Quote: @StickyBun said:
If the Vikings don't take OL early in this Draft, then they are tone deaf and ridiculous. Enough bullshit. How long can you ignore the position>
Said by me last draft as well...I am happy to with Hughes and O'Neill , but interior OL was the glaring weakness and it played out that way. OG and ONiell and we wouldn't be worrying about much this year and could take the blue chip TE.
I got on board with Hughes, but I wouldn't have batted an eye if they had moved up when the OGs started coming off the board.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@"Geoff Nichols" said:
@ MaroonBells said:
...and a guy who will spend half his time on the bench.
Not a fan. We already have one of the NFL's best blocking TEs in Morgan and a TE who's obviously not going to be benched very often in favor or a rookie. And to take him ahead of Ford, Risner and Bradbury? Pitchforks.
If I were put in that exact decision at #18 I would be right on the line between Hockenson & Ford. I think Hockenson would have enough snaps to get your ROI in his rookie year. He gives you limitless personnel options and gives you a huge advantage in the run game paired with Morgan. Those two would simply allow you to road grade people. I also think there is value in developing a guy for post-Rudolph life since it usually take a year for TE's to adapt in the passing game.
You then go into day 2 needing both a 3T and a couple of OL. A couple of those is then going to get pushed to the 3rd round or beyond (likely rendering him depth) all because we wanted a slightly faster Kyle Rudolph to split time with our TEs? No thanks.
Let dumb teams take TEs in the 1st round. Even the best of them have minimal impact their 1st seasons. Meanwhile the best TEs in the NFL have one thing in common (Gronk, Kelce, Reed, Ertz, Kittle): they were not 1st rounders. And in this draft especially, TEs run very deep.
I like the value of middle round guys like Warring, Knox, Sternberger, Smith, Mack much more over the cost of burning a critical middle 1st on a redundancy.
I think you took what I'm saying out of context a bit. I was rationalizing if the board fell the way it did in Davis' mock why I could get on board with Hockenson since he is a unique talent. The only other player you could consider is Ford at that point. I would be fine either way. But just like there are TE's deep into the draft the same could be said for Interior O-lineman and Interior D-lineman.
Teams have starter to value all-around TE's like WR's so I don't think there is as much hesitancy to take them in the mid to late 1st. But you're 100% correct that the best at the position did not go in the first. But I think there is somewhat true across the board minus quarterback.
G: Shaq Mason (4th), Zack Martin (1st), Joel Bitonio (2nd), Marshal Yanda (3rd)
C: Jason Kelce (6th), Max Unger (2nd), Alex Mack (1st)
3-Tech: Aaron Donald (1st), Fletcher Cox (1st), Grady Jarrett (5th), Geno Atkins (4th)
My point isn't to argue that a TE in the 1st is good value or the best use of a resource. But given how the board fell above you'd be able to rationalize it. There are about 6-7 other players that could be practical choices at #18 that I'd prefer over Hockenson.
Quote: @"Geoff Nichols" said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@"Geoff Nichols" said:
@ MaroonBells said:
...and a guy who will spend half his time on the bench.
Not a fan. We already have one of the NFL's best blocking TEs in Morgan and a TE who's obviously not going to be benched very often in favor or a rookie. And to take him ahead of Ford, Risner and Bradbury? Pitchforks.
If I were put in that exact decision at #18 I would be right on the line between Hockenson & Ford. I think Hockenson would have enough snaps to get your ROI in his rookie year. He gives you limitless personnel options and gives you a huge advantage in the run game paired with Morgan. Those two would simply allow you to road grade people. I also think there is value in developing a guy for post-Rudolph life since it usually take a year for TE's to adapt in the passing game.
You then go into day 2 needing both a 3T and a couple of OL. A couple of those is then going to get pushed to the 3rd round or beyond (likely rendering him depth) all because we wanted a slightly faster Kyle Rudolph to split time with our TEs? No thanks.
Let dumb teams take TEs in the 1st round. Even the best of them have minimal impact their 1st seasons. Meanwhile the best TEs in the NFL have one thing in common (Gronk, Kelce, Reed, Ertz, Kittle): they were not 1st rounders. And in this draft especially, TEs run very deep.
I like the value of middle round guys like Warring, Knox, Sternberger, Smith, Mack much more over the cost of burning a critical middle 1st on a redundancy.
I think you took what I'm saying out of context a bit. I was rationalizing if the board fell the way it did in Davis' mock why I could get on board with Hockenson since he is a unique talent. The only other player you could consider is Ford at that point. I would be fine either way. But just like there are TE's deep into the draft the same could be said for Interior O-lineman and Interior D-lineman.
Teams have starter to value all-around TE's like WR's so I don't think there is as much hesitancy to take them in the mid to late 1st. But you're 100% correct that the best at the position did not go in the first. But I think there is somewhat true across the board minus quarterback.
