Vikings Message Board.Com

urlacher has lost more than a step. he is to damn old. vikings want youth and speed. the tampa 2 requires speed. woodson, ed reed, urlacher, asomugha all too slow.

Mothman wrote:
I see your point, Dan but while drafting the best talent available and avoiding reaches is a good philosophy, I think you're taking it to a bit further than necessary here. The draft is highly subjective so what even constitutes a reach is often highly debatable. In the end, teams usually draft the best player available at a position of need and in this draft, there are several MLBs that would be appropriate choices for a late first round draft pick. Consequently, signing Urlacher to avoid the need to draft one makes little sense, especially since he'd be a short term solution at best and they could easily be right back in the same needy situation next year.

Maybe the issue is what it means to be a "position of need." I would argue that there are many such positions on this team. We could improve at QB, G, WR, DT, MLB, CM -- and arguably even S and OLB. What I don't like to see is a team getting so desperate that they think they must take a player in round 1 to fill a particular hole. Because it may be that they see a player -- or in this case, two players, since we have two #1 picks -- who they truly believe will be excellent, but who play one of the many positions in which they can use an upgrade. It would be a shame not to take one of those players and instead take a guy at the position of greatest need who you are significantly less crazy about.

VikingLord wrote: Agree 100%. Teams that go into FA before the draft generally pay more to get less, plus they think that spackle job resolves the "needs" they have so they then go into the draft and focus on other positions of greater "need" at that moment, potentially passing on better players. Waiting to venture into FA until after the draft does the exact opposite. Teams may not get the flashy FA talent, but the guys they do get won't be overpaid generally, nor will the team be likely to get through the draft without addressing their real needs.

The problem for the Vikings right now is that they have such gaping holes in some areas they literally have to make moves in FA, and they've made their situation worse in many ways. Why, for example, did they need to trade Harvin before this year's draft? Why not wait until after the draft and see what came out of the draft before making the move? Harvin wasn't going anywhere. Sure, they wouldn't have gotten the Seahawks' first rounder this year, but so what? Spielman could have still landed Jenkins in FA if he really wanted, kept Harvin around to see if that situation changed at all, and/or still traded him for probably the same compensation after the draft. Depending on who they drafted, that might have been a no-brainer move if they really felt Harvin needed to go.

It seems pretty clear they felt Harvin needed to go so why wait? I seriously doubt Spielman could have received the same compensation for Harvin after the draft and if he had, that compensation wouldn't have helped for another year. Adding another two months to that Harvin story, which was just building momentum, would probably have left the Vikings with less leverage to make a trade. By trading when they did, they likely maximized their return and more importantly, they gave themselves a chance to get an immediate return on the trade in this year's draft.

There's also the trade partner to consider. What was their window of interest? By the time the draft has passed and teams are two months into free agency, they've already made a lot of the moves they felt they needed to make, spent cap money, etc. It would be tougher for them to accommodate a big new contract for a player like Harvin at that point.

If you really think about it, timing of the trade definitely made sense.

DanAS wrote: Maybe the issue is what it means to be a "position of need." I would argue that there are many such positions on this team. We could improve at QB, G, WR, DT, MLB, CM -- and arguably even S and OLB. What I don't like to see is a team getting so desperate that they think they must take a player in round 1 to fill a particular hole. Because it may be that they see a player -- or in this case, two players, since we have two #1 picks -- who they truly believe will be excellent, but who play one of the many positions in which they can use an upgrade. It would be a shame not to take one of those players and instead take a guy at the position of greatest need who you are significantly less crazy about.

I agree and as I said, I really do see your point. For what it's worth, I agree that the Vikings have numerous positions of need so they don't have to feel locked in to choosing a MLB. However, if they do use a first round pick to select one, I'll be surprised if it's problematic, although opinions always vary about who should have been picked.

Personally, I think once you get past the top third of the draft, determining who the best player available is becomes increasingly subjective. Sometimes a top 10 talent drops way down due to character concerns or something but otherwise, it's hard to say who is the best choice regardless of position at a given slot, especially when comparing players at different positions and trying to project how they will perform at the next level. My guess is that after the top 10 are gone, at any given place in the draft there are quite a few players that could be considered the best available.

Mothman wrote:
I agree and as I said, I really do see your point. For what it's worth, I agree that the Vikings have numerous positions of need so they don't have to feel locked in to choosing a MLB. However, if they do use a first round pick to select one, I'll be surprised if it's problematic, although opinions always vary about who should have been picked.

