Draft Day thread

[VikingsVictorious]

Well certainly a lot of people are posting in "absolutes", as in "we absolutely got fleeced in this deal". To me, that is assuming you know we got fleeced. Nothing condescending about it. I based my comments off of the posts in this thread.

And I "get" the degree of carp being directed at our GM, I just don't agree with it.

Even stating "we got fleeced on VALUE" is basically stating you know the value of these picks. No one knows the value of these picks. This is not a game played with charts made up by Jimmy Johnson, this is a game played on the field. The ONLY valid perception of value is how the actual players selected play on the field. And that is a combination of being drafted by us AND being coached by us. It is in no way tied to some arbitrary chart.

And unfortunately for all of us impatient fans, the only way to judge value is to see how the players perform on the field, after being coached by our staff.

What is your definition of a good GM? One who follows JJ's charts and always gets "more points" than other GM's, or one who selects players that perform well on the field based on their traits and our ability to coach? Good grief, you have to wait for the latter.

A man walks into a Casino. He puts 5 dollars in a slot machine. Do we have to wait to see what happens in order to determine whether his decision was good or bad?

No. But his decision might be good just because he may get more than $5 enjoyment out of playing.

[Texas Vike]

Count me among those that had a negative immediate reaction to last night's trade. I wasn't happy with it at first glance, especially since it was with Detroit, NFCN 'rival'.

I still don't feel great about it, but there's a few points that are worth incorporating into the discussion here.
1) I see a lot of hand-wringing about 'points' and what other teams have gotten in past year's drafts for moving back. Here's the thing: each year's draft is DIFFERENT. Pre-draft reports were coming out that lots of teams wanted to trade BACK, because the perception was that there wasn't much difference between guys at 15 or 45. Also, there are different POINT SYSTEMS. Jimmy Johnson's (conventional one) gives more weight to the top 15 picks. PFF has another that has us coming out better than the Lions in this trade. Ultimately, each draft year is unique and so making comparisons to other years isn't always accurate.

2) We heard from Kwesi that a team called looking to trade for 32, which the Vikings perceived as a "curveball". They stuck to their guns because they really like Cine. It seems that the offer just wasn't good enough to risk having either a) TB or b) a team who traded with TB for 33 draft Cine. Also: there is likely a team looking for Malik or Corral, so we may trade out of 34.

3) A day or two before the draft, Kwesi mentioned being very high on some mystery player who he felt was being overlooked. Is this who they are targeting with 34? If so, who is it? My immediate thought was that Andrew Booth Jr. makes sense at 34, given our need at CB. But maybe they really like Skyy Moore, who would be a wicked shifty slot guy in KOC's offense. Or WR Christian Watson, NDSU, whose metrics are insane.

My conclusion is that they didn't feel like the difference between Hamilton and Cine was big enough to warrant staying at 12, and the reports about the WR coach "Pounding the table" during the team's mock draft (mentioned by Kwesi pre-draft) to NOT draft a WR at 12 was actually accurate. That they feel comfortable at that position or they really like someone in 2nd/ 3rd round. Also: Kwesi just really wanted two picks in the 25-35 range and made it happen.

[fiestavike]

A man walks into a Casino. He puts 5 dollars in a slot machine. Do we have to wait to see what happens in order to determine whether his decision was good or bad?

No. But his decision might be good just because he may get more than $5 enjoyment out of playing.

Sure, you can factor in his enjoyment. But his enjoyment is essentially only another outcome.

I want to know whether we can really only measure things by their outcome. As I said earlier, can any basketball shot be objectively a 'bad shot' that is, a 'bad decision' or do we just have to wait and see whether the shot goes in?

[VikingsVictorious]

Count me among those that had a negative immediate reaction to last night's trade. I wasn't happy with it at first glance, especially since it was with Detroit, NFCN 'rival'.

I still don't feel great about it, but there's a few points that are worth incorporating into the discussion here.
1) I see a lot of hand-wringing about 'points' and what other teams have gotten in past year's drafts for moving back. Here's the thing: each year's draft is DIFFERENT. Pre-draft reports were coming out that lots of teams wanted to trade BACK, because the perception was that there wasn't much difference between guys at 15 or 45. Also, there are different POINT SYSTEMS. Jimmy Johnson's (conventional one) gives more weight to the top 15 picks. PFF has another that has us coming out better than the Lions in this trade. Ultimately, each draft year is unique and so making comparisons to other years isn't always accurate.

2) We heard from Kwesi that a team called looking to trade for 32, which the Vikings perceived as a "curveball". They stuck to their guns because they really like Cine. It seems that the offer just wasn't good enough to risk having either a) TB or b) a team who traded with TB for 33 draft Cine. Also: there is likely a team looking for Malik or Corral, so we may trade out of 34.