G: Shaq Mason (4th), Zack Martin (1st), Joel Bitonio (2nd), Marshal Yanda (3rd)
C: Jason Kelce (6th), Max Unger (2nd), Alex Mack (1st)
3-Tech: Aaron Donald (1st), Fletcher Cox (1st), Grady Jarrett (5th), Geno Atkins (4th)
My point isn't to argue that a TE in the 1st is good value or the best use of a resource. But given how the board fell above you'd be able to rationalize it. There are about 6-7 other players that could be practical choices at #18 that I'd prefer over Hockenson.
Let's map it out. Say we do take Hockenson at 18. He pushes last year's 5th rounder Conklin off the roster. That in itself is an inefficient use of resources that doesn't sync for me. And I'd say, at best, Hock, sharing time with Rudy and Morgan, maybe gets us 3 or 400 yards and 3 or 4 TDs. Is that what this team needs right now? Or do we need find a way to get the most out of our $84M investment?
In either case, now we're at 50 and 84 in somewhat desperate need of a starting 3T and OL. But now we're looking at 3Ts who will probably have trouble unseating Stephen, and OLs like McGary, McGovern and Scharping, players I like a lot, but probably need a year. And whichever one we don't take is now a desperation swing at 84. And those players are probably not starters at all.
I get your point that many of the best players at all positions were taken later. I've made the same point myself. But I think you have to look at every draft as unique and draft according to where the value clusters are in terms of position. That said, I see the DTs in this draft having the most value in the early 1st, but it stays strong into the middle 2nd before it drops significantly. Likewise, the offensive linemen are thick between 15 and 40. I'll bet you a trip to Burnsville that nearly every OL we've been talking about goes in that range. But for TE (like WRs), the best value appears to be in the middle rounds.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@"Geoff Nichols" said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@"Geoff Nichols" said:
@ MaroonBells said:
...and a guy who will spend half his time on the bench.
Not a fan. We already have one of the NFL's best blocking TEs in Morgan and a TE who's obviously not going to be benched very often in favor or a rookie. And to take him ahead of Ford, Risner and Bradbury? Pitchforks.
If I were put in that exact decision at #18 I would be right on the line between Hockenson & Ford. I think Hockenson would have enough snaps to get your ROI in his rookie year. He gives you limitless personnel options and gives you a huge advantage in the run game paired with Morgan. Those two would simply allow you to road grade people. I also think there is value in developing a guy for post-Rudolph life since it usually take a year for TE's to adapt in the passing game.
You then go into day 2 needing both a 3T and a couple of OL. A couple of those is then going to get pushed to the 3rd round or beyond (likely rendering him depth) all because we wanted a slightly faster Kyle Rudolph to split time with our TEs? No thanks.
Let dumb teams take TEs in the 1st round. Even the best of them have minimal impact their 1st seasons. Meanwhile the best TEs in the NFL have one thing in common (Gronk, Kelce, Reed, Ertz, Kittle): they were not 1st rounders. And in this draft especially, TEs run very deep.
I like the value of middle round guys like Warring, Knox, Sternberger, Smith, Mack much more over the cost of burning a critical middle 1st on a redundancy.
I think you took what I'm saying out of context a bit. I was rationalizing if the board fell the way it did in Davis' mock why I could get on board with Hockenson since he is a unique talent. The only other player you could consider is Ford at that point. I would be fine either way. But just like there are TE's deep into the draft the same could be said for Interior O-lineman and Interior D-lineman.
Teams have starter to value all-around TE's like WR's so I don't think there is as much hesitancy to take them in the mid to late 1st. But you're 100% correct that the best at the position did not go in the first. But I think there is somewhat true across the board minus quarterback.
G: Shaq Mason (4th), Zack Martin (1st), Joel Bitonio (2nd), Marshal Yanda (3rd)
C: Jason Kelce (6th), Max Unger (2nd), Alex Mack (1st)
3-Tech: Aaron Donald (1st), Fletcher Cox (1st), Grady Jarrett (5th), Geno Atkins (4th)
My point isn't to argue that a TE in the 1st is good value or the best use of a resource. But given how the board fell above you'd be able to rationalize it. There are about 6-7 other players that could be practical choices at #18 that I'd prefer over Hockenson.
Let's map it out. Say we do take Hockenson at 18. He pushes last year's 5th rounder Conklin off the roster. That in itself is an inefficient use of resources that doesn't sync for me. And I'd say, at best, Hock, sharing time with Rudy and Morgan, maybe gets us 3 or 400 yards and 3 or 4 TDs. Is that what this team needs right now? Or do we need find a way to get the most out of our $84M investment?
