Vikings Message Board.Com

Texas Vike wrote:I saw this too, and came hear to post it. It substantiates what some of us have been expressing in this and other threads: of course there are no guarantees anywhere in the draft, but your percentages go up the higher you pick.

I maintain that it's conditional, based on the talent in each draft. Consequently, I don't think it makes any sense to cheer for the pick. It make more sense to cheer for the player so even though I disagreed with the "suck for Luck" talk in 2011, I understood it because he was a rare talent, although I find it laughable that Mackey ranked him in the "HOF discussion" category. It's way too early for that!

Anyway, my point is that the percentages matter much, much less than the actual individuals available. Mackey is trying to justify the "root to lose" point of view and to some extent, he's skewed his rankings accordingly, although there's certainly merit in the point he's making.

As you said, we're looking for a franchise QB--a centerpiece of the organization, not a "serviceable or very good" QB. The Vikes have had those over the years. Consequently, I'd say we can throw out most of the QBs Mackey ranked in the latter category and focus on those he ranked in the HOF discussion. As I said, I don't think Luck belongs there yet but even if we stick with Mackey's rankings, that leaves us with the following:

1st QB taken: 3
2nd QB taken: 2
3rd QB taken: 1
4th QB taken: 0

QBs taken after the 4th round aren't even considered but they should be, especially since we know one of them is a lock for the Hall of Fame.

Anyway, the real question is whether that centerpiece, franchise QB you're talking about is even in this draft. Quite a few drafts don't even produce one. If that centerpiece player IS in this draft, who is he and which pick will be necessary to get him? I contend that once you get down to the actual nuts and bolts of evaluating and drafting talent, you might as well throw the odds out the window because next spring, the Vikes won't be playing the odds over the course of the Manning era, they'll be drafting from the particular selection of talent in the 2014 draft. Based on everything I've seen and read, it sure doesn't look to me like there's a QB in that draft who is clearly more likely than all of the others to succeed in the NFL. There's certainly no consensus about it around here and I don't buy that a player like Bridgewater has a significantly higher chance to succeed as an HOF quarterback in the NFL than a player like Manziel.

One more thing to consider: to what extent does the situation a QB finds himself in when he gets to the NFL shape and determine his career as a pro? I think the individual has more to do with it than any other factors but those factors do make a difference. Would Aaron Rodgers be the success story he is today if he'd been drafted by the Raiders in 2005 and pressed into action immediately?

Mothman wrote: I maintain that it's conditional, based on the talent in each draft. Consequently, I don't think it makes any sense to cheer for the pick. It make more sense to cheer for the player so even though I disagreed with the "suck for Luck" talk in 2011, I understood it because he was a rare talent, although I find it laughable that Mackey ranked him in the "HOF discussion" category. It's way too early for that!

Anyway, my point is that the percentages matter much, much less than the actual individuals available. Mackey is trying to justify the "root to lose" point of view and to some extent, he's skewed his rankings accordingly, although there's certainly merit in the point he's making.

As you said, we're looking for a franchise QB--a centerpiece of the organization, not a "serviceable or very good" QB. The Vikes have had those over the years. Consequently, I'd say we can throw out most of the QBs Mackey ranked in the latter category and focus on those he ranked in the HOF discussion. As I said, I don't think Luck belongs there yet but even if we stick with Mackey's rankings, that leaves us with the following:

1st QB taken: 3
2nd QB taken: 2
3rd QB taken: 1
4th QB taken: 0

QBs taken after the 4th round aren't even considered but they should be, especially since we know one of them is a lock for the Hall of Fame.

Anyway, the real question is whether that centerpiece, franchise QB you're talking about is even in this draft. Quite a few drafts don't even produce one. If that centerpiece player IS in this draft, who is he and which pick will be necessary to get him? I contend that once you get down to the actual nuts and bolts of evaluating and drafting talent, you might as well throw the odds out the window because next spring, the Vikes won't be playing the odds over the course of the Manning era, they'll be drafting from the particular selection of talent in the 2014 draft. Based on everything I've seen and read, it sure doesn't look to me like there's a QB in that draft who is clearly more likely than all of the others to succeed in the NFL. There's certainly no consensus about it around here and I don't buy that a player like Bridgewater has a significantly higher chance to succeed as an HOF quarterback in the NFL than a player like Manziel.

