The thing that is appealing with Lindstrom, along with his seeming to be a fit for zone blocking is that the Vikes could probably trade back a few picks and still get him if he is the OLman they want! If Taylor and Williams are gone, he, along with Bradbury may still be available even a few picks back!
Quote: @"Calminnfan" said:
The thing that is appealing with Lindstrom, along with his seeming to be a fit for zone blocking is that the Vikes could probably trade back a few picks and still get him if he is the OLman they want! If Taylor and Williams are gone, he, along with Bradbury may still be available even a few picks back!
if you are talking of only moving a few spots (4-5?) whats the point in risking somebody else jumping up and grabbing your guy? Is a late 3rd or early 4th round pick worth losing the guy that we should be able to drop into a starting spot this year and not worry about for the next 5 years? I dont think so.
Quote: @"JimmyinSD" said:
@"Calminnfan" said:
The thing that is appealing with Lindstrom, along with his seeming to be a fit for zone blocking is that the Vikes could probably trade back a few picks and still get him if he is the OLman they want! If Taylor and Williams are gone, he, along with Bradbury may still be available even a few picks back!
if you are talking of only moving a few spots (4-5?) whats the point in risking somebody else jumping up and grabbing your guy? Is a late 3rd or early 4th round pick worth losing the guy that we should be able to drop into a starting spot this year and not worry about for the next 5 years? I dont think so.
Typically teams trade down based on their intelligence of teams needs below them and a ranked series of players they'd be happy with if one or two get sniped. But yeah, if it's not worth the risk you don't trade down.
Quote: @"MaroonBells" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"Calminnfan" said:
The thing that is appealing with Lindstrom, along with his seeming to be a fit for zone blocking is that the Vikes could probably trade back a few picks and still get him if he is the OLman they want! If Taylor and Williams are gone, he, along with Bradbury may still be available even a few picks back!
if you are talking of only moving a few spots (4-5?) whats the point in risking somebody else jumping up and grabbing your guy? Is a late 3rd or early 4th round pick worth losing the guy that we should be able to drop into a starting spot this year and not worry about for the next 5 years? I dont think so.
Typically teams trade down based on their intelligence of teams needs below them and a ranked series of players they'd be happy with if one or two get sniped. But yeah, if it's not worth the risk you don't trade down.
sure you can know that the next 4 or 5 teams might not want the guy you are after, but the very next pick after your could change all that and then you are in scramble mode to move back up to get your guy because suddenly he is on another teams radar when their guy got taken surprisingly.. or worse yet, some other team jumps into the bidding for the spot you want to trade up into now and you spend more to move up than what you gained by trading back or end up losing out again.
if its not a big need then yeah go ahead and roll the dice but this team has a huge need and cant afford to get cute IMO.
Quote: @"JimmyinSD" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"Calminnfan" said:
The thing that is appealing with Lindstrom, along with his seeming to be a fit for zone blocking is that the Vikes could probably trade back a few picks and still get him if he is the OLman they want! If Taylor and Williams are gone, he, along with Bradbury may still be available even a few picks back!
if you are talking of only moving a few spots (4-5?) whats the point in risking somebody else jumping up and grabbing your guy? Is a late 3rd or early 4th round pick worth losing the guy that we should be able to drop into a starting spot this year and not worry about for the next 5 years? I dont think so.
Typically teams trade down based on their intelligence of teams needs below them and a ranked series of players they'd be happy with if one or two get sniped. But yeah, if it's not worth the risk you don't trade down.
sure you can know that the next 4 or 5 teams might not want the guy you are after, but the very next pick after your could change all that and then you are in scramble mode to move back up to get your guy because suddenly he is on another teams radar when their guy got taken surprisingly.. or worse yet, some other team jumps into the bidding for the spot you want to trade up into now and you spend more to move up than what you gained by trading back or end up losing out again.
if its not a big need then yeah go ahead and roll the dice but this team has a huge need and cant afford to get cute IMO.
Like I said, teams typically don't trade down for "one guy" they want to get a little cheaper. If it's "one guy" they just take him. They typically trade down when there's a series of players they have equal grades on and the worst-case math tells them they'll get at least one of them. Works better if you're drafting BPA obviously, because then your list of players is longer.
