I heard an interesting take the other day. Roll the dice and trade away this years first rounder to perennial bottom feeder that is in rebuild mode (think the bengals) for their first next year and then hope that we have either the first overall for next year or at least the draft capital to move into position to take Lawrence or who ever steps up as the best QB in the draft.
It wouldn't happen but that certainly made me think why we dont see more long term planning like that with picks.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
I heard an interesting take the other day. Roll the dice and trade away this years first rounder to perennial bottom feeder that is in rebuild mode (think the bengals) for their first next year and then hope that we have either the first overall for next year or at least the draft capital to move into position to take Lawrence or who ever steps up as the best QB in the draft.
It wouldn't happen but that certainly made me think why we dont see more long term planning like that with picks.
"Hope" that we have the first overall next year? No, we're pretty far away from that kind of tear down. What would that say to Hunter and Kendricks and Cook, Thielen, Diggs, etc? And after throwing two seasons away, what happens if Lawrence is a bust? Everyone just assumes he's going to be a great pro. They thought that about Heath Shuler, Andrew Luck and Jamarcus Russell too. Now, you've just taken a playoff team and turned it into a bottom feeder for the next 5, 10 years and wasted the peak years of your core roster.
Vikings are more likely to win a Super Bowl by trimming the fat and fielding the best roster they can while they still have most of its core together. The Packers took a pretty average team and with smoke, mirrors and a lot of luck, won 13 games with it. Maybe Kubiak is a revelation. Maybe they get lucky with a middle rounder or two. Michael Thomas was a 2nd rounder. D-Roy two years ago was a 2nd rounder.
What's more, every 1st QB taken in the draft for the last 22 years (since Peyton Manning) has either been an all out bust (Couch, Russell, Winston) or a disappointment on some level (Alex Smith, Eli, Luck, Newton, Bradford). While the QBs at the top of the league (Brady, Rodgers, Mahomes, Jackson, Wilson, Prescott) were taken later.
Lawrence looks good, but the draft is still a crapshoot no matter where you pick.
Agreed its a LONG way to go until the Draft and these rankings are going to change. JMHO, but its a great year to take a QB and let him sit behind a guy like Cousins. The changing of the guard in the NFL is a more athletic type: now I don't mean every guy has to be at a Lamar Jackson level, but they need to move around and throw on the move. A threat to at least get some yardage and first downs with their feet when shit breaks down.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
I heard an interesting take the other day. Roll the dice and trade away this years first rounder to perennial bottom feeder that is in rebuild mode (think the bengals) for their first next year and then hope that we have either the first overall for next year or at least the draft capital to move into position to take Lawrence or who ever steps up as the best QB in the draft.
It wouldn't happen but that certainly made me think why we dont see more long term planning like that with picks.
"Hope" that we have the first overall next year? No, we're pretty far away from that kind of tear down. What would that say to Hunter and Kendricks and Cook, Thielen, Diggs, etc? And after throwing two seasons away, what happens if Lawrence is a bust? Everyone just assumes he's going to be a great pro. They thought that about Heath Shuler, Andrew Luck and Jamarcus Russell too. Now, you've just taken a playoff team and turned it into a bottom feeder for the next 5, 10 years and wasted the peak years of your core roster.
Vikings are more likely to win a Super Bowl by trimming the fat and fielding the best roster they can while they still have most of its core together. The Packers took a pretty average team and with smoke, mirrors and a lot of luck, won 13 games with it. Maybe Kubiak is a revelation. Maybe they get lucky with a middle rounder or two. Michael Thomas was a 2nd rounder. D-Roy two years ago was a 2nd rounder.
What's more, every 1st QB taken in the draft for the last 22 years (since Peyton Manning) has either been an all out bust (Couch, Russell, Winston) or a disappointment on some level (Alex Smith, Eli, Luck, Newton, Bradford). While the QBs at the top of the league (Brady, Rodgers, Mahomes, Jackson, Wilson, Prescott) were taken later.
Lawrence looks good, but the draft is still a crapshoot no matter where you pick.
If using one first round pick to couple with a second first round pick would lead to 5-10 years of bottom feeding... we are a lot closer to that kind of tear down than you want to think. we have missed on first rounders or flat out lost our first round pick several times in the last decade and still have made the playoffs on several occasions so I dont see how gambling 1 years pick to try and improve next years opportunities would be such a ridiculous risk. If we had the chance to trade this years first and next years first for Burrows who wouldnt do that in a heart beat, so really this proposal isnt any different its just a little riskier.
Quote: @MarkSP18 said:
I will defend Matt Miller here about Wilson.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1146711-matt-millers-final-2012-nfl-draft-big-board#slide1
He has #102 overall but, to prove the people who are critical of him could be right, he had Cousins as the #3 QB that year. Oof.
He had Prescott #97 overall after the 2016 combine. Could not see his final but Prescott probably is in the same area.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2625340-2016-nfl-draft-big-board-matt-millers-top-400-overall-players#slide4
Anthony Gordon could be an interesting pick. But only weighing 199 pounds is not going to help. But Wilson only weighed 204 so maybe.
You see that as a "defense" of Miller? The fact that he had Cousins higher than consensus argues FOR him, not against him. His ranking of Wilson and Prescott is pretty much in line with consensus.
