Eli wrote:
Again, it's not just about the draft choice, it's about the deal.
... and the deal is not a big deal. In terms of value, they didn't give up a crazy amount to make this move. I'm not just talking about chart value, I'm referring to the kind of value teams typically get with 3rd or 4th round picks. I'm not ignoring the fact that some terrific players come out of those rounds but this wasn't the kind of crazy maneuver that should lead to a great deal of angst.
If the Vikings use a late round 1st to take a guy who becomes just an average WR, it's a disappointment, but not a failure. Using three draft picks to take an average player is a giant failure.
I see absolutely no need to frame it that way. They had the picks to spare. If they had used all 11, the odds are extremely good that several of those picks would have been wasted anyway because 11 rookies would be unlikely to make the team and they might even be tough to pay. I think they managed their resources pretty wisely, took a chance on a player who offers tremendous upside and it was a chance worth taking. If it doesn't work out, it doesn't work out. It's not a move that could cripple the franchise. It's not the Walker trade or the insane deal he Saints made to draft Ricky Williams. It's a calculated and there's risk with any draft pick.
I don't see the big deal. We gave up those picks and we addressed a need. Maybe some think it is risky but he is no less likely to work out as a receiver than the 2s, 3s and 4s we chose would have been at their respective positions. With this pick, we are potentially turning a need into an advantage.
Besides, Patterson was projected around where we chose him anyway; I doubt he would have made it 5-10 more picks, if that.
Some call it risky. I disagree. I understand the depth argument. But again, the guys we 'would have gotten' aren't any more likely to help us than CP.
Eli wrote:I'm saying that I would _hope_ the Vikings draft room is capable of selecting solid players in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th rounds rather than only being able to pick 1st rounders. Or maybe they really do have that little confidence in their ability to draft football players.
It's feeling like 2010, 2011 all over again. I think that 10-6 record last year has put some twinkly stars in their eyes and they think they just need a couple of big players to get to the big game. The Patriots, meanwhile...
I wonder who called who in initiating this deal.
We where one game away from taking the division and very well could of won that game if ponder had a better showing, why not get twinkly stars in our eyes and try to win now? What's the point holding onto our 2 and third if we weren't going to get any of the players we wanted with them (minter, te'o, Hunter, Patterson etc). Great move.
“I remember my mistakes more than my success.” - Adrian Peterson
The way I think about the deal to move back up is compare it to a "normal" draft where a team has a single pick in each of the rounds. Vikes basically used their first three picks in the 1st round to draft guys who have NFL star potential rather than take a single player in each round with increasing likelihood of diminished impact in the pros. They still have their original 4th, 5th, and 6th rounders for this year, and 2 7ths. So really, they just pushed their picks up the board looking for starters at positions where, quite honestly, they need starters.
When looked at that way it's hard to argue that they got a bad deal.
VikingLord wrote:The way I think about the deal to move back up is compare it to a "normal" draft where a team has a single pick in each of the rounds. Vikes basically used their first three picks in the 1st round to draft guys who have NFL star potential rather than take a single player in each round with increasing likelihood of diminished impact in the pros. They still have their original 4th, 5th, and 6th rounders for this year, and 2 7ths. So really, they just pushed their picks up the board looking for starters at positions where, quite honestly, they need starters.
When looked at that way it's hard to argue that they got a bad deal.
I see your point, but you can't overlook the fact that this isn't a "normal" draft because we had to lose Percy Harvin to be in a position to make those picks. Don't get me wrong, though, I am very happy with last night's draft.
That's not much of an argument. They had two of those 1st round picks before the day even began. They weren't part of the deal, so factoring them into the equation makes no sense to me.
Here's my final say on the matter:
They could have easily taken Cordarrelle Patterson with the #25 pick, and it would have cost them nothing. Imagine they did that and Xavier Rhodes was still available at #29 when they get to talking with the Patriots. What do you think about giving up three draft picks to swoop in and snatch an Xavier Rhodes? It's exactly the same net outcome for the Vikings.
Now we don't have a deal that was made to take this high-ceiling offensive player, we don't have the highlight reels of a guy looking like Gale Sayers, and we don't have the 'dynamic player' cliche or a guy who, if he flops at his position, might still be a good returner. We just got a good cornerback. Still worth giving up the #83 and #102?
(BTW, I already know what the answer to this question will be in this forum. But I don't believe it. There _would_ be more of an outcry.)
Eli wrote:That's not much of an argument. They had two of those 1st round picks before the day even began. They weren't part of the deal, so factoring them into the equation makes no sense to me.
Here's my final say on the matter:
They could have easily taken Cordarrelle Patterson with the #25 pick, and it would have cost them nothing. Imagine they did that and Xavier Rhodes was still available at #29 when they get to talking with the Patriots. What do you think about giving up three draft picks to swoop in and snatch an Xavier Rhodes? It's exactly the same net outcome for the Vikings.
Now we don't have a deal that was made to take this high-ceiling offensive player, we don't have the highlight reels of a guy looking like Gale Sayers, and we don't have the 'dynamic player' cliche or a guy who, if he flops at his position, might still be a good returner. We just got a good cornerback. Still worth giving up the #83 and #102?
(BTW, I already know what the answer to this question will be in this forum. But I don't believe it. There _would_ be more of an outcry.)
I think it's pretty clear they over paid for the spot. (regardless of who was taken at that spot) Spielman has said Rhodes was one of the players they wouldn't even consider trading down if he was there so it's very possible it seems that spielman would make the same trade for him. Or are you questioning the board / fan base? If you are then I see what you're getting at, I'd be super upset if we made the same trade for Rhodes but I'm just a fan heh.
