Will the Vikings trade down?

Too hard to predict ahead of time for me. Ive watched/listened to enough of these drafts to know what I dont want in a trade-down..

This one hurt in 1981:

The Vikings traded their 1st round pick (18th overall) to the Baltimore Colts for multiple picks (39th, 52nd, and 123rd overall).

• 2nd Round (39th overall): Mardye McDole, WR, Mississippi State
  
• 2nd Round (45th overall): Robin Sendlein, LB, Texas
  
• 2nd Round (52nd overall): Jarvis Redwine, RB, Nebraska
  

This was also they draft they traded Foreman to the Pats ( pick was T. Irwin) and drafted  Whiskey Wade Wilson in the 8th rd

I don't think we trade the first round pick. This draft is happening without a GM. I would expect them to take a player that has start-now potential. Trying to be cute and showing everyone you are the smartest guy in the room is why we don't have Hamilton right now.

StickierBuns wrote:
I think it might depend if Greenard gets traded on or just before Draft day. JMO, but I think a VERY good impactful player can be had at #18....I'd stick and pick. I guess I'm not a huge fan of getting late 4ths or 5th rounders in moving down. If Minnesota trades Greenard, they could have an impactful draft that would cement a very quick turnaround for the franchise if they hit on those AND get a QB1 locked down for 2027: I mean you'd have 5+ picks in the top 97 off the board with a JG trade. HUGE. That would take the Vikings from looking into the abyss with KAM to substantial replenishment/talent turnaround in record time potentially.

OK, but think of it this way. If we trade down to 31, that earns us the 2nd rounder you want (plus some change) AND we still have Greenard. I'd rather do it that way. Especially when you consider many believe this draft has 11 or 12 true first round picks and the value between 12 and 100 is pretty flat.

wiviking wrote:
I don't think we trade the first round pick. This draft is happening without a GM. I would expect them to take a player that has start-now potential. Trying to be cute and showing everyone you are the smartest guy in the room is why we don't have Hamilton right now.

Agreed.

StickierBuns wrote:

But that's not what they'd be doing.....if they were to trade down, its because it would be the right decision if they determine that spot a lesser-than option for BPA. The issue we've had with KAM most times is he'd trade down and then our selections would be hot dog shit. But that doesn't mean the theory of 'trading down' is or was the wrong decision, it just means the team sucked at selecting players after doing so. Its just like there's an optimal way to play Texas Hold 'Em poker, but making the right choices doesn't mean you can't take a bad beat on the river. 

It still comes down to selecting the right players when you pick.

I think the Cine/Hamilton thing was exactly a situation where KAM thought he was smarter,  I can see the draft pick upside to dropping down, but I also want to see this teams scouts identify players and just get them,  dont worry about value or potentially a couple more late round picks,  I want to see them take their guys when they get the chance,  dont trade down and end up losing out and then taking the consolation prize and making excuses as to why we still have a bunch of holes in our lineup.  we always hear about how draft picks are crap shoots,  well the odds of hitting also decline the further you drop down the boards,  so maybe just try sticking and picking instead of playing  a numbers game with the lower talent pool IMO.

I think we’ll do little trade downs. I don’t think a big one is in the cards, mostly because no prospect will be worth giving that much up for, but teams might move a few picks to get the guy they want. I think we’ll be targeting a DT and I think there’s more than one acceptable answer and they’re all kind of mocked near our pick or later. I think Caleb Banks is the perfect DT for us and a lot of people have him mocked below us, so I could see us trading down to where he is still likely to be available, but I highly doubt he makes it to our second round pick as the athletic profile is just too good.

I could also see us trade up a couple of picks to get Caleb Downs if for some reason he falls to within reach as he is the Harrison Smith replacement everyone wants.

