Vikings select Laquon Treadwell

A forum for the hard core Minnesota Vikings fan. Discuss upcoming games, opponents, trades, draft or what ever is on the minds of Viking fans!

Moderator: Moderators

fiestavike
Hall of Fame Inductee
Posts: 4959
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
x 395

Re: Vikings select Laquon Treadwell

Post by fiestavike »

Mothman wrote: I think it's had an obvious and substantial cost, easily seen and measured. I'll leave it at that.
Absolutely, but you can say the same about every draft pick that doesn't work out. Demetrius Underwood, Troy Williamson, Asher Allen, Keneche Uduze, Christian Ponder, Tarvaris Jackson, and dozens of more examples from the past couple decades are all in the same category.

Since no player is a sure thing, there is a sense in which measuring these picks by who they become, rather than their risk/reward at the time of selection, can be misleading. Using that measure probably leads one to take an approach that favors trading back and getting a lot of picks like SEA and NE instead of trading up as MIN did with Patterson. By either measure, Patterson was over drafted, but he has contributed and still has potential to contribute more this season.
"You like that!"
-- Cap'n Spazz Cousins
User avatar
Maelstrom88
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1827
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 4:38 am
x 399

Re: Vikings select Laquon Treadwell

Post by Maelstrom88 »

I thought this was a pretty good pick. Gives Teddy another weapon, takes coverage away from Diggs, helps pull a defender out f the box.
mael·strom

a powerful whirlpool in the sea or a river.

a situation or state of confused movement or violent turmoil.
dead_poet
Commissioner
Posts: 24788
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
x 108

Re: Vikings select Laquon Treadwell

Post by dead_poet »

Via Matt Vensel:
Laquon Treadwell just told a funny story about how he spotted sneaky Rick Spielman sitting in the back of his pro day press conference. Treadwell thought to himself, "Hey, isn't that the Vikings' GM?" Pretty observant. Later in the day, Rick asked him if he noticed him. Spielman told Treadwell that he has only done that a few times. But it shows you the lengths that teams go to in researching these players.
“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that.” --- Bill Shankly
mosscarter
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1056
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 2:34 am

Re: Vikings select Laquon Treadwell

Post by mosscarter »

it's a good pick if bridgewater can actually throw him the ball. i like the fact that he put up those type of numbers playing in she sec.
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: Vikings select Laquon Treadwell

Post by Mothman »

fiestavike wrote:Absolutely, but you can say the same about every draft pick that doesn't work out. Demetrius Underwood, Troy Williamson, Asher Allen, Keneche Uduze, Christian Ponder, Tarvaris Jackson, and dozens of more examples from the past couple decades are all in the same category.
Yes, they all had a cost.
Since no player is a sure thing, there is a sense in which measuring these picks by who they become, rather than their risk/reward at the time of selection, can be misleading.
The risk/reward with Patterson was readily apparent when he was drafted, as was the need to follow through on development in order for the pick to pay off.
Using that measure probably leads one to take an approach that favors trading back and getting a lot of picks like SEA and NE instead of trading up as MIN did with Patterson. By either measure, Patterson was over drafted, but he has contributed and still has potential to contribute more this season.
That's somewhat beside the point, which is that the return on the resources spent has necessitated spending another first round pick on a wide receiver just 3 years after Patterson was drafted.

Is it really so hard to see that a team making effective use of it's resources shouldn't have to spend 5 picks in 3 years to fill one starting wide receiver position (assuming Treadwell actually delivers), that such an expenditure indicates something went rather dramatically wrong?

In the bigger picture, the Vikings have spent 4 first round picks on wide receivers since Moss was traded in 2005, plus a second round pick on Rice, plus big free agent contracts for Berrian and Jennings and a trade for one very expensive, unproductive year from Mike Wallace. They screwed around signing and re-signing Simpson for years. They've been misfiring and mismanaging the WR position for most of the past decade and as a consequence, they keep investing major resources into the position and the need to do that means they can't invest those same resources elsewhere. Thats represents opportunities lost and it's just one illustration of why they've won just a single playoff game in that same decade (and they needed to rent a Hall of Fame quarterback to accomplish that).
fiestavike
Hall of Fame Inductee
Posts: 4959
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
x 395

Re: Vikings select Laquon Treadwell

Post by fiestavike »

Motorman wrote:
The risk/reward with Patterson was readily apparent when he was drafted, as was the need to follow through on development in order for the pick to pay off.
I agree. I just don't think that's the end of the story. There are more data points than just those two.
Motorman wrote:
That's somewhat beside the point, which is that the return on the resources spent has necessitated spending another first round pick on a wide receiver just 3 years after Patterson was drafted.