One more thing to consider: to what extent does the situation a QB finds himself in when he gets to the NFL shape and determine his career as a pro? I think the individual has more to do with it than any other factors but those factors do make a difference. Would Aaron Rodgers be the success story he is today if he'd been drafted by the Raiders in 2005 and pressed into action immediately?

It certainly helps his argument to do it the way he did it. A lot of that like you said, in the stats, makes the #1 pick look huge... when there's a clear #1 prospect like peyton manning, andrew luck sitting at the top. In that situation the #1 pick is clearly insanely important.

This year the #1 pick doesn't look to be that big of a deal. We'll see if anyone can really separate them self from the rest of the field going forward but this year I could easily see the first QB taken having a worse career than say the 2nd, or even 3rd QB taken. Using the "Madden" ratings I like to do, if luck is like a 95 on the prospect chart, there may be 3-4 guys this year in the high 80's but none 90+.

My personal opinion is that this high pick we end up with should be used on a truly elite defensive player or simply trade down. Just moving from #2 overall to say #10 can fetch a pretty hefty ransom and still position us for one of the top 3 QB's. In the former scenario we can use the extra 3rd from seattle to trade back into the late first from our early second and still take a highly rated QB.

Yes the first overall pick is great when their is a QB there worth it, but there are so many recent examples between rodgers, wilson, kaepernick, and even mike glennon at this point going in the later rounds that you can still GO WRONG reaching for a QB too early (ponder) and do right waiting on the position for a guy to match up with his value and risk potential.

2014 NFL Draft Order (Week 12): Vikings fall two spots with tie

ast week, the Vikings’ would’ve picked second if the season ended today (more on tiebreakers in a bit). This week, they jumped up two spots to fourth. Here’s the current top five (records in parentheses):
1. Texans (2-9)
2. Jaguars (2-9)
3. Falcons (2-9)
4. Vikings (2-8-1)
5. Rams [via Redskins] (3-8)

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikin ... um=twitter

dead_poet wrote: When did Schaub get traded to Atlanta?

Man are you out the loop. He was traded last Friday for Ryan straight across. Weird huh?

Mothman wrote: I maintain that it's conditional, based on the talent in each draft. Consequently, I don't think it makes any sense to cheer for the pick. It make more sense to cheer for the player so even though I disagreed with the "suck for Luck" talk in 2011, I understood it because he was a rare talent, although I find it laughable that Mackey ranked him in the "HOF discussion" category. It's way too early for that!

It is, but "discussion" is a very vague term and he is forced to extrapolate based on what he's seen. I personally agree w/ him that Luck is on a career trajectory that looks promising and like a sure bet, but one just never knows and, as you've taken pains to point out elsewhere, it also depends on the talent a QB is surrounded with.

As for sucking for a specific player: It is DEFINITELY contingent on the talent of each draft. I have not had the chance to watch enough live action of Mariota and Bridgewater. Manziel seems to have something special IMO, but I can certainly see the reservations that other posters have with him.

Mothman wrote:Anyway, my point is that the percentages matter much, much less than the actual individuals available. Mackey is trying to justify the "root to lose" point of view and to some extent, he's skewed his rankings accordingly, although there's certainly merit in the point he's making.

As you said, we're looking for a franchise QB--a centerpiece of the organization, not a "serviceable or very good" QB. The Vikes have had those over the years. Consequently, I'd say we can throw out most of the QBs Mackey ranked in the latter category and focus on those he ranked in the HOF discussion.

Honestly, I'd rather not throw those out. I'd be fine with a "very good" QB (Operationally defined: Cam Newton, Joe Flacco, Matthew Stafford). Relative to what we've had, that would be a significant upgrade. An important part of the point he's making is that the probability of finding AT LEAST a "very good" QB is much higher when you draft the first QB taken in the draft. It's worth noting the lack of precision here too: there's quite a difference between "serviceable" and "very good" after all.

Mothman wrote:As I said, I don't think Luck belongs there yet but even if we stick with Mackey's rankings, that leaves us with the following:

1st QB taken: 3
2nd QB taken: 2
3rd QB taken: 1
4th QB taken: 0

QBs taken after the 4th round aren't even considered but they should be, especially since we know one of them is a lock for the Hall of Fame.