Quote: @"MaroonBells" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"Calminnfan" said:
The thing that is appealing with Lindstrom, along with his seeming to be a fit for zone blocking is that the Vikes could probably trade back a few picks and still get him if he is the OLman they want! If Taylor and Williams are gone, he, along with Bradbury may still be available even a few picks back!
if you are talking of only moving a few spots (4-5?) whats the point in risking somebody else jumping up and grabbing your guy? Is a late 3rd or early 4th round pick worth losing the guy that we should be able to drop into a starting spot this year and not worry about for the next 5 years? I dont think so.
Typically teams trade down based on their intelligence of teams needs below them and a ranked series of players they'd be happy with if one or two get sniped. But yeah, if it's not worth the risk you don't trade down.
sure you can know that the next 4 or 5 teams might not want the guy you are after, but the very next pick after your could change all that and then you are in scramble mode to move back up to get your guy because suddenly he is on another teams radar when their guy got taken surprisingly.. or worse yet, some other team jumps into the bidding for the spot you want to trade up into now and you spend more to move up than what you gained by trading back or end up losing out again.
if its not a big need then yeah go ahead and roll the dice but this team has a huge need and cant afford to get cute IMO.
Like I said, teams typically don't trade down for "one guy" they want to get a little cheaper. If it's "one guy" they just take him. They typically trade down when there's a series of players they have equal grades on and the worst-case math tells them they'll get at least one of them. Works better if you're drafting BPA obviously, because then your list of players is longer.
I know BPA is always the best option, but I think in a league starved for OL play and in a draft that is loaded defensively... BPA will not likely work for us this time around.
Quote: @"MaroonBells" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"Calminnfan" said:
The thing that is appealing with Lindstrom, along with his seeming to be a fit for zone blocking is that the Vikes could probably trade back a few picks and still get him if he is the OLman they want! If Taylor and Williams are gone, he, along with Bradbury may still be available even a few picks back!
if you are talking of only moving a few spots (4-5?) whats the point in risking somebody else jumping up and grabbing your guy? Is a late 3rd or early 4th round pick worth losing the guy that we should be able to drop into a starting spot this year and not worry about for the next 5 years? I dont think so.
Typically teams trade down based on their intelligence of teams needs below them and a ranked series of players they'd be happy with if one or two get sniped. But yeah, if it's not worth the risk you don't trade down.
sure you can know that the next 4 or 5 teams might not want the guy you are after, but the very next pick after your could change all that and then you are in scramble mode to move back up to get your guy because suddenly he is on another teams radar when their guy got taken surprisingly.. or worse yet, some other team jumps into the bidding for the spot you want to trade up into now and you spend more to move up than what you gained by trading back or end up losing out again.
if its not a big need then yeah go ahead and roll the dice but this team has a huge need and cant afford to get cute IMO.
Like I said, teams typically don't trade down for "one guy" they want to get a little cheaper. If it's "one guy" they just take him. They typically trade down when there's a series of players they have equal grades on and the worst-case math tells them they'll get at least one of them. Works better if you're drafting BPA obviously, because then your list of players is longer.
Maroon is exactly right. If there are 5 players that I would be happy with when it is my turn to pick, I can trade back 4 spots.
A team can also have tiers of players. Picking at 18 the Vikings may have a first tier of 10 players and if any player in that tier falls to 18, he is the pick regardless of need, even if the best OL in the second tier is still available. Then we are looking for an OL in the second round. And that's fine with me.
Quote: @"JimmyinSD" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"Calminnfan" said:
The thing that is appealing with Lindstrom, along with his seeming to be a fit for zone blocking is that the Vikes could probably trade back a few picks and still get him if he is the OLman they want! If Taylor and Williams are gone, he, along with Bradbury may still be available even a few picks back!
if you are talking of only moving a few spots (4-5?) whats the point in risking somebody else jumping up and grabbing your guy? Is a late 3rd or early 4th round pick worth losing the guy that we should be able to drop into a starting spot this year and not worry about for the next 5 years? I dont think so.
