the particular players mentioned, so I would have rather traded back at the 2nd pick and the third pick and been able to get those guys and more.

[Pondering Her Percy]

IMO, the biggest deficiency we have as fans when it comes to the draft is that we do not really have a meaningful way to assess the relative value of the players versus not just their peers in the draft, but also their peers in the NFL.

This conjecture, but it might be case that Spielman felt that the 3rd rounders available had maybe a 60% chance of contributing. At the same time he felt that due to the depth of the draft that maybe the 4th-6th rounds were a 40-50% shot. So then it made more sens to take 4 shots at the bullseye vs. one or two.

It could also be the case that they didn't think the rating of the players available was that much greater the guys behind them and thus it made more sense to take more shots. Note that the rating could be equally good or equally bad. We don't know.

At the end of the day it is a question of hits and how misses that determines a drafts success. As I've said for YEARS on this board, no one has compiled what the average GM hit rate is in the NFL. So it is really hard to say Spielman sucks or not when it comes to drafting. I know some will say it anyways, but I challenge them to try to answer this question: As Compared to What?

On that RB they took. The criticism is based on what exactly? That Mel Kiper or some other reporter had someone rated better? Is Mel doing our drafting now? What is his hit rate on talent? Anyone ever assessed that? And for that matter, how are the other better? Based on what? Have some seen this alleged rookie play some NFL snaps and they now know something we do not? I wouldn't be so hasty to judge. If he is off the team in three years AND one of the other guys is a stud then you can complain. Right now, we know nothing.

This is very similar to my view. Guys are labeling Mattison a bad pick simply over 1 thing....his combine 40 time (which he ran terrible 4.67). It was simply a bad run. His pro day 40 was a 4.52 which is nearly identical to over half the nfl starting backs. This is what happens when guys look at the surface of things or a draft “experts” opinion. Mattison is not slow. And since I’ve made that point and provided the facts, that argument has fizzled out. You’re exactly right though. Nobody knows anything. Granted we can all have our opinions but we won’t know anything for quite some time now. We don’t know what these players will do, who we missed out on, who won’t make an impact and made the right decision passing on, what our draft board looked like, etc. We know nothing until the season gets here.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Recently tweeted:

It’s not getting talked about enough but the Vikings had a pretty good draft. Bradbury & Samia can be plug and play IOL. Udon is raw but has potential as a swing tackle. Armon Watts can certainly compete at DT. Plus, Dillon Mitchell as a UDFA is criminal. Perfect in that WR group

[PurpleMustReign]

BS. We havent gotten anywhere with Rick doing this every year. No SBs, and thats all that matters. I think its a poor way to run a draft, and Rick is known for doing this, its all he cares or talks about.

I don't think you are using a metric that makes any sense, but you are free to use it.

The metric is how many deep playoff runs have the Vikings had in his tenure. 2? One with one of the top 5 QBs of all time on his team, and who couldn't even make the playoffs the following year. The other with A QB who played out of his skin for a season and a historically good defense that allowed 3rd down conversion rates of under 25%. Again, team didn't even make the playoffs the next season.
That's the metric I use. Feel free to use your own, but that's how I judge the GM and Coach's performance.

[Pondering Her Percy]

I don't think you are using a metric that makes any sense, but you are free to use it.

The metric is how many deep playoff runs have the Vikings had in his tenure. 2? One with one of the top 5 QBs of all time on his team, and who couldn't even make the playoffs the following year. The other with A QB who played out of his skin for a season and a historically good defense that allowed 3rd down conversion rates of under 25%. Again, team didn't even make the playoffs the next season.
That's the metric I use. Feel free to use your own, but that's how I judge the GM and Coach's performance.

When you’re bringing in talent like Spielman has over the past 4-5 years and we’re talking draft, yeah I would say Spielman has done a pretty good job. I feel like there are many other factors that have led us to having years that were below expectation. But either way, if you’re going to judge him for his “bad” seasons, you have to give him credit for his good ones. Why did they have a historically good defense? Where did those players come from? Where did that QB that played out of his skin come from? Where did these WRs and RBs come from? It’s like guys think they just fall on our lap and Spielman isn’t the one bringing them in. I’ll be honest, when you’re the lone fan that gives this draft a D or an F out of nearly 30 votes (and add on all the analysts grades over the internet), you probably have no idea what you’re talking about. Or are simply a bitter fan (Not saying you PMR, just in general).