Anyway, the real question is whether that centerpiece, franchise QB you're talking about is even in this draft. Quite a few drafts don't even produce one. If that centerpiece player IS in this draft, who is he and which pick will be necessary to get him? I contend that once you get down to the actual nuts and bolts of evaluating and drafting talent, you might as well throw the odds out the window because next spring, the Vikes won't be playing the odds over the course of the Manning era, they'll be drafting from the particular selection of talent in the 2014 draft. Based on everything I've seen and read, it sure doesn't look to me like there's a QB in that draft who is clearly more likely than all of the others to succeed in the NFL. There's certainly no consensus about it around here and I don't buy that a player like Bridgewater has a significantly higher chance to succeed as an HOF quarterback in the NFL than a player like Manziel.

One more thing to consider: to what extent does the situation a QB finds himself in when he gets to the NFL shape and determine his career as a pro? I think the individual has more to do with it than any other factors but those factors do make a difference. Would Aaron Rodgers be the success story he is today if he'd been drafted by the Raiders in 2005 and pressed into action immediately?

These are all good points, Moth, and I've underlined the ones I agree with most. To me, it seems that the idiosyncrasy of this particular draft is that it has a large number of 85-90 range prospects (say 6-9) even if it does not have a clear 95-100 prospect. This leaves me to wonder if we would be better served getting a LB like Barr or CJ Mosely, both of whom are extremely dominant and would change our defense DRAMATICALLY in round 1 and use the 3rd we got for Percy as ammunition and our high 2nd to get back into the first and take our guy in the # 20 range. Our needs on Defense are just as dire and those two seem very much "can't miss" to me at LB.

rugbyrugger23 wrote:I won't be mad if Vikes take a QB with what I am predicting will be around 7th pick. Vikes will win a meaningless game or 2 yet.

But my ideal draft is Clowney. Feels like the year when AP fell to Vikes cause of needs and fit for teams ahead of Vikes. Via luck, AP a man among boys and drafts best pure athlete fell into their lap. Clowney is the same man child on D. And he could replace Allen, join up with Floyd and Rhodes to be future of D that needs to be fixed bad.

As for QB...draft one in 2nd or 3rd round and see who hits open market via FA. Someone like Schaub or other vet could be quality enough with AP. And hopefully that QB taken in 2nd or 3rd round isn't another Jackson.

I'm not sold on Clowney, but I think the underlying point you're making is a valid one, and that is the Vikes need to go BPA with that 1st pick no matter where they end up in the draft. Reaching at a position of immediate need like they did with Ponder is a HUGE mistake no matter how it is sliced. We all want the QB position buttoned up, but it can't be forced. Should this year's Vikings find a way to drop themselves in the draft order to a point where they do not have a shot at a QB worthy of the slot, but a guy like Barr or Clowney is there, then just as they did when AD dropped to them or Harvin dropped to them, they have to pull the trigger and take the guy. While I'd much rather they get one of the top 2 picks and have a shot at either Bridgewater or Mariota, they cannot afford to repeat their mistake with Ponder.

manziel may be small but he is a play maker. i agree he is immature but many of us were at 20. who is to say he can't bulk up some? i guess its all a crap shoot either way. gabbert was supposed to be a sure thing and so was locker and look at those two.

Lots of things can change in the draft FWIW. People rise up and down boards all the time. Remember when Matt freaking Barkley was considered a #1 overall talent?

ATL is DESPERATE for a good defensive player and especially on their line. Why not stay put (if they lose out) at #4?

Texas Vike wrote:It is, but "discussion" is a very vague term and he is forced to extrapolate based on what he's seen. I personally agree w/ him that Luck is on a career trajectory that looks promising and like a sure bet, but one just never knows and, as you've taken pains to point out elsewhere, it also depends on the talent a QB is surrounded with.

You're right that "discussion" is a vague term and I agree with you regarding Luck's career trajectory. I'm guessing Mackey just meant Luck is the kind of franchise centerpiece you mentioned earlier, a QB you can truly build around.

Honestly, I'd rather not throw those out. I'd be fine with a "very good" QB (Operationally defined: Cam Newton, Joe Flacco, Matthew Stafford). Relative to what we've had, that would be a significant upgrade. An important part of the point he's making is that the probability of finding AT LEAST a "very good" QB is much higher when you draft the first QB taken in the draft. It's worth noting the lack of precision here too: there's quite a difference between "serviceable" and "very good" after all.