Typically teams trade down based on their intelligence of teams needs below them and a ranked series of players they'd be happy with if one or two get sniped. But yeah, if it's not worth the risk you don't trade down.
sure you can know that the next 4 or 5 teams might not want the guy you are after, but the very next pick after your could change all that and then you are in scramble mode to move back up to get your guy because suddenly he is on another teams radar when their guy got taken surprisingly.. or worse yet, some other team jumps into the bidding for the spot you want to trade up into now and you spend more to move up than what you gained by trading back or end up losing out again.
if its not a big need then yeah go ahead and roll the dice but this team has a huge need and cant afford to get cute IMO.
Like I said, teams typically don't trade down for "one guy" they want to get a little cheaper. If it's "one guy" they just take him. They typically trade down when there's a series of players they have equal grades on and the worst-case math tells them they'll get at least one of them. Works better if you're drafting BPA obviously, because then your list of players is longer.
I know BPA is always the best option, but I think in a league starved for OL play and in a draft that is loaded defensively... BPA will not likely work for us this time around.
I don't think it will either. I'm not only a big BPA advocate, I'm an advocate of avoiding OL in the 1st round altogether (preferring 2nd and 3rd rounds for OL). But the Vikings have done neither (O'Neill the only exception) and have painted themselves into a corner. If the Vikings go elsewhere in the 1st and don't get another day-two pick from, say, a Waynes trade, the OL cupboard is going to be pretty bare on day two.
Yeah, I think Kubiak and Dennison are going to do great things, but wouldn't it be nice if they had some top talent to work with?
Quote: @"dadevike" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"Calminnfan" said:
The thing that is appealing with Lindstrom, along with his seeming to be a fit for zone blocking is that the Vikes could probably trade back a few picks and still get him if he is the OLman they want! If Taylor and Williams are gone, he, along with Bradbury may still be available even a few picks back!
if you are talking of only moving a few spots (4-5?) whats the point in risking somebody else jumping up and grabbing your guy? Is a late 3rd or early 4th round pick worth losing the guy that we should be able to drop into a starting spot this year and not worry about for the next 5 years? I dont think so.
Typically teams trade down based on their intelligence of teams needs below them and a ranked series of players they'd be happy with if one or two get sniped. But yeah, if it's not worth the risk you don't trade down.
sure you can know that the next 4 or 5 teams might not want the guy you are after, but the very next pick after your could change all that and then you are in scramble mode to move back up to get your guy because suddenly he is on another teams radar when their guy got taken surprisingly.. or worse yet, some other team jumps into the bidding for the spot you want to trade up into now and you spend more to move up than what you gained by trading back or end up losing out again.
if its not a big need then yeah go ahead and roll the dice but this team has a huge need and cant afford to get cute IMO.
Like I said, teams typically don't trade down for "one guy" they want to get a little cheaper. If it's "one guy" they just take him. They typically trade down when there's a series of players they have equal grades on and the worst-case math tells them they'll get at least one of them. Works better if you're drafting BPA obviously, because then your list of players is longer.
Maroon is exactly right. If there are 5 players that I would be happy with when it is my turn to pick, I can trade back 4 spots.
A team can also have tiers of players. Picking at 18 the Vikings may have a first tier of 10 players and if any player in that tier falls to 18, he is the pick regardless of need, even if the best OL in the second tier is still available. Then we are looking for an OL in the second round. And that's fine with me.
I think a lot of us must be seeing the draft as different than it is. These guys may look, on paper, like a bunch of interchangeable stats and triangle numbers: if we miss Lindstrom, McCoy is still there and he is the same height and almost same weight and hand size is blah blah blah. But seriously, aren't these HIRING decisions? In the early rounds, they meet with these guys, talk to them, get a feel for who can do the job, who can fit with the group. (If the Vikings aren't vetting them that way, I wonder if that's a problem..)
If you have ever hired anyone for a significant job, do you usually think, "4 or 5 of these people are roughly the same"? Never in my experience. And NEVER have I thought, "Candidate #1 is perfect for the job, but maybe I should risk losing him and get Candidate #3 if they give me a chance to get a better choice for the janitor position (extra pick in round 5) that I also need to hire..."
No No No---ya don't trade back 3-4 slots and roll the dice an equally graded guy is there. From what I've read here and on the net---there isn't a slug of top tier lineman to just plug in. If your guy is there at 18 and a couple ave already dropped--you pull the trigger or accept your 84 mill Qb is potentially on IR
|
