Could Howard go in 1st round?

Hmmmm... so maybe I'm NOT crazy for saying Lindstrom SHOULD be a target at 18 for the Vikings...

Chris Lindstrom, OG, Boston College

His name hasn't been discussed as much as the draft's other top linemen, but teams will be surprised at this point if Lindstrom doesn't go in the first round -- perhaps even in the top 20, thanks to his athletic ability, smarts and versatility. He helped himself with a solid Senior Bowl week. Some believe he can play center, too.
"He's one of those guys that it's not a sexy pick, but he'll end up playing eight to 10 years and just be a steady, good pro," an NFC personnel director said.
There was a run on interior offensive linemen in the back half of Round 1 a year ago and the same thing may well happen here, with N.C. State center Garrett Bradbury, Texas A&M center Erik McCoy and maybe even Mississippi State's Elgton Jenkins in the mix, as well.

@"MaroonBells" said: Also, There's a belief gaining steam on draft twitter that the amount of offensive linemen who go in the 1st round will be much more than all the mocks we're seeing. I wouldn't mind trading down, but that 1st pick almost has to be OL. I really think the pickins for OL are gonna be slim at 50. 

I don't think the Vikings can wait until 50 to take an OL.  They either need to trade up for a guy they really want or trade down into the bottom half of the first round (get an extra Day 2/early Day 3 pick) and get a guy there.

@"Wetlander" said:

@"MaroonBells" said: Also, There's a belief gaining steam on draft twitter that the amount of offensive linemen who go in the 1st round will be much more than all the mocks we're seeing. I wouldn't mind trading down, but that 1st pick almost has to be OL. I really think the pickins for OL are gonna be slim at 50. 

I agree, I think fans will be surprised how early and often some of the top OL go in the draft.  I made a post earlier this offseason that looked at how many OL were selected in the first 50 picks in the last five years.  I think there 9-11 selected in the first 50 picks in 4 out of the 5 years.  The one outlier was the Bolles/Ramczyk draft, but that was a pretty poor draft for OL at the top.

I don't think the Vikings can wait until 50 to take an OL.  They either need to trade up for a guy they really want or trade down into the bottom half of the first round (get an extra Day 2/early Day 3 pick) and get a guy there.

As for me, I don't even want to hear "We pick him because he was the best player available".  all that would says to me is they didn't draft a high caliber lineman.

@"Wetlander" said: Hmmmm... so maybe I'm NOT crazy for saying Lindstrom SHOULD be a target at 18 for the Vikings...

Chris Lindstrom, OG, Boston College

His name hasn't been discussed as much as the draft's other top linemen, but teams will be surprised at this point if Lindstrom doesn't go in the first round -- perhaps even in the top 20, thanks to his athletic ability, smarts and versatility. He helped himself with a solid Senior Bowl week. Some believe he can play center, too. "He's one of those guys that it's not a sexy pick, but he'll end up playing eight to 10 years and just be a steady, good pro," an NFC personnel director said. There was a run on interior offensive linemen in the back half of Round 1 a year ago and the same thing may well happen here, with N.C. State center Garrett Bradbury, Texas A&M center Erik McCoy and maybe even Mississippi State's Elgton Jenkins in the mix, as well.

I think the thing that makes Lindstrom so potentially appealing to the Vikings is that he's a perfect fit. And not just in terms of scheme. You don't have to move anyone. You put him at left guard and forget about it.

Ideally you'd like to see them trade down and get him but that comes with some risk the Vikings may not be willing to take. I'd give my left nut to see what the Vikings draft board looks like right now. 

@"MaroonBells" said:

I don't think it's any secret that the folks who do these rankings are basing them half on what they've seen on tape and half on what they've heard from NFL personnel. 

@"Wetlander" said:

@"MaroonBells" said: Also, There's a belief gaining steam on draft twitter that the amount of offensive linemen who go in the 1st round will be much more than all the mocks we're seeing. I wouldn't mind trading down, but that 1st pick almost has to be OL. I really think the pickins for OL are gonna be slim at 50. 

I agree, I think fans will be surprised how early and often some of the top OL go in the draft.  I made a post earlier this offseason that looked at how many OL were selected in the first 50 picks in the last five years.  I think there 9-11 selected in the first 50 picks in 4 out of the 5 years.  The one outlier was the Bolles/Ramczyk draft, but that was a pretty poor draft for OL at the top.

I don't think the Vikings can wait until 50 to take an OL.  They either need to trade up for a guy they really want or trade down into the bottom half of the first round (get an extra Day 2/early Day 3 pick) and get a guy there.

@"MaroonBells" said:

@"Wetlander" said:

@"MaroonBells" said: Also, There's a belief gaining steam on draft twitter that the amount of offensive linemen who go in the 1st round will be much more than all the mocks we're seeing. I wouldn't mind trading down, but that 1st pick almost has to be OL. I really think the pickins for OL are gonna be slim at 50. 