Indeed, there is quite a difference. I agree that a very good QB would still be a significant upgrade for the Vikings but that thought raises a few more questions: is it worth tanking to get a very good QB? If we took Mackey's subjective rankings a step further and distinguished between "serviceable and "very good", what would it do to the percentages?

When I was looking at Mackey's "1st QB Taken" list, I was thinking not just about how he had those QBs ranked but about how things have worked out for them and the teams that drafted them. It's interesting to consider:

Andrew Luck (1st round) #—To be determined but so far, it looks good for Luck and the Colts.
Cam Newton (1) * — Ditto for Newton and the Panthers.
Sam Bradford (1) * — This pick isn't working out too well. Bradford's at the end of his rookie contract a d has suffered a serious injury for the second time in 3 seasons.
Matthew Stafford (1) * — He puts up big numbers but I'd call the results on this pick mixed.
Matt Ryan (1) * — This seems to be working out well.
JaMarcus Russell (1)— Bust.
Vince Young (1)— Bust
Alex Smith (1) % — I know there are people who really like him but ultimately, this pick didn't work out for the 49ers.
Eli Manning (1) #— 2 Super Bowl wins. Definitely a success.
Carson Palmer (1) * - As with the 49ers/Smith situation, it's tough to say this worked out for the Bengals. Palmer gave them some good years but like SF, they moved on.
David Carr (1)— Bust
Michael Vick (1) *— If this had worked out for the Falcons, they wouldn't have needed Ryan.
Chad Pennington (1) *—Very good but ultimately too injury prone to consider his selection a real success for the Jets. He played one full 16 game season for them in 8 years.
Tim Couch (1)— Bust
Peyton Manning (1) #— Obviously a huge success

At most, I think there are 6 or 7 of those 15 QBs who became, or seem likely to become, stable, very good-to-great QBs over an extended period of time for the teams that drafted them. In the end, when a team selects the first QB taken in the draft, isn't that what they want, a stable, high quality quarterback they can build around and a player who can anchor the position for a decade? When you start viewing the list in those terms I think it puts it in a better perspective. Less than 50% of those teams found what they were hoping to find when they selected those QBs.

These are all good points, Moth, and I've underlined the ones I agree with most. To me, it seems that the idiosyncrasy of this particular draft is that it has a large number of 85-90 range prospects (say 6-9) even if it does not have a clear 95-100 prospect. This leaves me to wonder if we would be better served getting a LB like Barr or CJ Mosely, both of whom are extremely dominant and would change our defense DRAMATICALLY in round 1 and use the 3rd we got for Percy as ammunition and our high 2nd to get back into the first and take our guy in the # 20 range. Our needs on Defense are just as dire and those two seem very much "can't miss" to me at LB.

I think that approach could end up being very successful. It's really tough to say what they should do but the Vikes definitely shouldn't go into the draft already committed to drafting the highest-ranked available to them in R1.

dead_poet wrote:2014 NFL Draft Order (Week 12): Vikings fall two spots with tie
http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikin ... um=twitter

Damn those Rams. One game change and that trade is probably made with the Vikings and we'd be sitting on back-to-back picks. Crazy.

Jeffbleedspurple wrote: I was so pissed when the Vikings beat the Redskins that season, if the Vikings had lost that game we would have been sitting real pretty either way, we would have been sitting with Luck or a bunch of top draft picks, and some fans can't understand why some of us say losing is better than winning........... SOMETIMES

That was an abnormal year in that: 1. Andrew Luck was considered the best QB prospect in years and 2. RG3 was also generating major attention. It was clearly a great year to tank since there were specific players to tank for.

Texas Vike wrote: That was an abnormal year in that: 1. Andrew Luck was considered the best QB prospect in years and 2. RG3 was also generating major attention. It was clearly a great year to tank since there were specific players to tank for.

Even then, I don't believe in intentionally losing games and I'm glad the Vikes didn't do it. I think tanking sends the wrong message to everybody (the team, it's fans, the league, etc.) and I don't believe it's necessary to succeed in the NFL anyway. If a team is so bad that they need to tank to get a QB, and if they're willing to tank for a QB, then I think it's likely they have bigger problems that won't be solved by drafting that player.