Look, I think Matt Miller is as good as any of the media scouts. I think of him as one of the better ones. I just don't like it when people use hindsight to their benefit. If he had thought Wilson and Prescott would be Pro Bowl gems teams could mine from the middle rounds, he would've ranked them well above consensus. He didn't.
Quote: @MarkSP18 said:
I will defend Matt Miller here about Wilson.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1146711-matt-millers-final-2012-nfl-draft-big-board#slide1
He has #102 overall but, to prove the people who are critical of him could be right, he had Cousins as the #3 QB that year. Oof.
He had Prescott #97 overall after the 2016 combine. Could not see his final but Prescott probably is in the same area.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2625340-2016-nfl-draft-big-board-matt-millers-top-400-overall-players#slide4
Anthony Gordon could be an interesting pick. But only weighing 199 pounds is not going to help. But Wilson only weighed 204 so maybe.
I like Matt Miller a lot, but how is this defending him about his stance on Russell Wilson? He has him as the 7th best QB prospect behind Ryan Tannehill, Brandon Weeden, and Brock Osweiler... now if he had it Luck, RGIII, Cousins, and Wilson... then I would agree he was higher on him than most. But he didn't...
Same thing with Prescott... he has two colossal busts ranked ahead of him in Paxton Lynch and Christian Hackenberg. I guess I don't see where he had those two evaluations correct pre-draft?
It's logic, Maroon. Plain, simple logic. How many Power 5 Conference QBs are Starters vs. from other schools? Way more. So a dearth of mid-round prospects from those schools leaves you mining the rest of the schools that have collectively provided far fewer success stories. Ergo, this Class has a measurable statistical chance of being less likely to produce a Starter than other years.
Now to be perfectly clear we're talking about projecting how human beings will perform, perhaps the most inexact science there is. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if a mid-round kid from a smaller school or conference develops into a Starter. It's just statistically that much harder to predict whom that will be than it is when there are Power 5 kids in the discussion.
Prospect A: 4 Star Recruit. Power 5 School. Inconsistent performance against Top 20 Schools that have some draftable talent on Defense (and in some cases they're playing against Defenses loaded with NFL talent). Prospect has warts (measurables or poor stats or wonky mechanics).
Prospect B: 2 Star Recruit, non-Power 5 School. Put up good but not great numbers. Played some teams that didn't have a single kid on Defense who's going to make it to the League. Faced a few teams (Power 5 or otherwise) with some draftable talent and had mixed results. Prospect also has warts.
I'm personally picking Prospect A far more often than B. There just aren't many who fit that description this year. And I don't trust Rick to figure out which guy in Prospect B pool has the best chance for success. Use that pick for competition at a position of need and look to the next Draft for a QB to develop.
Quote: @FSUVike said:
It's logic, Maroon. Plain, simple logic. How many Power 5 Conference QBs are Starters vs. from other schools? Way more. So a dearth of mid-round prospects from those schools leaves you mining the rest of the schools that have collectively provided far fewer success stories. Ergo, this Class has a measurable statistical chance of being less likely to produce a Starter than other years.
Now to be perfectly clear we're talking about projecting how human beings will perform, perhaps the most inexact science there is. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if a mid-round kid from a smaller school or conference develops into a Starter. It's just statistically that much harder to predict whom that will be than it is when there are Power 5 kids in the discussion.
Prospect A: 4 Star Recruit. Power 5 School. Inconsistent performance against Top 20 Schools that have some draftable talent on Defense (and in some cases they're playing against Defenses loaded with NFL talent). Prospect has warts (measurables or poor stats or wonky mechanics).
Prospect B: 2 Star Recruit, non-Power 5 School. Put up good but not great numbers. Played some teams that didn't have a single kid on Defense who's going to make it to the League. Faced a few teams (Power 5 or otherwise) with some draftable talent and had mixed results. Prospect also has warts.
I'm personally picking Prospect A far more often than B. There just aren't many who fit that description this year. And I don't trust Rick to figure out which guy in Prospect B pool has the best chance for success. Use that pick for competition at a position of need and look to the next Draft for a QB to develop.
It's just too early to make any kind of declarative statement about this QB class. Trust me, it's going to change a lot in the next 3 months. There are going to be players who emerge as viable middle rounders. It just always happens. Remember last year? Someone on this board ranted about there being zero chance Greg Little drops out of the top 10. He went in the 2nd round. This time 3 years ago, Deshon Kizer was at the top of most QB rankings and Patrick Mahomes was nowhere to be found. This time 8 years ago, Ryan Mallett was a top 10 pick and Colin Kaepernick was a 7th round pick. This time 7 years ago, Matt Barkley was a top 10 pick.
I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, just that it's too early to make that kind of statement with any sort of confidence.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
I heard an interesting take the other day. Roll the dice and trade away this years first rounder to perennial bottom feeder that is in rebuild mode (think the bengals) for their first next year and then hope that we have either the first overall for next year or at least the draft capital to move into position to take Lawrence or who ever steps up as the best QB in the draft.
It wouldn't happen but that certainly made me think why we dont see more long term planning like that with picks.
I've been suggesting this as an option as well. If the Vikings don't extend Cousins and also don't like this year's QB crop, then trading away either this year's first or this year's second for a better pick next year should absolutely be on the table.
Trading one pick away isn't "tanking". In this instance, it might be really smart.
Sadly, unless RS gets extended there's no way he'll do this though.
|