StickierBuns wrote:

But that's not what they'd be doing.....if they were to trade down, its because it would be the right decision if they determine that spot a lesser-than option for BPA. The issue we've had with KAM most times is he'd trade down and then our selections would be hot dog shit. But that doesn't mean the theory of 'trading down' is or was the wrong decision, it just means the team sucked at selecting players after doing so. Its just like there's an optimal way to play Texas Hold 'Em poker, but making the right choices doesn't mean you can't take a bad beat on the river. 

It still comes down to selecting the right players when you pick.

I agree in principle but who in that building can properly assess and execute the move?  KAM was clearly in over his head.  Brez is not a personnel guy in any way shape or form.  After KAM was fired it came to light that the coaches tried to take over the draft process as far back as 2023.  And former failures like Miller and Grigson who don't appear to have done any better here are still in place.

Honestly I hope things are better but another bad draft wouldn't surprise me at all.  They really have done next to nothing to change their weak process except take out an unqualified numbers guy and replace him with a numbers guy who's arguably unqualified on the personnel side even moreso than KAM.  

Or maybe the Wilfs and their lazy, "just get lucky" philosophy will score a big draft win for a change.

They might, but I don't think they drop very far if they do. Depends on who's left what they know the teams behind them need. Both Carolina at 19 and especially Duh Bears at 25 need safety so if the Vikes like Thienemen or EMW and only one lasts to 18, they don't risk losing him.

The IDL's to me seem like a fallback plan for if the safeties are gone.

RS_Express wrote:
They might, but I don't think they drop very far if they do. Depends on who's left what they know the teams behind them need.  Both Carolina at 19 and especially Duh Bears at 25 need safety so if the Vikes like Thienemen or EMW and only one lasts to 18, they don't risk losing him. The IDL's to me seem like a fallback plan for if the safeties are gone.

Dont forget about our friends in Motown who pick 17:

Brian Branch (torn Achilles)
Kerby Joseph (knee) 

Unless the Vikings get a "godfather" type offer or they really believe the later S's are as good? 

Draft Theineman at 18 and call it a day

purplefaithful wrote:

Dont forget about our friends in Motown who pick 17:

Brian Branch (torn Achilles)
Kerby Joseph (knee) 

Unless the Vikings get a "godfather" type offer or they really believe the later S's are as good? 

Draft Theineman at 18 and call it a day

Lions OL has taken a beating recently, so they could go that way and grab S depth later.

IMO Vikings are gonna have to trade up and down to get the players they want because their needs are known, a shrewd GM will trade in front of them and poach the player the Vikings want.

With Lions holding 17th pick they're vulnerable to getting sniped.

Lions will trade down to screw a divisional opponent.

IF they stick or trade-down?

Gonna be a long night in the chat room

I think it might depend if Greenard gets traded on or just before Draft day. JMO, but I think a VERY good impactful player can be had at #18....I'd stick and pick. I guess I'm not a huge fan of getting late 4ths or 5th rounders in moving down. If Minnesota trades Greenard, they could have an impactful draft that would cement a very quick turnaround for the franchise if they hit on those AND get a QB1 locked down for 2027: I mean you'd have 5+ picks in the top 97 off the board with a JG trade. HUGE. That would take the Vikings from looking into the abyss with KAM to substantial replenishment/talent turnaround in record time potentially.

I sure hope not.

We do NOT need more picks aka "Trader Rick" era.
We have four picks in the Top 100. That's potentially strong.
That potentially means four of the top 100 available college players.
Of course I know that's not exactly how it works, particularly if the Vikings draft for need vs BPA across the board.

I'll take quality over quantity, particularly given the poor results over the past several years.
We need better production from the picks we do have. We do not need more picks.

[quote="MaroonBells" pid="272848" dateline="1776095474"]

OK, but think of it this way. If we trade down to 31, that earns us the 2nd rounder you want (plus some change) AND we still have Greenard. I'd rather do it that way. Especially when you consider many believe this draft has 11 or 12 true first round picks and the value between 12 and 100 is pretty flat.
[/quote]

I guess its subjective and if you believe that there are only 11 true first rounders.....but I'm pretty dubious of pre-Draft analyzing a particular overall class as 'worse than normal, normal or better than normal'. Only in retrospect and 2 or 3 years can anyone know. Its just such an inexact science (drafting). The issue for me is Greenard and Turner play exactly the same spot....the rumor is Greenard wants to get paid and Minnesota doesn't seem overly excited about it nor do any trade partners as that is the rumored hangup, money and an extension. I think Minnesota is very wary of making more bad deals.