I’m not going to sit here and toot Spielmans horn for being the best GM out there because yeah we haven’t won a SB but the guy has put a ton of talent on this roster. And what happens in the next few years is going to be the true tell of what kind of GM he is. Any time you look at any sort of GM rankings, I’ve seen him as high as #4 to as low as #12. A bad GM isn’t falling in that range. It’s kind of like cousins, if you are bitter and hate him for whatever reason, you’re always going to hate him, SB or not. Spielman is the same way. The fans out there that constantly complain about him, are always going to. He could’ve landed 12 first round picks this year and he still did something wrong. So whether we win a SB or not, Spielman will always be hated by some. Or they will go into hiding. I mean you can’t please everyone. I personally think Spielman is a good GM. Not great, but definitely good. The next few years will tell a lot

[StumpHunter]

IMO, the biggest deficiency we have as fans when it comes to the draft is that we do not really have a meaningful way to assess the relative value of the players versus not just their peers in the draft, but also their peers in the NFL.

This conjecture, but it might be case that Spielman felt that the 3rd rounders available had maybe a 60% chance of contributing. At the same time he felt that due to the depth of the draft that maybe the 4th-6th rounds were a 40-50% shot. So then it made more sens to take 4 shots at the bullseye vs. one or two.

It could also be the case that they didn't think the rating of the players available was that much greater the guys behind them and thus it made more sense to take more shots. Note that the rating could be equally good or equally bad. We don't know.

At the end of the day it is a question of hits and how misses that determines a drafts success. As I've said for YEARS on this board, no one has compiled what the average GM hit rate is in the NFL. So it is really hard to say Spielman sucks or not when it comes to drafting. I know some will say it anyways, but I challenge them to try to answer this question: As Compared to What?

On that RB they took. The criticism is based on what exactly? That Mel Kiper or some other reporter had someone rated better? Is Mel doing our drafting now? What is his hit rate on talent? Anyone ever assessed that? And for that matter, how are the other better? Based on what? Have some seen this alleged rookie play some NFL snaps and they now know something we do not? I wouldn't be so hasty to judge. If he is off the team in three years AND one of the other guys is a stud then you can complain. Right now, we know nothing.

This is very similar to my view. Guys are labeling Mattison a bad pick simply over 1 thing....his combine 40 time (which he ran terrible 4.67). It was simply a bad run. His pro day 40 was a 4.52 which is nearly identical to over half the nfl starting backs. This is what happens when guys look at the surface of things or a draft “experts” opinion. Mattison is not slow. And since I’ve made that point and provided the facts, that argument has fizzled out. You’re exactly right though. Nobody knows anything. Granted we can all have our opinions but we won’t know anything for quite some time now. We don’t know what these players will do, who we missed out on, who won’t make an impact and made the right decision passing on, what our draft board looked like, etc. We know nothing until the season gets here.

The lack of explosive runs says he is as slow as his combine 40.

I think he will give the Vikings a great option in short yardage situations, something they desperately needed, but I would hope that a 3rd round pick could have gotten us a good all around running back who could start on many teams.

[CharVike]

I don't think you are using a metric that makes any sense, but you are free to use it.

The metric is how many deep playoff runs have the Vikings had in his tenure. 2? One with one of the top 5 QBs of all time on his team, and who couldn't even make the playoffs the following year. The other with A QB who played out of his skin for a season and a historically good defense that allowed 3rd down conversion rates of under 25%. Again, team didn't even make the playoffs the next season.
That's the metric I use. Feel free to use your own, but that's how I judge the GM and Coach's performance.

We didn't make the playoffs because we had people hurt. Let me take some guys off that Bear team and they wouldn't make the playoffs either. Lose Mack for a month +. And that's only one guy.Take out a couple CBs. Then remove some OL and the playoffs won't happen. We were in the hunt the last game. How many teams make the playoffs when they lose a bunch of guys. Plus that Bear D is miles ahead of us. Their scheme gets TOs. This f nut scheme we run doesn't want TOs. I know these rankings have us close but IMO were not in the same league regardless of some meaningless conversion %. I can riddle any team with injuries and the party will be over. If we stay healthy we will make the playoffs.