3) A day or two before the draft, Kwesi mentioned being very high on some mystery player who he felt was being overlooked. Is this who they are targeting with 34? If so, who is it? My immediate thought was that Andrew Booth Jr. makes sense at 34, given our need at CB. But maybe they really like Skyy Moore, who would be a wicked shifty slot guy in KOC's offense. Or WR Christian Watson, NDSU, whose metrics are insane.

My conclusion is that they didn't feel like the difference between Hamilton and Cine was big enough to warrant staying at 12, and the reports about the WR coach "Pounding the table" during the team's mock draft (mentioned by Kwesi pre-draft) to NOT draft a WR at 12 was actually accurate. That they feel comfortable at that position or they really like someone in 2nd/ 3rd round. Also: Kwesi just really wanted two picks in the 25-35 range and made it happen.

1: There's almost always a big gap from 15-45. but even if there isn't we had pick 12.
2: If a team say it's Seattle really wanted to trade for a pick to get Willis why didn't they make the move for 32 last night to get the 5th year option. Also why would they trade with us and let somebody else jump them. They'd trade with Tampa Bay.
3: I'd love to get Watson.

[VikingsVictorious]

No. But his decision might be good just because he may get more than $5 enjoyment out of playing.

Sure, you can factor in his enjoyment. But his enjoyment is essentially only another outcome.

I want to know whether we can really only measure things by their outcome. As I said earlier, can any basketball shot be objectively a 'bad shot' that is, a 'bad decision' or do we just have to wait and see whether the shot goes in?

A lucky outcome is no excuse for a bad decision. I think a better negotiator than Kwesi would have got a better deal. IMO He sold short. Our second round pick and their 3rd should not have been part of the deal or if they needed to be we should have at least got their pick 97.

[fiestavike]

Sure, you can factor in his enjoyment. But his enjoyment is essentially only another outcome.

I want to know whether we can really only measure things by their outcome. As I said earlier, can any basketball shot be objectively a 'bad shot' that is, a 'bad decision' or do we just have to wait and see whether the shot goes in?

A lucky outcome is no excuse for a bad decision. I think a better negotiator than Kwesi would have got a better deal. He sold short.

Those of us who oppose the trade on value grounds probably all agree with this. I'm just trying to figure out if those attempting to mock critical fans actually agree with the implications of their own argument.

Can we really only measure decisions by how they turn out?

If so, we honestly couldn't measure a trade of 12 for 32 straight up until we see what those players turn out to be on the field, and even how their contracts compare, etc.

[Cliff]

I'm sure it was a situation of taking what they could get. They want "their players" and they can't have them without draft capital. Look, I'm not saying this was some terrific move, I'm just saying it's not as terrible as everyone's knee-jerk reaction.

If history is any indication the Vikings are just about as likely to get a great player in the 3rd as they are the 1st, so I'm not disappointed nor am I jumping with joy.

They gave up some imaginary points or didn't ...

I know they got a seemingly good player and 1st day starter in a secondary that really needed help. I guess if they would have been able to move to pick 26 where he was "worth more points" it would have been all good.

Looking at the 8 1st rounders from 2013 to 2018 was depressing.

Look at the Compensation the Giants got last year for just moving down to 20. They didn't include their 2nd round pick in that deal.

The Giants moved down 9 spaces, didn't they?

[VikingsVictorious]

A lucky outcome is no excuse for a bad decision. I think a better negotiator than Kwesi would have got a better deal. He sold short.

Those of us who oppose the trade on value grounds probably all agree with this. I'm just trying to figure out if those attempting to mock critical fans actually agree with the implications of their own argument.

Can we really only measure decisions by how they turn out?

If so, we honestly couldn't measure a trade of 12 for 32 straight up until we see what those players turn out to be on the field, and even how their contracts compare, etc.

Exactly, if you have to wait until you see how the players turn out 3 or more years later you could never make a judgment on any trade.

[Cliff]

Regardless of the value you personally put on the pick it *is* part of the deal. They didn't just move back 20 in the first to move up 12 in the second. Had they done that it would have unquestionably been a bad trade.

Anyway, it's not like there's any guarantees anywhere in the draft. It's generally agreed that it takes about 3 years to properly grade a new player, unless they're obviously horrible, of course. So looking back starting in 2018:

2018
1st round: Mike Hughes
3rd round: (no pick)

2017
1st round: (no pick)
3rd round: Pat Elfein (Not great but is still starting in the league, has been injured a lot)

2016
1st round: Laquon Treadwell
3rd round: (no pick)

2015
1st round: Trae Waynes
3rd round: Hunter

2014:
1st round: Barr, Bridgewater
3rd round: Scott Crichton, Jerick Mckinnon

2013:
1st Round: Sharrif Floyd, Xavier Rhodes, Cordarrelle Patterson
3rd Round: (no pick)

Maybe half the reason we don't remember very many good 3rd round picks is because Slick Rick enjoyed trading them away.