In either case, now we're at 50 and 84 in somewhat desperate need of a starting 3T and OL. But now we're looking at 3Ts who will probably have trouble unseating Stephen, and OLs like McGary, McGovern and Scharping, players I like a lot, but probably need a year. And whichever one we don't take is now a desperation swing at 84. And those players are probably not starters at all.
I get your point that many of the best players at all positions were taken later. I've made the same point myself. But I think you have to look at every draft as unique and draft according to where the value clusters are in terms of position. That said, I see the DTs in this draft having the most value in the early 1st, but it stays strong into the middle 2nd before it drops significantly. Likewise, the offensive linemen are thick between 15 and 40. I'll bet you a trip to Burnsville that nearly every OL we've been talking about goes in that range. But for TE (like WRs), the best value appears to be in the middle rounds.
I still don't disagree. The goal is to obtain value with the current pick while planning on how you'll get value at your subsequent pick.
But it really is going to come down to how the board falls. With 17 picks in front of you, a lot can happen. If a top 10 D-line talent drops, that probably is the move. Most likely you're going to get an O-lineman. If those two options don't work out the best option would be to trade back. But it takes two to tango. If you end up stuck I do think it deduces your options to an offensive weapon.
I don't know your take on it but I think you can find O-line starters deep into the 3rd round of this draft class. D-lineman maybe into the 4th. So if the worst possible scenario were to play out they should still have some options.
With Easton gone, TE would be a luxury pick for us. The two Iowa TE's would be fantastic additions to the Vikings roster, but at some point sacrifices need to be made to protect your QB. If you want a pass catching TE who can also block and is already on the roster, how about using Treadwell in that role as an H-Back?
I think as FA options continue to get removed from the market, we're really getting forced into needing to take 2 starting caliber guards in the draft. Whatever FA option we end up with will probably have some red flags like injury concerns that will indicate a higher risk to OLine success. I don't think 3T is a pressing need that overpowers our need for a second guard. Zimmer will figure it out. TE would really be a luxury pick at this point. We need a top 15 OLine. Period. The rest will figure itself out. I think the real question is how much of a risk can we afford to wait until the 3rd to get a starting caliber guard? In most cases, I think you'd pretty often be able to get one there, but I think Spielmans Vikings career depends on (or at least should depend on) him getting the OLine fixed this year, and if he misjudges the draft two years in a row and misses out on what he needs most, I think he has to be out. Waiting until the 3rd to get a guard is getting too cute for my taste right now, unless we can find a top 20 guard in the couch cushions of FA.
Quote: @"Geoff Nichols" said:
I don't know your take on it but I think you can find O-line starters deep into the 3rd round of this draft class. D-lineman maybe into the 4th. So if the worst possible scenario were to play out they should still have some options.
I haven't yet looked at any sort of analysis regarding value clusters (someone always does one eventually) but on its face I would disagree with this.
If you put names to this, I like the value at OL through players like McGary, Scharping, Howard, etc. Those are late 2nd round players IMO. Maybe 3rd. DL, more specifically, 3Ts since that's the position we'll most likely be after, I see a dropoff after guys like Tillery, Dre'mont Jones, Saunders. Those guys are probably 2nd rounders.
TE is different. There's a group of three at the top. Hockenson, Irv Smith, who I like more than any of them, and Fant. There's a bit of a drop there and then there's a group of like 10 or 12 TEs that all have middle round grades. That's where we should tap into it if at all.
Remember last year? Same thing. So many wanted us to take Dallas Goedert with our pick in the 1st round. He ended up going late in the 2nd and doing almost nothing his rookie year. There were two TEs taken ahead of him, Hurst and Gesicki, who did even less. Best TE in that class? IMO, Will Dissly, 4th rounder. He got hurt early, but remember that name. Year before....sure, some good TEs taken early (Engram, Howard, Njoku), but the best might've been 5th rounder George Kittle.
I am thinking we need to use 3 of our first 4 picks on OL at this point. with Ricks track record of finding quality OL in the draft ( Elf and ONeill appear to be good, but the rest have left some head scratching.... IMO not only do we now have to use that first rounder on OL, we had better be thinking on using at least 2 more picks over the next 3 rounds to bolster the most need part of the team. They have to assume that injuries and misses on draft picks happen and we need to come away from the draft with 2 starters at this point as the remaining FAs really leave quite a bit to be desired... not to mention Eastons contract has just pushed the price tag up IMO on the remaining guys a bit.
I would not be surprised to see us pick all Defense at this point. After all Zimmer needs more rotational players and he obviously feels the OL lacks any importance on a team. I'm shocked, pissed and over the lack of doing nothing to improve this offensive line.
All I want to see at 18 is O line...and one other thing...no more trade backs of 3rd and 4th rounders for multiple 6th or 7th rounders. I have really come to hate that.
|