Jeff, I think we all understand why some fans think there are times when losing can be better than winning. There are just those of us who don't agree with the idea that a team should lose intentionally and who don't want to root for our favorite team to lose.

Mothman wrote:
When I was looking at Mackey's "1st QB Taken" list, I was thinking not just about how he had those QBs ranked but about how things have worked out for them and the teams that drafted them. It's interesting to consider:

Andrew Luck (1st round) #—To be determined but so far, it looks good for Luck and the Colts.
Cam Newton (1) * — Ditto for Newton and the Panthers.
Sam Bradford (1) * — This pick isn't working out too well. Bradford's at the end of his rookie contract a d has suffered a serious injury for the second time in 3 seasons.
Matthew Stafford (1) * — He puts up big numbers but I'd call the results on this pick mixed.
Matt Ryan (1) * — This seems to be working out well.
JaMarcus Russell (1)— Bust.
Vince Young (1)— Bust
Alex Smith (1) % — I know there are people who really like him but ultimately, this pick didn't work out for the 49ers.
Eli Manning (1) #— 2 Super Bowl wins. Definitely a success.
Carson Palmer (1) * - As with the 49ers/Smith situation, it's tough to say this worked out for the Bengals. Palmer gave them some good years but like SF, they moved on.
David Carr (1)— Bust
Michael Vick (1) *— If this had worked out for the Falcons, they wouldn't have needed Ryan.
Chad Pennington (1) *—Very good but ultimately too injury prone to consider his selection a real success for the Jets. He played one full 16 game season for them in 8 years.
Tim Couch (1)— Bust
Peyton Manning (1) #— Obviously a huge success

At most, I think there are 6 or 7 of those 15 QBs who became, or seem likely to become, stable, very good-to-great QBs over an extended period of time for the teams that drafted them. In the end, when a team selects the first QB taken in the draft, isn't that what they want, a stable, high quality quarterback they can build around and a player who can anchor the position for a decade? When you start viewing the list in those terms I think it puts it in a better perspective. Less than 50% of those teams found what they were hoping to find when they selected those QBs..

That's a valid way to look at it. Honestly, I don't feel confident in this current coaching staff to draft and mold a prospect into his role. That's part of the equation--how the coaches help w/ the transition. Then there's situations like the Lions. Stafford seems to be very good, but that team is just so bone-headed that I never get the sense that they'll be a true contender. Several of the QB situations you consider of questionable quality--Alex Smith, Carson Palmer, Sam Bradford--appear to be at least partially so due to situational factors rather than on the QB's play.

In addition to the draft pick, part of me wants us to lose because I don't think this coaching staff has what it takes. Frazier hired weak coordinators and is slow to make necessary roster moves; heck of a nice guy, but not aggressive enough in general.

Texas Vike wrote:That's a valid way to look at it. Honestly, I don't feel confident in this current coaching staff to draft and mold a prospect into his role. That's part of the equation--how the coaches help w/ the transition. Then there's situations like the Lions. Stafford seems to be very good, but that team is just so bone-headed that I never get the sense that they'll be a true contender. Several of the QB situations you consider of questionable quality--Alex Smith, Carson Palmer, Sam Bradford--appear to be at least partially so due to situational factors rather than on the QB's play.

All 3 of them have played very well at times and I think situational factors impact just about every QB and have certainly affected them. My main point was just that, in each case, the teams that drafted those 3 players didn't end up getting what they obviously hoped to get. It's probably a little too soon to say that definitively with Bradford but it's definitely safe to say with Palmer and Smith.

In addition to the draft pick, part of me wants us to lose because I don't think this coaching staff has what it takes. Frazier hired weak coordinators and is slow to make necessary roster moves; heck of a nice guy, but not aggressive enough in general.

I'm still on the fence about Frazier but at the very least, I think he needs new coordinators and if the Vikings choose to replace him, it would be understandable and i wouldn't complain. I'm not sure I agree about him being slow to make necessary roster moves but that's probably a topic for another thread. I do think this coaching staff could probably develop a good QB if they had one. I don't think Ponder's problems have much to do with coaching, although they put him in bad positions at times.

Since I can't go against the Vikings, I'll just root like heck for the Jags, Falcons, Texans, etc. right along with us. It's the only way!