As far as over paying, you can tell because of how the other teams moved up and what they paid to do it. I think some of them did it for a single pick, like a 3rd rounder. In a normal year it might have been fair value but this year it looked to heavily favor the team trading up and we still made the Pats look good for it.
Raptorman wrote:Rhodes would not have made it past the Packers.
You are 100% right. And don't you know how unhappy the Lions, Bears and Packers are that the Vikes got these three players. I can see Floyd, Williams , Allen and Griffin/Robison destroying those team's lines.
Do not mistake KINDNESS for WEAKNESS!
Best to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool rather than open it and remove all doubt.
Eli wrote:That's not much of an argument. They had two of those 1st round picks before the day even began. They weren't part of the deal, so factoring them into the equation makes no sense to me.
Here's my final say on the matter:
They could have easily taken Cordarrelle Patterson with the #25 pick, and it would have cost them nothing. Imagine they did that and Xavier Rhodes was still available at #29 when they get to talking with the Patriots. What do you think about giving up three draft picks to swoop in and snatch an Xavier Rhodes? It's exactly the same net outcome for the Vikings.
Now we don't have a deal that was made to take this high-ceiling offensive player, we don't have the highlight reels of a guy looking like Gale Sayers, and we don't have the 'dynamic player' cliche or a guy who, if he flops at his position, might still be a good returner. We just got a good cornerback. Still worth giving up the #83 and #102?
(BTW, I already know what the answer to this question will be in this forum. But I don't believe it. There _would_ be more of an outcry.)
I think right now the comparison of whether or not it was a good trade is a bit premature. You're comparing a player to picks that RIGHT NOW have no on field value. We don't know that any of the WR's the Vikings wanted would have made it to them at 52. Hunter, Woods, Patterson and Allen could have all been gone by the time the Vikings picked in the 2nd round. Teo, Brown and Minter could be gone at 52 as well, then what? Then you have to reach for a 3rd Tier WR, LB, or maybe take the best Guard available. It's extremely premature to determine whether or not it was a good decision for them to trade away their 3rd and 4th round pick, which is essentially all they gave up in this trade.
Eli wrote:That's not much of an argument. They had two of those 1st round picks before the day even began. They weren't part of the deal, so factoring them into the equation makes no sense to me.
The Vikings needed those 3 positions of need, badly. Correct? How often does a team nail down 3 long term starters in the first round with what is needed? Speilman did this for impact because he thinks this team could use a punch like this to further ourselves into the playoffs. THAT'S why factoring all three pics as they went down makes sense as Speilman had a reason for it.
Remember, Viking fans were scared to death that Teo was going to be the one made as the 3rd pic before Patterson was announced.
A successful coach needs a patient wife, loyal dog, and great quarterback - and not necessarily in that order.
VikingLord wrote:The way I think about the deal to move back up is compare it to a "normal" draft where a team has a single pick in each of the rounds. Vikes basically used their first three picks in the 1st round to draft guys who have NFL star potential rather than take a single player in each round with increasing likelihood of diminished impact in the pros. They still have their original 4th, 5th, and 6th rounders for this year, and 2 7ths. So really, they just pushed their picks up the board looking for starters at positions where, quite honestly, they need starters.
When looked at that way it's hard to argue that they got a bad deal.
Well put and I'm done reading other posts after yours.
A successful coach needs a patient wife, loyal dog, and great quarterback - and not necessarily in that order.
Eli wrote:That's not much of an argument. They had two of those 1st round picks before the day even began. They weren't part of the deal, so factoring them into the equation makes no sense to me.
Here's my final say on the matter:
They could have easily taken Cordarrelle Patterson with the #25 pick, and it would have cost them nothing. Imagine they did that and Xavier Rhodes was still available at #29 when they get to talking with the Patriots. What do you think about giving up three draft picks to swoop in and snatch an Xavier Rhodes? It's exactly the same net outcome for the Vikings.
Now we don't have a deal that was made to take this high-ceiling offensive player, we don't have the highlight reels of a guy looking like Gale Sayers, and we don't have the 'dynamic player' cliche or a guy who, if he flops at his position, might still be a good returner. We just got a good cornerback. Still worth giving up the #83 and #102?
(BTW, I already know what the answer to this question will be in this forum. But I don't believe it. There _would_ be more of an outcry.)
There is no "deal" here per se. All I'm pointing out is that comparing what happened with what would normally happen given a single, later pick in each round, the Vikes used what were essentially their first 3 picks in the first three rounds to draft 3 players in a single round who could have a potentially huge impact on the field. If you start from the position that they had all these extra picks, then I think it becomes easier to find a bone to pick with the deal.
The point about taking Patterson and then moving up to get Rhodes is moot, not because you wouldn't believe what is posted on this board in response (I agree there would be an outcry), but because the Vikings themselves passed on Patterson to take Rhodes. They must have had Rhodes rated higher, and I wouldn't be shocked at all if that were the case given the division they play in and the passing games their opponents can field. Big tall corners who can play effective press coverage but still have the wheels to turn and run with guys are rare birds in the NFL. They themselves had Rhodes rated higher, and by the end of next season I suspect we'll all agree that was a very solid assessment. Now the Vikes actually have 2 big, fast corners with the length to make NFC North QBs think twice about lofting up those deep balls. This also lets Josh Robinson shift inside where he is going to be more effective (Winfield's age wasn't the only reason he played mostly inside - his height was probably a factor as well given that most slot receivers are the smaller, shiftier type). That's going to be a good place for Robinson.