Anyway, from 2013 to 2018 we've had eight 1st round picks and three 3rd rounders.

Of the first round picks, Barr is really the only one that panned out long term. Same with our 3rd rounder, Hunter. McKinnon was pretty good too but had (and has) injury issues.

Who knows, maybe our new GM will be better at making 3rd round picks.

So of our first round picks the only time we picked in the top 10 is when the player turned out? Almost like the talent is better at the higher end of the draft.

What? There were eight 1st round picks in the span. 1 out of 8 is 12.5%. There were three 3rd round picks in that span. Of which 1 hit. That's 25% hit rate.

We can agree that 1st round picks are higher than 3rd round picks, right?

[Texas Vike]

Count me among those that had a negative immediate reaction to last night's trade. I wasn't happy with it at first glance, especially since it was with Detroit, NFCN 'rival'.

I still don't feel great about it, but there's a few points that are worth incorporating into the discussion here.
1) I see a lot of hand-wringing about 'points' and what other teams have gotten in past year's drafts for moving back. Here's the thing: each year's draft is DIFFERENT. Pre-draft reports were coming out that lots of teams wanted to trade BACK, because the perception was that there wasn't much difference between guys at 15 or 45. Also, there are different POINT SYSTEMS. Jimmy Johnson's (conventional one) gives more weight to the top 15 picks. PFF has another that has us coming out better than the Lions in this trade. Ultimately, each draft year is unique and so making comparisons to other years isn't always accurate.

2) We heard from Kwesi that a team called looking to trade for 32, which the Vikings perceived as a "curveball". They stuck to their guns because they really like Cine. It seems that the offer just wasn't good enough to risk having either a) TB or b) a team who traded with TB for 33 draft Cine. Also: there is likely a team looking for Malik or Corral, so we may trade out of 34.

3) A day or two before the draft, Kwesi mentioned being very high on some mystery player who he felt was being overlooked. Is this who they are targeting with 34? If so, who is it? My immediate thought was that Andrew Booth Jr. makes sense at 34, given our need at CB. But maybe they really like Skyy Moore, who would be a wicked shifty slot guy in KOC's offense. Or WR Christian Watson, NDSU, whose metrics are insane.

My conclusion is that they didn't feel like the difference between Hamilton and Cine was big enough to warrant staying at 12, and the reports about the WR coach "Pounding the table" during the team's mock draft (mentioned by Kwesi pre-draft) to NOT draft a WR at 12 was actually accurate. That they feel comfortable at that position or they really like someone in 2nd/ 3rd round. Also: Kwesi just really wanted two picks in the 25-35 range and made it happen.

1: There's almost always a big gap from 15-45. but even if there isn't we had pick 12.
2: If a team say it's Seattle really wanted to trade for a pick to get Willis why didn't they make the move for 32 last night to get the 5th year option. Also why would they trade with us and let somebody else jump them. They'd trade with Tampa Bay.
3: I'd love to get Watson.

1) That's my point. "Almost always" did not apply to the talent this year. After Stingley Jr and Sauce were taken at 3 and 4, they saw MORE VALUE in picking up an extra pick in the 15-45 range than in staying put at 12. Whether they were right is wholly debatable, but it seems to me that they had Hamilton only slight ahead of Cine on their big board, and thought (correctly) that they could land the latter at 32.

2) Seattle probably DID try to make a move for 32 (someone did, and my money is on them) but it takes two to tango and we didn't want to dance.

By the way, I'm not trying to justify the choice the Vikings made, I'm just trying to think of factors to consider that we haven't yet that might make that choice more understandable.

[VikingsVictorious]

Look at the Compensation the Giants got last year for just moving down to 20. They didn't include their 2nd round pick in that deal.

The Giants moved down 9 spaces, didn't they?

Yep only 9 places. Not 20 and they didn't give up a 2nd round pick also.

[VikingsVictorious]

1: There's almost always a big gap from 15-45. but even if there isn't we had pick 12.
2: If a team say it's Seattle really wanted to trade for a pick to get Willis why didn't they make the move for 32 last night to get the 5th year option. Also why would they trade with us and let somebody else jump them. They'd trade with Tampa Bay.
3: I'd love to get Watson.

