PHP's "Way Too Early But I Love It" 2016 Mock Offseason

[halfgiz]

I've seen Cravens to the Vikings in a few mocks but the thing is, how often do we have 3 LB's on the field? It would be tough to utilize all 3 in a nickel defense. #23 seems like a tough spot this year with a lot of WR's and O-line going right before our pick. I think there's a good chance CW is there but I don't know that Rick will take a G/C in round 1, maybe if he can trade back later in the round.

I agree with you that #23 seems like a tough spot. Maybe even more so in round 2.
I wonder if Slick Rick has any surprises up his sleeve.

[jackal]

Elliott RB and Perkins would compete for running back time
Peterson would be traded Asiata cut //Butler DT would compete for time with Floyd//low performing DT would be cut
Perkins would replace Sherels as PR// Sherels cut//Roger Lewis compete for receiver spot and replace Patterson
as KR. Sterling Shepard would replace Wallace. Duarte WR would replace Charles Johnson and be end zone specialist
6'3 36 inch vertical//Jason Spriggs starting LT Kalil gone//Turner starting LG unknown cut(maybe Berger??)
Locke would be cut and replaced with Hackett Punter//Karl Joseph would be starting SS or Harris competition...
Obebah would rotate in at LE and pash rushing specialist//Tretola OG would compete and back up fusco at RG
if competition not oneF

[Jordysghost]

Desperately reaching for perceived need is always risky but the Vikes are at the point in their "life cycle" where they must address needs and build logically if theyw ant to take the next step. I think the riskier move would be continuing to neglect areas in obvious need of improvement. they aren't that early in their development cycle anyway. They're entering Spielman's 5th year as GM (he's been calling the draft shots longer than that) and Zimmer's 3rd season as head coach. As far as I'm concerned, they're through developmental "puberty" and high school, almost done with college and they need to start thinking about employment or grad school.

I think it just depends on how the picks go. There are certainly OL players in this draft worthy of being selected at that spot.

The risk arises when it comes to drafting a player of need over what you perceive to be the best player available, you have to get the bpa because you never know what your needs will be in the future, and even more immediate future.

I thought the Packers were #### wacko when they took Ty Montgomery in the 3rd round last year, and next thing you know he is a promising young player for a unit that was both greatly depleted and greatly underwhelming/dissapointing. I think this scenario is anything but untypical in the NFL, you don't know what your going to need down the road, so you got to do your best to get the best players while you can, imo.

I agree the Vikings shouldn't be held to the standard of some fledgling squad, and wasn't trying to imply as much, but I also disagree that that means they should start indulging in what imo, is an act of desperation such as deliberately drafting specifically for need, when you can marry need with value, do so, but I think there is more then enough to suggest that putting a premium on what you perceive to be your current needs at the expense of what you perceive to be the best available talent is a distinctly bad idea.

I get a bit of a sense that most Vikings fans here are getting maybe a little bit antsy and impatient, and I don't think it is nessecary because the natural progression of this team should be the focus, not instant gratification.

[S197]

I get a bit of a sense that most Vikings fans here are getting maybe a little bit antsy and impatient, and I don't think it is nessecary because the natural progression of this team should be the focus, not instant gratification.

You have to remember that some fans have been waiting since the Bronze Age for a Super Bowl and the Vikings have been in a similar predicament before (i.e. strong on one side of the ball) so it's not so much instant gratification as some of us are hoping for a championship before, oh I don't know, the sun implodes on itself.

[VikingLord]

Drafting for perceived need this early in your teams lifecycle would be a risky move.

Drafting for perceived need *ever* is not only risky - its just plain not smart, both because you never know what the future needs of the team will be due to injury/retirement/player development, but also because the crop the draft produces year-to-year is beyond your control as is the position where you find yourself choosing in a particular draft. It's always best to go after BPA if its fairly clear who the BPA is at a given pick. The goal should be to find a 10 year starter at every selection, and that isn't as likely if the GM is reaching. I would much rather Spielman try to trade down if the players on the board don't match the value he's looking to get at the pick, but if he has to make the pick, take the guy who is going to have the best chance of making the roster. Free agency and trade is for plugging immediate holes more than the draft. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the teams that find themselves with the biggest immediate holes are the teams that didn't draft so well over the years, and many of those teams are also the ones with GMs that like to reach for "potential" or get wowed by combine and pro day results.

[Jordysghost]

Drafting for perceived need *ever* is not only risky - its just plain not smart, both because you never know what the future needs of the team will be due to injury/retirement/player development, but also because the crop the draft produces year-to-year is beyond your control as is the position where you find yourself choosing in a particular draft. It's always best to go after BPA if its fairly clear who the BPA is at a given pick. The goal should be to find a 10 year starter at every selection, and that isn't as likely if the GM is reaching. I would much rather Spielman try to trade down if the players on the board don't match the value he's looking to get at the pick, but if he has to make the pick, take the guy who is going to have the best chance of making the roster. Free agency and trade is for plugging immediate holes more than the draft. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the teams that find themselves with the biggest immediate holes are the teams that didn't draft so well over the years, and many of those teams are also the ones with GMs that like to reach for "potential" or get wowed by combine and pro day results.