Personally, I think once you get past the top third of the draft, determining who the best player available is becomes increasingly subjective. Sometimes a top 10 talent drops way down due to character concerns or something but otherwise, it's hard to say who is the best choice regardless of position at a given slot, especially when comparing players at different positions and trying to project how they will perform at the next level. My guess is that after the top 10 are gone, at any given place in the draft there are quite a few players that could be considered the best available.

I honestly can't say how strongly the teams generally feel about drafting one guy above others. But I have heard about situations where teams just KNEW a guy was going to be great. What immediately comes to mind is the work that Bill Walsh did to get in position to draft Jerry Rice with the sixteenth pick. Rice, obviously, wasn't generally viewed as a total stud by the draft experts. But Walsh figured it out, and did what he could to draft him. I'd hate to think that we pass up on a star because he plays the position we need fifth most, instead of playing the position we ABSOLUTELY need to fill. And while that problem may be alleviated a bit by having two picks, I'd hate to think we're going to throw one of those away JUST to fill a desperate need.

Frankly, the better you draft -- meaning the more you draft BPAs generally -- the less often you should have needs that are truly "desperate."

DanAS wrote: I honestly can't say how strongly the teams generally feel about drafting one guy above others. But I have heard about situations where teams just KNEW a guy was going to be great. What immediately comes to mind is the work that Bill Walsh did to get in position to draft Jerry Rice with the sixteenth pick. Rice, obviously, wasn't generally viewed as a total stud by the draft experts. But Walsh figured it out, and did what he could to draft him. I'd hate to think that we pass up on a star because he plays the position we need fifth most, instead of playing the position we ABSOLUTELY need to fill. And while that problem may be alleviated a bit by having two picks, I'd hate to think we're going to throw one of those away JUST to fill a desperate need.

Frankly, the better you draft -- meaning the more you draft BPAs generally -- the less often you should have needs that are truly "desperate."

I really don't think you have to worry about this much. I personally think that your ideaology and Speilmans aren't far off from the way he talks, but even if they did draft more towards need, this just so happens to be one of the years that strategy would probably be ok. The Vikings needs seem to align well with the depth of this draft.

DanAS wrote:I honestly can't say how strongly the teams generally feel about drafting one guy above others. But I have heard about situations where teams just KNEW a guy was going to be great. What immediately comes to mind is the work that Bill Walsh did to get in position to draft Jerry Rice with the sixteenth pick. Rice, obviously, wasn't generally viewed as a total stud by the draft experts. But Walsh figured it out, and did what he could to draft him. I'd hate to think that we pass up on a star because he plays the position we need fifth most, instead of playing the position we ABSOLUTELY need to fill. And while that problem may be alleviated a bit by having two picks, I'd hate to think we're going to throw one of those away JUST to fill a desperate need.

Frankly, the better you draft -- meaning the more you draft BPAs generally -- the less often you should have needs that are truly "desperate."

Yes and no. At some point, positions have to be addressed. Drafting purely for need can cause a team to miss out on talent but drafting purely for talent could just as easily lead to a talented roster with crippling shortcomings.

There should be first round caliber talent at both MLB and CB when the Vikes pick in this draft so I don't think the specific concern you've expressed in this thread is a big worry this year. You never know, of course, but if the Vikes are that desperate for an MLB, if it looks like there's going to be a surprising run on the position before #23, and if they feel there's a guy they must have (as Walsh felt about Rice) they could probably trade up to get him. However, I don't think they're in any great danger of throwing away one of their two first round picks out of desperation.

Anyway, the best reason to sign Urlacher (and really the only justifiable reason) is if they believe he can truly help them be a better team.

Mothman wrote: Yes and no. At some point, positions have to be addressed. Drafting purely for need can cause a team to miss out on talent but drafting purely for talent could just as easily lead to a talented roster with crippling shortcomings.

There should be first round caliber talent at both MLB and CB when the Vikes pick in this draft so I don't think the specific concern you've expressed in this thread is a big worry this year. You never know, of course, but if the Vikes are that desperate for an MLB, if it looks like there's going to be a surprising run on the position before #23, and if they feel there's a guy they must have (as Walsh felt about Rice) they could probably trade up to get him. However, I don't think they're in any great danger of throwing away one of their two first round picks out of desperation.

Anyway, the best reason to sign Urlacher (and really the only justifiable reason) is if they believe he can truly help them be a better team.

In a nutshell, that's precisely it.