[quote="wiviking" pid="272846" dateline="1776094970"]
I don't think we trade the first round pick. This draft is happening without a GM. I would expect them to take a player that has start-now potential. [b]Trying to be cute and showing everyone you are the smartest guy in the room is why we don't have Hamilton right now.[/b]
[/quote]

But that's not what they'd be doing.....if they were to trade down, its because it would be the right decision if they determine that spot a lesser-than option for BPA. The issue we've had with KAM most times is he'd trade down and then our selections would be hot dog shit. But that doesn't mean the theory of 'trading down' is or was the wrong decision, it just means the team sucked at selecting players after doing so. Its just like there's an optimal way to play Texas Hold 'Em poker, but making the right choices doesn't mean you can't take a bad beat on the river. 

It still comes down to selecting the right players when you pick.

You can’t make a blanket statement like trading up or down is good or bad. Every draft is different and the value tiers are different in every draft. Trading out of one tier into the next is never a good idea. But trading down within a tier is always a good idea….but it’s hard to do, because every team knows where the tiers are (roughly). And regardless of what you do, you still have to pick good players.

I disagree with those who say we don’t need more day-two picks. I think we do. The weakness on this team right now is the lack of youth, depth and affordable players, often represented on the roster by day-two draft picks. We haven’t had a 2nd rounder in 4 years and I think it shows.

MaroonBells wrote:
You can’t make a blanket statement like trading up or down is good or bad. Every draft is different and the value tiers are different in every draft. Trading out of one tier into the next is never a good idea. But trading down within a tier is always a good idea….but it’s hard to do, because every team knows where the tiers are (roughly). And regardless of what you do, you still have to pick good players.

I disagree with those who say we don’t need more day-two picks. I think we do. The weakness on this team right now is the lack of youth, depth and affordable players, often represented on the roster by day-two draft picks. We haven’t had a 2nd rounder in 4 years and I think it shows.

I agree to an extent with the tiers.  I would like to see, if they trade down, to gather draft capital for the 27 draft.  Rather then a 2nd to go from 18 to 31, can we get a 1st next year instead?  I am no draftnik, but everyone I read says 27 is the monster draft of the decade.  So load em up.  If you have a couple of 1st's can you turn that in to Arch Manning if you need to?

Vikesrock wrote:

I agree to an extent with the tiers.  I would like to see, if they trade down, to gather draft capital for the 27 draft.  Rather then a 2nd to go from 18 to 31, can we get a 1st next year instead?  I am no draftnik, but everyone I read says 27 is the monster draft of the decade.  So load em up.  If you have a couple of 1st's can you turn that in to Arch Manning if you need to?

Oh hellfire, I don't even want to think about that. No I think the Vikings have a win-now roster, and I think they agree. It would be hard to see them passing on impact talent this year to gift picks to the next GM.

purplefaithful wrote:
Too hard to predict ahead of time for me. Ive watched/listened to enough of these drafts to know what I dont want in a trade-down..

This one hurt in 1981:

The Vikings traded their 1st round pick (18th overall) to the Baltimore Colts for multiple picks (39th, 52nd, and 123rd overall).

• 2nd Round (39th overall): Mardye McDole, WR, Mississippi State
  
• 2nd Round (45th overall): Robin Sendlein, LB, Texas
  
• 2nd Round (52nd overall): Jarvis Redwine, RB, Nebraska
  

This was also they draft they traded Foreman to the Pats ( pick was T. Irwin) and drafted  Whiskey Wade Wilson in the 8th rd