I agree a hundred percent.

[Mothman]

The risk arises when it comes to drafting a player of need over what you perceive to be the best player available, you have to get the bpa because you never know what your needs will be in the future, and even more immediate future.

It's a balancing act, filled with guesswork, and the so-called BPA at any given point is highly subjective, especially after the first 10-15 players are selected. Consequently, most teams draft for talent and need in the early rounds. There are exceptions, of course, and sometimes they're worth making (in either direction).

I agree the Vikings shouldn't be held to the standard of some fledgling squad, and wasn't trying to imply as much, but I also disagree that that means they should start indulging in what imo, is an act of desperation such as deliberately drafting specifically for need, when you can marry need with value, do so, but I think there is more then enough to suggest that putting a premium on what you perceive to be your current needs at the expense of what you perceive to be the best available talent is a distinctly bad idea.

I'm not suggesting they act desperately but most teams do just what you said and marry need with value. That's what the Vikes have been doing. They didn't just happen to draft Barr and Bridgewater in 2014 because they were the best talents on the board. They were in serious need of help at LB and QB. The same goes for Floyd. he fell to them and they thought he was a great value at the pick but they also knew Kevin Williams was nearing the end of his contract, and retirement, and they were going to need a new tackle.

Choosing the best player available at any given point is highly subjective. I think it can be a mistake to desperately grab to fill a need by selecting a less talented player when a future star is on the board but I also think a BPA purist approach can be problematic because the draft is a team's primary method of building a roster and a certain logic needs to be applied or a team is going to end up too imbalanced, too flawed. At some point, regardless of the talent on the board, a team has enough good RBs or TEs or whatever and they need to address that gaping hole on the line, in the secondary, etc.

I get a bit of a sense that most Vikings fans here are getting maybe a little bit antsy and impatient, and I don't think it is necessary because the natural progression of this team should be the focus, not instant gratification.

My patience ran out a long time ago but this has nothing to do with that. I'm not talking about instant gratification. I'm just talking about logical team-building. There's still a lot of room for flexibility but I think the idea of purely drafting the best player available is largely impractical, a popular abstraction. Most of the time, teams are balancing talent with need, which is smart.

[mondry]

This discussion comes up every off season before the draft!

What it comes down to for me is you get the most "obvious" talent you can going BPA in the draft and use free agency to patch up a direct need. That's my team building approach because the draft is a bit of a crap shoot even with today's technology and scouting so you really can't lower your chances of success by taking a lesser prospect and justifying it by saying "well we needed this position more". When I say lesser prospect I'm saying you have a guy on your draft board you'd rate at 92 out of a 100 and pick a player rated 81 out of 100 because you need the position. In other words you're taking a 2nd round talent in the first round, a 3rd round talent in the 2nd and let me be clear I'm not talking about some ESPN talking head's rankings but YOUR TEAMS DRAFT BOARD.

Obviously if you can marry need with BPA that's the best out come but as your team has less and less holes like ours it becomes less likely it'll work out that well for you. If you have a player rated 92 out of 100 and a player at a position of need at 90 out of 100 then it's not such a big deal to go with the player of need.

That's how I see the need vs bpa dynamic.

[Mothman]

This discussion comes up every off season before the draft!

What it comes down to for me is you get the most "obvious" talent you can going BPA in the draft and use free agency to patch up a direct need. That's my team building approach because the draft is a bit of a crap shoot even with today's technology and scouting so you really can't lower your chances of success by taking a lesser prospect and justifying it by saying "well we needed this position more". When I say lesser prospect I'm saying you have a guy on your draft board you'd rate at 92 out of a 100 and pick a player rated 81 out of 100 because you need the position. In other words you're taking a 2nd round talent in the first round, a 3rd round talent in the 2nd and let me be clear I'm not talking about some ESPN talking head's rankings but YOUR TEAMS DRAFT BOARD.

Obviously if you can marry need with BPA that's the best out come but as your team has less and less holes like ours it becomes less likely it'll work out that well for you. If you have a player rated 92 out of 100 and a player at a position of need at 90 out of 100 then it's not such a big deal to go with the player of need.

That's how I see the need vs bpa dynamic.

Same here and that's a good way to express it.

[Jordysghost]

It's a balancing act, filled with guesswork, and the so-called BPA at any given point is highly subjective, especially after the first 10-15 players are selected. Consequently, most teams draft for talent and need in the early rounds. There are exceptions, of course, and sometimes they're worth making (in either direction).
I'm not suggesting they act desperately but most teams do just what you said and marry need with value. That's what the Vikes have been doing. They didn't just happen to draft Barr and Bridgewater in 2014 because they were the best talents on the board. They were in serious need of help at LB and QB. The same goes for Floyd. he fell to them and they thought he was a great value at the pick but they also knew Kevin Williams was nearing the end of his contract, and retirement, and they were going to need a new tackle.

