Draft Day Question #2

[makila]

Kinda torn. Voted hesitant, but yes. Think many of us have Rick flashbacks when talking trading down. Agreed there is a big difference in what you move back to. Ie bunch if meh picks in the final day, or less picks still at impact full draft slots though.

Think we could still land two starters though in the late first.

[CharVike]

Kinda torn. Voted hesitant, but yes. Think many of us have Rick flashbacks when talking trading down. Agreed there is a big difference in what you move back to. Ie bunch if meh picks in the final day, or less picks still at impact full draft slots though.

Think we could still land two starters though in the late first.

You can get starters but will they be top of the line starters. This Bradbury has been starting since day 1 and hasn't been very good. We traded for backup Cole who filled in and he looked much better. That was a backup player. Off the top of my head there were people on here last year who really liked Micah Parsons and he turned out to be a dam good player. I highly doubt that there were many players drafted 20+ that will come close to his level. Some may have been starters. Basically who cares they suck. Trader down Rick not only had the dumbest philosophy but he and his staff couldn't judge talent very well and our roster from top to bottom shows it. IMO I would never trade down unless the return is an unheard of deal. I can't stand trading away from the top flight talent.

[StanM]

What does a 23 midrounder mean? 3rd cool. 4th or later I don't even figure it into the equation. 12 for 29 and 30 sounds about right. Doesn't favor either team. I voted hesitant, but yes. Funny how we've mostly all been whining about trading down for years. (not me) and now we're voting in favor of doing just that.

I think we’re willing to accept trading down if there is value as pointed out in other threads. Trading down for first rounders and additional compensation in the higher rounds still holds that value. Rick used to trade down and stock up on sixth and seventh round picks. Not the same. I think we’re being consistent by agreeing to avoid those lower round picks.

[VikingsVictorious]

A 4th definitely not. A 3rd hesitant, but yes.

I guess I'm not sure why its a definite no for a 4th but a yes for a 3rd? Is there that much of a difference? There's even less of a gap between the 3rd and 4th rounds talent wise.

I honestly don't know enough about this years draft to say whether there is a big difference of talent from 12 to 29-30.

I dont believe there is a big difference. Most analysts feel the same way

In my experience some very good players come from the 3rd round, but very few come from the 4th. I don't have the data on this though.

[VikingsVictorious]

What does a 23 midrounder mean? 3rd cool. 4th or later I don't even figure it into the equation. 12 for 29 and 30 sounds about right. Doesn't favor either team. I voted hesitant, but yes. Funny how we've mostly all been whining about trading down for years. (not me) and now we're voting in favor of doing just that.

I think we’re willing to accept trading down if there is value as pointed out in other threads. Trading down for first rounders and additional compensation in the higher rounds still holds that value. Rick used to trade down and stock up on sixth and seventh round picks. Not the same. I think we’re being consistent by agreeing to avoid those lower round picks.

Rick wasn't trading first round picks for 6th and 7th rounders. It's a myth. He might have got some thrown in, but for example last year when he traded down and not very far his compensation was two third round picks right.

[Thaumaturgist]

I guess I'm not sure why its a definite no for a 4th but a yes for a 3rd? Is there that much of a difference? There's even less of a gap between the 3rd and 4th rounds talent wise.



I dont believe there is a big difference. Most analysts feel the same way

In my experience some very good players come from the 3rd round, but very few come from the 4th. I don't have the data on this though.

There's at least one from the fourth.

[VikingsVictorious]

What does a 23 midrounder mean? 3rd cool. 4th or later I don't even figure it into the equation. 12 for 29 and 30 sounds about right. Doesn't favor either team. I voted hesitant, but yes. Funny how we've mostly all been whining about trading down for years. (not me) and now we're voting in favor of doing just that.

I think the reason we’re more agreeable to trading down is that we’re not talking about trading down for a bunch of sixth-rounders.

After 15 years of Trader Rick, giving up one first-rounder for two sounds pretty good.

This 6th and 7th round pick stuff is so exaggerated. When trading 3rd round picks and later he got some late picks thrown in, but he never traded a first or 2nd for those. Last year for example trading back nine spots got us the first pick in the third round and another 3rd rounder. Not 6th and 7th round picks. I think we threw in a 4th round pick in that deal.