1) That's my point. "Almost always" did not apply to the talent this year. After Stingley Jr and Sauce were taken at 3 and 4, they saw MORE VALUE in picking up an extra pick in the 15-45 range than in staying put at 12. Whether they were right is wholly debatable, but it seems to me that they had Hamilton only slight ahead of Cine on their big board, and thought (correctly) that they could land the latter at 32.

2) Seattle probably DID try to make a move for 32 (someone did, and my money is on them) but it takes two to tango and we didn't want to dance.

By the way, I'm not trying to justify the choice the Vikings made, I'm just trying to think of factors to consider that we haven't yet that might make that choice more understandable.

No way in hell do I buy that the talent in the middle of the first round to the middle of the 2nd round is flat or very similar. It's not the way it works. It works that way in the 5-6th round perhaps.
If Seattle offered 40 and 41 for 32 IMO we should have taken it. No guts no glory.

[fiestavike]

1: There's almost always a big gap from 15-45. but even if there isn't we had pick 12.
2: If a team say it's Seattle really wanted to trade for a pick to get Willis why didn't they make the move for 32 last night to get the 5th year option. Also why would they trade with us and let somebody else jump them. They'd trade with Tampa Bay.
3: I'd love to get Watson.

1) That's my point. "Almost always" did not apply to the talent this year. After Stingley Jr and Sauce were taken at 3 and 4, they saw MORE VALUE in picking up an extra pick in the 15-45 range than in staying put at 12. Whether they were right is wholly debatable, but it seems to me that they had Hamilton only slight ahead of Cine on their big board, and thought (correctly) that they could land the latter at 32.

2) Seattle probably DID try to make a move for 32 (someone did, and my money is on them) but it takes two to tango and we didn't want to dance.

By the way, I'm not trying to justify the choice the Vikings made, I'm just trying to think of factors to consider that we haven't yet that might make that choice more understandable.

All of those things make sense to me. I don't mind gathering extra picks and moving back, especially when the distinctions between players with similar grades is pretty slight. If the Vikings went 12 and 77 for the same return (32, 34, 66), it's a much better deal. If the Vikings went 12 and 46 for 32, 34, 66, and next years 3rd, it's a much better deal. My guess is that the Lions didn't call the Vikings, the Vikings called the Lions, and the Lions were the team happier to walk away from the deal than the Vikings. This gave them all the leverage.

[Texas Vike]

1) That's my point. "Almost always" did not apply to the talent this year. After Stingley Jr and Sauce were taken at 3 and 4, they saw MORE VALUE in picking up an extra pick in the 15-45 range than in staying put at 12. Whether they were right is wholly debatable, but it seems to me that they had Hamilton only slight ahead of Cine on their big board, and thought (correctly) that they could land the latter at 32.

2) Seattle probably DID try to make a move for 32 (someone did, and my money is on them) but it takes two to tango and we didn't want to dance.

By the way, I'm not trying to justify the choice the Vikings made, I'm just trying to think of factors to consider that we haven't yet that might make that choice more understandable.

My guess is that the Lions didn't call the Vikings, the Vikings called the Lions, and the Lions were the team happier to walk away from the deal than the Vikings. This gave them all the leverage.

This, exactly. It is clear that the Vikings planned to make a move back, if the two CBs they had graded highly were gone before 8. Kwesi said that if those two had made it to 8, they would have looked into moving up. So I think it played out exactly as you say: we were the ones seeking out this trade, and Kwesi even said that they knew that the Lions could have traded for HOU's pick at 13 (Hou ended up trading with PHI instead).

[Texas Vike]

1) That's my point. "Almost always" did not apply to the talent this year. After Stingley Jr and Sauce were taken at 3 and 4, they saw MORE VALUE in picking up an extra pick in the 15-45 range than in staying put at 12. Whether they were right is wholly debatable, but it seems to me that they had Hamilton only slight ahead of Cine on their big board, and thought (correctly) that they could land the latter at 32.

2) Seattle probably DID try to make a move for 32 (someone did, and my money is on them) but it takes two to tango and we didn't want to dance.

By the way, I'm not trying to justify the choice the Vikings made, I'm just trying to think of factors to consider that we haven't yet that might make that choice more understandable.

No way in hell do I buy that the talent in the middle of the first round to the middle of the 2nd round is flat or very similar. It's not the way it works. It works that way in the 5-6th round perhaps.
If Seattle offered 40 and 41 for 32 IMO we should have taken it. No guts no glory.

You seem to have a closed mind on the matter, so I won't continue to discuss it with you beyond this point: you have to ask yourself why there were no less than 9 trades for teams that held picks 11-27 last night? Those teams were fine with moving back or even entirely letting go of those assets. My guess is that's a record number of trades, and I think it indicates the point I'm making.