Posts: 1,965
Threads: 844
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation:
1,026
Remember all the hand-wringing about the tackles in the 2021 draft? As bad luck would have it, the Vikings picked 14th. Not high enough for once-in-a-generation tackle Penei Sewell. I think people would've given their left arm to get him. We likely would've taken G/T Rashawn Slater if he'd fallen one more slot, but he was taken just ahead of us at 13. G/T Alijah Vera Tucker was there at 14, but the Vikings chose to pass on him, trading down to 23. Vikings then got lucky when the Mayock and Gruden braintrust(fart) took Alex Leatherwood at 17. Vikings got Darrisaw at 23.
PFF grades three years later...
Sewell - 82.4
Slater - 72.7
AVS - 71.7
Leatherwood - Released after rookie season. Now on Browns practice squad.
Darrisaw - 86.0
Outlier? Same year, 5 QBs were taken in the top 15. 4 of the 5 are busts. Year before, the best WR was the 5th WR taken (JJ). Year after, we may have taken a bust in Cine, but the player many wanted (Jameson Williams) is almost certainly a bust. And the best QBs from that draft appear to be Howell and Purdy. They were the 6th and 9th QBs taken. Last year the best WR (it's early, but so far it looks like Addison) was the last one taken in the 1st round. The next best (arguably Tank Dell) was the 9th taken.
Just sayin....this is why no one should lose their shit over the Vikings winning and dropping places in the draft.
Agreed. Making the picks count always has been and always will be the best formula for NFL success. Choose players that make the team, help the team and build consistency. I don't give a shit in what round.
Its all a big coin flip. The amount of money that gets stuck into evaluating picks and quite frankly its a dart throw.
I wonder if fans did all the drafting if teams would end up damn near the same? Did Spielman luck into Hunter and Diggs or did they have good scouting?
If its all a crap shoot, why do we pay scouts and a gm? Why not just use one of the draft pundits big board and roll with that? If you trust your scouting depth it is crazy not to want the higher spots in order to have better chances at the guys you rank higher, of course shit doesn't always work out, but I would rather have my choice of the top 5 instead of hoping the other 4 teams fuck their selections up and my targeted guy drops.
Lets not forget about Brian O'Neill drafted in the 2nd round at pick 62. The Vikings needed an offensive lineman and Rick thought he was smarter then other GM's but when the run of oline started it appeared he panicked and took O'Neill who after 4 years in the league has become what many say is the best right tackle in the league. Further proof the draft is a crap shoot.
It's all a crap shoot, but drafting earlier gives you more options. Whether that's in the player pool you get to select from, or potential trade down compensation (unless you are Kwesi).
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
If its all a crap shoot, why do we pay scouts and a gm? Why not just use one of the draft pundits big board and roll with that? If you trust your scouting depth it is crazy not to want the higher spots in order to have better chances at the guys you rank higher, of course shit doesn't always work out, but I would rather have my choice of the top 5 instead of hoping the other 4 teams fuck their selections up and my targeted guy drops.
Wait, so you're saying picking higher is better? Yes, we all know that. No one would argue otherwise. My only point is to say that the evidence is pretty obvious that it doesn't help you nearly as much as people think. That the higher picks aren't worth nearly as much as the value NFL teams attach to them.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
If its all a crap shoot, why do we pay scouts and a gm? Why not just use one of the draft pundits big board and roll with that? If you trust your scouting depth it is crazy not to want the higher spots in order to have better chances at the guys you rank higher, of course shit doesn't always work out, but I would rather have my choice of the top 5 instead of hoping the other 4 teams fuck their selections up and my targeted guy drops.
Wait, so you're saying picking higher is better? Yes, we all know that. No one would argue otherwise. My only point is to say that the evidence is pretty obvious that it doesn't help you nearly as much as people think. That the higher picks aren't worth nearly as much as the value NFL teams attach to them.
and yet you seem to argue to the contrary quite often, or at least try to make a case that draft position doesnt matter, which if that is really the case then why have a scouting dept, and why pay a GM big money to build a roster when a trained monkey apparently would have the same results? why not trade out of the early rounds and own the last couple rounds every year? I am not sure what you are trying to argue when common sense says that your odds of hitting on a winner are better if you have a deeper pool to choose from. I can cherry pick as well, lets go back to 2007, if you needed a RB would you rather have AD, or would you have settled for Marshawn? I am fairly certain ( without looking ) that drafting higher typically leads to better results. although this doesnt take into account scheme fit, injury, position change, and other things which could have led to the the results you showed above which are often out of the players hands but yet get factored into the players rankings you posted.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
If its all a crap shoot, why do we pay scouts and a gm? Why not just use one of the draft pundits big board and roll with that? If you trust your scouting depth it is crazy not to want the higher spots in order to have better chances at the guys you rank higher, of course shit doesn't always work out, but I would rather have my choice of the top 5 instead of hoping the other 4 teams fuck their selections up and my targeted guy drops.
Wait, so you're saying picking higher is better? Yes, we all know that. No one would argue otherwise. My only point is to say that the evidence is pretty obvious that it doesn't help you nearly as much as people think. That the higher picks aren't worth nearly as much as the value NFL teams attach to them.
and yet you seem to argue to the contrary quite often, or at least try to make a case that draft position doesnt matter, which if that is really the case then why have a scouting dept, and why pay a GM big money to build a roster when a trained monkey apparently would have the same results? why not trade out of the early rounds and own the last couple rounds every year? I am not sure what you are trying to argue when common sense says that your odds of hitting on a winner are better if you have a deeper pool to choose from. I can cherry pick as well, lets go back to 2007, if you needed a RB would you rather have AD, or would you have settled for Marshawn? I am fairly certain ( without looking ) that drafting higher typically leads to better results. although this doesnt take into account scheme fit, injury, position change, and other things which could have led to the the results you showed above which are often out of the players hands but yet get factored into the players rankings you posted.
Never mind.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
If its all a crap shoot, why do we pay scouts and a gm? Why not just use one of the draft pundits big board and roll with that? If you trust your scouting depth it is crazy not to want the higher spots in order to have better chances at the guys you rank higher, of course shit doesn't always work out, but I would rather have my choice of the top 5 instead of hoping the other 4 teams fuck their selections up and my targeted guy drops.
Wait, so you're saying picking higher is better? Yes, we all know that. No one would argue otherwise. My only point is to say that the evidence is pretty obvious that it doesn't help you nearly as much as people think. That the higher picks aren't worth nearly as much as the value NFL teams attach to them.
and yet you seem to argue to the contrary quite often, or at least try to make a case that draft position doesnt matter, which if that is really the case then why have a scouting dept, and why pay a GM big money to build a roster when a trained monkey apparently would have the same results? why not trade out of the early rounds and own the last couple rounds every year? I am not sure what you are trying to argue when common sense says that your odds of hitting on a winner are better if you have a deeper pool to choose from. I can cherry pick as well, lets go back to 2007, if you needed a RB would you rather have AD, or would you have settled for Marshawn? I am fairly certain ( without looking ) that drafting higher typically leads to better results. although this doesnt take into account scheme fit, injury, position change, and other things which could have led to the the results you showed above which are often out of the players hands but yet get factored into the players rankings you posted.
Never mind.
I rarely do.
|