[VikingsVictorious]

In my experience some very good players come from the 3rd round, but very few come from the 4th. I don't have the data on this though.

There's at least one from the fourth.

It's probably more like a 100 very good players have come from the 3rd round, but only 50 very good players have come from the 4th.

[Pondering Her Percy]

There's at least one from the fourth.

It's probably more like a 100 very good players have come from the 3rd round, but only 50 very good players have come from the 4th.

I'd be interested to see if there was any truth to that.

[J. Kapp 11]

I think the reason we’re more agreeable to trading down is that we’re not talking about trading down for a bunch of sixth-rounders.

After 15 years of Trader Rick, giving up one first-rounder for two sounds pretty good.

This 6th and 7th round pick stuff is so exaggerated. When trading 3rd round picks and later he got some late picks thrown in, but he never traded a first or 2nd for those. Last year for example trading back nine spots got us the first pick in the third round and another 3rd rounder. Not 6th and 7th round picks. I think we threw in a 4th round pick in that deal.

You’re making a distinction without a difference. Rick was a volume guy. The details are immaterial. Nobody in football traded for more failed Day 3 picks than Rick Spielman.

So let’s get to the real reason many on this board aren’t opposed to trading back in the first. I was going to spare your feelings on this, but your need to argue has forced the door open.

Trading back this year could mean the Vikings have two firsts in 2023. That leads to the possibility of trading up next year to draft Kirk Cousins’ replacement.

Remember, you brought this on yourself.

[VikingsVictorious]

This 6th and 7th round pick stuff is so exaggerated. When trading 3rd round picks and later he got some late picks thrown in, but he never traded a first or 2nd for those. Last year for example trading back nine spots got us the first pick in the third round and another 3rd rounder. Not 6th and 7th round picks. I think we threw in a 4th round pick in that deal.

You’re making a distinction without a difference. Rick was a volume guy. The details are immaterial. Nobody in football traded for more failed Day 3 picks than Rick Spielman.

So let’s get to the real reason many on this board aren’t opposed to trading back in the first. I was going to spare your feelings on this, but your need to argue has forced the door open.

Trading back this year could mean the Vikings have two firsts in 2023. That leads to the possibility of trading up next year to draft Kirk Cousins’ replacement.

Remember, you brought this on yourself.

OMG I brought you talking about us drafting a QB next year on myself. I'm shot through the heart and your to blame. You give love a bad name.

You didn't hurt my feelings one iota and I am clueless why you think this post would do that. We are discussing trading a FRP and those have never been traded by Rick for 6th or 7th round picks.

[Pondering Her Percy]

This 6th and 7th round pick stuff is so exaggerated. When trading 3rd round picks and later he got some late picks thrown in, but he never traded a first or 2nd for those. Last year for example trading back nine spots got us the first pick in the third round and another 3rd rounder. Not 6th and 7th round picks. I think we threw in a 4th round pick in that deal.

You’re making a distinction without a difference. Rick was a volume guy. The details are immaterial. Nobody in football traded for more failed Day 3 picks than Rick Spielman.

So let’s get to the real reason many on this board aren’t opposed to trading back in the first. I was going to spare your feelings on this, but your need to argue has forced the door open.

Trading back this year could mean the Vikings have two firsts in 2023. That leads to the possibility of trading up next year to draft Kirk Cousins’ replacement.

Remember, you brought this on yourself.

I honestly liked Spielman's strategy of getting volume. Again, I dont think he mortgaged our future or anything by doing it. I dont think he passed on all world talent just so he could accumulate picks. But I completely understood it. The more picks you gain, the higher your chances of hitting. Yeah most of your day 3 picks are going to fail. Rounds 5-7, the "bust" rate is 75% or higher over the years. But again, there is a 1 in 4 chance you hit. There's Stefon Diggs type players out there, you just have to find them.

But it's simple math. The more picks you have, the more chances you have of hitting and the more mobility you have in the draft. Never once did I say "Damn, Spielman just passed on this stud just so he could accumulate late rounders". He just got the compensation he wanted and seemed to always ask for another throw-in pick.