Ultimately the glaring negatives are health and speed during performance. The extent of these two flaws will likely see us back of and as the saying goes, there's no smoke without fire, I don't believe a report stating "We have no intersest in Urlacher" is complete nonsense, perhaps just a little over emphasised.

I'd love for us to acquire him at a later date when his playing days are over, perhaps in a coaching role, purely due to knowledge of the division. He might view it as a revenge mission

Mothman wrote:Anyway, the best reason to sign Urlacher (and really the only justifiable reason) is if they believe he can truly help them be a better team.

I absolutely agree.

It also seems to me the Vikings have concluded that Urlacher cannot make them better rebuilding team, whereas a talented MLB from the draft could be an important part of both the present and future for the Vikings.

losperros wrote: I absolutely agree.

It also seems to me the Vikings have concluded that Urlacher cannot make them better rebuilding team,

I think he's going to find that not many teams think he can make them a better team either.

dead_poet wrote: I think he's going to find that not many teams think he can make them a better team either.

I agree. These days, I think players in his position to tend be most valuable to the team they've been playing with rather than to a new team. There are exceptions of course, but generally speaking, I think that's the case.

Here is the issue I have with the OP’s line of thinking. It seems to assume a level of certainty with regards to player eval for both Veteran FA as well as upcoming draft prospects which IMO is not reality. Even with veteran FA players who have a body of NFL tape you do not always know what guy is going to show up in your locker room. Vikings fans can recall the Childress trade for Randy Moss as well as the signing of Bernard Berrian as examples. Likewise, on draft day the same applies. That is why teams interview so heavily.

On top of this uncertainty, there is no guarantee that one GM will “play by the rules” in terms of eval. There is a general status quo which we fans get from the likes of Mel Kiper, but the reaity is that one guy might rated #22 on one board and #32 on another, it just depends. I do not think you can say that the Vikings would be “forced” to draft MLB, there may not be any MLB available at their pick worthy of a 1st round selection. They will either have a need or not, but that doesn’t mean that “have” to fill it.

I can’t read Spielman and Co’s mind but my guess is that if they decide to not sign Urlacher or some other Veteran FA it is because they do not feel that player will give them the best chance to win and/or the best value for their cap space.

We shouldn’t underestimate cap space issues as well. Urlacher might be a solid “band-aid” for this season, but perhaps the Vikes are willing to have a less potent starter on the field to ensure they have enough cap space for upcoming contract negotiations? Consider that the Lions had to let Cliff Avril, their best pass rusher, leave because of poor cap management. (another example that the Lions are still not 100% removed from their lost decade) I’ll take a sub-par starter for a year if it means we retain the services of say Everson Griffon or another key player on the roster.

Mothman wrote: It seems pretty clear they felt Harvin needed to go so why wait?

Was it? I think Spielman was quoted as saying he had not sought out any trade partners for Harvin prior to the Seahawks calling and offering him a deal he couldn't pass up.

And as far as why wait, I tried to explain that above. The Vikings drafted Harvin. They had him under contract. Unless he had to go, why not let the draft play out and that situation evolve a bit more?

Mothman wrote: I seriously doubt Spielman could have received the same compensation for Harvin after the draft and if he had, that compensation wouldn't have helped for another year. Adding another two months to that Harvin story, which was just building momentum, would probably have left the Vikings with less leverage to make a trade. By trading when they did, they likely maximized their return and more importantly, they gave themselves a chance to get an immediate return on the trade in this year's draft.

But compensation for Harvin is in draft picks, not proven production. If you look at it purely from the perspective of what they got, they got rid of a proven player coming into his prime who filled a position of great need on the team for possibility. Granted, they maximized that possibility, but that didn't turn out so great for them when they traded Moss and got the 7th pick in that draft. In fact, in that draft neither of their 1st rounders turned out so great. One could argue the net effect of trading Moss there was to artificially inflate the perceived need for a speedy WR, which in turn caused them to vastly over-value Troy Williamson. To add insult to injury, they passed on Aaron Rodgers not once, but twice, in that same draft. There is no guarantee that had the Vikings kept Moss they would have taken Rodgers, but had they kept Moss they would have retained a proven, if disgruntled, performer at WR. They got rid of the headache *and* the performance with that trade.

This trade is only good for the Vikes if Spielman turns those picks into good players.

Mothman wrote: There's also the trade partner to consider. What was their window of interest? By the time the draft has passed and teams are two months into free agency, they've already made a lot of the moves they felt they needed to make, spent cap money, etc. It would be tougher for them to accommodate a big new contract for a player like Harvin at that point.

