I agree.CalVike wrote:A solid B-. A+ if Patterson pans out.
I guess the days of building a dream team thru free agency is gone. never ever panned out for daniel snyders redskins, raiders, cowboys, or the eagles last year.

Moderator: Moderators
I agree.CalVike wrote:A solid B-. A+ if Patterson pans out.
From the Bleacher Report:Mothman wrote: No it won't.
The Vikes have already made two other picks and they could make as many as 8 in total if they don't get involved in further trades. Their 2013 draft will be defined by what they achieve with the draft as a whole, not by the trade for Patterson.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1623 ... ####/page/4Ultimately, the success of the Minnesota Vikings' 2013 draft class will be judged on the performance of Cordarrelle Patterson, the mercurial receiver out of Tennessee that the Vikings traded four picks to New England to in order to get.
MrPurplenGold wrote: All in all I think the Vikings as a team are better after the draft than they were before, which makes it a success in my book.
The other two first round picks weren't no-brainers, they were choices and there were plenty of other options on the table, including every WR other than Austin and every inside LB in the draft, any of whom would have also addressed a need. BPA is completely subjective and not always a key consideration, which is probably one of the reasons Floyd was available to the Vikings in the first place.John_Viveiros wrote:From the Bleacher Report: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1623 ... ####/page/4
Perhaps rather than "value" I should have said "Spielman's performance", but the idea is that the other two first round picks were no-brainers, based on BPA and need. And the rest of the guys are low round picks with little chance to succeed. Patterson is the player that defines whether the Vikings organization drafted well given their positions in the draft, or did not.
Well said!Mothman wrote: The other two first round picks weren't no-brainers, they were choices and there were plenty of other options on the table, including every WR other than Austin and every inside LB in the draft, any of whom would have also addressed a need. BPA is completely subjective and not always a key consideration, which is probably one of the reasons Floyd was available to the Vikings in the first place.
The idea that the Patterson pick somehow defines whether the Vikings drafted well is nothing more than a hyperbolic concoction whipped up by those who want to place more emphasis on the pick than it deserves. As I said before, the Vikings 2013 draft will be defined by what they achieve with the draft as a whole, not by the trade for Patterson. That's the logical, sensible way to look at any draft class. Suppose Patterson is a complete bust but Floyd and Rhodes become excellent players, Locke is the Vikings punter for the next 10 years and ranks among the 10 best at his position in the league for most of that time, and one of the other mid-to-late round picks ends up being a solid starter for the team for 3-4 years. That's certainly not an impossible scenario and if things played out that way, would the 2013 draft somehow be defined by the success for failure of Patterson alone? Of course not! The Vikings drafted nine players in this draft so trying to make it about one is just a way to bemoan the price paid for Patterson.
Mothman wrote:The idea that the Patterson pick somehow defines whether the Vikings drafted well is nothing more than a hyperbolic concoction whipped up by those who want to place more emphasis on the pick than it deserves. As I said before, the Vikings 2013 draft will be defined by what they achieve with the draft as a whole, not by the trade for Patterson. That's the logical, sensible way to look at any draft class. Suppose Patterson is a complete bust but Floyd and Rhodes become excellent players, Locke is the Vikings punter for the next 10 years and ranks among the 10 best at his position in the league for most of that time, and one of the other mid-to-late round picks ends up being a solid starter for the team for 3-4 years. That's certainly not an impossible scenario and if things played out that way, would the 2013 draft somehow be defined by the success for failure of Patterson alone? Of course not! The Vikings drafted nine players in this draft so trying to make it about one is just a way to bemoan the price paid for Patterson.
Bleacher Report articles are definitely nothing to get into a tizzy about.PacificNorseWest wrote:Bleacher report articles are nothing to get into a tizzy about, but yes...I side with Moth.
I certainly agreeTexas Vike wrote:As a sort of "final thought" on this year's draft : I am really glad that the Vikings did not FORCE their picks. By that, I mean that their need for a MLB did not trump what was happening with the draft board and the serious talent that somehow slipped down to them. Part of this is simply setting up their overall big board based more on player talent than the team's need. The more I reflect on it, the happier I am that they traded back into the 1st for Patterson.
Nice take.mansquatch wrote:The draft is interesting to say the least. To the topic of the thread, I like how things have gone from the perspective of the event is a week old, but let’s face reality, we won’t be able to judge this draft until 2015 at the earliest.
That being said, there are a lot of ways to look at a draft. If you look at our starters, some 75%+ are 1st or 2nd round draft picks. That would say that any talent you can get out of the 3rd round and beyond should be considered a fortunate event. You have to expect most of those guys are not going to make the team. It also speaks to why missing on a 1st or 2nd round pick is a big deal.
Or maybe you look at through a lens of the total roster, and say that the key to being a consistently winning franchise is to hit on those late round picks so that overall your roster is highly productive. Another consideration is the salary cap, ie if you overload on stars you cannot pay them all and then they leave or take up so much cap space that you have gaping holes on your roster. The draft is in reality a multi-faceted game in the NFL and each aspect has its own set of consequences.
IMO, the real lynch pin are the scouts and player eval guys. If you can consistently find difference making talent in the early rounds that fits schematically, plus role playing talent in the later rounds then you should, in theory have a strong overall roster with which to compete. Thus far, I think it is safe to say Scott Studwell and co have really done a solid job over the past few years.