Is it really so hard to see that a team making effective use of it's resources shouldn't have to spend 5 picks in 3 years to fill one starting wide receiver position (assuming Treadwell actually delivers), that such an expenditure indicates something went rather dramatically wrong?

In the bigger picture, the Vikings have spent 4 first round picks on wide receivers since Moss was traded in 2005, plus a second round pick on Rice, plus big free agent contracts for Berrian and Jennings and a trade for one very expensive, unproductive year from Mike Wallace. They screwed around signing and re-signing Simpson for years. They've been misfiring and mismanaging the WR position for most of the past decade and as a consequence, they keep investing major resources into the position and the need to do that means they can't invest those same resources elsewhere. Thats represents opportunities lost and it's just one illustration of why they've won just a single playoff game in that same decade (and they needed to rent a Hall of Fame quarterback to accomplish that).
I'm not arguing with you there. They have failed to get good players at WR and several other positions. Part of that is probably switching regimes and making short term decisions at various points throughout the last many years. The leadership has also failed to promote the right people, and failed to value continuity...that can be a tricky balance for the obvious reason. My hope is that with Zimmer/Turner/Spielman the Wilfs will have the patience to develop this thing the right way, for the long term...not the haphazard mess they've been cobbling together for the last 2 decades.
"You like that!"
-- Cap'n Spazz Cousins
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: Vikings select Laquon Treadwell

Post by Mothman »

fiestavike wrote: I agree. I just don't think that's the end of the story. There are more data points than just those two.
I'm not arguing with you there. They have failed to get good players at WR and several other positions. Part of that is probably switching regimes and making short term decisions at various points throughout the last many years. The leadership has also failed to promote the right people, and failed to value continuity...that can be a tricky balance for the obvious reason. My hope is that with Zimmer/Turner/Spielman the Wilfs will have the patience to develop this thing the right way, for the long term...not the haphazard mess they've been cobbling together for the last 2 decades.
That's it in a nutshell. They've needed to get their act together for a long time. Hopefully, that's what's happening now but I think it's too soon to tell...

... and stop quoting me as Motorman!
fiestavike
Hall of Fame Inductee
Posts: 4959
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
x 395

Re: Vikings select Laquon Treadwell

Post by fiestavike »

Mothman wrote: That's it in a nutshell. They've needed to get their act together for a long time. Hopefully, that's what's happening now but I think it's too soon to tell...

... and stop quoting me as Motorman!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
auto correct! sorry.
"You like that!"
-- Cap'n Spazz Cousins
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: Vikings select Laquon Treadwell

Post by Mothman »

fiestavike wrote: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
auto correct! sorry.
I wondered what was going on. I noticed it earlier today. I was thinking "At least clue me in on the joke!". :)
PurpleMustReign
Starting Wide Receiver
Posts: 19150
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:48 pm
Location: Crystal, MN
x 114
Contact:

Re: Vikings select Laquon Treadwell

Post by PurpleMustReign »

Mothman wrote: I wondered what was going on. I noticed it earlier today. I was thinking "At least clue me in on the joke!". :)
Of all the things members have wanted to call you, that is one of the cooler ones :-P

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
The Devil whispered in the Viking's ear, "There's a storm coming." The Viking replied, "I am the storm." ‪#‎SKOL2018
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: Vikings select Laquon Treadwell

Post by Mothman »

PurpleMustReign wrote:Of all the things members have wanted to call you, that is one of the cooler ones :-P
... and probably one of the few that could get past the word filter.
User avatar
VikingLord
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8227
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:12 pm
Location: The Land of the Ice and Snow
x 930

Re: Vikings select Laquon Treadwell

Post by VikingLord »

Mothman wrote: Those are just the 4 closest calls. Every year since 1976 represents a year in which they failed to get back to the Super Bowl. It's 4 decades, not just 4 seasons. Better ownership, better management, better personnel and coaching decisions (and yes, better luck) all could have led to more opportunities and an actual Super Bowl appearance. Maybe even a win.
So who gets the blame for last year's playoff loss? You could argue a better kicker makes that I guess, but I see that as just the same cursed luck that has haunted this franchise over it's entire life, Superbowl appearances included. It seems like God himself could have been the kicker there and it still would have missed. I keep telling myself that statistically this has to revert to the mean, that eventually the fundamental laws of nature itself will restored balance in the universe where if the Vikings don't get a crazy positive break in a significant game, at least they won't continually be on the receiving end of crazy bad breaks in significant games.

I do agree that the missteps have been legion over the years, but then again, they've been that way for a lot of the league's teams. Every team makes poor FA and draft decisions. Every team suffers from odd occurrences that really can't be forseen even if they make the right moves. If a team's success is measured by it's competitiveness over a long period, though, the Vikings would be right up there near the top by most measures.
As far as Patterson goes, I don't see that as quite as costly as some other draft blunders made over the years.
Mothman wrote: I think it's had an obvious and substantial cost, easily seen and measured. I'll leave it at that.
Sure, you can measure the cost of a gamble and claim it was a bad gamble if it doesn't pay off, but you have to judge the merit of the gamble based on what is known at the time it's made. If you had odds of 90% you'd win on a bet and you lose, that doesn't mean you made a bad bet.