If you really think about it, timing of the trade definitely made sense.

I understand the timing argument, but I'm still not convinced the timing was in the best interest of the Vikings. Call me crazy, but I still had hope for Harvin. He's still relatively young and maybe they could have worked with him to help him mature. Further, the contract he got in Seattle really isn't that bad and not much more than the Vikings gave up for an older, more injury-prone Jennings.

Unless Harvin absolutely had to go, and I'm not convinced that was the case based on everyone's public statements since the trade, I still think the Vikings were better served by being patient with Harvin, or at the very least waiting until after the draft to decide what was the best course of action.

VikingLord, you have to recognize that the time to deal Harvin was now. If they waited until after this season the only way they could have kept him in place was to sock him with a Franchise tag. There was also no guarrantee he wouldn't sit and hold out for 10 games. After all that mess, he would still enter FA and have no reason to be loyal.

I look at it this way: What would be the net gain to keeping Harvin and enduring that giant fiasco? The only reason I can think of is if they felt they could bring him back onto the reservation and get him in line. The risk being if they are wrong he walks and they get nothing.

The alternative is what they did, trade him and recoup some value.

I just do not find the argument that they didn't get value commensurate with his talent persuasive. I get why people say that, but the problem is that who was offering anything for Harvin commensurate with his talent? Nobody was. So how can you get down on the Front Office for not making a deal that didn't exist? They had what the Seachickens were offering and the Franchise tag mess to choose from. The question is whether or not they chose right?

It is within anyone's right to be mad that Harvin is gone, but you should be mad at Harvin, not the Front Office. The only reason he got traded was because he didn't want to be here anymore. Do people really believe that our Front Office is so stupid as to not see the talent Harvin possessed? That just isn't persuasive either.

DanAS wrote: Let me clarify that I am not saying we should sign Urlacher if he can no longer play.

I am saying that we should -- within reason -- concentrate on drafting the best player available. And if drafting a guy who can't play and convincing ourselves that he can permits us to draft a great player who plays a position of less need (like, say, a great DT), then it would be a blessing in disguise.

Obviously, if a guy stinks, we shouldn't sign him. But nor should we feel compelled to draft the "best WR available" and the "best MLB available" with the first two picks. That was the attitude that got us Troy Williamson.

I think you're getting caught up in Troy Williamson and not seeing things clearly. Williamson was drafted by a different regime. If you look at the current regime's history, especially in the 1st round, you'll see a pretty consistent pattern of landing the BPA, who also happened to fill a need.

Greenway (although not a Spielman pick) not only filled a huge need at LB, he turned out to be a BPA pick as well at that spot, in fact he's out performed the two LBs who were viewed as locks in that draft in AJ Hawk and Ernie Sims, both drafted before him.

Peterson did not fill an immediate hole, and I think this is the best example of what you're getting at, which I would agree too. You don't pass on a special player like AD, regardless of Chester Taylor or not.

In a way you could count JA in this discussion. This year we used our 1st round pick to fill an immediate hole.

Percy filled a huge need on the team AND was BPA

Kalil also filled a HUGE need on the team AND was BPA.

Harrison Smith filled a massive void on the team and has proven to be BPA.


So looking back, really the only time this team has reached to fill a hole it was at QB. So I wouldn't be too worried about it.

I think you're see things to black and white. Your acting as if BPA and Need can't co-exist in one pick, but Matt Kalil is the perfect example how it can. It's not an either or thing. And I think what people have been rying to say is that there are a number of MLBs and WRs who will fill both BPA and need. And depending on how the board plays out, we have the picks to freely maneuver around the board and get the players that we want, so if there's run on MLBs or WRs earlier, we can move up to get the one we want and not have to reach for a Troy Williamson-type.

Obviously if we stay put at 23 and 25 and WRs and LBs are off the board, I wouldn't be apposed to drafting BPA at another position of need like DT or CB. And if there's a player at a position like DE, S, or G who is has fallen into our laps and should have come off the board, I'd be all for it. But drafting the absolute best player available doesn't always make sense either. Say the top to players on our board at 25 are Eddie Lacy and DJ Fluker. Are we going to draft a RB or T when we're completely set at those positions for years? Why would we spend a 1st round pick on a player that's going to be a backup for most of their career on the oft chance one of our starters gets hurt?

I know where you're coming from, but the point is that not every "need" pick turns into a Williamson. In fact a lot of need picks turn into Kalil, Smith, Percy and Greenway. Need and BPA are always separate things.