It's funny because I actually do the same exact thing in fantasy football in nearly every trade I make, and I make a lot in the leagues I'm in. But basically I'll come to terms on a trade with someone, get the compensation I really want and then say "throw in an 8th rounder and we got a deal". 98% of the time, the guy still makes the trade. That's just simply maximizing my return. Its not that I like to "accumulate late round picks". Chances are, my 8th round pick amounts to very little but I'm taking that "what if" chance or at worst, it gives me more trade ammo. I'm squeezing every nickel I can out of the trade and not settling on what was good for them. Every year I'm loaded with mid to late round picks. Sometimes I use them to draft a player, other times they help sweeten trades, they help me move up, down and all around.

Yes I know being an NFL GM is nothing like fantasy football but that's not my point. My point is, always trying to maximize the value you get in a trade. That applies to the NFL, fantasy football, life, etc. It's not that he sits there and says, "I have to gather a bunch of late rounders in this draft". But if a trade presents itself, Spielman always seemed to attempt to squeeze everything out of it that he could. And personally, I admire that because I'd do the same thing. If that causes me to get the label of "being obsessed with late round picks", then so be it. I'll continue to think it's a smart approach to take.

[VikingsFan84]

It is a no brainer but I doubt Chiefs would be willing to do it

[IIsweet]

My trade down approach is to always get 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks in return. If not getting that, I am always taking my BPA.
Btw, they are saying that the 2023 draft class of QB's will rival last years with 5 going in top 15 picks.

[CharVike]

You’re making a distinction without a difference. Rick was a volume guy. The details are immaterial. Nobody in football traded for more failed Day 3 picks than Rick Spielman.

So let’s get to the real reason many on this board aren’t opposed to trading back in the first. I was going to spare your feelings on this, but your need to argue has forced the door open.

Trading back this year could mean the Vikings have two firsts in 2023. That leads to the possibility of trading up next year to draft Kirk Cousins’ replacement.

Remember, you brought this on yourself.

I honestly liked Spielman's strategy of getting volume. Again, I dont think he mortgaged our future or anything by doing it. I dont think he passed on all world talent just so he could accumulate picks. But I completely understood it. The more picks you gain, the higher your chances of hitting. Yeah most of your day 3 picks are going to fail. Rounds 5-7, the "bust" rate is 75% or higher over the years. But again, there is a 1 in 4 chance you hit. There's Stefon Diggs type players out there, you just have to find them.

But it's simple math. The more picks you have, the more chances you have of hitting and the more mobility you have in the draft. Never once did I say "Damn, Spielman just passed on this stud just so he could accumulate late rounders". He just got the compensation he wanted and seemed to always ask for another throw-in pick.

It's funny because I actually do the same exact thing in fantasy football in nearly every trade I make, and I make a lot in the leagues I'm in. But basically I'll come to terms on a trade with someone, get the compensation I really want and then say "throw in an 8th rounder and we got a deal". 98% of the time, the guy still makes the trade. That's just simply maximizing my return. Its not that I like to "accumulate late round picks". Chances are, my 8th round pick amounts to very little but I'm taking that "what if" chance or at worst, it gives me more trade ammo. I'm squeezing every nickel I can out of the trade and not settling on what was good for them. Every year I'm loaded with mid to late round picks. Sometimes I use them to draft a player, other times they help sweeten trades, they help me move up, down and all around.

Yes I know being an NFL GM is nothing like fantasy football but that's not my point. My point is, always trying to maximize the value you get in a trade. That applies to the NFL, fantasy football, life, etc. It's not that he sits there and says, "I have to gather a bunch of late rounders in this draft". But if a trade presents itself, Spielman always seemed to attempt to squeeze everything out of it that he could. And personally, I admire that because I'd do the same thing. If that causes me to get the label of "being obsessed with late round picks", then so be it. I'll continue to think it's a smart approach to take.

He just passed up the best rookie QB from last year and here we sit with no QB of the future. That can't even be called a miss it was death to our roster. Players can be found anywhere we all know that. Players come off the street. KC picked a starting OL player in round 6 this year. That don't happen often. We had 3rd's and 4th's this year with zero return from any of them. It's not like they had to beat out all pro players. Attempting to squeeze is what got him. His focus was volume and not talent level. That never works. Guys need to be able to play the game at the pro level first. Only one year is unfair but some of these guys need to perform this year and become starters. Good starters not Bradberry types. Conklin was a good later pick. Many on here felt it was a good pick.