Choosing the best player available at any given point is highly subjective. I think it can be a mistake to desperately grab to fill a need by selecting a less talented player when a future star is on the board but I also think a BPA purist approach can be problematic because the draft is a team's primary method of building a roster and a certain logic needs to be applied or a team is going to end up too imbalanced, too flawed. At some point, regardless of the talent on the board, a team has enough good RBs or TEs or whatever and they need to address that gaping hole on the line, in the secondary, etc.
My patience ran out a long time ago but this has nothing to do with that. I'm not talking about instant gratification. I'm just talking about logical team-building. There's still a lot of room for flexibility but I think the idea of purely drafting the best player available is largely impractical, a popular abstraction. Most of the time, teams are balancing talent with need, which is smart.

Well, to start, there are very few bpa 'purists' remaining, and it seems with both agree that marrying need with value is the way to go, honestly it doesn't seem like we disagree much on this subject, I was mainly addressing the thought that the Vikings should set there mind mainly on grabbing a WR or O lineman in the first regardless of their (Agreeably, subjective) draft board.

Every team drafts for need to an extent, you are correct. Some more then others, the Falcons current regime have proffessed to putting a premium on need over 'bpa' and in the defense of that idealogy, Coughlin has always pushed a similar viewpoint to the gms of the Jags and Giants.

It is a balancing act for sure, but different teams fit on different parts of the spectrum, I think leaning towards what your scouts deem to be the best available talent though, is a much more long term effective approach then the alternative.

[jackal]

BPA is a good normal way to draft but if you have a good young team as the Vikings do currently and you have one unit that
are holding you back from your ultimate goal I don't see how you can't understand you need to fix the unit (OL).

Most of last year Teddy was running for his life. Adrian Peterson had very few holes to run through. IMO Peterson was the only
thing that kept our OL from being one of the worst OL in the game.

[VikingLord]

I think Killebrew might be around longer than you think simply because of the small school. There are a few safeties projected to go ahead of him as well and none of them in the first round. I think we would have a shot at him in round 3.

Cravens and Killebrew are too similar IMO. Cravens is a hybrid SS/LB like Deone Buchanon. Killebrew is more of a safety but they are too similar in position for me to want to draft both. I like both players. Just not together

I don't know. The more I watch Cravens the more I see him as a WLB in the pros. He can certainly drop into coverage and is fast and instinctive enough to cover, but he's a guy I see playing up on most downs.

Killebrew strikes me as a pure safety. Can he come up and fill/pressure the passer? Sure, but I don't see him as a LB in the pros.

I understand why you would not want both to be drafted. At the same time, these are two very complementary players, especially considering the young LBs the Vikes already have and Smith at FS. Could make for a very effective group of defenders in that second tier of the defense. While I would be surprised if it happened, I would not be upset if Spielman took both of them if he has the chance.

[PurpleKoolaid]

I disagree with this BPA vrs. need. Last year we filled the void and fixed our D to a large degree. Its why we won games IMO. But now we should just go BPA? We dont need DT's or DE's. WE need a GOOD safety and a backup not named Exum or Blanton. We HAVE to have a better Oline. If a better RB is there, what good will that do running behind this line? We have to get safety halp and some really good tackle and guard help.

Hopelly Kyle and Pruitt are the receiving TE's. Was sad to see Kyle sit back and block. I dont know who our blocking ones would be? Rhett and Line?

I am so tired of BPA talk when our Oline really is such a problem with getting in the endzone, giving Teddy a little more time, and AD a faction of an inch more room to run through.

[jackal]

well it was nice to see Boone and the RT signing I am not sure how good we are in the long term and have
quite a few guys on the OL we have no idea about Cirles, Easton have never really played as Vikings.
Loadholt and Sullivan are coming back from serious injuries and might be at the back end of their careers.

Berger is not young but is a proven fill in at multiple spots. Fusco moves back to RG and should not be a concern
for a while. So we need both both Tackles in the long term and a center(assuming Sullivan does not return and
play consistent). I personally like Shepard he has good push one on one and came in last year in the jumbo as
blocker tight end. Harris can play guard and tackle as a back up.

I have confidence in Teddy I think he handles pressure well and will improve because a better
OL and playing indoors he also had several games at the end of season with multiple TD's

Peterson I am worried about. Fumbles too much and is not a great pass catcher
I honestly would try and deal him and try and get a second or switch a 2nd or 3rd with
Dallas or another early pick team Dallas has fourth pick in each round. I am hoping
we could get Henry and have him and McKinnon share carries.

I would have Patterson do PR/ and KR for us and dump sherels to save space for OL
development.

I personally would try and bring in one the TE from Harvard or Duarte the tweener
WR/TE guy in round five. I would also bring in Boldin or Jennings for a FA wideout
both are reliable guys and IMO help Teddy and the younger guys out

I have no idea why we signed biceps again IMO let Harris or FA signing start and draft another Safety
for Depth.

I would bring a kicker and punter to compete for the starter spots

[halfgiz]

10 NFL draft prospects with the most bust potential.

http://thesportsdaily.com/10-nfl-draft- ... potential/