[mansquatch]

The metric is how many deep playoff runs have the Vikings had in his tenure. 2? One with one of the top 5 QBs of all time on his team, and who couldn't even make the playoffs the following year. The other with A QB who played out of his skin for a season and a historically good defense that allowed 3rd down conversion rates of under 25%. Again, team didn't even make the playoffs the next season.
That's the metric I use. Feel free to use your own, but that's how I judge the GM and Coach's performance.

We didn't make the playoffs because we had people hurt. Let me take some guys off that Bear team and they wouldn't make the playoffs either. Lose Mack for a month +. And that's only one guy.Take out a couple CBs. Then remove some OL and the playoffs won't happen. We were in the hunt the last game. How many teams make the playoffs when they lose a bunch of guys. Plus that Bear D is miles ahead of us. Their scheme gets TOs. This f nut scheme we run doesn't want TOs. I know these rankings have us close but IMO were not in the same league regardless of some meaningless conversion %. I can riddle any team with injuries and the party will be over. If we stay healthy we will make the playoffs.

Yeah, except their DC is now the head coach of the Broncos. You may have heard of him before, his name is Vic Fangio. You know how he ended up in Chicago? When Harbaugh left the 49ers to coach the Wolverines, Fangio was snapped up by John Fox in Chicago. You may recall that the defense under Harbaugh/Fangio was pretty good, they went to a SB and played in the NFFCG a few times. When Naggy came on in CHI, Fangio was retained. Fangio is one of the top 3 Defensive Minds in the NFL. (The other two are BB, and Zimmer.)

So why does this matter? They still have all the same talent right? Except it does matter. What happened to SF's defense after Fangio left. Does anyone even talk about their defense since he left? Who draws up the schemes? Who game plans week in and week out? Who comes up with new wrinkles? The Bears replaced Fangio with Chuck Pagano. Pagano has DC chops, but he doens't have Fangio's chops. Bears defense is more likely to be worse than better this year simply on account of the coaching change.

Kind of like how the Vikings offense changed a bit when it lost Pat Shurmer and Tony Sparano only to replace them with JDF and Clancy Barone. But I digress...

NFL is about more than the guys on the field.

[StumpHunter]

The metric is how many deep playoff runs have the Vikings had in his tenure. 2? One with one of the top 5 QBs of all time on his team, and who couldn't even make the playoffs the following year. The other with A QB who played out of his skin for a season and a historically good defense that allowed 3rd down conversion rates of under 25%. Again, team didn't even make the playoffs the next season.
That's the metric I use. Feel free to use your own, but that's how I judge the GM and Coach's performance.

We didn't make the playoffs because we had people hurt. Let me take some guys off that Bear team and they wouldn't make the playoffs either. Lose Mack for a month +. And that's only one guy.Take out a couple CBs. Then remove some OL and the playoffs won't happen. We were in the hunt the last game. How many teams make the playoffs when they lose a bunch of guys. Plus that Bear D is miles ahead of us. Their scheme gets TOs. This f nut scheme we run doesn't want TOs. I know these rankings have us close but IMO were not in the same league regardless of some meaningless conversion %. I can riddle any team with injuries and the party will be over. If we stay healthy we will make the playoffs.

Teams deal with injuries every season and the Vikings were relatively lucky on the injury front this past season, especially on offense. Defensively they had players out for some games, but that was their strength last season. Not a valid excuse at for them failing.

[808vikingsfan]

Andy's take on the 3rd round and day 3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvH6_5n ... ex=15&t=0s

[Pondering Her Percy]

This is very similar to my view. Guys are labeling Mattison a bad pick simply over 1 thing....his combine 40 time (which he ran terrible 4.67). It was simply a bad run. His pro day 40 was a 4.52 which is nearly identical to over half the nfl starting backs. This is what happens when guys look at the surface of things or a draft “experts” opinion. Mattison is not slow. And since I’ve made that point and provided the facts, that argument has fizzled out. You’re exactly right though. Nobody knows anything. Granted we can all have our opinions but we won’t know anything for quite some time now. We don’t know what these players will do, who we missed out on, who won’t make an impact and made the right decision passing on, what our draft board looked like, etc. We know nothing until the season gets here.