As far as Patterson goes, everyone would agree that was gamble, but the real question is was it a bad or unwarranted gamble at the time it was made? I'd say that isn't as clear-cut. It certainly was not as big a gamble as the Vikings took with a guy like Troy Williamson at #7, or Christian Ponder at #12. Patterson was a guy everyone knew was raw, but he was big, fast and dynamic with the ball in his hands. I think there was a decent chance he could be developed with solid coaching. Further, even if Patterson hasn't turned out to be a consistent WR, he has contributed significantly on special teams and been a difference-maker there as he was predicted to be pre-draft. Spielman got one of the two things he moved up to get.

Also, I don't think the book is closed on Patterson just yet, even with the Vikes drafting Treadwell. There simply has to be a way to get the guy involved in the passing game more. I do not understand why he isn't seeing the field as a receiver, but if anything, that strikes me as a coaching problem more than anything. Hopefully Turner and his staff can find a way to fix that this year.
fiestavike
Hall of Fame Inductee
Posts: 4959
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
x 395

Re: Vikings select Laquon Treadwell

Post by fiestavike »

VikingLord wrote:
Sure, you can measure the cost of a gamble and claim it was a bad gamble if it doesn't pay off, but you have to judge the merit of the gamble based on what is known at the time it's made. If you had odds of 90% you'd win on a bet and you lose, that doesn't mean you made a bad bet.
This is really the interesting point. Its very similar to my philosophy in investing/gambling. Its widely applicable to many different areas of life.
"You like that!"
-- Cap'n Spazz Cousins
User avatar
chicagopurple
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1498
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:45 am
x 88

Re: Vikings select Laquon Treadwell

Post by chicagopurple »

first of all,we lost in the playoffs because we have no deep passing game and the OL couldnt pass protect OR run block....it never should have come down to the kicker, let alone the incompetence of the holder. That being said
Drafting a potentially excellent over the middle receiver is a good move. It really allows the team to make Teddy put up or shut up. We all pretty much know he isnt much of a downfield QB due to str and accuracy issues that may never change, but, he at minimum MUST be able to freq pull the trigger in mid-field passing. Now he has a great set options with our new guy plus our stellar TE corp. The mid range game requires an OK OL.....SPielman is really obliged to provide that.
The only real issue I have with this pick is that , next to QB, WR is probably the one position that has the steepest, longest learning curve for rookies. This kid might not bloom for 1-2 yrs, especially if his bread and butter is complex routes over the middle.

Either way...holding my breath for at least ONE OL Pick today!
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: Vikings select Laquon Treadwell

Post by Mothman »

VikingLord wrote:So who gets the blame for last year's playoff loss?


The Vikings, of course. :)
You could argue a better kicker makes that I guess, but I see that as just the same cursed luck that has haunted this franchise over it's entire life, Superbowl appearances included. It seems like God himself could have been the kicker there and it still would have missed. I keep telling myself that statistically this has to revert to the mean, that eventually the fundamental laws of nature itself will restored balance in the universe where if the Vikings don't get a crazy positive break in a significant game, at least they won't continually be on the receiving end of crazy bad breaks in significant games.

I do agree that the missteps have been legion over the years, but then again, they've been that way for a lot of the league's teams. Every team makes poor FA and draft decisions. Every team suffers from odd occurrences that really can't be forseen even if they make the right moves. If a team's success is measured by it's competitiveness over a long period, though, the Vikings would be right up there near the top by most measures.
Yes, but not over the past decade. They've fallen away from their own standard.

They have had some crazy bad luck over the years. There's no denying that!
Sure, you can measure the cost of a gamble and claim it was a bad gamble if it doesn't pay off, but you have to judge the merit of the gamble based on what is known at the time it's made. If you had odds of 90% you'd win on a bet and you lose, that doesn't mean you made a bad bet.
In this case, it's not just the gamble at the time it was made, it's the lack of follow-through when that was an essential component of taking the chance in the first place.
Also, I don't think the book is closed on Patterson just yet, even with the Vikes drafting Treadwell. There simply has to be a way to get the guy involved in the passing game more.
Unfortunately, there has to be a willingness to get him involved too and I think that will continue to be lacking but who knows? Maybe I'm wrong.
I do not understand why he isn't seeing the field as a receiver, but if anything, that strikes me as a coaching problem more than anything. Hopefully Turner and his staff can find a way to fix that this year.
Fingers crossed!
Post Reply