I agree, I think fans will be surprised how early and often some of the top OL go in the draft.  I made a post earlier this offseason that looked at how many OL were selected in the first 50 picks in the last five years.  I think there 9-11 selected in the first 50 picks in 4 out of the 5 years.  The one outlier was the Bolles/Ramczyk draft, but that was a pretty poor draft for OL at the top.

I don't think the Vikings can wait until 50 to take an OL.  They either need to trade up for a guy they really want or trade down into the bottom half of the first round (get an extra Day 2/early Day 3 pick) and get a guy there.

I think this year's draft is shaping up a lot like last years. People don't remember this but the Vikings had already decided to move Remmers to guard before the draft. The other starting guard was supposed to be a healthy Nick Easton. And so guard wasn't as big a need as people thought. Tackle was the big need. And despite all those guards going off the board between our first and second rounder, not a single tackle went between Hughes and O'Neill.

This year is a little better, but if you consider Ford and Risner guards, and I think most teams will, there are only three tackles after the 1st rounders whom I consider day-two guys: McGary, Howard and Little. McGary and Howard will likely go no later than 40. And so between the early 2nd and the 4th round, there's only Greg Little, a player with serious question marks. After that you're into "anybody's guess" picks like Edoga and Pipkins.

@"Jor-El" said:

@"MaroonBells" said:

@"Wetlander" said:

@"MaroonBells" said: Also, There's a belief gaining steam on draft twitter that the amount of offensive linemen who go in the 1st round will be much more than all the mocks we're seeing. I wouldn't mind trading down, but that 1st pick almost has to be OL. I really think the pickins for OL are gonna be slim at 50. 

I agree, I think fans will be surprised how early and often some of the top OL go in the draft.  I made a post earlier this offseason that looked at how many OL were selected in the first 50 picks in the last five years.  I think there 9-11 selected in the first 50 picks in 4 out of the 5 years.  The one outlier was the Bolles/Ramczyk draft, but that was a pretty poor draft for OL at the top.

I don't think the Vikings can wait until 50 to take an OL.  They either need to trade up for a guy they really want or trade down into the bottom half of the first round (get an extra Day 2/early Day 3 pick) and get a guy there.

I think this year's draft is shaping up a lot like last years. People don't remember this but the Vikings had already decided to move Remmers to guard before the draft. The other starting guard was supposed to be a healthy Nick Easton. And so guard wasn't as big a need as people thought. Tackle was the big need. And despite all those guards going off the board between our first and second rounder, not a single tackle went between Hughes and O'Neill.

This year is a little better, but if you consider Ford and Risner guards, and I think most teams will, there are only three tackles after the 1st rounders whom I consider day-two guys: McGary, Howard and Little. McGary and Howard will likely go no later than 40. And so between the early 2nd and the 4th round, there's only Greg Little, a player with serious question marks. After that you're into "anybody's guess" picks like Edoga and Pipkins.

Good observations about the Remmers plan, so it makes me think that the key question for 2019 is, "Have the Vikings already decided to move Riley Reiff to LG?" That proposal has drifted around, though I don't know that anything has suggested it more strongly. Has Reiff worked at G in OTAs? Has O'Neill been taking snaps at LT?
It sure feels like the Vikings have 4 starting OL in Reiff, O'Neill, Elflein, and Kline. Unless Isadora or Collins or someone else is being counted on, they seem to need a 5th. Is it at OG or OT?

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!

@"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!

@"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.

@"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. 

@"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.

@"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.

@"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.

@"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.

@"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.

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

For what my opinion is worth I think you are all overthinking it a bit. The Vikings create "clusters" of players and their draft rule to take a player from the highest remaining cluster. The alternative would be to trade back and they place values on the difference in talent between tiers. So for example it would cost more to give up a tier one player and take one from tier two vs. say tiers three and four. 

From my film study specific to the Vikings I think they're going to have the O-lineman tiered something along the lines of: 

Tier 1: Jonah Williams, Andre Dillard, Jawaan Taylor 

Tier 2: Cody Ford (could be tier 1), Garrett Bradbury, Chris Lindstrom, Erik McCoy, Dalton Risner

Tier 3: Dalton Risner, Greg Little, Tytus Howard

When they get on the clock at #18 if anyone from tier 1 is left on the clock, they run to the podium. If not it really comes down to what they get offered to move back and how many of the tier 2 lineman are already off the board. If the answer is none you need to risk at least one of them and pick up additional draft capital. You go through the process and place the players in tiers for this exact reason.

The caveat is that the Vikings could easily have Linstrom in their top tier without anybody knowing it. But point being is that I wouldn't panic if the Vikings opt to move back a few spots and Cody Ford or another player goes off the board.