The lack of explosive runs says he is as slow as his combine 40.

I think he will give the Vikings a great option in short yardage situations, something they desperately needed, but I would hope that a 3rd round pick could have gotten us a good all around running back who could start on many teams.

Then how were his pro day 40's so much better? He will definitely provide short yardage help but another plus with him is his pass catching ability and how great his hands are. No less he exploded when he was getting 30 plus carries a game. He's a workhorse through and through with excellent hands. Just because he doesnt have 4.3 speed like you seem to want, doesnt mean he isnt a good running back or a bad pick. You're saying he isnt a good all around back simply based off of a 40 time which appeared to be faulty and lack of explosive runs. He had the 8th most rushing yards in college football, 4th among those drafted. He had the 2nd most carries in all of CFB, 1st among those drafted. 4th most TDs in CFB. The guy has produced all over the board. There's little reason to think he wont have success at this level. Especially since his one "knock" is his speed and it's on par with over half the NFL's starting RBs.

[S197]

Recently tweeted:

It’s not getting talked about enough but the Vikings had a pretty good draft. Bradbury & Samia can be plug and play IOL. Udon is raw but has potential as a swing tackle. Armon Watts can certainly compete at DT. Plus, Dillon Mitchell as a UDFA is criminal. Perfect in that WR group

Not sure who this person is but Dillon wasn't a UDFA.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Recently tweeted:

Not sure who this person is but Dillon wasn't a UDFA.

Yeah didn’t even notice that until you said it. It was an analyst but clearly he doesn’t know shi* since Mitchell was a 7th rounder

[YikesVikes]

IMO, the biggest deficiency we have as fans when it comes to the draft is that we do not really have a meaningful way to assess the relative value of the players versus not just their peers in the draft, but also their peers in the NFL.

This conjecture, but it might be case that Spielman felt that the 3rd rounders available had maybe a 60% chance of contributing. At the same time he felt that due to the depth of the draft that maybe the 4th-6th rounds were a 40-50% shot. So then it made more sens to take 4 shots at the bullseye vs. one or two.

It could also be the case that they didn't think the rating of the players available was that much greater the guys behind them and thus it made more sense to take more shots. Note that the rating could be equally good or equally bad. We don't know.

At the end of the day it is a question of hits and how misses that determines a drafts success. As I've said for YEARS on this board, no one has compiled what the average GM hit rate is in the NFL. So it is really hard to say Spielman sucks or not when it comes to drafting. I know some will say it anyways, but I challenge them to try to answer this question: As Compared to What?

On that RB they took. The criticism is based on what exactly? That Mel Kiper or some other reporter had someone rated better? Is Mel doing our drafting now? What is his hit rate on talent? Anyone ever assessed that? And for that matter, how are the other better? Based on what? Have some seen this alleged rookie play some NFL snaps and they now know something we do not? I wouldn't be so hasty to judge. If he is off the team in three years AND one of the other guys is a stud then you can complain. Right now, we know nothing.

This is very similar to my view. Guys are labeling Mattison a bad pick simply over 1 thing....his combine 40 time (which he ran terrible 4.67). It was simply a bad run. His pro day 40 was a 4.52 which is nearly identical to over half the nfl starting backs. This is what happens when guys look at the surface of things or a draft “experts” opinion. Mattison is not slow. And since I’ve made that point and provided the facts, that argument has fizzled out. You’re exactly right though. Nobody knows anything. Granted we can all have our opinions but we won’t know anything for quite some time now. We don’t know what these players will do, who we missed out on, who won’t make an impact and made the right decision passing on, what our draft board looked like, etc. We know nothing until the season gets here.

Stop comparing Pro day numbers to combine numbers. I doesn't work that way. Player A ran a 4.45 at his pro day. Player B ran a 4.45 at the combine. I will put money on it that player B is faster than Player A. Most pro day times are hand times and or not as accurate as the combine.

I hope every guy we drafted turns out to be a legit stud, because we need them to and their Vikings. It doesn't change the fact that right now it looks like we wasted at least 3 of the 4 late rounders we gained.